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

Clone,rebadged, whatever you would like to call it they work for me. Excellent optics overall. Huge sweet spot, great color, good CA control. I haven't found anything not to like in this premium full sized binocular. Can't wait to compare it to the big boys.

Speaking of comparing, after all these years we need to get together at some point. Are you free on September 19th? The Lehigh Gap Nature Center is holding their migration fest and the PSO is running a field trip to the Bake Oven Knob hawk watch. I hear there are going to be plenty of optics on hand and I would certainly love for you to try some of my favorite bins and scopes. Should only be a 2.5 hour drive for you. You could pick up Bob, Mark and Steve on the way down.

http://lgnc.org/archives/4485

http://www.pabirds.org/Events/PSOFieldTrips.php

FrankD said:

Clone,rebadged, whatever you would like to call it they work for me. Excellent optics overall. Huge sweet spot, great color, good CA control. I haven't found anything not to like in this premium full sized binocular. Can't wait to compare it to the big boys.

Speaking of comparing, after all these years we need to get together at some point. Are you free on September 19th? The Lehigh Gap Nature Center is holding their migration fest and the PSO is running a field trip to the Bake Oven Knob hawk watch. I hear there are going to be plenty of optics on hand and I would certainly love for you to try some of my favorite bins and scopes. Should only be a 2.5 hour drive for you. You could pick up Bob, Mark and Steve on the way down.

http://lgnc.org/archives/4485

http://www.pabirds.org/Events/PSOFieldTrips.php

Click to expand...

Frank,

I don't care re who is the OEM factory, where are they made or whatever, provided the bins perform well both optically and mechanically. I have tried the Bosma version against Prime HD & Hawke Panaroma. To my eyes, none is better than the others. Looking forward for your professional review.

One good thing Bosma version is providing 2 types of eyecup for buyer to choose. Glasses or non glasses wearer. Similar to what Conquest HD had done.

Andy

Andy,

Thank you for the info. I had no idea about the eyecup choices. Possibly the older style and newer ones (ie...original Prime versus Theron). I am curious though. Do you think Bosma was producing all of them all along?

FrankD said:

Andy,

Thank you for the info. I had no idea about the eyecup choices. Possibly the older style and newer ones (ie...original Prime versus Theron). I am curious though. Do you think Bosma was producing all of them all along?

Click to expand...

Frank,

As you might also know that Bosma is more an optical company than a manufacturer. Actually they do not have any production facility. Being the biggest in optics business, they have cooperation with many factories.

I guess their R & D is from time to time working with the manufacturers to have something new show to the overseas buyers. And, a small volume goes to domestic market.

Andy

Thanks Frank for posting about this new Theron. I noticed from your photos Theron went with the diopter adjustment on the right barrel rather than combined with the center focus as was on the second gen Leupold. That makes me think the Leupold diopter "upgrade" was more trouble than it was worth.

BruceH said:

Thanks Frank for posting about this new Theron. I noticed from your photos Theron went with the diopter adjustment on the right barrel rather than combined with the center focus as was on the second gen Leupold. That makes me think the Leupold diopter "upgrade" was more trouble than it was worth.

Click to expand...

That is actually one of the reasons Leupold discontinued the McKinley. Seeing as how Zen Ray is doing OEM binoculars for other places besides ZR, I would not crown this as a Bosma just yet.

Andy,

Thank you again for your comments. I look forward to writing the full review.

Bruce,

Ditto on Steve's comments. Heard that might have been the original setback with the Panorama as well.

Frank,

A difference you didn't mention is that it appears from your photos the Theron version of the McKinley BX-1/Prime ED binoculars has a slimmer body than Mount McKinley, maybe a bit slimmer than the Prime, too, which was one of the criticisms some people had about the McKinley, namely, it was too bulky, though that wasn't an issue for you in your review. Nor was the armor, which you described as follows:

Furthermore, the texture of the rubber armoring is very comfortable to hold. It has a small amount of texture added to it which, though comfortable, still allows you to obtain a very secure grib. I would have a difficult time believing that this binoculars would slip out of your hand even under wet conditions.

Hope the smooth armor also provides a very secure "grib."

Your "nitpick" was with the eyecups, which are now improved to your satisfaction. Sounds like you've found the perfect mate for your 8x32 Maven.

It would appear that the Theron Quesadilla is more of a "brother from another mother," but "The New Clone in Town" made a better song parody. :smoke:

Frank's review of the Leupold-bx-4-mckinley-hd-10x42-binocular

Brock

I have not had a problem with the "grib" Brock...but then again I haven't taken them out in the rain...yet. It has been pretty dry in our neck of the woods.

It is true that I didn't have an issue with the McKinley's armor but I do like the feel of the Questa more. It has a feel similar to that of the original Swarovski 8x32 EL. If I remember correctly I think you can relate.

Since the raised ribbing/texture areas of the McKinley are missing the Questa does have a more streamlined feel to it.

...and, though I am sure it was intentional, my review of the McKinley was of the 8x42. I don't typically like 10x binoculars unless they cost more than my car is worth.

FrankD said:

I have not had a problem with the "grib" Brock...but then again I haven't taken them out in the rain...yet. It has been pretty dry in our neck of the woods.

It is true that I didn't have an issue with the McKinley's armor but I do like the feel of the Questa more. It has a feel similar to that of the original Swarovski 8x32 EL. If I remember correctly I think you can relate.

Since the raised ribbing/texture areas of the McKinley are missing the Questa does have a more streamlined feel to it.

...and, though I am sure it was intentional, my review of the McKinley was of the 8x42. I don't typically like 10x binoculars unless they cost more than my car is worth.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought monsoon season would never end, but my front lawn is turning brown (good, less mowing for me). You won't have to wait long to test the wet grib on the Questar, because a storm system is heading your way. Classes start next week, and it's a Penn State tradition for it to rain the first week to get Freshman used to the weather.

I do like the original 8x32 EL, particularly the latter day 2009 model. It was the first roof whose overall package impressed me. However, I'm so spoiled by ED glass now even in entry-level roofs that I'm not sure I'd still feel the same way about it optically. Ergonomically, it's the still the best.

So it was the 8x42 model you tested, but EO intentionally changed that to 10x42? "I am sure it was intentional" or was that a typo?

Brock

Brock,

I didn't follow your link until now. I thought it was a link to my original review here in Birdforum. If you read the second or third paragraph in the review you will see that I specifically mention the 8x42 and its 420 foot field of view.

I thought you "intentionally" mistyped 10x42 instead of 8x42 as a jab at my typos.

Questa La Vista, baby?

Lettering on objective rings

Good question Brock. The lettering is on a beveled edge facing slightly outwards at an angle.

FrankD said:

Good question Brock. The lettering is on a beveled edge facing slightly outwards at an angle.

Click to expand...

I have a lot of vintage porros with that lettering style. There is no problem.

FrankD said:

Good question Brock. The lettering is on a beveled edge facing slightly outwards at an angle.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was that "slightly outwards angle" in your photo that caused me to ask after I saw that the angle on the Bushnell Custom's objective ring was steeper.

"The angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection." You will notice whether or not there is an "incidence" of light reflecting into the bin by the level of flare/glare and/or light dancing around the exit pupils when conditions are ripe (low hanging sun in the early morning or late afternoon). Hopefully not.

I'm probably in the minority, but I think the lettering on the Theron, Bushnell and Kowa looks cool. Very retro.

Brock

I used to do the CBC in Questa,NM,..these would have been the perfect binos for it...

Official - initial review.......

