Bosma Qinglong is not “a new kid on the block”, but already well-known Sky Rover Banner Cloud APO (SRBC) modified externally. APM is going to sell these binoculars under their trademark in x42 format first, x50 will come next probably. Qinglong is available at AliExpress, it costs a little less than SRBC (-$90) and shipped with more accessories.
I will review the Qinglong 10x50 briefly, compare it with the SRBC 10x50 and 8x42, and share my opinion about these designs (Is it really that good?), since I have had some experience with different models. You may have a look at my previous review of the Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO.
Bosma Qinglong is shipped in the box which is similar to Swarovski ones: it contains an inner white box with parameters and an outside green box with the logo. Supplied accessories are stored in three separate small boxes, the total weight is 2,2kg (4,85 lbs).
The binoculars are supplied with caps, a smartphone adapter for the eyepiece projection, a bag plus a strap.
No strap for a binoculars is available, it is replaced with a harness.
The supplied case is of normal quality, padded enough to protect the binoculars. The inner space is a little wider than binoculars size, it could be placed inside easily, while the SRBC 10x50 not. I like this bag more than the SRBC bag. The case dimensions are 211x175x93mm.
The objectives are asymmetric to the eyepieces as in the SRBC 10x50: there are 71mm between the centers of the binoculars barrels at IPD=65mm, though the binoculars utilize Schmidt-Pechan prisms. This provides a slight 3D (three-dimensionality) effect to the view, quite nice.
The green armor looks a little more pleasant (softer) and thicker than the same of SRBC, but I don't like surface relief on inner parts of barrels. The overall build quality is quite good, similar to MMC or SRBC, but simpler and not as good as in Nikon Monarch M5\M7.
The focuser knob seems to be made of plastic with some rubber inserts, 32mm in diameter and 28mm in height; it could be rotated by two fingers. The upper part of the focuser knob with the binoculars technical specs stands still, while the focuser travels. The focuser action is similar in different directions and light, lighter than in SRBC. A little similar to Conquest HD focuser action, but is not as smooth. There is no free play or slop, the focuser operates well at +4° Celsius outside.
It CCW to infinity, the full focuser travel is around 575 degrees. The close focus is 3,2m (10,5 ft), from it to 15m (16,5yd) distance is 325 degrees of focus travel, then 65 degrees towards 70m (76yd) and 10 degrees more to 300m (328yd) and infinity. And 175 degrees of focus travel after infinity left. When focused on infinity I can observe up to 50-60 meters ahead.
The IPD is 56-74mm, the barrel's movement inward and onward is stiff enough to hold the needed IPD.
The eye cups are made of aluminium and can be screwed off from eyepieces. They are exactly the same as in the SRBC 8x42 or 10x50 and interchangeable between them. The eye cups have the outer diameter (which touches the nose) of 48mm, middle diameter (which touches eyebrows) of 45,5mm and inner diameter of 35,5mm. The top surface is flat and made of rubber covering.
The eye cups have 5 steps out and can be left in intermediate positions. The out\in movement is with average stiffness. When the eye cups are collapsed I can see the whole field of view with my thin rim glasses and almost full field (~90%) with sunglasses on. I can see the whole field of view with sunglasses on with unscrewed eye cups only.
I measured the eye relief (for off-axis beams) from the eye lens at 15,5mm. Very impressive for that AFOV, but the eye lens is recessed for 4mm inside the eye cup. So the available eye relief from the rim of the eye cup can be: 11,5 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 3 - 0mm depending on the eye cup position.
The exit pupil is almost round and has 5,15mm of diameter. First row: 1 - there is the left barrel exit pupil, 2 - there is the right barrel exit pupil; second row: 4 - there is a straight light test by phone’s flashlight, 3 - shows edge vignetting.
The inner side of the barrels are blackened properly, there is no noticeable light haze around the exit pupils. The binoculars work quite well towards the Sun direction, with a little glare in the lower part of the field. The SRBC 10x50 has the same glare, but the SRBC 8x42 has less glare towards the Sun direction surprisingly. There is also the knife-edge baffle, used in the Qinglong 10x50 behind the objective, and lots of sun beams baffle threads inside barrels, but the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 is better blackened inside and has less glare.
