New ATC/ STC 17-40x56 Telescope (1 Viewer)

[PatR]

Hi Bill

So - contact Swaro If you are an exsisting owner and they supply the updated foot?

Cheers

Josh

Josh,

email: customerservice @swarovskioptik.com

they will need confirmation of serial number etc and the foot will be sent FOC. Mine arrive within a few days.

 

[Ignatius]

Has anyone actually done a side-by-side comparison of the STC 17-40x56 and the Dialyt 18-45x65?

 

[PatR]

I finally had the chance to try out an STC today. I was expecting something almost like my pocket binoculars - a smaller field of view, a darker image, a more difficult eye placement. I was pleasantly surprised therefore to have a scope which was nice and bright (even in fairly dull conditions), wonderfully sharp, and very easy to use. The focuser and zoom were smooth, and the scope as a whole was pleasingly light. I could even hand-hold it at 17x and get a passable image. I imagine it would work well with a tall monopod. It almost felt like a more 'polished' product than even my BTX 115, which has a far narrower field of view and (subjectively) a little less sharpness. In fact, it seemed a far superior scope than my old Zeiss Diascope 85, which really was an excellent full-size telescope back in the day. But the problem with using a BTX and then moving to a scope which has a single eyepiece is that it suddenly feels weird and uncomfortable. It is not nice having to scrunch one eye up. I think the BTX has probably ruined normal scopes for me.

The other thing I was interested to see, the 8 x 30 CL-B, I felt was a disappointment. The focuser was quite stiff, and I still had the same 'eyebox' issues that I have with my pocket binoculars. But the STC was impressive.

I appreciate it is not the height of sartorial elegance, but I use a cheapo eyepatch from Amazon and keep my left (or right) eye open when using my ATC.

The only disadvantage is passing twats who greet you with 'Arggh Jim Lad' or 'looking for your Parrot Cap'n?'

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Has anyone actually done a side-by-side comparison of the STC 17-40x56 and the Dialyt 18-45x65?

Had them both, the Dialyt for 13 years, the STC for one year and I have used them extensively.

The Dialyt is the most robust scope ever, just slide it in your backpack, attach it to the side, sling it over your shoulder. You can use it everywhere, the focus ring in the front makes it very easy to lay it down on poles, rocks, walls or push it against trees. It is the ideal scope for active birders, especially in difficult terrain, you never have to worry about your scope. And don't forget the unique vintage design. Personally I love it.

The STC is also easy to pack because of its size but I kept it always in my backpack, it's less sturdy than the Dialyt.

The TX glass of the STC is extremely sharp and close to perfect, the Dialyt doesn't have HD elements so the image quality is less good. For the STC you need a tripod or monopod, the shell Swarovski delivers is an afterthought. That said, the STC is perfect with a monopod and usable with 35x magnification.

In short, that's the choice, are you hiking, climbing, mountain biking, playing pirate in a canoe, without a tripod or monopod and you want an almost indestructible scope with a unique look? Take the Dialyt.

If you need a small lightweight scope with very good image quality and you are willing to pack a monopod or tripod, use the STC.

There is a difference in image quality but there is also a huge difference in price. They are both worth what you pay for.

[For the record, still I'm not happy with selling them, after multiple eye surgeries my eyes have problems with most scopes, that was the reason]

 

[Ignatius]

Thank you very much for that, @TheBlackGrouse.
The small size of the STC really appeals to me, especially as I would like to take it for (mountain) hikes. However, going by your description and comparison, the price difference (STC = 2x Dialyt) does not justify ca. 10 cm difference in length and about 200 g saving in weight. When the time comes I'll look at the Zeiss Dialyt first.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Thank you very much for that, @TheBlackGrouse.
The small size of the STC really appeals to me, especially as I would like to take it for (mountain) hikes. However, going by your description and comparison, the price difference (STC = 2x Dialyt) does not justify ca. 10 cm difference in length and about 200 g saving in weight. When the time comes I'll look at the Zeiss Dialyt first.

Please check them both and see if you really need the better image of the STC.

You won't notice the extra weight since the Dialyt needs no carrying bag (saves hundreds of grams). Just slide it in your backpack.

Forgot to mention in my previous post, the front lens and oculair protectors are made of thick strong rubber, at least 8 cm deep (from memory) they stay in place when the scope is in your backpack. The Dialyt is 'one piece', the oculair is fixed, so there is no fear of damaging connectors when it's stored in a backpack.

Seriously, I never used a protective cover or bag for it, the thick rubber armor of the body and the rubber lens covers give the Dialyt all the protection it needs.

For 10 years I was satisfied with the image quality of the Dialyt, until my eyes could not work with the oculair anymore.

Ruggedness, easy carry, fast deployment, usable everywhere were the other reasons for me to pack it for 10 years.

In the mountains there are lots of rocks, you don't need a monopod or tripod there, ideal terrain for the Dialyt.