I have been meaning to sit down and type up a review of the new Theron Questa 8x42 for a few days but just haven’t had the time until now. The Questa is a new model which has just been added to the Theron lineup and is available in both the 8x42 and 10x42 configurations. For those not familiar with Theron Optics they are a house brand for a company known at Predator Optics. Predator Optics sells a wide variety of sport optic and outdoor gear. The Theron Optics division has been in existence for the last 7 or 8 years and has been known for providing very good optical optical performance for the price (value). Prior to the introduction of the Questa their highest performing model was the Wapiti ED-APO. The Wapiti ED-APO, introduced several years ago, has many of the high end features such as dielectric prism coating and ED glass lenses. The Questa has the same features but takes performance to another level by introducing field flatteners in the eyepiece design.

Looking at the entire binocular market a potential buyer will find very few consumer-grade binoculars that utilize field flatteners. For many years only one or two companies, such as Nikon, utilized field flatteners in any of their binoculars. That small group got a little bigger several years ago when Swarovski introduced their Swarovision models. Since then one or two other models utilizing field flatteners have been introduced, the latest being the Theron Questa.

So, what makes the use of a field flattener so important? Well, what it does allow for is to have more of the field of view in focus. We often hear the phrase “edge to edge” sharpness. Field flattened binoculars often come the closest to being able to produce this level of performance. This then begs the question as to why more companies aren’t using them in their designs. As with any optical design there are drawbacks. The most often mentioned in this case is AMD (Angular Magnification Distortion) or “rolling ball” as it has been affectionately called as of late. AMD refers to a phenomenon where the image appears to roll as if across the surface of a ball when panning with the binocular. To counteract this to some extent manufacturers introduced some percentage of pincushion distortion. Such is the case with the Theron Questa. As someone that can notice AMD but is not bothered by it unless it is excessive I can happily report that the Questa displays very little of it.

So before we go into my impressions of optical performance, ergonomics, etc… let’s look at the basic features/specifications of the binocular.

8x42 model


- 22.6 mm of eye relief

- 425 foot (8.1 degree) field of view

- 822 grams (28.9 ounces)

- 6.2 inches tall

- Dielectric/phase coated, prisms

- Broadband Fully multicoated lenses

- ED glass objective design

- Nitrogren filled / waterproof

- 4 foot close focus

- 1.25 rotations from close focus to infinity counterclockwise (with an additional .25 rotation past infinity)

10x42

- Same overall specs and features as the 8x but with a 336 foot (6.4 degree) field of view, 18.5 mm of eye relief and an 812 gram (28.6 ounce) weight

Optical Performance:

As mentioned above the most prominent advertising feature with this model is the edge to edge sharpness. Does it really deliver edge to edge sharpness? Yes and no. As I have mentioned when describing various field flattener models in the past the image is sharp across more of the field of view than non-field flattened models. Is it edge to edge? Yes, in a sense it is however there is a small zone where the image loses a very small amount of sharpness. I would estimate the inner 3/4ths of the field of view is sharp and then there is about 10% of the field of view is slightly less sharp followed by the remaining 15% of outer edge of the image being as sharp as the central 75%. As has been discussed previously this “ring” is possibly where the AMD and pincushion distortion overlap within the image.
Apparent sharpness inside the sweetspot and at the edge is excellent. I have no difficulty pulling out the finest detail both at close focus and out on distant targets. CA control is excellent in the central 75% with a gradual worsening outwards. I would call it moderate at the very outer edge.
Apparent contrast is very good but a slightly warm to neutral color bias does influence this area to some extent. Apparent brightness is excellent and in comparison to just about every other binocular I have on hand it is notably brighter in challenging conditions.

When you combine all of these attributes then the resulting experience is truly extraordinary. The field of view is wide, so much of the image is in focus with the center, colors are accurately represented, CA is well controlled and the image is bright. I would use the term “panoramic” to describe the experience. Only a few of the binoculars I have owned in the past gave me a similar experience. The Meopta Meostar and Nikon Premier LX/HG/Venturer are the two that immediately come to mind because of the field flattener elements with the understanding that the Questas is a bit better because of the effective use of ED glass and the notably wider field of view. Definitely an “immersive” experience.


Ergonomics:

The largest objections to previous versions of this design was that the large oculars forced the eyecup diameter to be larger than average. This in turn forced consumers to use wider IPD settings to compensate to some extent. This created a less than ideal viewing comfort level for many individuals.

That issue has now been resolved with the Questa design. The eyecups are notably narrower at both the base and end which allows for narrower IPD settings and a much more appreciable comfort level. The eyecups have one intermediate setting between fully collapsed and fully extended and have a solid feel to their design.

The rubber armoring is smooth in texture and very pleasing to the touch. Unlike one of the previous versions of this design this model has narrower overall feel as a result. The texture of the rubber in combination with the thumb indents provides a similar feeling to that of the original Swarovski EL 8x32.

Both the focusing speed and tension of the Questa are close to ideal. As mentioned in the specs above it takes 1.25 revolutions to go from a close focus of about 4 feet all the way out to infinity. I tend to find binoculars with 1.25-1.5 revolutions to be ideal as they provide a nice compromise between too fast and too slow so long as the focusing tension is sufficient enough not overshoot “perfect focus” on any given object. This is the case with this model.

I have not noted any fit and finish issues with this model. Every component performs as intended (eyecups, central hinge, diopter, focuser, etc…). The diopter adjustment is located in the classic position around the right eyepiece. It does not lock but does have enough resistance to keep it locked in place.

Accessories include carrying case, neckstrap, objective covers and rainguard. The Questas carry a one year no-fault warranty and a lifetime manufacturer defect warranty. They have a listed retail price of $499 but are currently on an introductory sale price of $425.

Nitpicks?

Not really as my concerns with the previous versions have all been addressed. Some individuals might find the listed 28.9 ounce weight objectionable It is an ounce or so heavier than the premium models offered…

Swarovski SV 8.5 x43 – 28 ounces
Zeiss SF 8x42 – 27.5 ounces
Leica Ultravid Plus 8x42 – 27.9 ounces
Nikon EDG 8x42 – 27.7 ounces

Compared to some other popular mid-high priced models….

Leica Trinovid 8x42 – 28.6 ounces
Meopta Meostar HD 10x42 – 27 ounces
Zeiss Conquest HD – 28 ounces

I often find it interesting to compare specs on paper with various models. Keeping that in mind the Questa compares very favorably with models costing 4-5 times the price. Obviously, as fun as that might be, the real test is in actual use. I would encourage anyone to compare the Questa with any of the models listed above and report your experiences. There might not be as big of a gap as the price would dictate.

In summary, I find the Questa to be a bit of a game-changer for a variety of reasons. Yes, there were two models based on the same design from other companies but the eyecup size made “ease of use” much more difficult for me at least. This binocular has all of their benefits and none of their concerns. Optically this binocular has everything going for it…wide field of view, very good CA control, a huge sweet spot, excellent brightness and color and, ergonomically, I find it a pleasure to use.

The real question, as with many optics coming out of China, is whether or not the quality control is going to be good from unit to unit. With a sample of one in my possession I cannot comment on that issue but would be interested in others’ comments once more of these are purchased.

Two big thumbs up from me on this binocular!

mayoayo said:

I used to do the CBC in Questa,NM,..these would have been the perfect binos for it...

Click to expand...

Actually, that is one of the two reasons that this binocular is named what it is.

These look very similar to the Viking Flat Field bins which I happen to know also focus counter clockwise to infinity.

I saw a prototype of the Vikings a year back or so and was impressed with the sharpness/brightness on a very quick view which was all I was allowed at the time.

I would guess they both come from the same factory.

Details here: http://www.vikingoptical.co.uk/ed-ff-binoculars/

Dipped,

Yes, I would agree. The specs are, for the most part, identical or at least similar enough that the differences are inconsequential. Different armoring of course but probably the same optical arrangement. I found it in stock at Greenwich. Listed price converts to $614 U.S.