Posts Made By: Lorne Johnson

mike selz said:

I live in the suburbs...light pollution here is moderate but not bad. I was wondering...overall bang for the buck what's a better all around eyepiece for use a 12 or 16mm nagler? (or a UWA eyepiece in general). Use it with an 8" hardin dobsonian. I just have a cheap 17mm WA no name eyepiece now but i'd like a better one with better edge and field sharpness. I'd like it to be 1.25" as well so i can use a barlow on it when needed. Any input appreciated =)

This should produce considerable disagreement! I do use a 8" Dob (f 5.7) which should be similar to your Hardin. I own a 20 mm Type 5 and a 13 mm type 6. For objects up to the size of the double cluster I like the 13mm. I have used a 12mm Nagler type 2. It certainly had the space-walk feel, but I can see more contrast with the type 6. And I don't find those double skirt eyepieces to be comfortable in a 1.25 inch barlow or focuser.

In that focal length the Meade UWA 14 has a very devoted following, and it splits the difference between 12 and 16 mm.

Ralph Skogen said:

Sirs,

I have always enjoyed the views I get in my TV eyepieces. But recently, I have been wondering if there is anything to the idea of "planetary eyepieces". Most reviews of these, do support them as being better on the planets/moon. Without getting into a big debate on this, I was wondering what your thoughts were on "planetary eyepieces" and if I do try some, which ones I should try. I was thinking of University Optics H.D. Abbe Orthos, TMB Super Monos, or (maybe!$) Zeiss Abbe IIs. They would be used in a quality f4.3 Dob and APO refractor.

Thanks for your thoughts in advance, Ralph

My short answer is to quote Alan french, "Differences are subtle."

I do a lot of my observing with Nagler type 6 eyepieces, and they are very good planetary eyepieces. I do own a set of Super Monos and they are better on planets and the moon than anything I have ever used (also on the ring nebula). I've never used a Zeiss Abbe. It's there, it's real, and it's subtle. But, it's not like getting a period, even a special moment, of really improved seeing conditions where suddenly Mars comes to life, or Enke's division makes a cameo appearance. I've actually had more of those with the Naglers just because they spend more time in the scope.

That's my personal experience. I do have the planetaries, and I haven't tried to sell them, but I'm not so sure that I would buy them again. (I'd probably try a Siebert modified ortho if doing it again.)

No doubt, others will have their own opinions.

L and L is also considered very good.
Spectrum is also considered very good, but I have heard some concerns about his being slow on occasion.

(Just to give you some options--this is a question with a number of right answers.)

Peter Guastella said:

If you were going to buy planetary eyepieces specifically to get the most out of viewing Saturn and Jupiter what would you recommend?

In the last week there was an extended thread on this topic "planetary eyepieces." It's pretty good as these threads go.

[QUOTE]Paulo martin said:

Hello,

I like know if a refractor of 120mm with F/5 (Orion,Synta..)can be a good performer for open cluster and others DSO...

Thanks,
Paulo[/QUOTE

Yes, Paulo. In fact that is what they are for. They are also good for hunting comets.

Not so good for planetary, lunar, or imaging (unless it's a three element APO, and pretty expensive).

It certainly is an extensive review. Personally, I find that Mr. Paolini's photographs do a remarkably good job of illustrating the kinds and levels of difference that one can see at the eyepiece on a very good night (in the Northeast).

Martin Willes said:

I came across this eyepiece article last night after spending a few hours comparing some of the same eyepieces this author wrote about. I’ve been doing this comparison for a few weeks and have many hours of observing through a variety of instruments from a 4” f/5 refractor, 5” f/8 refractor and 12.5” classic Cassegrain. I don’t have experience with some of the eyepieces Paolini wrote about but his experience with the eyepieces I have are right on the money so I have to assume he’s very accurate describing his observations with others. I’m posting this article here as a lesson on how to do a very thorough unbiased eyepiece review. Some have written here that eyepieces have subtle differences because they read that in a book and I never found that to be the case in real life. Here’s a interesting review by a real life observer using his 40 years of experience observing with modern eyepieces.
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1935

I found this on a CloudyNights.com review and have been using it ever since.

A six pack size cooler from Walmart ($4.97 at the time). He used foam with holes cut in it, I used model airplane plywood to make a little cutout shelf. It holds two 2" eyepieces and six 1.25 inch eyepieces with a space on the side for my rigel finder and two filters in their cases. I put covers on the top element, not on the bottom of the eyepieces.

