Steve C
Well-known member
Sometimes you have to go looking for optics review opportunities, and sometimes the opportunity drops in your lap. This is the latter sort. A couple of weeks ago I had a PM in my inbox at one of the forums I frequent It was from Pat, owner of Predator Optics, inquiring if I would be interested in reviewing some of his stuff. Truth be told, he did not have to twist my arm real hard. We asked each other some questions, related some stances and opinions to each other and as a result of that conversation I received a package from the little brown truck that had a Theron MAG 82 spotting scope, one Wapiti 8x42 HQ binocular (his lower price alternative) and a Wapiti 8x42 APO-ED (his top end glass).
So, enter the Theron brand. It is pretty apparent that they are setting their sights on a good price to high quality ratio. The Wapiti APO-ED is a serious binocular. So this immediately will beg the question…how does it compare to the ZEN ED? It is a fair question too. This is where the difficulty in writing this arises. The ZEN ED 2 is no less serious…so which one?
After some straining of my optical nerves, I finally concluded that they were more different in what matters than alike. By different, I mean different, not better or worse. So how are they different? The Theron APO-ED, like the ZEN ED, is a clear upgrade over the original Vortex Viper and certainly the Nikon Monarch.
Ergonomics:
There is a difference in the way these glasses handle. The ZEN is the open bridge style and the Theron is the more traditional piano hinge. The Theron is long for a piano hinge, but still shorter than the ZEN. It is about the same weight as the ZEN ED, but feels heavier. There is the perception that the open bridge style is less sturdy than the piano hinge, so that will have a bearing on choice. Having seen a few open hinge binoculars without their armor, I was surprised at how much area there is on that hinge attachment surface in relation to the area of the ocular it is part of. Several times more surface contact than with the piano style, you just can’t see it because the armor covers most of it up. However, having said that, I think the construction goes to the Theron.
Image:
Here is where differences will be most apparent. When an optics company settles on a set of specifications, they have had to walk a fine line. The line Zen Ray evidently chose with the ZEN ED series was to go with the widest fov they could do. In their perception, that was what they saw as the greater demand. So while they do have an industry best fov in both the 30mm+ and 40+mm class, there is of necessity a couple of weaknesses that come with the choice. The ZEN ED has a little pincushion at the edge, and there is also a little field curvature. The single easiest way to identify a ZEN ED image against an alpha is the softer edge, the double ring, pincushion and distortion, as almost all binoculars do not have a completely sharp edge. Since most people pay more attention to centerfield view, this is usually not a problem. However, some people are hyper sensitive to edge defects. When that is where you are, it is a big deal and those folks are really vocal about it. So, you can’t please everybody.
Theron seems to have decided on a different approach. They went to a flat image and sharp edge performance as their performance standard. So, this is a bright, flat, and sharp to the edge glass. They have a 7* 367’ @ 1000 yard fov. The Wapiti APO-ED additionally uses HD low dispersion glass in the ocular as a field flattener. There is distortion at the edge, there always is in binoculars. But there is a lot less here than almost anything else I can think of. In going that route, they gave up some fov. Sure as little green apples somebody will chastise Theron for too little fov. Again, you can’t have everything. However, the Theron image will be far more difficult to separate from the alpha because they have at least as much image flatness and edge sharpness at the alpha. I don’t think the slight decrease in fov is enough to immediately separate the Theron from others.
Another difference is in the apparent brightness of the image. It is natural for some people to automatically connect “apparently” brighter with “better”. The resolution specifications on these are probably not worth mentioning as we have just about reached the point where any manufacturer can put more resolution into an optic than the eye is capable of discerning. So what it looks to me like, what Zen Ray did was select a nearly neutral color bias, with a slightly warmer tint. Theron evidently went with a brighter, whitish to bluish color bias and the image appears brighter than the ZEN ED. Some will prefer the ZEN image, some the Theron image. In practice, I wound up using the Theron a lot with my sunglasses in place, as on a bright sunny day in the snow, it was almost too bright for the eyes to handle. The dielectric coatings are likely different enough to maybe affect this too. The APO-ED was initially silver prism coating, just recently going dielectric. My initial impression was that I had a silver sample and I thought that this is sure a bright view for a silver prism. Both of these are dielectric.
Field of view is another pretty personal thing. Standard 8x in today’s market runs from about 330’ to 426’ @ 1,000 yards. I prefer more presence in my personal fov than 330’, although I can use that much (or that little) well enough. Likewise I don’t require as much presence as shown by the ZEN ED at 426’. I am happy enough from the 7.0* (367’) of the Theron to the 7.5* (393’) of the ZRS.
