edwincjones
Well-known member
T*P*
Classic
GBAT
GBAT*P*
what is the difference between these models?
thanks,
edj
Classic
GBAT
GBAT*P*
what is the difference between these models?
thanks,
edj
-
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 7x42 Dialyt (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter edwincjones
- Start date
Mark Batten
Well-known member
Yes. The t*P* have the later coatings.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
GA = rubber armoured
B = rubber eyecups
T = ''transparency'' coating
P = phase coating - this one makes the biggest difference in view quality, IMO.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
''Classic'' is just something Zeiss started calling the dialyt line back in the late 90's I think, it doesn't really mean anything apart from identifying the entire line-up by name.
I can't comment on the 7X42 FL as I have not owned one.
edwincjones
Well-known member
thanks for the responses
edj
edj
John Frink
Well-known member
7x42 Classic vs. TFL
Regarding the differences between the Zeiss 7x42BGAT/Classic and the 7x42TFL, this reply is excerpted from an earlier posting on this forum in response to a similar question.
Comparing the Zeiss 7x42BGAT/Classic and 7x42TFL, both have the same very wide field of view (450ft/1000yds), color rendition seems identical to me, and center-field sharpness is outstanding in both. I believe the TFL controls lateral CA better than the BGAT; it’s very low in both, but it's almost not apparent at all with the TFL. For me, both instruments provide an outstanding view - wide, clear, bright, sharp, relaxed.
The TFL is about an inch shorter than the BGAT, about two inches lighter, and it focuses closer. Eye relief seems identical, and just right for me. I consider them to be two of the best birding glasses ever made. The 7x42TFL seems like the logical evolution of the BGAT - the same wide field of view, the same superb center sharpness, but smaller, lighter, tougher, and fully waterproof. I'm sorry they're no longer made.
My apologies if this is a redundant repeat. I have no commercial connection with Zeiss, except as a satisfied customer.
Regarding the differences between the Zeiss 7x42BGAT/Classic and the 7x42TFL, this reply is excerpted from an earlier posting on this forum in response to a similar question.
Comparing the Zeiss 7x42BGAT/Classic and 7x42TFL, both have the same very wide field of view (450ft/1000yds), color rendition seems identical to me, and center-field sharpness is outstanding in both. I believe the TFL controls lateral CA better than the BGAT; it’s very low in both, but it's almost not apparent at all with the TFL. For me, both instruments provide an outstanding view - wide, clear, bright, sharp, relaxed.
The TFL is about an inch shorter than the BGAT, about two inches lighter, and it focuses closer. Eye relief seems identical, and just right for me. I consider them to be two of the best birding glasses ever made. The 7x42TFL seems like the logical evolution of the BGAT - the same wide field of view, the same superb center sharpness, but smaller, lighter, tougher, and fully waterproof. I'm sorry they're no longer made.
My apologies if this is a redundant repeat. I have no commercial connection with Zeiss, except as a satisfied customer.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Edwin,
For many weeks, during the summer, I typically carried the 7x42 BGAT*P and a 10x32. As far as I was concerned, I was ready for anything. In November, as you may have read, I was putting the Meopta MeoPro 6.5x32, through its paces. I will probably return to my previous dynamic duo because the 7x42 is simply such a pleasure to use.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
For many weeks, during the summer, I typically carried the 7x42 BGAT*P and a 10x32. As far as I was concerned, I was ready for anything. In November, as you may have read, I was putting the Meopta MeoPro 6.5x32, through its paces. I will probably return to my previous dynamic duo because the 7x42 is simply such a pleasure to use.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
Ibramr,
I like the 7 x 42 format very much. I recently picked up a new Zeiss 7x42 Victory T*FL shortly after Zeiss closed them out. I like it very much and prefer using it to my my Swarovski 7x42 SLC B and Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN although the latter 2 are still pleasant and comfortable to use. The Zeiss is brighter in late twilight conditions and it balances better in my hands than the other 2. All 3 are very friendly glasses to use.
I recall that Zeiss made a 7 x 45 Night Owl in 1994. It also had the same wide FOV of the Victory. Jerry Liguori noted in his book HAWKS at a Distance that he used this binocular for 14 years when he replaced it with a 7x42 Victory FL in 2008. He liked using the 7 x 42s because of their wide FOVs.
Bob
I like the 7 x 42 format very much. I recently picked up a new Zeiss 7x42 Victory T*FL shortly after Zeiss closed them out. I like it very much and prefer using it to my my Swarovski 7x42 SLC B and Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN although the latter 2 are still pleasant and comfortable to use. The Zeiss is brighter in late twilight conditions and it balances better in my hands than the other 2. All 3 are very friendly glasses to use.
I recall that Zeiss made a 7 x 45 Night Owl in 1994. It also had the same wide FOV of the Victory. Jerry Liguori noted in his book HAWKS at a Distance that he used this binocular for 14 years when he replaced it with a 7x42 Victory FL in 2008. He liked using the 7 x 42s because of their wide FOVs.
Bob
edwincjones
Well-known member
Asked this question because AstroMart
has one for $1050US now
but I will pass this time.
edj
has one for $1050US now
but I will pass this time.
edj
brocknroller
porromaniac
John,
Aren't the edges different in the Classic and FL? Field curvature toward the edges in the Classic that can be focused out and astigmatism toward the edges in the FL that cannot? That's what I've read in reviews.
Brock
brocknroller
porromaniac
Yes, I saw that, too. That's Bob "Let's Make a Deal" Barker, a major wheeler-dealer on Astromart, who sells a lot of high end binoculars.
Earlier, he had the Classic for sale for a $100 more. I'm surprised they haven't sold. I'd jump on them myself, always wanted to try one, but, unfortunately, I'm in a selling mode right now due to the Grinch Who Stole Christmas.
Brock
Elmer Fudd
Well-known member
I am the proud owner of a Zeiss 7x42 BGAT*P* since 1997. It really has a very wide field of view.
But if you are looking for a good 7x42 that is waterproofed, take the 7x42 FL.
A few weeks ago there was one on the shelf in a store around here for 1,200 Euros. Suddenly it had disappeared. But it wasn't me who is responsible for the disappearance, saddly enough.
But for wet weather conditions I have my Meopta 10x42 HD. (I refuse to use the term "bad" in connection with weather because it's a very personal point of view if weather is bad or not).
But if you are looking for a good 7x42 that is waterproofed, take the 7x42 FL.
A few weeks ago there was one on the shelf in a store around here for 1,200 Euros. Suddenly it had disappeared. But it wasn't me who is responsible for the disappearance, saddly enough.
But for wet weather conditions I have my Meopta 10x42 HD. (I refuse to use the term "bad" in connection with weather because it's a very personal point of view if weather is bad or not).
John Frink
Well-known member
7x42BGAT vs TFL edge effect
You're right, there is a difference at the far edge of the field, at least to my eyes. The image at the edge of the BGAT's field seems to have a 'smoother' character to it than the TFL, and it can be sharpened a bit by re-focusing; the TFL's image seems a bit 'rougher' at the far edge, and it doesn't improve as much as the BGAT's with re-focusing; this may suggest that the TFL's edge characteristic is more the result of astigmatism and less a function of field curvature. But these effects occur at the far edge of a very wide field of view in both instruments, and since I don't spend any time at all actually examining objects at the far edge, neither defect bothers me at all in practical use.
You're right, there is a difference at the far edge of the field, at least to my eyes. The image at the edge of the BGAT's field seems to have a 'smoother' character to it than the TFL, and it can be sharpened a bit by re-focusing; the TFL's image seems a bit 'rougher' at the far edge, and it doesn't improve as much as the BGAT's with re-focusing; this may suggest that the TFL's edge characteristic is more the result of astigmatism and less a function of field curvature. But these effects occur at the far edge of a very wide field of view in both instruments, and since I don't spend any time at all actually examining objects at the far edge, neither defect bothers me at all in practical use.
