Jump to content


Photo

OWL - 16 MM Ultra-Wide Angle - 1.25 inch

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 drexelpbp

drexelpbp

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Phoenixville,PA

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:20 PM

Looking for input from anybody with experience using an OWL - 16 MM Ultra-Wide Angle - 1.25 inch.

Thinking of using it in an ST80 or ST120.

Anybody try in those scopes or similar scopes?

Thanks

Gary

#2 drshr

drshr

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 965
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Darwin, Australia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:54 PM

Yes I have one.
It is Rubbish.
the 2" OWL's are much better.

#3 izar187

izar187

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1650
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006
  • Loc: 43N

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:54 PM

I have no experience with this ep.

My experiences with other budget wide fields suggests to me that this might be an ok ep for a slow scope. Maybe. A very slow scope.
6 element can be good, for a 60* to 70* field.
But for an 80*, and with 20mm eyerelief and all for only $45?
Also note that there is no focal ratio recommendations for this unit on the website.
Fast focal ratio field astigmatism correction, eyerelief, fit'n'finish, optical finish and coatings, and general quality control all cost.
I speculate that this ep is too good to be true.

#4 bcuddihee

bcuddihee

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:57 PM

I had the 11mm and the ER was terrible. Even with the eyeguard removed I could not see the entire FOV. Overall workmanship is also mediocre at best.
BC

#5 KWB

KWB

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16312
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.5400 feet

Posted 28 June 2009 - 08:05 PM

Hi

This eyepiece combined with fast F/5 focal ratio will shows loads of eyepiece astigmatism starting maybe less than half way to the edge of the eyepiece's field of view.

I have had experience will this eyepiece/telescope combo and IMO there are more suitable lower cost options available.

#6 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15469
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 29 June 2009 - 08:48 AM

Yes I have one.
It is Rubbish.
the 2" OWL's are much better.


I wouldn't call them "rubbish," but, yeah, in fast telescopes they are scary bad and lack eye relief (exacerbated by a poorly designed eyecup). :bawling:

#7 94bamf

94bamf

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Kansas City,Mo

Posted 29 June 2009 - 10:49 AM

Yes I have one.
It is Rubbish.
the 2" OWL's are much better.


I wouldn't call them "rubbish," but, yeah, in fast telescopes they are scary bad and lack eye relief (exacerbated by a poorly designed eyecup). :bawling:


Yes, "Rubbish" is pretty harsh. I tried my 16mm last night in an F/5 8 inch newt, it was really bad, unuseable bad. I think they work quite well in my F10 SCT and Refractor. It even seems it was useable but kinda rough in my F/6.25 refractor. So I guess I can understand somebody calling it rubbish if the only scope you can or have used it in is an F/5 or faster.. :grin:

Ken

#8 Joe Ogiba

Joe Ogiba

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5930
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2002
  • Loc: NJ USA

Posted 29 June 2009 - 11:02 AM

I have a 16mm 1.25" marked 80 deg UWA and it looks no larger than 55 deg AFOV to me. I think they labeled some generic 16mm Plossls as UWA 80 deg eyepieces. It's one of the worst eyepiece I ever seen IMHO.

#9 Dr Morbius

Dr Morbius

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3701
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2007
  • Loc: ManorvilleNY-but not for long

Posted 29 June 2009 - 03:00 PM

Well, that's that, I guess.

#10 KWB

KWB

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16312
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.5400 feet

Posted 29 June 2009 - 03:22 PM

To be totally fair this same eyepiece worked pretty well in an F/10 refractor. Not the intention of the OP but what the heck as it's just another free opinion.

#11 drexelpbp

drexelpbp

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Phoenixville,PA

Posted 29 June 2009 - 05:14 PM

I guess I got my answer.

Thanks for all the input.

#12 djeber2

djeber2

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Cloudy Midwest

Posted 29 June 2009 - 09:16 PM

I never tried the 16, but had the 11, and as stated very little eye relief. I would suggest the Agena 15 SWA or GSO Superview 15mm instead.

#13 Chris1485

Chris1485

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2006
  • Loc: U.K.

Posted 30 June 2009 - 04:51 AM

I've own the 16mm and edge correction was very poor in my ST80.
Using a Barlow seemed to narrow the field of view quite a bit.
Eye relief was very tight. It's hard to see all the field.
On axis it was fine and compared well to my series 3000 Plossls.
I can't remember how it fared in my ETX.
I've found a review of the 11mm version on Mike Weasners Site, I'll try and attach it. Here though it goes under the name of Zhitong!!

Cheers,
Chris (UK)

Attached Files



#14 drexelpbp

drexelpbp

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Phoenixville,PA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 08:26 PM

Thanks for the reply Don.

Have you tried the Agena 15mm SWA in a fast refractor?

Gary

#15 94bamf

94bamf

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Kansas City,Mo

Posted 30 June 2009 - 08:47 PM

Thanks for the reply Don.

Have you tried the Agena 15mm SWA in a fast refractor?

Gary


Gary, I don't think you are gonna find many cheaper wider field eyepieces that function well at faster focal ratios. I am sure others might have suggestions for around $100, but how about this ONE? I just bought a set of these with the 16mm, 24mm, and the 34mm. They are really sharp almost all the way to the edge in an 8 inch F/5 Newt..

I haven't tried the Agena SWA, but I do have the Agena EWA eyepieces, they are pretty rough at faster focal ratios also..

Ken

#16 erik

erik

    telescope surgeon

  • *****
  • Posts: 24811
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2004
  • Loc: Hawaii

Posted 01 July 2009 - 12:38 AM

The eye relief was the main issue I had with the 16mm. I had to practically touch the glass to see the entire FOV. Other than that, I thought it was good in slower scopes like SCT's, and usable in faster scopes if you're willing to put up with some astigmatism in the outer third or so of the FOV.

#17 sailor70623

sailor70623

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3087
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Ok.

Posted 01 July 2009 - 09:39 PM

I have the 11mm and the 16mm. The ER is very tight in the 11mm. Both work fine F10 and slower. I haven't tried them in my F5 or faster scopes. The 16mm works fine with a barlow. They both work fine in my ETX127, F15.

#18 youngamateur42

youngamateur42

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2012
  • Loc: La Verne, CA

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:51 PM

i know this is an old conversation but your saying that in scopes in f/10 or greater, there would be no problem?

justin

#19 aa5te

aa5te

    Genial Procrastinator

  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Clinton, TN

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:10 PM

Justin, welcome to CN!

I've used one in my f/15 refractor and it was still junk. One of the 15mm Expanse clones (EWA from OWL and others) will beat it hands down. The 16mm I had was full of junk between the lenses and had NO eye relief, even with the eyecup removed.

#20 bcuddihee

bcuddihee

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Posted 27 November 2012 - 06:09 PM

so true....junk junk junk..nuff said.
bc






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics