• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

New Roger Vine Reviews (1 Viewer)

mwhogue

Well Known Member
Supporter
Lots of bright light conditions for me as well. Generally my diopter is set to -1. I do not need to wear my prescription sunglasses with bins but often do. Fortunately there is little if any difference in the view for me with or without glasses given my diopter setting and prescription. After lots of experimentation, photochromic non polarized prescription sunglasses work very well for me. As always YMMV.

Mike
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
But wait, there's more . . . the classic 7x42 Zeiss Dialyt!

Roger has also added a review of that great Zeiss classic, the external focus 7x42 Dialyt
It can be found at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Zeiss7x42Dialyt.htm

The 7x42 Dialyt was introduced in 1981 and was offered until 2004, when the Victory FL line was introduced in 7x42, 8x42 and 10x42
(the 8x56 version of the Dialyt had a significantly longer span, from 1968 until 2016!)

Roger has reviewed a T* P* version of the 7x42, so one with both multi-coating and phase coating
See an image from him comparing the 7x42 Dialyt to the Fujinon 7x50 FMTR-SX

And also see an image from Jerry, at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/an-old-flame-revisited-the-zeiss-10x40-bgat-p.371882/
It clearly shows the size of the 7x42 Dialyt compared to the current Zeiss 10x42 Victory SF (and with the Zeiss 10x40 Dialyt in-between)


John
 

Attachments

  • 7x42 Dialyt vs 7x50 Fujinon FMTR-SX.jpg
    7x42 Dialyt vs 7x50 Fujinon FMTR-SX.jpg
    388.2 KB · Views: 18
  • 7x42 Dialyt, 10x40 Dialyt, 10x42 Victory SF.jpg
    7x42 Dialyt, 10x40 Dialyt, 10x42 Victory SF.jpg
    373.3 KB · Views: 19

Sebzwo

Well-known member
Those Dialyts were quite elegant back then. Classic Hensoldt style.
IIRC the 7x42 has "officially" been used by west German federal border police BGS back then.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
But wait, there's more . . . the classic 7x42 Zeiss Dialyt!

Roger has also added a review of that great Zeiss classic, the external focus 7x42 Dialyt
It can be found at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Zeiss7x42Dialyt.htm

The 7x42 Dialyt was introduced in 1981 and was offered until 2004, when the Victory FL line was introduced in 7x42, 8x42 and 10x42
(the 8x56 version of the Dialyt had a significantly longer span, from 1968 until 2016!)

Roger has reviewed a T* P* version of the 7x42, so one with both multi-coating and phase coating
See an image from him comparing the 7x42 Dialyt to the Fujinon 7x50 FMTR-SX

And also see an image from Jerry, at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/an-old-flame-revisited-the-zeiss-10x40-bgat-p.371882/
It clearly shows the size of the 7x42 Dialyt compared to the current Zeiss 10x42 Victory SF (and with the Zeiss 10x40 Dialyt in-between)


John
I had a pair of the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt T*P* and I never felt they were as bright as their more modern counterparts like the Zeiss FL or SF and certainly not the Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50. Their 85% transmission is pretty low now days with newer binoculars reaching 95% in some cases. I prefer the brighter, sharper view of the Fujinon FMTR-SX even though it has a slightly smaller FOV. I also worried about the maintenance issues like fungi with the Dialyt being an unsealed binocular. Other unsealed Porros like the Nikon SE and E2 have similar problems with older samples. They also suck dust inside like a bellows or accordion when you focus them because of the back and forth motion of the focuser.
 
Last edited:

Patudo

Well-known member
I don't understand why this obviously very knowledgeable reviewer of optics is always shown wearing sunglasses while viewing through binoculars. I'm guessing this might be a bit of tongue-and-cheek British humor . . . but I'm not completely sure.

