• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Zeiss 8x30B Dialyt , Both Tube Length Versions Compared (1 Viewer)

joejeweler

Well-known member
United States
I thought that since I recently acquired a later example of the shorter tube version of the Zeiss 8x30B Dialyt,.....that I would post some pics of it along side it's earlier longer tube version.

I was actually quite surprised at just how much shorter Zeiss was able to make this version, and in fact it compares very closely to my Leitz 8x32 Trinovid. The Trinovids are usually noted for their compact size, weight, and ergonomics. The Leitz Trinovids are often said the compact size was achievable through use of the Uppendahl prism design.

However, I haven't read whether Zeiss made use of a different prism design (Uppendahl perhaps? :), for their short tube version of the 8x30B Dialyt,....and whether they also made use of the Uppendahl prisms on this version? Otherwise, how else could they work up a so much smaller version of these Dialyts?

The serial number of my later short tube Zeiss 8x30B Dialyt is #1621323 , which is much higher than the earlier long tube version,.....having the serial number of 671950.

I haven't had a chance to do any serious comparisons in viewing under various lighting conditions, and can only hope the short tube version at least "approaches" the sharpness of my earlier longer version!

Lacking phase or multicoating,....my long tube Dialyt must be "cherry", because it's the sharpest non-phased glass I have had the pleasure to use, and never felt I was lacking anything in the field using it. (other than a bit more flare under tough lighting conditions, and of course a substantial weight as it's built like a tank!).

Anyway,.....the pics are below showing just how compact these old 8x30B Dialyt's became before they were discontinued. The weight is noticably lighter also in the short tube, and "feels" similar to the Leitz 8x32 Trinovid, although I suspect the Dialyt is heavier due to the double wall objectives focusing (the inner objective lens tubes focus within a wider outer tube), but I didn't have a scale handy to measure the difference.

In the last picture I compared the short 8x30B Dialyt to another recent purchase,.....a VERY nice near mint and clear glass Leitz 7x35B Trinovid with the much more practical "standard" neck strap lugs. This one is plenty sharp also, btw,....with a relaxed and steady view :) This one is a Portugal made unit,....and I much prefer (and trust) the standard strap lugs and ease to fit a strap. Seems strange it took so long to get standard lugs on the Leitz Trinovids, before they were discontinued.
 

Attachments

  • DSC07221.jpgsmall.jpg
    DSC07221.jpgsmall.jpg
    326.5 KB · Views: 580
  • DSC07231.jpgsmall.jpg
    DSC07231.jpgsmall.jpg
    227.2 KB · Views: 361
  • DSC07240.jpgsmall.jpg
    DSC07240.jpgsmall.jpg
    306.4 KB · Views: 285
  • DSC07232.jpgsmall.jpg
    DSC07232.jpgsmall.jpg
    218.8 KB · Views: 402
Last edited:
However, I haven't read whether Zeiss made use of a different prism design (Uppendahl perhaps? :), for their short tube version of the 8x30B Dialyt,....and whether they also made use of the Uppendahl prisms on this version? Otherwise, how else could they work up a so much smaller version of these Dialyts?

Hi Joe

Great pics of some lovely bins: real classics.

The 8x30 Dialyts used Schmidt-Pechan prisms all the way through. Zeiss never used Uppendahls and I don't think anybody but Leitz did, though I am open to correction on this.

Acutally IMHO the real question is why was the mark I version so long?

Would be grateful to anyone who can cast light on this.

Lee
 
Leitz replaced the clips/studs strap construction by lugs in 1970-1972.

Renze

Like I said,.....It took WAY too long! (from 1963 or so?) ;)

Hi Joe

Great pics of some lovely bins: real classics.

The 8x30 Dialyts used Schmidt-Pechan prisms all the way through. Zeiss never used Uppendahls and I don't think anybody but Leitz did, though I am open to correction on this.

Acutally IMHO the real question is why was the mark I version so long?

Would be grateful to anyone who can cast light on this.

Lee

Yeah, I kind of figured the Zeiss didn't ever use the Uppendahls, but couldn't figure out HOW the size could be reduced so drastically, and having the same specs if the prism system remained the same.

Like the pics show, this later Dialyt is virtually the same length as the Leitz 8x32B, and is even a bit shorter than the Leitz if the rubber eyecups are folded down.
 
Last edited:
However, I haven't read whether Zeiss made use of a different prism design (Uppendahl perhaps? :), for their short tube version of the 8x30B Dialyt,....and whether they also made use of the Uppendahl prisms on this version? Otherwise, how else could they work up a so much smaller version of these Dialyts?

Hi Joe

Great pics of some lovely bins: real classics.

The 8x30 Dialyts used Schmidt-Pechan prisms all the way through. Zeiss never used Uppendahls and I don't think anybody but Leitz did, though I am open to correction on this.

Acutally IMHO the real question is why was the mark I version so long?

Would be grateful to anyone who can cast light on this.

Lee

Lee,

Bausch & Lomb Elites and their Browning clones did use Uppendahl Prisms a while back. See links 49, 50 and following in the thread below for the discussion on that. They may even have had phase coatings.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=216171

Bob
 
Lee,

Bausch & Lomb Elites and their Browning clones did use Uppendahl Prisms a while back. See links 49, 50 and following in the thread below for the discussion on that. They may even have had phase coatings.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=216171

Bob

Wow Bob. Thanks for that link and the info. Wasn't the series 1 just lovely?
Trouble is, I suppose the elegance of the barrels is partly down to the relatively small diameter eyelens which goes hand in hand with not much eye relief so wouldn't be acceptable today.

Thanks again for the education.

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top