Theron Wapiti LP 8x32 (1 Viewer)

Nikula have 8x42 on sale here in NZ on trademe for NZ $189. Its the same binocular as the Nikko. Not a bad price but I dont think either are phasecoated.

Here's an old thread on the Nighteaters:

http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php/t-144744.html

Here's a review. The reviewer's credibility is damaged a little by the fact that he couldn't figure out how to adjust the diopter:

http://www.highlandsports.com.au/images/Review-pdf633995761796303942.pdf

As the Theron Wapiti is only available in America, I checked out Helios to see if they had the same binoculars under that name. They do have the Ultrasport, its that same binocular again but un-like the Wapiti has a basic spec. Just can not find any one else who does this bino in the same spec as Theron (dielectric coatings)
That said this has to be a great design, to be used and used again. Has to be strong and reliable. A classic you could say?
Pity I just can not find one, out side Theron, that does dielectric.

Wasnt the Vixen Foresta dielectric coated?

That would make two and would a third be the Opticron Verano HD?

I don't know about the Opticron. I haven't had a chance to handle one yet but hope to do so this winter when Opticron starts making more appearances at some of the US birding shows.

It did occur to me, especially after a little reminder from Steve, that I didn't post a great deal on my thoughts with these bins. To make it simple....

Likes:

Wide field of view
Huge sweet spot
Flat field
Good apparent brightness
Good contrast
Good CA control
Enjoyable ergonomics overall
Good fit and finish

Dislikes:

Strap lug in same location as Vixen/Kenko models which forces a slightly forward hand position to avoid it.

Although it scores good in just about every optical category I felt it could score better in the area of contrast/color bias. It has a similar bias to that of the Meopta and Nikon HG (just recently obtained a sample from another forum member). The bias is a little on the warm side....yellowish....though not quite the yellow-green of the Meopta. I feel this takes away a bit from the contrast "potential" of the bin.

The bin compares very favorably with the Sightron in all areas with the Sightron having the edge in contrast. The two are close though and considering the Theron is actually about $20 less expensive currently it is certainly an alternative to the Sightron for those that prefer the look of the Theron/Kenko/Vixen. It does have a classier look in comparison to that of the Sightron.

I would certainly recommend it to someone looking for a solid performer in the 8x32 format under $300.

I should have the 8x42 configuration to play with by the end of the week. I am hoping it compares directly with the Tru GLo 8x42 that I had earlier this fall. I loooovvvveeeeddd the ergonomics of that bin. "Like a glove" would be a good description. The Tru Glo had a bit of a warmer (reddish) bias...similar to the Sightron....which I am guessing comes from the silver prism coating used in both bins. Since the Theron is dielectric coated I am expecting a more neutral color representation.

FrankD said:

No, to that second last question...in about 3 weeks when the future-Mrs. and I move into the new house and have to deal with the first mortgage bill then any fancy of owning an Alpha European or Japanese bin will disappear completely.



Seriously, I cannot say. I still love the 7x42 FL and actually have a bid on one on ebay right now from one of our other BF binocuholics. At that price I can justify buying my favorite binocular. More than that....I just cannot justify it with my current set of priorities and responsibilities. Maybe 20 years from now when I have retired and have a different set.

I have to admit though that I am starting to believe that my enjoyment in bins is more of finding that diamond in the rough rather than having the best optical performance out there. I just love trying new and/or different models. Out of the current Alphas I have not owned the Swaro EL or Nikon EDG. I haven't seen any killer deals on either of them in the last year so I cannot justify buying one personally.

At the moment I am content with what I have. You should be proud of me. I have rekindled my fondness for porros...and Nikon porros at that. The difference though, in my case, is that I have settled on the 7x35 Es because of their 5 mm exit pupil and superb depth of field. I just picked up two "new" used units from Ebay and Astromart in the last couple of weeks. They are the single-coated model but you might be surprised with how excellent the view is even with a slight yellow color bias. Same bright, sharp, 3D porro image.

So, like you, when someone sees me toting around a worn, tired looking porro prism from yesteryear and comments "Poor man...can't afford an Alpha 7x" then I will just smile and be content with what I am carrying.

Click to expand...

So Bill Atwood decided to sell his 7x42 FL and buy a 10x50 SV EL after all! I guess he must have come up with the $1,400 difference.

I almost bought a 7x35 E2 with FMC a few weeks back but the price was too high, and I was planning to buy a Nikon digital camera, which I did from Camera Land on Black Eye Friday. I also need a new flat screen monitor, which I'm still looking for used since I can get a larger size for less than half the price (they always burn out the day after the warranty expires, so no point in electronics warranties).

I like trying different bins too. I was thinking of moving to Mifflintown just so I could be close to the Lost Creek Shoe Shop and wouldn't have to buy bins to try them out. However, I'm not sure I can live without a phone and electricity!

I don't know about the 7x42 FL. Your review on Optics Talk turned me off due to the edge distortion.

"The Zeiss suffer from noticeable astigmatism around the outer edge of the image…I would say, conservatively, the outer 25%".

Granted the FOV is very wide but that's still a LOT of astigmatism, tons more than I have in my 8x30 EII with its wide 8.8* FOV.

I didn't like that much edge distortion in the ZR 7x36 ED2 either, but most of that could be refocused.

http://www.opticstalk.com/zen-ray-7x36-ed-zeiss-7x42-fl-and-nikon-7x35-e-co_topic18841.html

Good Luck! with the new Mrs. and the new house. May you live happily ever after with a low fixed rate mortgage!

Brock

Brock,

I didn't know that Nikon made a 7 x 35 EII. When was that? I knew they made a "E" model and I always wanted one but if they made an EII I'd rather have that model.

Bob

Bob, I would like a Nikon 7x35EII as well, if "are budget" could handle it.

Me thinks that Brock was getting his binocular model abbreviations mixed up (thinking ZR 7x36 E2 somehow got crossed with a Nikon 7x35 E). Nikon didn't make a 7x35 EII. If they did it probably would have a wider field of view, arguably the only major downfall of the 7x35 E. Interestingly enough I have learned to "live with" the field of view of the 7x35 E and its Kellner eyepiece. I do remember that Henry posted the actual field of view was just a couple tenths of a degree wider than what was listed from Nikon. Maybe 7.5 degrees instead of 7.3? That gives it an apparent field of view of close to 52-53 degrees. Not as wide as the 60 degrees that I tend to prefer but I think the large sweet spot and excellent depth of field tend to make up for it.

I do see that an FMC 7x35 E just turned up on Ebay. I don't need a fourth one though.

Brock...maybe you should wait for the Zeiss 7x42 FL-vision. It seems that they may certainly be updating something in January and then again in March.

Well, I’ve now had the Theron LT in 8x42 for long enough to warrant a post. It seems like just like you would expect, a bigger version of the 8x32. While a full size 42 mm binocular, it is reasonably compact, being smaller than the ZED ED 2 7x36 and about the size of the Kruger Caldera.

The image of this is also just like the 8x32. It is slightly on the warm side of neutral in regard to color bias. Contrast is pretty good as well as apparent brightness and like the 8x32. It has a nice, easy on the eye view. The major difference is that the 8x42 handles stray light a LOT better than the 8x32. Stray light, veiling glare, ghosting etc are pretty much non issues. As was the case with the 8x32, CA is pretty much a non issue for me, despite the lack of ED glass. Like the 8x32, t is a lot of binocular for them money.

Like the 8x32 the fov with the 8x42 measures wider than specifications state. The binocular is listed as having a 387” fov. It measures 404’.

This is as comfortable in the hands binocular as is available, it fits my fairly large hands like a glove.

I found out Frank D is next in line for these. I sent my 8x32 along to Frank as well as the 8x42 and Frank is sending me some stuff of his, including his Sightron Blue Sky. So I will hold off for a bit until we can get or collective stuff together.

For now these both represent a lot of binocular for the money and are more that worthy of consideration.

wtf Steve, did you go rolling around in the mud with your Zens before the photo shoot?

run those babies under the faucet!

the 8x42 seems barely larger than the 8x32, I've definitely very interested. Can you share a few brief thoughts on the optics of the 8x42 vs. the Zen 7x36?

Steve
How would you compare the 8x42 Theron to your 8x42 Caldera that you seem to be fond of?

tom

Well, I tend to use my stuff, but I didn't realize how dirty they looked until I was resizing the pictures. In hindsight, the faucet would have been a good idea .

These are optically more like the ZRS rather than the ZEN series, while there is not a lot of difference without having them side by side, the Wapiti LT is not quite as sharp as the ZEN ED series or the Caldera. They are not as sharp or as bright as Therons own APO-ED either, but they have a wider fov. But the difference has to be noticed with a side by side, it is not real apparent without that.

The edge of these Theron LT is better than the ED 2 and more similar to the ED 3. The color bias of the Theron LT is a bit warmer than either the ED 2, or in particular the ED 3.

Comparing the 8x42 to the ZEN 7x36, what you see in the ZEN is a wider field, greater depth of field, more distortion on the edge and a little warmer color bias with the Theron. Contrast seems...well, it is different between the two, hard to say one is better than the other, but in final analysis I'd go for the ZEN. Boils down to individual preference for color bias and how significant a distraction the edge is to a particular viewer. I am not particularly susceptible to fringing nor CA, but if you are, then the ZEN is a little better in this regard. While I could get some fringing to show up with the Therons, while really looking for it, I have yet to find any with either the ZEN ED series or the Caldera. EDIT to add, the (for me very difficult to find) stray light problems of the ZEN ED are pretty well gone in the 8x42 LT, which is better here than the 8x32 LT.

I think the Caldera is really good for a combination of a neutral bias, really good (but not perfect) edges, very wide field plus a very wide sweet spot, excellent stray light control, pretty good compactness for a 42mm binocular, and very good, even excellent, apparent resolution/sharpness. It does however, have an ocular assembly that is nearly as wide as the one found on the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 820 series porros. The barrels on the Caldera,from an ergonomic standpoint, do have sort of a...I guess fat, maybe stubby feel. I wound up cutting off the factory standard winged eye cups and replaced them with the Field Optics Research winged eye guards. The FOR winged eye guards are also seen on the dirty 7x36 too. I'll post a better set of photos and a review of those later.

I will repeat myself here, but these Therons, for their less than $200 price point offer a whale of a deal right now. While they are not specifically as good as some more expensive stuff, you get a view that won't likely leave you thinking you need something better...unless you spend a lot of time here and other forums and have become quite particular about various facets of image presentation. What you can see with 8x, I think you will see with either of these and I don't think anyone will suffer much from finding themselves in the position of having one of these as the sole optic of use. They do a real good job of putting everything together in a very presentable image for not a lot of $$.

I was looking back at one of Steve C posts on the Kruger Caldera and on one of the photos of the Caldera and Razer there is an un-named 8x32 that looks a lot like the Wapiti LP. Any chance knowing what it is?
I must admit that I find this ubiqutous binocular design quite fascinating!

flossiepip said:

I was looking back at one of Steve C posts on the Kruger Caldera and on one of the photos of the Caldera and Razer there is an un-named 8x32 that looks a lot like the Wapiti LP. Any chance knowing what it is?
I must admit that I find this ubiqutous binocular design quite fascinating!

Click to expand...

That was the prototype for the Theron Wapiti LT 8x32.

just ordered a pair of the 8x42 Wapiti LT

$202 shipped is my kind of price for binoculars. I will compare these to my current 8x43 ED3's when they come in and report back. I really enjoy the ergonomics of the open bridge design but the ED3's are a bit too big and heavy for my tastes, so hoping the Wapiti LT's will bring near the same optical quality with smaller size and cheaper price!

eitanaltman said:

just ordered a pair of the 8x42 Wapiti LT

$202 shipped is my kind of price for binoculars. I will compare these to my current 8x43 ED3's when they come in and report back. I really enjoy the ergonomics of the open bridge design but the ED3's are a bit too big and heavy for my tastes, so hoping the Wapiti LT's will bring near the same optical quality with smaller size and cheaper price!

Click to expand...

Well, they are sure a lot lighter than the ZEN's. You don't need a scale either. I think they will probably work just fine unless you are one who sees CA fringing. As I said in the review, I had the devil's own time finding any, so they should work. Side by side the ZEN's have a bit of a sharpness and brightness advantage, but the Theron are really at the point where differences are really small.

Enjoy.

I do think it's a bit odd when I hear comments like yours about it being impossible to induce CA with bins like the Zen-Rays. I am not particularly bothered by CA, per se, but I haven't met a bin that wasn't easy to induce some purple/green fringing.

I find it exceptionally easy -- simply look at any standing white gull on a sunny day and move the bins from side-to-side. Every bin I have tried will show some slight purple or green fringing (depending on whether you move right or left) off the chest of the gull. I also find it easy to see with things like white street signs, edges of light colored buildings, etc. Any bright object on a sunny day.

My wife's Nikon Monarchs are particularly bad, showing severe CA fringing throughout the field, but even with the Zen-Ray ED3's and Vortex Viper HD's (which are the best I have seen in this respect) I could induce it very easily once I was 20-30% outside of the center axis. To their credit, both had absolutely zero CA in the center of the field and only minimal CA further out... but it was still easy to find it if I looked. I've also done the same tests with some nice bins in stores like Kowa Genesis, Leica Ultravid HD, Pentax DCF-ED (much better than the SP), etc. and all showed at least some fringing outside of the center of the field.

Like I said, not that bothered by it (unless it's severe) but it's always easy to find if I'm looking for it.

eitanaltman said:

I do think it's a bit odd when I hear comments like yours about it being impossible to induce CA with bins like the Zen-Rays. I am not particularly bothered by CA, per se, but I haven't met a bin that wasn't easy to induce some purple/green fringing.

I find it exceptionally easy -- simply look at any standing white gull on a sunny day and move the bins from side-to-side. Every bin I have tried will show some slight purple or green fringing (depending on whether you move right or left) off the chest of the gull. I also find it easy to see with things like white street signs, edges of light colored buildings, etc. Any bright object on a sunny day.

My wife's Nikon Monarchs are particularly bad, showing severe CA fringing throughout the field, but even with the Zen-Ray ED3's and Vortex Viper HD's (which are the best I have seen in this respect) I could induce it very easily once I was 20-30% outside of the center axis. To their credit, both had absolutely zero CA in the center of the field and only minimal CA further out... but it was still easy to find it if I looked. I've also done the same tests with some nice bins in stores like Kowa Genesis, Leica Ultravid HD, Pentax DCF-ED (much better than the SP), etc. and all showed at least some fringing outside of the center of the field.

Like I said, not that bothered by it (unless it's severe) but it's always easy to find if I'm looking for it.

Click to expand...

I, on the other hand find it pretty hard to fathom all of the CA complaints . I relaize all binoculars will show CA. Trust me the type of targets you suggest are the ones I try. I thank my lucky stars that I only see it in somewhat extreme circumstances. There is only a couple of binoculars I have seen it in without trying, one being the Pentax DCF SP.