He does a lot of astro. Maybe he feels more at home in a darkened world! 😸

My brother, whose eyes are more sensitive than mine, uses sunglasses when sky-scanning on very bright summer days. I don't, but if I expect those conditions I'll often use my old porros, whose poor light transmission (compared to modern binoculars) gives much the same effect.
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Hi Dennis (post #24),

While the Dialyts are a classic external focus pump action, they don’t seem to be susceptible to environmental contamination

I’ve previously posted about an article by the late ornithologist Francois Vuilleumier ‘Are Zeiss binoculars the preferred instruments for birdwatching?’
It’s from the Zeiss Historica Journal, Spring 2007 edition. See from page 13 on at: https://www.mikeeckman.com/2019/11/zeiss-historica-spring-2007/

In itself it’s interesting to read a detailed discussion from an earlier era, about what were then the start-of-the-art binoculars for birding
However, Francois also describes his extensive use of the 7x42 Dialyt under extreme environmental conditions. See the last paragraph in the first column on page 19 of the extract

Part of the reason for the Dialyt’s relative imperviousness may have been because like their Porro counterparts, they were fitted with seals
In 1956 Zeiss West Germany added the seals to their newly introduced Porro line. See an image from a 1964 catalogue with the seals indicated in red

So it wouldn't be surprising if Zeiss West had taken similar steps with the Dialyts (in fact it would have been surprising if they hadn’t)
Perhaps Gary/ garymh can offer further insight?


John
 

Attachments

  • Vuilleumier on 7x42 Dialyt.jpg
    Vuilleumier on 7x42 Dialyt.jpg
    396.7 KB · Views: 23
  • 8x30W Porro from 1964 catalogue.jpg
    8x30W Porro from 1964 catalogue.jpg
    208 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:

Anon2020

Well-known member
He does a lot of astro. Maybe he feels more at home in a darkened world! 😸

My brother, whose eyes are more sensitive than mine, uses sunglasses when sky-scanning on very bright summer days. I don't, but if I expect those conditions I'll often use my old porros, whose poor light transmission (compared to modern binoculars) gives much the same effect.
My hunch is that he does not customarily wear sunglasses and does so in his photos solely in order to remain incognito.
 

Sebzwo

Well-known member
I should have been more clear above: They were standard issue to BGS federal police for patrol duties in all weather conditions. They cannot have been too sensible to weather and rough treatment.
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Hi again Dennis (post #24),

The transmission of the traditional style Dialyts would have varied significantly across their long production life
- multi-coating would have significantly improved over time (and phase coating was introduced in 1988)
The transmission of the more recent production seems to have be notably higher than the 85% that you indicated,
and consistent with Roger's comments about his 7x42 T* P* unit compared to current Alpha production

Looking through Gijs’ tests at: https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/ , there are at least two relevant ones
See:
a) a 7x42 unit with transmission between 85 and 90% - with a higher maximum than that of a 7x42 Leica Ultravid HD Plus!
(from the Feb 2016 'Test van de nieuwe Leica Ultravid HD-Plus 7x42 . . . ‘)

b) an 8x56 unit with transmission between 89 and 93% - so comparable to the 7x42 Habicht of 2014 in the above graph
(from the April 2012 'Test rapport van 56 mm kijkers . . . ‘)

- - -
Also see a graph from Allbinos of an 8x56 T* P* Dialyt
It shows transmission from around 85 to 93%, in the 450 to 675 nm range shown in Gijs’ graphs
See at: https://www.allbinos.com/index.html?test=lornetki&test_l=174


John
 

Attachments

  • 7x42 Dialyt, from Gijs.jpg
    7x42 Dialyt, from Gijs.jpg
    182 KB · Views: 12
  • 8x56 Dialyt, from Gijs.jpg
    8x56 Dialyt, from Gijs.jpg
    228.5 KB · Views: 12
  • 8x56 Dialyt, Allbinos.jpg
    8x56 Dialyt, Allbinos.jpg
    319.8 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Hi Dennis (post #24),

While the Dialyts are a classic external focus pump action, they don’t seem to be susceptible to environmental contamination

I’ve previously posted about an article by the late ornithologist Francois Vuilleumier ‘Are Zeiss binoculars the preferred instruments for birdwatching?’
It’s from the Zeiss Historica Journal, Spring 2007 edition. See from page 13 on at: https://www.mikeeckman.com/2019/11/zeiss-historica-spring-2007/

In itself it’s interesting to read a detailed discussion from an earlier era, about what were then the start-of-the-art binoculars for birding
However, Francois also describes his extensive use of the 7x42 Dialyt under extreme environmental conditions. See the last paragraph in the first column on page 19 of the extract

Part of the reason for the Dialyt’s relative imperviousness may have been because like their Porro counterparts, they were fitted with seals
In 1956 Zeiss West Germany added the seals to their newly introduced Porro line. See an image from a 1964 catalogue with the seals indicated in red

So it wouldn't be surprising if Zeiss West had taken similar steps with the Dialyts (in fact it would have been surprising if they hadn’t)
Perhaps Gary/ garymh can offer further insight?