There has been some complaint against the ZEN ED in regard to the way they handle stray light. Under certain conditions, some people are bothered by light flashing in a veiled crescent at the edges of the fov. I for one am not bothered by it and can only see it if I work hard at inducing it. Having said that, it is harder to induce with the Theron and there is not as much glare evident.
There is essentially no color fringing in either one. I would also venture the opinion the Theron is a bit better in twilight.
Focusing.
These are clockwise to infinity. The APO-ED is two turns total wheel travel. There is about a half turn after infinity. There is a half turn from 30 meters to infinity. That leaves about a turn from 30 meters to close focusing, which is about 6 feet on both. Barrel separation in close focus starts about 12-15 feet.
The HQ is a little faster. It has a 1.75 turn total travel. Like the other, this has about one half turn left at infinity focus for me. There is about a half turn from 30 meters to infinity, the balance from there to close focus. The focus is pretty stiff, but bear in mind it has been cold here. It has not been above freezing for a high temperature since before Christmas. The focus loosens up when warmed up, but I never am too concerned how the work inside. While stiff, they were not as stiff as I thought they might have had reason to be. There seems little to no slop and movement is precise. They are going to be viewed as too slow for some.
This product will likely soon show up under the Avian brand, so there may be some sort of changes, but as far as I know the glass will be the same.
The Theron Wapiti HQ is their less expensive glass. It is very much worth the price, but it is a notch below the APO-ED. The 8x42 I have is a dielectric coated model. There is no ED glass in the objective, one reason the cost is less. It does use HD glass elements in the ocular as a field flattener, and it, like the APO-ED is a quite edge sharp glass. As it stands, I prefer it to the Monarch and it is a lot like the original Viper. It and the ZRS are the two best sub $250 binoculars I have ever looked through.
This has been a hard sort of review for me to get a handle on as to just how to approach writing. . On any optics forum, and we have all seen this, a common question is posed. Something like “…OK…I need a good binocular and I can’t spend a lot of money, so what do I get?”
For a long time the high end was just that…miles above the other stuff. Then Pentax figured out in about 1996 how to get decent phase correction into a roof prism glass. Pretty soon anybody selling mid priced glass was phase correcting the prisms. Ever since Pentax started phase correction, the gap between the alpha and the mid price has been halved every five years or so. Now we have dielectric coatings, we have HD glass in oculars, we have ED glass in objectives and nowadays that gap is real narrow. The alpha class has expanded and is no longer just the “big 3”. Nikon and Kowa now reside there, as well as the Steiner Peregrine XP.
I have posted a lot about the ZEN ED and ED 2. Truth be told I was full enough of the alpha kool aid when I started that I was prepared to have to accept the same sorts of differences I had always seen ever since I wished I could afford a Leica Trinovid, or even the Leitz version . I now am of the opinion that the alpha class glass is indeed a better binocular. I am not arguing that point. My stance is that for the difference (now $2,000 and upwards) that you get for what you can spend up there in the optics stratosphere, just does not come anywhere close to being worth what you have to pay for it. Other opinion will certainly differ, and that’s fine by me. I will not unsay a word I have posted about the Zen Ray stuff. Over the last few years I have gone out of my way to get my hands on as much stuff as I could find to do side by sides with. My opinion remains unchanged. Just keep in mind I would indeed have bitten the bullet on an alpha IF I could convince myself they were really worth it. In fact I passed a deal on my alpha favorite, the Steiner Peregrine XP, for no other reason than the simple fact there just was not enough separation that the scrooge in me could see clear to part with the cash, and I had it to spend then too.
So the devil made me do this OK! A local store has a Swarovski HD SLC, the very new one. When I looked at it a few weeks ago, I was pretty impressed. It has a lot brighter image and better edge performance than I thought the older SLC Neu did. So I just had to stop by and put the Theron side by side for a few minutes. Aside from the Swarovski having a bigger fov, which is really not enough to stand out enough to be obvious, the images are a lot alike…a LOT. Not equal, just a lot alike. Enough alike that I’d have to see for myself that people (at least those outside the optics nuthouse) could reliably separate the two binoculars. It will be harder than with the ZEN ED, because as I have said, there are no real edge differences to benchmark the decision with.
While I do not need one, I will own a Wapiti APO-ED 8x42 at some point. That ever present question of “…Ok which one?” now has two definite answers. About the only thing you will really see as a difference in these and the alphas is a more positive bank balance. Even in the sub $1,000 class you can spend more money for no improvement.
Below: ZEN ED 10x43, Wapiti APO-ED 8x42, ZEN ED 7x36, Wapiti HQ 8x42, Nikon Monarch 8x42, Zen Ray ZRS 8x42.
So, enter the Theron brand. It is pretty apparent that they are setting their sights on a good price to high quality ratio. The Wapiti APO-ED is a serious binocular. So this immediately will beg the question…how does it compare to the ZEN ED? It is a fair question too. This is where the difficulty in writing this arises. The ZEN ED 2 is no less serious…so which one?
After some straining of my optical nerves, I finally concluded that they were more different in what matters than alike. By different, I mean different, not better or worse. So how are they different? The Theron APO-ED, like the ZEN ED, is a clear upgrade over the original Vortex Viper and certainly the Nikon Monarch.
Ergonomics:
There is a difference in the way these glasses handle. The ZEN is the open bridge style and the Theron is the more traditional piano hinge. The Theron is long for a piano hinge, but still shorter than the ZEN. It is about the same weight as the ZEN ED, but feels heavier. There is the perception that the open bridge style is less sturdy than the piano hinge, so that will have a bearing on choice. Having seen a few open hinge binoculars without their armor, I was surprised at how much area there is on that hinge attachment surface in relation to the area of the ocular it is part of. Several times more surface contact than with the piano style, you just can’t see it because the armor covers most of it up. However, having said that, I think the construction goes to the Theron.
Image:
Here is where differences will be most apparent. When an optics company settles on a set of specifications, they have had to walk a fine line. The line Zen Ray evidently chose with the ZEN ED series was to go with the widest fov they could do. In their perception, that was what they saw as the greater demand. So while they do have an industry best fov in both the 30mm+ and 40+mm class, there is of necessity a couple of weaknesses that come with the choice. The ZEN ED has a little pincushion at the edge, and there is also a little field curvature. The single easiest way to identify a ZEN ED image against an alpha is the softer edge, the double ring, pincushion and distortion, as almost all binoculars do not have a completely sharp edge. Since most people pay more attention to centerfield view, this is usually not a problem. However, some people are hyper sensitive to edge defects. When that is where you are, it is a big deal and those folks are really vocal about it. So, you can’t please everybody.
Theron seems to have decided on a different approach. They went to a flat image and sharp edge performance as their performance standard. So, this is a bright, flat, and sharp to the edge glass. They have a 7* 367’ @ 1000 yard fov. The Wapiti APO-ED additionally uses HD low dispersion glass in the ocular as a field flattener. There is distortion at the edge, there always is in binoculars. But there is a lot less here than almost anything else I can think of. In going that route, they gave up some fov. Sure as little green apples somebody will chastise Theron for too little fov. Again, you can’t have everything. However, the Theron image will be far more difficult to separate from the alpha because they have at least as much image flatness and edge sharpness at the alpha. I don’t think the slight decrease in fov is enough to immediately separate the Theron from others.
Another difference is in the apparent brightness of the image. It is natural for some people to automatically connect “apparently” brighter with “better”. The resolution specifications on these are probably not worth mentioning as we have just about reached the point where any manufacturer can put more resolution into an optic than the eye is capable of discerning. So what it looks to me like, what Zen Ray did was select a nearly neutral color bias, with a slightly warmer tint. Theron evidently went with a brighter, whitish to bluish color bias and the image appears brighter than the ZEN ED. Some will prefer the ZEN image, some the Theron image. In practice, I wound up using the Theron a lot with my sunglasses in place, as on a bright sunny day in the snow, it was almost too bright for the eyes to handle. The dielectric coatings are likely different enough to maybe affect this too. The APO-ED was initially silver prism coating, just recently going dielectric. My initial impression was that I had a silver sample and I thought that this is sure a bright view for a silver prism. Both of these are dielectric.
Field of view is another pretty personal thing. Standard 8x in today’s market runs from about 330’ to 426’ @ 1,000 yards. I prefer more presence in my personal fov than 330’, although I can use that much (or that little) well enough. Likewise I don’t require as much presence as shown by the ZEN ED at 426’. I am happy enough from the 7.0* (367’) of the Theron to the 7.5* (393’) of the ZRS.
There has been some complaint against the ZEN ED in regard to the way they handle stray light. Under certain conditions, some people are bothered by light flashing in a veiled crescent at the edges of the fov. I for one am not bothered by it and can only see it if I work hard at inducing it. Having said that, it is harder to induce with the Theron and there is not as much glare evident.