The inner diameter of the Qinglong objective rings looks like 49,5mm, and I measured the effective aperture at 49,5mm as well. So the magnification could be 49,5/5,15=9,61x. The first lens of the objective is recessed for 10,5mm inside the barrel.
The objective design is a triplet (3 lenses in 2 groups): a cemented doublet + a single lens. The coatings are with reflections of green, yellow and violet colors and low intensity, similar to SRBC. All the reflections of light inside are colored, which confirms the good FMC is used. The light transmission could be around 90-91%, the view is very bright.
Here is a comparison of reflections from objective coatings of the Bosma Qinglong 10x50 (upper left), the SRBC 10x50 (center right) and the SRBC 8x42 (down).
Optical performance
The color reproduction of the Qinglong is very good, almost neutral, and has just a slight red\yellow hint. Similar color reproduction can be seen in the SRBC 10x50 or 8x42.
The apparent brightness of the image in the Qinglong is very good as well, slightly brighter than in the GPO Passion 10x56 or in the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 from old production during daytime usage. As I can see, the prisms used are of a normal size and the vignetting of the edges is not high, but some slight edges darkening could be noticed during daytime usage.
The prisms phase correction seems to be good. There are some small spikes of low intensity on bright street lights during night city observations (noticeably less than in Conquest HD), and no ghosting on the optics.
The colors are vivid enough, a little more saturated in the Qinglong than in the Nikon M7 8x42, and comparable to viewing through the Vixen SG 6.5x32. The contrast is good. The overall image quality (contrast and transparency) is good also, slightly better in the Qinglong 10x50\SRBC 10x50 than in the SRBC 8x42, and better than in the Nikon M7 8x42; on par with the Vixen SG 6.5x32 to my eyes.
The sharpness (crispness) on axis is good in the Qinglong, it is sharper (crisper) than the Nikon E 8x30 (multi) or the Nikon M7 8x42. But the GPO Passion 10x56 is a little sharper than the Qinglong 10x50, and the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 is more sharper, which can be noticed in handheld use.
The Chromatic Aberration (CA) correction is good, CA is low on axis and of a medium (or lower) level at the very edges. The colors of CA are classic ones: yellow and blue. You will slightly see CA on the axis over a bird’s silhouette in the bright sky at a far distance, or against tree branches towards the Sun direction.
CA is better corrected (and lower) in the Qinglong 10x50 than in the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 on axis, and much lower than in the GPO Passion 10x56.
The Qinglong has a flat field design (similar to Cronus\MMC\SRBC), let’s proceed to the distortion.
The tangent distortion is a pincushion (positive), of a low level: straight lines stay straight over the field of view. It is a little lower than in the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32.
The angular distortion is a barrel (negative) from the first look, of a middle level, but it has a more complex form, a mustache. Since the angular distortion is higher than the tangent, there is some small field curvature during panning and a small Rolling Balls effect. I feel it in the Qinglong 10x50\SRBC 10x50 less than in the SRBC 8x42 and much less than in the Meade MC 10x56.
The TVOF of the Qinglong 10x50 is measured at 7,5°or 131/1000m, and is comparable to Hinode D1 8x42! The AFOV is measured at 68,5°.
There is a field flattener, which is used in the ocular construction. So the field of view of the Qinglong 10x50 is corrected in a good way (similar to MMC 10x56 and a little better in it because of less AFOV): the edges correction in the Qinglong is better than in the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 and noticeably better in it than in the GPO Passion 10x56. During day or night terrestrial observations you will hardly notice any softness outward.
On precise testing or by stars I can see that the image degradation starts from the center and grows slowly towards the edges. The worst picture is at 70% of radius, then becomes better towards edges, where it is close as good as on the axis. It is needed just 5-10 degrees of the focuser travel to focus away the field curvature at the edge, where there is also a small trace of astigmatism.
Here is the photo of an artificial star at the edge of a field of view of the SRBC 10x50 (left) and the Meade MC 10x56 (right) for comparison.
Stargazing
During stargazing the field of the view is full of almost pin-point stars from edge to edge. It is a really beautiful and wide view, only bright stars are defocus a little and dim at the very edge.