John
My main issue with the Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 is like most vintage binoculars they were not as bright as most modern binoculars. I sold mine in a couple of weeks after comparing them to my more updated binoculars. Even a good mid-range binocular like a Nikon Monarch MHG is brighter. They are cool looking though, but they don't perform like the newer glass IMO.
 

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
A post 1988 phase corrected dialyt should be every bit as bright as any modern glass. I have one from 1993 and it holds up to anything I own in terms of brightness, except my HT which shocks with apparent brightness every time I use it.
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
I hadn't heard this about SF 32 vs 42, reminiscent of the old Dialyts!
"But instead of focusing with a moving lens behind the objective, here the objectives themselves move on a carriage behind a thin optical window."
Tricky eye placement and blackouts are not good news... are they present on the 8x as well?
Both me and Chuck easily found the right eyecup position with SF 8x32. Mine have been on my work station for several days so I could grab quick views of birds flying by or in the tops of our Hawthorn trees so I am often twisting my body round quickly while sitting in my chair at my computer and by no means in a good position to accurately line up the SFs. Speed is of the essence to get a view of the birds and I haven't been getting any blackouts our any other problems.

Lee
 

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member
James Holdsworth, post 33,
You are absolutely right, we measured a light transmission of 90,5% att 550 nm for the Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 from the 1990's, certainly high enough to compete with newer binoculars and certainly bright enough also because of the combinaton with its 6 mm exit pupil.
Gijs van Ginkel
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
I hadn't heard this about SF 32 vs 42, reminiscent of the old Dialyts!
"But instead of focusing with a moving lens behind the objective, here the objectives themselves move on a carriage behind a thin optical window."
Tricky eye placement and blackouts are not good news... are they present on the 8x as well?

I have had zero problems w/ mine so far. Perhaps could mention the hinge tension is a bit lighter than my other bins so I've been learning to not bump them out of position when putting them on / taking them off, but that's a pretty minor niggle.
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
My main issue with the Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 is like most vintage binoculars they were not as bright as most modern binoculars. I sold mine in a couple of weeks after comparing them to my more updated binoculars. Even a good mid-range binocular like a Nikon Monarch MHG is brighter. They are cool looking though, but they don't perform like the newer glass IMO.
I had a similar experience with the Dialyt. Maybe I had too high expectations because of the things you read. So I got a 7x42 T*P*, but after having used the 7x42 FL the view through the Dialyt didn't frankly impress me. Not talking only about brightness, but the view it self. Yes, it was alright, a nice 7x, but I much prefer the FL or the Ultravid, and I've bought both of them 2nd hand for less than the going prices of the Dialyt. As far as I understand, the Dialyt has reached a cult status, and as such its price doesn't represent its actual performance but is there for something beyond pure optics (which is fair enough), be it style, fashion, status, nostalgia, etc. (some go for almost the price of a brand new Swarovski 8x42 SLC!!!). Oddly enough, I had an opposite experience with the 7x35 Retrovid, which I assumed was nothing but a nostalgia fad... and it's actually a stunning performer.
 

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
I would say the biggest difference with a dialyt versus modern stuff is contrast...this seems to be where most of the coating improvement have been manifested. I like the view through mine but it doesn’t have the same contrast pop of good current glass.
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
I would say the biggest difference with a dialyt versus modern stuff is contrast...this seems to be where most of the coating improvement have been manifested. I like the view through mine but it doesn’t have the same contrast pop of good current glass.
Yes, you could very well be right about the contrast. I'm speaking of the memories I have from impression I got (nothing scientific about this), since this was a while ago, but it kind of matches what you say. Maybe I see l expected THE view. Yes the FOV was wide, yes the colours were nice (a little warmer than the FL IIRC), but to my eyes it just didn't compare with FL or UVHD. I liked the looks, a lot actually, but the handling itself, hmmm, I think in my case it would have taken a while getting used to it. The long barrels where nice for stationary observation, but they felt a bit awkward hanging while on the move. But that's just my, there seems to be so many people who swear by them.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top