There is essentially no color fringing in either one. I would also venture the opinion the Theron is a bit better in twilight.
Focusing.
These are clockwise to infinity. The APO-ED is two turns total wheel travel. There is about a half turn after infinity. There is a half turn from 30 meters to infinity. That leaves about a turn from 30 meters to close focusing, which is about 6 feet on both. Barrel separation in close focus starts about 12-15 feet.
The HQ is a little faster. It has a 1.75 turn total travel. Like the other, this has about one half turn left at infinity focus for me. There is about a half turn from 30 meters to infinity, the balance from there to close focus. The focus is pretty stiff, but bear in mind it has been cold here. It has not been above freezing for a high temperature since before Christmas. The focus loosens up when warmed up, but I never am too concerned how the work inside. While stiff, they were not as stiff as I thought they might have had reason to be. There seems little to no slop and movement is precise. They are going to be viewed as too slow for some.
This product will likely soon show up under the Avian brand, so there may be some sort of changes, but as far as I know the glass will be the same.
The Theron Wapiti HQ is their less expensive glass. It is very much worth the price, but it is a notch below the APO-ED. The 8x42 I have is a dielectric coated model. There is no ED glass in the objective, one reason the cost is less. It does use HD glass elements in the ocular as a field flattener, and it, like the APO-ED is a quite edge sharp glass. As it stands, I prefer it to the Monarch and it is a lot like the original Viper. It and the ZRS are the two best sub $250 binoculars I have ever looked through.
This has been a hard sort of review for me to get a handle on as to just how to approach writing. . On any optics forum, and we have all seen this, a common question is posed. Something like “…OK…I need a good binocular and I can’t spend a lot of money, so what do I get?”
For a long time the high end was just that…miles above the other stuff. Then Pentax figured out in about 1996 how to get decent phase correction into a roof prism glass. Pretty soon anybody selling mid priced glass was phase correcting the prisms. Ever since Pentax started phase correction, the gap between the alpha and the mid price has been halved every five years or so. Now we have dielectric coatings, we have HD glass in oculars, we have ED glass in objectives and nowadays that gap is real narrow. The alpha class has expanded and is no longer just the “big 3”. Nikon and Kowa now reside there, as well as the Steiner Peregrine XP.
I have posted a lot about the ZEN ED and ED 2. Truth be told I was full enough of the alpha kool aid when I started that I was prepared to have to accept the same sorts of differences I had always seen ever since I wished I could afford a Leica Trinovid, or even the Leitz version . I now am of the opinion that the alpha class glass is indeed a better binocular. I am not arguing that point. My stance is that for the difference (now $2,000 and upwards) that you get for what you can spend up there in the optics stratosphere, just does not come anywhere close to being worth what you have to pay for it. Other opinion will certainly differ, and that’s fine by me. I will not unsay a word I have posted about the Zen Ray stuff. Over the last few years I have gone out of my way to get my hands on as much stuff as I could find to do side by sides with. My opinion remains unchanged. Just keep in mind I would indeed have bitten the bullet on an alpha IF I could convince myself they were really worth it. In fact I passed a deal on my alpha favorite, the Steiner Peregrine XP, for no other reason than the simple fact there just was not enough separation that the scrooge in me could see clear to part with the cash, and I had it to spend then too.
So the devil made me do this OK! A local store has a Swarovski HD SLC, the very new one. When I looked at it a few weeks ago, I was pretty impressed. It has a lot brighter image and better edge performance than I thought the older SLC Neu did. So I just had to stop by and put the Theron side by side for a few minutes. Aside from the Swarovski having a bigger fov, which is really not enough to stand out enough to be obvious, the images are a lot alike…a LOT. Not equal, just a lot alike. Enough alike that I’d have to see for myself that people (at least those outside the optics nuthouse) could reliably separate the two binoculars. It will be harder than with the ZEN ED, because as I have said, there are no real edge differences to benchmark the decision with.
While I do not need one, I will own a Wapiti APO-ED 8x42 at some point. That ever present question of “…Ok which one?” now has two definite answers. About the only thing you will really see as a difference in these and the alphas is a more positive bank balance. Even in the sub $1,000 class you can spend more money for no improvement.
Below: ZEN ED 10x43, Wapiti APO-ED 8x42, ZEN ED 7x36, Wapiti HQ 8x42, Nikon Monarch 8x42, Zen Ray ZRS 8x42.
Last edited:
