Thotmosis
Well-known member

Beautiful 🤩
Beautiful 🤩
I actually suggested to Zeiss they might want to make a modern version of the 25x56 more than 30 years ago. The reply was "People are only interested in larger scopes nowadays".Interesting links Hermann, it would indeed be really nice if Zeiss made a modern version of the old 20x56 with rubber armor. I would buy one in a hartbeat. Are you guys at Zeiss reading this?
Well Zeiss is wrong because I know many who prefer a small rugged scope. You, me and many more.I actually suggested to Zeiss they might want to make a modern version of the 25x56 more than 30 years ago. The reply was "People are only interested in larger scopes nowadays".
Hermann
Nice. We'll be off to Norway in three weeks from now. A bit late in the year for birding, sure, but we couldn't go earlier.
Depends on where you are going. I'm comfy with my mm3-60 (EDF zoom), mostly using the Curio or Habicht(! 10*40).Nice. We'll be off to Norway in three weeks from now. A bit late in the year for birding, sure, but we couldn't go earlier.
Still not decided if I should to take a second scope in addition to the ED50 ... 🔭
Hermann
It’s quite remote. Must be serene and magical over there. Any fish to catch in the water?On the landscape front you can just about see my tent in the bottom right corner..
Yes, the odd one was jumping, I brought food with me though.It’s quite remote. Must be serene and magical over there. Any fish to catch in the water?
Similar experience.This spring I compared three 'scopes - my regular Kowa 82mm, my old Nikon 50mm and a friend's Kowa 55mm (all fitted with zoom lenses). I compared them (at the same magnification) by looking at a sign with three differently sized fonts on the jib of a distant crane. Not surprisingly, the larger 'scope had an excellent image allowing me to read the three differently sized fonts on the sign with equal ease. The 55mm 'scope wasn't quite as impressive but I was astonished at just how close the image was to its larger sister. The two larger fonts were just as easy to read and even the smallest one could be read with relative ease. The Nikon (admittedly by far the oldest instrument) was way behind with only the larger font being easy to read. I could only make out the smaller font with certainty once I'd read it through the other two and the smallest font was completely indecipherable. In terms of brightness, the small Kowa was also superior to the Nikon (although there didn't seem to be that much between it and the larger scope as it was a bright day). The result was that I bought the small Kowa (and gave the Nikon to a young 'scopeless birder). Performance certainly falls off more than my larger 'scope in very overcast conditions and at dawn/dusk but for most of the time really doesn't make a lot of difference.
Comparing my 'scope (also whilst watching Kent's Eleonora's Falcon) with a 65mm Swarovski there wasn't any discernible difference (although once again it was a fairly bright day). So I'm very happy to trade-off
Interesting. How do you get on with the eyepiece? I know it can't be worse (with regard to the field of view and so on) than the Nikon MCII, but then I mainly use fixed WA eyepieces with the ED50. What's it like in the field? Does it work for eyeglass wearers? And what do you think about the mechanical quality of the Kowa? How robust is it?I have ED50 with McII 13-40x zoom and compared side-by-side with 553 in the field.
I would say that at the same magnification two scopes difference is “discernible “. My ED50 is a good copy which was validated over years in the field by other birders. But 553 has revealed a bit more details of bird feathers and with better color recovery.
The EP fitted on the 553/554 is a tse-9z.Interesting. How do you get on with the eyepiece? I know it can't be worse (with regard to the field of view and so on) than the Nikon MCII, but then I mainly use fixed WA eyepieces with the ED50. What's it like in the field? Does it work for eyeglass wearers? And what do you think about the mechanical quality of the Kowa? How robust is it?
The reason I'm asking is that very few birders seem to use the Kowa 553/554 around here, so I can't really try it in the field. And I don't like ordering it online only to send it back if it doesn't work for me.
Hermann
Hi Hermann,Interesting. How do you get on with the eyepiece? I know it can't be worse (with regard to the field of view and so on) than the Nikon MCII, but then I mainly use fixed WA eyepieces with the ED50. What's it like in the field? Does it work for eyeglass wearers? And what do you think about the mechanical quality of the Kowa? How robust is it?
The reason I'm asking is that very few birders seem to use the Kowa 553/554 around here, so I can't really try it in the field. And I don't like ordering it online only to send it back if it doesn't work for me.
Hermann
The WA eyepieces are indeed great on the ED50. I also quite like the 27x DS whenever I need more magnification. But sure, the MCII zoom is incredibly convenient, and its optical performance is if anything just slightly better than that of the WA, just like you say. However, there are situations where I really want a wider field of view, for instance when scanning the sky for birds of prey.Wide eyepieces, especially 16X DS and 20x WA, are phenomenal on ED50. But I found the MC2 zoom has better optical performance regarding resolution and color saturation. Also, I like zoom for the convenience.
Better eye relief sounds great. I'm in the process of switching from contact lenses to glasses (after almost 40 years) because I find the contact lenses don't work for me anymore with all the dust in the air. Pollen is also a huge problem in spring. Our climate is becoming increasingly drier, and that makes life difficult with the contact lenses. I normally use one of the WA eyepieces on the ED50, and carry one of the zooms in case I need it.About 553, the FOV is similar to Nikon MC2 as Vespobuteo posted info. It is a traditional 40-60 degree zoom design. But 553 eye relief is much better than Nikon MC2 (I wear glasses so really appreciate it ). Optical performance, as I said in previous post, is a bit better than ED50 with MC2. If you always use WA eyepieces on ED50, probably you will feel narrow on 553.
I'll try to find someone who has got one, I really need an hour or so in the field to see if a scope works for me. However, I'm not happy about the narrow zoom. I thought the Kowa might replace not only the ED50 in my setup, but also the EDIIIA. That won't work, I really need a wideangle option.I agree with that it is better to try it and compare with your scope if you have a chance.
I just checked the scope and paperwork and it only says: Made by Carl Zeiss on the scope….strange 🤔Hi John,
My dealer told me and there is this review of binomania aka Piergiovanni Salimbeni with translation of John A Roberts:
See post #4:![]()
Video review (english subtitles) of Zeiss Dialyt 18-45X65
Ciao dall'Italia, ieri ho pubblicato il mio video (e recensione) sullo Zeiss Dialyt 18-45x65 Spero che avrai il tempo di leggerlo e vederlo. Articolo + video: Video RecensioneZeiss Dialyt 18-45X65 - Binomania Video on YouTube: Cordiali saluti dall'Italia Piergiovanniwww.birdforum.net
“OPTICS
OBJECTIVE
The optics of the Zeiss Dialyt 18-45x65 are Made in Japan, consisting of five high-quality achromatic elements and a Schmidt / Pechan roof prism with T * treatment, with transmission values up to 85% of the optical system total.”
When I’m back in The Netherlands i will check my Dialyt scope to check if and which country of production is on the scope.
Cheers,
T.
Yep, that's strange...but "Made by Leica" would be even more strange..I just checked the scope and paperwork and it only says: Made by Carl Zeiss on the scope….strange 🤔
Meopta produced for Zeiss before, so everything is possibleYep, that's strange...but "Made by Leica" would be even more strange..
I know the Dialyt scope is made in Japan, but I wanted to know if "made in Japan" is on the scope. I can't find it.I would send an email to Zeiss and ask.