Comparison with the SRBC 10x50 and 8x42
There is not much difference between them except cosmetics. Rubber armor of the Qinglong 10x50 is thicker and softer than in the SRBC 10x50. The Qinglong is a little longer (178cm vs 175cm) and heavier (1080g vs 1015g). The focuser knob of the SRBC 10x50 is made of aluminium, while it is made of plastic in the Qinglong 10x50. The focuser action of the SRBC 10x50 is a little stiffer than of the Qinglong 10x50, but not much. Both focusers become softer at +30°C and higher temperatures.
The SRBC 10x50 is bigger than the SRBC 8x42 and more comfortable to hold. And because of this I don’t see much difference in the image stability, it is just a little more wiggly in the 10x50. The SRBC 8x42 weighs 890 gr, while the SRBC 10x50 weighs 1015 gr - not a big deal, but both of them are not for wearing on the neck to my taste. They utilize the same size bag, so they occupy the same space in the backpack. I personally like the 10x50 version more, it seems to be a little more contrasty than the 8x42 version.
So, the last question left, is it worth the money?
Yes, indeed. I almost do not see any downsides of the Qinglong\SRBC 10x50, maybe except the price. If it costs $100 less it will be perfect.
There could be some quality control or warranty issues, but they could be fixed by a seller most probably. You’ll just need to send the binoculars back and may lose on shipping and taxes.
The fit and finish of the Qinglong is comparable to binoculars of the $350 price tag rather than to $500. The overall image quality is really good and is on par with the Vixen SG 6.5x32 to my eyes. The wide and well corrected field of view is awesome: it is as wide as in most 8x42 binoculars, there is a nice 3D effect due to small pincushion and barrels set wider than eyepieces. It is usable from edge to edge during stargazing and with great immerse - the Qinglong\SRBC 10x50 is for sure a very good astronomical binoculars.
Of course, the build quality and view can’t be compared to Alpha binoculars, the Qinglong 10x50 is even less contrasty and transparent than the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32, which is more pleasant in hands also. A $600 binoculars couldn’t have the quality of a $1000 (or more expensive) binoculars. On the other hand, I prefer the Bosma Qinglong 10x50 to the GPO Passion 10x56 or the MMC 10x56, as it is lighter, smaller, the view is brighter, wider and with much less CA.
I’m glad that such good binoculars appear on the market, and the price is not very high. I can’t afford the NL Pure 10x52, but would like to use a binoculars with close technical specifications and the Qinglong\SRBC 10x50 suits me well. I think Meade could order same binoculars, probably as the upgrade of the MMC series.
I will review the Qinglong 10x50 briefly, compare it with the SRBC 10x50 and 8x42, and share my opinion about these designs (Is it really that good?), since I have had some experience with different models. You may have a look at my previous review of the Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO.
Bosma Qinglong is shipped in the box which is similar to Swarovski ones: it contains an inner white box with parameters and an outside green box with the logo. Supplied accessories are stored in three separate small boxes, the total weight is 2,2kg (4,85 lbs).
The binoculars are supplied with caps, a smartphone adapter for the eyepiece projection, a bag plus a strap.
No strap for a binoculars is available, it is replaced with a harness.
The supplied case is of normal quality, padded enough to protect the binoculars. The inner space is a little wider than binoculars size, it could be placed inside easily, while the SRBC 10x50 not. I like this bag more than the SRBC bag. The case dimensions are 211x175x93mm.
The objectives are asymmetric to the eyepieces as in the SRBC 10x50: there are 71mm between the centers of the binoculars barrels at IPD=65mm, though the binoculars utilize Schmidt-Pechan prisms. This provides a slight 3D (three-dimensionality) effect to the view, quite nice.
The green armor looks a little more pleasant (softer) and thicker than the same of SRBC, but I don't like surface relief on inner parts of barrels. The overall build quality is quite good, similar to MMC or SRBC, but simpler and not as good as in Nikon Monarch M5\M7.
The focuser knob seems to be made of plastic with some rubber inserts, 32mm in diameter and 28mm in height; it could be rotated by two fingers. The upper part of the focuser knob with the binoculars technical specs stands still, while the focuser travels. The focuser action is similar in different directions and light, lighter than in SRBC. A little similar to Conquest HD focuser action, but is not as smooth. There is no free play or slop, the focuser operates well at +4° Celsius outside.
It CCW to infinity, the full focuser travel is around 575 degrees. The close focus is 3,2m (10,5 ft), from it to 15m (16,5yd) distance is 325 degrees of focus travel, then 65 degrees towards 70m (76yd) and 10 degrees more to 300m (328yd) and infinity. And 175 degrees of focus travel after infinity left. When focused on infinity I can observe up to 50-60 meters ahead.