It just sits on the ground, waterproof, well insulated, the lid just pops down to keep out dust and whatever. I observe alone mostly, so the box on the ground is not a problem, and the white top is pretty visible. It could sit on a chart table as well, but then one of those custom cases in cocbola wood for $400 starts to looks pretty trick.

Walt Soderman said:

This may sound pretty basic to most folks, but I have not been able to figure out the best way to bring along and juggle eyepieces without it being a hassle. I don't want to drag a case of eyepieces outside, but I don't like eyepieces rolling around in the bottom of my backpack of other stuff...and keeping up with the caps in the dark (leave 'em off, cap/uncap constantly?). I like those nifty platforms with holes for eyepieces that you can use to accessorize a mount, but then I figure dew will be gathering on all my eyepieces sitting out. What have you found to work best for you?

Walt

As you know, unless you are going to a two inch format eyepiece, you won't get a wider True Field of view than the TV 32 plossl. So that's a very good choice. Wider than that for under $100 is pretty iffy.

Some here are big on on some Williams Optics, but I have never used them. I had a 30 mmm BW 70 degree eyepiece, but it was weak at f 12 in the outer third of the field.

Dennis Freeman said:

I'm making up a set of low-cost EPs for public viewing sessions and/or keeping them with a scope at a distant location. I've got the 8mm,13mm,17mm Hyperions and a 21mm Stratus. I'm looking for one more at the low power end. I've heard a number of times the 24mm Hyperions are a different design and not up to par with the rest of the line so I've eliminated this one for consideration.

The goal is to maximize wide-field views. Right now I'm thinking a used TV 32mm plossl but I'm wondering if I may be overlooking something with a wider AFOV.

Would like to spend no more than $100 if that's even doable and I'm not opposed to used equipment. The EP would be used in f/7 refractors or f/10 SCTs. Anyone want to offer some recommendations?

Hi Paulo!

I use a 1160 mm focal length scope a lot, so the fields of view are similar to your 1200, although it is an 8" scope. My widest field eyepiece is a Siebert 36mm 2 inch (I prefer it to the 35mm Panoptic). In that scope I next go to a 20mm Nagler type 5 (more expensive than the Panoptics); but my point is that I observe more deep sky with tghe 20 mm Panoptic and the 13 and 9 mm eyepieces because I get better contrast, and there is very little apart from the veil and the NA nebula that doesn't fit the 20mm Nagler (the double cluster looks just great, and against a much darker field). The 24mm Panoptic is so close the 20 mm Nagler in true field of view that you can't tell the difference (except on paper).

So I respectfully suggest that you will gradually find that you want a slightly shorter focal length eyepiece than theory dictates.

Do they have star parties in Opporto,
or is it Opporto at star parties.
In the states people at star parties would let you try some eyepieces in your scope. That is, by far, the best way to find out what works (especially with transatlantic shipping and exchange rates).

Best of luck!

Paulo Mesquita said:

After very sound advice on choosing a 2" EP for DSO I've narrowed my choice to the Televue Panoptic 2" 27mm with a 68ºFOV and the William Optics UWAN 2" 28mm with a 82ºFOV. I chose this magnification because it's at the limit of my exit pupil - between 5.5 and 5.9 -(49 years old). THis value is for a 1200mm 10" Newtonian that I'm buying.
I like the WO UWAN FOV better but I'm not sure that its quality matches the Panoptic's.

So, asking the pros... which is best?

Thanks for your help... once again

Cheers

Paulo Mesquita

Peter Glus said:

I am just buying a 9mm TMB supermono (my first "high end planetary EP). I cant afford the very nice 1.8x barlow (zeiss), so I was planning to use a celestron ultima 2X barlow for the time being. But barlowing a fine EP like this feels weird...like Im paying a premium to minimize glass surfaces, etc and then I'm throwing a few more in the mix with a barlow. Is barlowing these types of EPs sacrilege?

Hi Peter!

It certainly makes no logical sense to add glass to the ultimate minimum air-to-glass eyepiece. But, when I tried comparing the 5 mm Super-Mono to the 10 mm barlow 2x with a Siebert barlow I could only tell the difference by looking at the scope not through it.

The Super-Monos were clearly (though not really dramatically) better than the UO Othro's.