Zeiss Diatal ZA 4X32

[GerardV]

I'm debating whether to buy a Zeiss Diatal ZA 4x32 to mount on a Highland Stalker. I'm looking for something light that wont unbalance the rifle and that will complement the classic look of the Rigby. The only problem is that I have never looked through a Diatal and would be interested to hear your opinions on the scope.

I assume with it being a Zeiss that the glass would be reasonable, and it has a centred reticle, however I've heard they're susceptible to parallax?

What would their image quality be like in comparison to say a VX-3?

My other, safer (and more expensive) option is a Zeiss Diavari V 1.5-6x42, but that may be more bulky on the rifle.

 

[Phil Giordano]

In my opinion the Diatal ZA 4x32 is a fantastic scope, glasses are great, it's tough, compact, classy. The perfect scope to match a classic rifle. Touch of class on your Rigby, and a fantastic hunting tool.

 

[dchum]

That is a good scope! I have used it before.

I think a nice gloss Zeiss Diavari in the classic 3-9 x36
Is the ticket though for a classic look. Just more functional than a fixed power and still the exact same classy look for such an elegant rifle

What calibre is your HS? Show her off a bit!

Point is - I think a 3-9 is more functional for a hunter than a fixed 4 power. You can just leave the 3-9 on 4 power anyways

 

[One Day...]

The technical answer re. image quality is as follows.

The Zeiss Diatal ZA 4x32 is a 1980's scope manufactured in West Germany. As such, it represents the pinnacle of its days' technology, and it is of the highest manufacturing quality and likely close to indestructible.

But it is also obsolete in two regards:

1-- The quality of the glass itself and the polishing are entirely on par with modern scopes, but the coatings are not. To make a long story short, best-in-class (which this one is) optics of this era had a typical light transmission of ~80%. This one may have a little more (85%?) because not being a variable it has less lenses, hence the cumulated light transmission loss (it increments with each lens) is likely lower. For comparison, best-in-class modern scopes (Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski) hover around 96% to 98% light transmission and Leupold is likely in the 85% to 90% range depending on product line.

2-- This generation of scope is not sealed and not nitrogen (or other inert gas) purged. This means that it is not waterproof. After a full day in the rain or snow in the cold, it will fog internally if you take it back into a warm house. This is not an issue per se, but it will take 12 to 24 hours for it to get clear again.

Note: The best way to avoid this is to let the scoped rifle dry in the garage or barn so that the temperature difference between the glass and the room does not trigger condensation.


In practical terms, these two limitations being accepted, this scope is entirely functional and will deliver perfectly satisfactory hunting services. I own one of these, it sits on a shortened Sako Forester in .243 Win that is my "grandkids rifle" after having been my "kids rifle".

 

[roverandbrew]

My Highland Stalker (275) currently wears a Swarovski Z3 in 3-9x36 and has for a few years. Most likely this week I will swap it out for one of my Z3 scopes in 3-9x42. Based off my observations and not science...The light transmission and field of view in the "x42" are noticeably better. The HS is my primary plains game and deer rifle so I want a scope that matches my needs more than saving a few ounces in weight.

 

[GerardV]

That is a good scope! I have used it before.

I think a nice gloss Zeiss Diavari in the classic 3-9 x36
Is the ticket though for a classic look. Just more functional than a fixed power and still the exact same classy look for such an elegant rifle

What calibre is your HS? Show her off a bit!

Point is - I think a 3-9 is more functional for a hunter than a fixed 4 power. You can just leave the 3-9 on 4 power anyways

You do raise a point regarding functionality.
I haven't actually got the rifle yet, but it will be a .275/7x57.

 

[GerardV]

The technical answer re. image quality is as follows.

The Zeiss Diatal ZA 4x32 is a 1980's scope manufactured in West Germany. As such, it represents the pinnacle of its days' technology, and it is of the highest manufacturing quality and likely close to indestructible.

But it is also obsolete in two regards:

1-- The quality of the glass itself and the polishing are entirely on par with modern scopes, but the coatings are not. To make a long story short, best-in-class (which this one is) optics of this era had a typical light transmission of ~80%. This one may have a little more (85%?) because not being a variable it has less lenses, hence the cumulated light transmission loss (it increments with each lens) is likely lower. For comparison, best-in-class modern scopes (Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski) hover around 96% to 98% light transmission and Leupold is likely in the 85% to 90% range depending on product line.

2-- This generation of scope is not sealed and not nitrogen (or other inert gas) purged. This means that it is not waterproof. After a full day in the rain or snow in the cold, it will fog internally if you take it back into a warm house. This is not an issue per se, but it will take 12 to 24 hours for it to get clear again.

Note: The best way to avoid this is to let the scoped rifle dry in the garage or barn so that the temperature difference between the glass and the room does not trigger condensation.


In practical terms, these two limitations being accepted, this scope is entirely functional and will deliver perfectly satisfactory hunting services. I own one of these, it sits on a shortened Sako Forester in .243 Win that is my "grandkids rifle" after having been my "kids rifle".

View attachment 717467

Thanks for the reply, this was exactly the info I was looking for.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi,
They ARE waether proof, IF the turrets caps are not removed.
I have one, reticle 4, my favorite 4x scope. Light, strong, super clear. Mine has *T multicoating. Are on par with my two Diavari Victory: 1,5-6x42 and 2,5-10×50, set at 4x.
Now it is in my Mauser-Werke 1935 7mm Mauser.
To me, the ZA serie, the first centered reticle scopes made by Zeiss, are perhaps the best scopes Zeiss ever made.
Until recently it was mounted in my Winchester 70 pre 64 375 H&H. Also the Diavari V 1,5-6×42 was in another set of rings already sighted.
For your 275 would be a perfect match! Another top 4x scopes would be the Kahles Helia C 4x36 or the Schmidt & Bender 4x36. Or a Zeiss Diatal C 4x32. All GREAT 4x scopes.
The Diavari would not be bad, of course!!!
Good luck!

CF

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Here they are:

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

And my 4x36 Schmidt & Bender. This one has a steel tube. Relatively heavy for a 4x, as heavy as the Diavari V 1,5-6×42. But a GREAT 4x!!!
From the '90s

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

The Winchester 375 w/ that Zeiss Diatal ZA in action.

 

[R eight]

IMO 4X in a 1” tube is ideal for the HS.

 

[GerardV]

The Winchester 375 w/ that Zeiss Diatal ZA in action.

Thanks for sharing Clodo; some beautiful scopes and rifles

 

[One Day...]

My Highland Stalker (275) currently wears a Swarovski Z3 in 3-9x36 and has for a few years. Most likely this week I will swap it out for one of my Z3 scopes in 3-9x42. Based off my observations and not science...The light transmission and field of view in the "x42" are noticeably better. The HS is my primary plains game and deer rifle so I want a scope that matches my needs more than saving a few ounces in weight.

Your observations are in perfect agreement with the science

The diameter of the light beam that reaches your eye is calculated by dividing the objective diameter by the magnification. For example with 9x and 36 mm, the light beam diameter reaching your eye is 36 / 9 = 4 mm. With 9x and 42 mm the light beam diameter reaching your eye is 42 / 9 = 4.7 mm. This represents a 17% increase. This is clearly noticeable.

To go in a little more depth, the human pupil at full normal dilatation is typically 7 mm wide, so the maximum human-perceived brightness of a scope will be reached when a 7 mm light beam is produced. This is why, at a time when science still mattered in scope design, up until the 1990's, German variable scopes were typically 1.25-4x28, 1.5-6x42 or 2-8x56 so that at full magnification, they produced a 7 mm light beam: 28/4=7, 42/6=7 and 56/8=7. The 28 mm, 42 mm and 56 mm objectives were not coincidental.

Of course American manufacturers copied the 42 mm, which became an American standard, but apparently without really understanding why, and American clients pressed for more magnification (and keep pressing). In order to not miss on the American market, Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica, Schmidt & Bender started offering americanized product lines. The 3-9x42 is a perfect example.

But look through the scope at full 9x magnification at dusk, and rotate slowly the magnification ring down to 6x. You will see very clearly the brightness of the image increase as the diameter of the light beam increases from 4.7 to 7 mm.

This does not mean that the 9x magnification is useless. It is perfectly fine in full bright daylight, but you certainly want to go down to 6x at dusk or dawn.

As to what magnification is truly needed, I must confess that I never understood why and how magnification in excess of 6x could be needed when hunting big game. That is unless hunting is confused with game-sniping at ridiculous distances (e.g. 600 or 800 meters/yards), and even then I cannot help but remember that when I went through French regimental sniper training in the early 1980's we were qualifying at 800 meters with fixed 3.85x APX L806 scopes...

But modern marketing has me soundly defeated, and I shake my head in amused disbelief at hunting scopes the size of astronomics telescopes, featuring 16x, 25x, or even 36x magnification. What are they hunting? Mice at 1,200 yards?

 

[steve white]

The 1.5-6x42 is not a bulky scope IMO, and is more versatile. At one time it was considered THE versatile choice for DG to PG.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

In my 7 mm Mauser I have used mostly the 4x32 scopes and sometimes a 1,5-6x42. For my hunts they work equally well.
Until recently the 4x32 was a Zeiss Diatal DA from the seventies. My first really good and serious scope bought new in 1972. Non centered reticle and not guarantied weatherproof. Its optical quality is, still, almost as good as any new 4x scope: true colours, outstanding resolution and contrast view. Its mechanics are incredible strong!
That is my 7 mm Mauser with this old Zeiss.
One of my sons with a strange non typical Red Deer

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

And the same rifle with a Schmidt & Bender 1,5-6×42 and my best ever red deer stag.

 

[Garciamarquez1918]

What about Leica Fortis? Modern scope with retro aesthetics. Perfect for Highland Stalker.

 

[Longwalker]

I have a Zeiss Diatal-C and find it is quite satisfactory for a compact, fixed power scope. I have it mounted on a CZ Brno .22, and it performs very well in that application. I'd mount it on a light 7x57 too and not worry much about its "limitations".

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Agree Longwalker.