The IPD is 56-74mm, the barrel's movement inward and onward is stiff enough to hold the needed IPD.
The eye cups are made of aluminium and can be screwed off from eyepieces. They are exactly the same as in the SRBC 8x42 or 10x50 and interchangeable between them. The eye cups have the outer diameter (which touches the nose) of 48mm, middle diameter (which touches eyebrows) of 45,5mm and inner diameter of 35,5mm. The top surface is flat and made of rubber covering.
The eye cups have 5 steps out and can be left in intermediate positions. The out\in movement is with average stiffness. When the eye cups are collapsed I can see the whole field of view with my thin rim glasses and almost full field (~90%) with sunglasses on. I can see the whole field of view with sunglasses on with unscrewed eye cups only.
I measured the eye relief (for off-axis beams) from the eye lens at 15,5mm. Very impressive for that AFOV, but the eye lens is recessed for 4mm inside the eye cup. So the available eye relief from the rim of the eye cup can be: 11,5 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 3 - 0mm depending on the eye cup position.
The exit pupil is almost round and has 5,15mm of diameter. First row: 1 - there is the left barrel exit pupil, 2 - there is the right barrel exit pupil; second row: 4 - there is a straight light test by phone’s flashlight, 3 - shows edge vignetting.
The inner side of the barrels are blackened properly, there is no noticeable light haze around the exit pupils. The binoculars work quite well towards the Sun direction, with a little glare in the lower part of the field. The SRBC 10x50 has the same glare, but the SRBC 8x42 has less glare towards the Sun direction surprisingly. There is also the knife-edge baffle, used in the Qinglong 10x50 behind the objective, and lots of sun beams baffle threads inside barrels, but the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 is better blackened inside and has less glare.
The inner diameter of the Qinglong objective rings looks like 49,5mm, and I measured the effective aperture at 49,5mm as well. So the magnification could be 49,5/5,15=9,61x. The first lens of the objective is recessed for 10,5mm inside the barrel.
The objective design is a triplet (3 lenses in 2 groups): a cemented doublet + a single lens. The coatings are with reflections of green, yellow and violet colors and low intensity, similar to SRBC. All the reflections of light inside are colored, which confirms the good FMC is used. The light transmission could be around 90-91%, the view is very bright.
Here is a comparison of reflections from objective coatings of the Bosma Qinglong 10x50 (upper left), the SRBC 10x50 (center right) and the SRBC 8x42 (down).
Optical performance
The color reproduction of the Qinglong is very good, almost neutral, and has just a slight red\yellow hint. Similar color reproduction can be seen in the SRBC 10x50 or 8x42.
The apparent brightness of the image in the Qinglong is very good as well, slightly brighter than in the GPO Passion 10x56 or in the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 from old production during daytime usage. As I can see, the prisms used are of a normal size and the vignetting of the edges is not high, but some slight edges darkening could be noticed during daytime usage.
The prisms phase correction seems to be good. There are some small spikes of low intensity on bright street lights during night city observations (noticeably less than in Conquest HD), and no ghosting on the optics.
The colors are vivid enough, a little more saturated in the Qinglong than in the Nikon M7 8x42, and comparable to viewing through the Vixen SG 6.5x32. The contrast is good. The overall image quality (contrast and transparency) is good also, slightly better in the Qinglong 10x50\SRBC 10x50 than in the SRBC 8x42, and better than in the Nikon M7 8x42; on par with the Vixen SG 6.5x32 to my eyes.
The sharpness (crispness) on axis is good in the Qinglong, it is sharper (crisper) than the Nikon E 8x30 (multi) or the Nikon M7 8x42. But the GPO Passion 10x56 is a little sharper than the Qinglong 10x50, and the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 is more sharper, which can be noticed in handheld use.
The Chromatic Aberration (CA) correction is good, CA is low on axis and of a medium (or lower) level at the very edges. The colors of CA are classic ones: yellow and blue. You will slightly see CA on the axis over a bird’s silhouette in the bright sky at a far distance, or against tree branches towards the Sun direction.
CA is better corrected (and lower) in the Qinglong 10x50 than in the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 on axis, and much lower than in the GPO Passion 10x56.
The Qinglong has a flat field design (similar to Cronus\MMC\SRBC), let’s proceed to the distortion.
The tangent distortion is a pincushion (positive), of a low level: straight lines stay straight over the field of view. It is a little lower than in the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32.
The angular distortion is a barrel (negative) from the first look, of a middle level, but it has a more complex form, a mustache. Since the angular distortion is higher than the tangent, there is some small field curvature during panning and a small Rolling Balls effect. I feel it in the Qinglong 10x50\SRBC 10x50 less than in the SRBC 8x42 and much less than in the Meade MC 10x56.
The TVOF of the Qinglong 10x50 is measured at 7,5°or 131/1000m, and is comparable to Hinode D1 8x42! The AFOV is measured at 68,5°.
There is a field flattener, which is used in the ocular construction. So the field of view of the Qinglong 10x50 is corrected in a good way (similar to MMC 10x56 and a little better in it because of less AFOV): the edges correction in the Qinglong is better than in the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32 and noticeably better in it than in the GPO Passion 10x56. During day or night terrestrial observations you will hardly notice any softness outward.
On precise testing or by stars I can see that the image degradation starts from the center and grows slowly towards the edges. The worst picture is at 70% of radius, then becomes better towards edges, where it is close as good as on the axis. It is needed just 5-10 degrees of the focuser travel to focus away the field curvature at the edge, where there is also a small trace of astigmatism.
Here is the photo of an artificial star at the edge of a field of view of the SRBC 10x50 (left) and the Meade MC 10x56 (right) for comparison.
Stargazing
During stargazing the field of the view is full of almost pin-point stars from edge to edge. It is a really beautiful and wide view, only bright stars are defocus a little and dim at the very edge.
Comparison with the SRBC 10x50 and 8x42
There is not much difference between them except cosmetics. Rubber armor of the Qinglong 10x50 is thicker and softer than in the SRBC 10x50. The Qinglong is a little longer (178cm vs 175cm) and heavier (1080g vs 1015g). The focuser knob of the SRBC 10x50 is made of aluminium, while it is made of plastic in the Qinglong 10x50. The focuser action of the SRBC 10x50 is a little stiffer than of the Qinglong 10x50, but not much. Both focusers become softer at +30°C and higher temperatures.
The SRBC 10x50 is bigger than the SRBC 8x42 and more comfortable to hold. And because of this I don’t see much difference in the image stability, it is just a little more wiggly in the 10x50. The SRBC 8x42 weighs 890 gr, while the SRBC 10x50 weighs 1015 gr - not a big deal, but both of them are not for wearing on the neck to my taste. They utilize the same size bag, so they occupy the same space in the backpack. I personally like the 10x50 version more, it seems to be a little more contrasty than the 8x42 version.
So, the last question left, is it worth the money?
Yes, indeed. I almost do not see any downsides of the Qinglong\SRBC 10x50, maybe except the price. If it costs $100 less it will be perfect.
There could be some quality control or warranty issues, but they could be fixed by a seller most probably. You’ll just need to send the binoculars back and may lose on shipping and taxes.
The fit and finish of the Qinglong is comparable to binoculars of the $350 price tag rather than to $500. The overall image quality is really good and is on par with the Vixen SG 6.5x32 to my eyes. The wide and well corrected field of view is awesome: it is as wide as in most 8x42 binoculars, there is a nice 3D effect due to small pincushion and barrels set wider than eyepieces. It is usable from edge to edge during stargazing and with great immerse - the Qinglong\SRBC 10x50 is for sure a very good astronomical binoculars.
Of course, the build quality and view can’t be compared to Alpha binoculars, the Qinglong 10x50 is even less contrasty and transparent than the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x32, which is more pleasant in hands also. A $600 binoculars couldn’t have the quality of a $1000 (or more expensive) binoculars. On the other hand, I prefer the Bosma Qinglong 10x50 to the GPO Passion 10x56 or the MMC 10x56, as it is lighter, smaller, the view is brighter, wider and with much less CA.
I’m glad that such good binoculars appear on the market, and the price is not very high. I can’t afford the NL Pure 10x52, but would like to use a binoculars with close technical specifications and the Qinglong\SRBC 10x50 suits me well. I think Meade could order same binoculars, probably as the upgrade of the MMC series.
Last edited:
