OK, I got a chance last night to try out all the 8 UO Orthos against the 4 Ultras that I have.
Ultras were 5,10,15,25mm. Orthos were 4,5,6,7,9,12.5,18,25mm.
The Ultras were very nice with a larger FOV than the Orthos. The Orthos just beat out the Ultras on contrast and detail.
When working in the Trapezium the Ortho 4,5,6mm showed tighter stars than the 5mm Ultra. But we are talking a slight amount.
The 9,12.5mm Orthos were very close to the 10mm Ultra. Again a slight edge for the Orthos.
The 12.5,18mm Orthos were almost identical to the 15mm Ultra in contrast and brightness.
The 25mm Ortho and Ultra were so close it was a coin toss.
The thing that struck me was how well the Orthos worked on Saturn, I am sure I saw 8 of Saturns moons acording to my charts. The Cassini was sharpe and the banding was perfect in all but the 4,5mm. This was due to atmosphere and not the EPs.
The other thing that surprised me was that my wife was able to use the Orthos with here glasses on! The Ultras actually seems a little tighter on eyerelief. I was able to back away from the Orthos and keep my eye far away without loosing any FOV. This kept the EPs from fogging up which I really liked.
So, I would state that the UO Orthos are quite the bargain. They are equal or better than the Ultras which cost more and have more elements. But I like the Ultras very much and would recommend them to anyone that wants a little more FOV for their planetary EPs.
The range of power in this scope was 381x for the 4mm and 61x for the 25mm.
Buy them, you will like them. :^)
Floyd
Ultras were 5,10,15,25mm. Orthos were 4,5,6,7,9,12.5,18,25mm.
The Ultras were very nice with a larger FOV than the Orthos. The Orthos just beat out the Ultras on contrast and detail.
When working in the Trapezium the Ortho 4,5,6mm showed tighter stars than the 5mm Ultra. But we are talking a slight amount.
The 9,12.5mm Orthos were very close to the 10mm Ultra. Again a slight edge for the Orthos.
The 12.5,18mm Orthos were almost identical to the 15mm Ultra in contrast and brightness.
The 25mm Ortho and Ultra were so close it was a coin toss.
The thing that struck me was how well the Orthos worked on Saturn, I am sure I saw 8 of Saturns moons acording to my charts. The Cassini was sharpe and the banding was perfect in all but the 4,5mm. This was due to atmosphere and not the EPs.
The other thing that surprised me was that my wife was able to use the Orthos with here glasses on! The Ultras actually seems a little tighter on eyerelief. I was able to back away from the Orthos and keep my eye far away without loosing any FOV. This kept the EPs from fogging up which I really liked.
So, I would state that the UO Orthos are quite the bargain. They are equal or better than the Ultras which cost more and have more elements. But I like the Ultras very much and would recommend them to anyone that wants a little more FOV for their planetary EPs.
The range of power in this scope was 381x for the 4mm and 61x for the 25mm.
Buy them, you will like them. :^)
Floyd
[SIZE="Large"][/SIZE][COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR] Floyd Blue
Amateur Imager
