New kid on the block ... Theron Questa (1 Viewer)

Nice Bella! I look forward to reading more of your and your husband's experiences with the Questa. In my experience the Questa still is the closest thing to the $2000 field flattened binoculars at a price affordable to most.

I haven't found any other model that offers all of the optical performance characteristics that the Questa does for anywhere near the price.

Before coming across FrankD's review of the Questa, I was considering either buying the Athlon Optics Midas ED 8×42 or the Alpen Wings ED based on the review of "The Best Binoculars for Birds, Nature, and the Outdoors" at the wirecutter.com. These binoculars could be ordered from Amazon.com and have very good users' reviews.

It is interesting to note that the wirecutter reviewer, Daniel S. Cooper, stated that if his $2500 Leica Ultravids got lost tomorrow, he would not hesitate to replace them with one of his top picks.

Anyway, I was more impressed with FrankD's review of the Questa especially with the photo taken through the bins. I am quite curious on how to take similar snapshots. The only snapshot adapter that I could find is the Swarovski Snap Shot Adapter S3. I don't know whether it would fit on other binoculars. It would be very cool to take

We are very lucky to live next to 70 acres wooded area with a pond, some marshes, grassy and small bushes spots on the perimeter of the wood. The different types of habitat are great for birding.

In our morning birding walk today, we compared the performance of the Theron Questa 8x42 and the Steiner Safari Pro 8x30 (I forgot the name and thought it was a Predator Pro - I got it mainly for the easy focus and light weight for our SA self-flying safari trip in 2010). Of course, the Questa is way superior to the Steiner. What impresses me the most is the very close focus range of the Questa in comparison to the Steiner (~ 3 feet vs 12 feet).

PhilR. said:

I would suggest that you investigate the Rick Young harness, which can be found at the Rick Young Outdoors website. These are extremely light in weight, extremely compact in storage, and most importantly extremely comfortable.

....

If you decide that you have to have a more traditional webbing harness, then consider the items from Op/Tech. Not that their harness works any better than any other maker, but they are part of an entire system of straps and connectors that allow you to configure many different binos/cameras in many different ways.

Click to expand...

Phil,
Thank you for the recommendations. The Rick Young harness certainly looks very light and compact.

I checked the Op/Tech dual harness and think it may come in handy for my husband who is an avid photographer/videographer. I will do more readings to see if the harness works well with his Panasonic GH3 (or the GH5 which he would like to upgrade to in a near future).

Frank, some questions, please.
- Others, at least two in this thread, found it not sharp enough. I know your visual acuity is very good. What do you think is the explanation?
- Briefly, how does it compare with the Zen-Ray Prime and with the Leupold McKinley?
- Dim light performance, compared with them? Dawn, dusk, night. At least any of these, preferably all!
- Did rolling globe show up?
- Do you still have it, and use it a lot? If not then why? What are the negatives?
Thank you!

Frank, my 2nd question should have been
- What are its plus points compared with the Zen-Ray Prime and with the Leupold McKinley?
Thanks.

adhoc,

Sorry for the delay. I am not on the forums much on the weekends.

To answer your questions:

1. I think the perception of sharpness is just that, a perception. The Questa does not have great depth of focus (not to be confused with depth of field). This means you are either perfectly on focus or you are completely off focus with the slightest tap of the focusing knob. I can see how this short depth of focus could lead some folks to the perception that they are not sharp. Second, I think the slightly warmer tone can also contribute to this. I find that colder biased or neutral image representation gives me the impression of increased apparent sharpness. I would assume that a warm bias does just the opposite. In actual side by side comparisons though I was able to detect no difference in apparent sharpness between the Questa and other comparable models.

2. The two pluses, for me personally, for the Questa over the two other models you mentioned are the eyecup design and the rubber armoring. The eyecup diameter of the Questa is narrower than the other two which contributes to easier IPD/eye placement and subsequently a more immersive experience (which is of course highlighted by the wide field of view for an 8x42, excellent edge sharpness/large sweet spot and very good CA control).

The rubber armoring on this is a very basic, contoured, tactile-friendly design. It feels very good to put my hands around and the thumb indents very smooth to put my thumbs into. "Like a glove" if you prefer.

3. No, I didn't run into any AMD issues because of the field flatteners. I thought it was well balanced with pincushion distortion in this model.

4. Yes, I still have it and I will say that I have used it more than any other bin I have at any given time.

The only negative, as I mentioned in my original review, is that it is a bit hefty but that is the price you pay for a full-sized field flattener binocular with a wide field of view. The only way to somewhat avoid this is by producing an 8x32 model of this design which, of course, hasn't happened.

Thanks Frank, for a patient and thorough reply as usual--and that was hardly a delay!

Above, we have: "...the closest thing to the $2000 field flattened binoculars at a price affordable to most...I haven't found any other model that offers all of the optical performance characteristics...for anywhere near the price...I still have it...I have used it more than any other bin I have at any given time."

In another forum you have written, comparing with Swarovskis: "...the SV 8x32 produced a slightly better image than the Questa in the areas of color neutrality and low light performance. I did not feel it bettered the Questa in any other optical area...The Questa had better edge to edge performance than the Swaro SLC while still retaining equivalent apparent performance in almost all other optical areas. Again the Swaro 'won' in terms of a neutral color representation (the Questa has a bit of a warm tone)."

This is high praise from you, and, also reading your other comments, I am tempted! I hope there are no QC issues with this model, such as plagued Leupold's McKinley, and no CS problems, now showing up with Zen-Ray.

You do say less than one hour apart from that last post in this thread in the other on favorite binoculars, "Most often used and probably the easiest bin for me to pick up and use for practically anything?//Sightron 8x32," but as you are meticulous in what you convey I guess that means in the longer run, since long before you got the Questa.

What you say about sharpness is very interesting. The poster who finds its image "soft" surely cannot have missed the point of best focus in his presumably many tests? I should think it is more likely to be the color balance.

adhoc,

After extended use I don't take back any of my comparisons to the various Swaro models. I would certainly say it is very comparable to the SVs because of the field flattener design. If you like the big sweet spot and great edge performance of the Swaro then you will like the same attributes in the Questa.

I have not run into any quality control concerns with this model. Everything functions now the way it did the first day that I received them.

As for the Questa/Sightron comments, yes, it is because I have owned the Sightron considerably longer. For a period of time over the last five years I only used the Sightron as my "be all" binocular. As a result it left an impression on me that still sticks today though I don't use it as much as the Questa now and especially with so many other binoculars that I am doing/have done reviews on.

Another way to look at it is the Sightron is always on hand to for me to use because of its light weight design and well rounded optics. I pick it up when I plan on taking a nice walk (birding or otherwise). The Questa gets pulled out when size and weight isn't as much of a concern. Hawkwatching would be a perfect example....or when I am scanning a large body of water looking for waterfowl or shorebirds.

FrankD said:

In my experience the Questa still is the closest thing to the $2000 field flattened binoculars at a price affordable to most.

I haven't found any other model that offers all of the optical performance characteristics that the Questa does for anywhere near the price.

Click to expand...

Have you had a chance to try the Nikon Monarch HG? It reportedly has a field flattener system, and has an even slightly wider FOV than the Questa. What appeals to me is that it is lighter and perhaps more compact.

On the other hand, the Nikon is more than twice the price of the Questa, if still less expensive than the alphas.

nmason,

When I wrote the statement in your quote the Nikon Monarch HG was not available.

No, I have not tried it yet. There haven't been any Nikon reps at any of the birding shows I have attended recently. That may change the first week of May as the Biggest Week in American Birding is being held in Northern Ohio and I plan on being there for the first weekend.

And, as you mentioned, the Monarch HG is considerably more than the Questa...3x the cost if I remember the originally quoted price of the Monarch HG correctly. For someone in my normal price bracket the Monarch HG is an Alpha for all intents and purposes.

A lot more but not quite 3x. HG 8x42 is $960 at OpticsPlanet, Questa 8x42 $425 at Predator. Ratio 2 1/4 x. Is the Questa available for less?

Thanks adhoc. I think I was remembering the $1200 MSRP for the Monarch HG.

P.S. I thought I saw something that the Questa was down to $375 for a limited time with the coupon code.

FrankD said:

nmason,

When I wrote the statement in your quote the Nikon Monarch HG was not available.

No, I have not tried it yet. There haven't been any Nikon reps at any of the birding shows I have attended recently. That may change the first week of May as the Biggest Week in American Birding is being held in Northern Ohio and I plan on being there for the first weekend.

And, as you mentioned, the Monarch HG is considerably more than the Questa...3x the cost if I remember the originally quoted price of the Monarch HG correctly. For someone in my normal price bracket the Monarch HG is an Alpha for all intents and purposes.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, and for all your terrific reviews. The Questa certainly sounds intriguing, though I'm a little concerned about the weight. The Monarch HG is really out of my price range, but it's tempting to consider...

where might we find the coupon code

I found the coupon code "questa" on Theron Optics facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/Theron-Optics-112555042185537/

We have tried the Theron Questa in different lighting conditions with excellent results. The harness makes it much easier to use. I may be tempted to get one for myself. Maybe we will get a 10x42.

Thanks Frank and BellaDL, for the price and coupon code info. It will be a few weeks before I can move in this. Not in the U.S. at present. Hope the offer extends till then!

Frank suggests (in post #166) differing perception among users as the reason why some find the Questa not sharp enough. Mooreorless above (in post #152) finds with an objective test (non-subjective, not to do with front lenses!) that the Nikon SE 8x32 is sharper than the Questa 8x42. Thus I needed confirmation that the SE is super sharp. A couple of days later it comes in the Nikon forum in the thread on the Monarch HG: Jring writes that the HG "...are nice bins in the $1000 class, but not an alpha killer like the SE." So, it seems that the Questa is about as sharp as the HG. (When the Questa's several positives are considered along with this it is good enough for me, I think!) This also, I guess, partly answers Nmason's point above (in post #169).

Frank,
You say (back in post #58): "I continued to be impressed with this new binocular...Truly a beautiful, natural image greets your eyes every time you look through it." But you acknowledge (throughout the thread) the "warm tone" or "warm bias" in the image. Have you ever noted or felt that this causes inaccuracy in color rendition, e.g. in bird plumage, in any light condition, and if so in what degree? Also, are you able compare from memory this bias with those in the Zen-Ray Prime or Leupold McKinley? Thank you!

No.

Honestly it's very subtle and only readily noticeable in comparison to a neutral or cold biased binocular.