Jump to content


Photo

University Abbe Orthoscopics

  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#1 HCR32

HCR32

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Melbourne Australia

Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:56 AM

What do ppl know about these EP? How do they perform how dont they perform?

#2 Dave Ponder

Dave Ponder

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006
  • Loc: Greenville, SC

Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:13 AM

Pros: Sharp views, not expensive, good quality
Cons: Narrow FOV, short eye relief

#3 BDS316

BDS316

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2184
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Sol 3

Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:30 AM

Pros: Sharp views, not expensive, good quality
Cons: Narrow FOV, short eye relief


+1

These eyepieces have been around for a gazillion years. They were very popular in the 60's and 70's when most telescopes were on equatorial mounts and this lessened the disadvantage of the narrow fields of view. Now with the Dobsonian revolution, far fewer scopes are able to track and eyepiece designs with larger fields of view are more popular.

With the Dob revolution also came reflectors of shorter focal ratio (faster) and the demand for wide field eyepieces with better edge of field correction in these faster scopes.

UO used to sell quite a few wide field eyepieces that they no longer carry like widescans, erfles and konigs. They did not work well in faster scopes.

#4 tomchris

tomchris

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Connecticut, U.S.A.

Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:42 AM

Recently bought the 12.5mm and have been impressed with it's sharp views. I'm now thinking of buying another. From what I've read, the University HD orthos (available from some sellers) seem to be slightly better than the "classic" one but not enough to matter. I hear the same about comparison with the Baaders. Anyway, the UO classic orthos are cheaper & have had an excellent reputation for years.

#5 great_bear

great_bear

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 989
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Walthamstow, London, UK

Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:53 AM

If you can afford the HD ones, they are a better choice, but both are top-rated performers.

Nonetheless, these days many observers prefer the comfort afforded by the wider fields and longer eye-relief of more modern eyepiece designs.

I used to use the orthoscopics. Now I use 16 and 24mm Meade SWAs in conjunction with a Tele Vue Powermate for mono use, and Burgess Binolites and Vernonscope Brandons for bino use.

#6 Tank

Tank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2372
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:31 AM

Love the sharp views of the UO HD's!

#7 ibase

ibase

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4627
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Manila, Philippines 121°E 14°N

Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:52 AM

Have both UO HD and Volcano Tops. As others have mentioned, both are very sharp but with tight eye relief in the shorter focal lengths. The VT's just seem to be a bit more comfortable to use.

Best,

#8 planet earth

planet earth

    Surveyor 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1821
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Canada 43*N 80* W

Posted 23 September 2011 - 10:14 AM

Pros: Sharp views, not expensive, good quality
Cons: Narrow FOV, short eye relief

+2
And they are a good looking eyepiece!
Clear Skies
Sam

#9 FeynmanFan

FeynmanFan

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2011
  • Loc: N Colo front range

Posted 23 September 2011 - 11:05 AM

I've used the 6 and 9mm volocano tops, and the 12mm HD for years, and I love them. They give sharp views and don't cost a fortune. They do have narrow fields of view (about 40°) and pretty tight eye relief, although the 12mm isn't bad at all and in the shorter focal lengths the volcano shape kind of mitigates the problem. They've been around forever, and you never hear anything bad about them, although some are bothered by the "porthole effect" and the need to get your eye pretty close. FYI, the HD's are not shown on the website, and presumably are not available new. I gather that the Baader Genuine orthos are the same eyepiece, though.

#10 astro_baby

astro_baby

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: United Kingdom

Posted 23 September 2011 - 01:13 PM

I just bought 9mm and 12.5 UO Abbes for use as planetary eyepieces in my Mak 180. Eye relief for me is usually a problem and I cant get on with tight eye relief eyepieces most Plossls below about 15 I find too tough. I did try a Baader GO but found it uncomfy.

Someone suggested the UO Volcano tops might be better so I thought I'd take a punt.

The tight FOV doesnt worry me as the Mak is pretty restricted anyway and I always use a tracking mount.

I cant say I have exhaustively tested them by any means as the only night I have used them the moon was full and Jupiter was suffering haze BUT they seemed very good to me and they look beautiful too in an understated way.

The moon at 300 was razor sharp and they got as good a view of Jupiter as anything could given the freaky atmosphere. Looking forward to trying them out on a deep sky target.

One of the nice things with the Mak is the power of magnification means you dont need much below about 10mm and indeed on most nights I'd not expect to get under about 12 mm and eye releif with the 9mm seemed find to me. Its at the limit of what I can cope with and the Volcano tops were definietly more comfy for me. It seemed a bit counter intuitive that a pointy topped eyepiece would be more comfy than one with a rubber cup but there you go.

They arent expensive either which is why I felt justified in taking a punt - I am happy based on limited viewing so far.

#11 tomchris

tomchris

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Connecticut, U.S.A.

Posted 23 September 2011 - 01:39 PM

I just bought 9mm and 12.5 UO Abbes for use as planetary eyepieces. The moon at 300 was razor sharp and they got a good a view of Jupiter...eye releif with the 9mm seemed find to me.


Well, I don't know about the OP, but you convinced ME to buy the 9MM!! I just ordered it! :)

#12 desertlens

desertlens

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 845
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2010
  • Loc: 36°N 105°W

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:04 PM

Excellent EPs. I have a full set and have found that I use them as much as my widefields. AFoV runs from about 43 degrees at the short end to 47 degrees with the 25mm. As others have mentioned, eye relief is tight with the shorter FLs but I observe without glasses so this is less of a problem. If you must wear glasses, I'd recommend the longer FLs with a decent Barlow. The volcano top configuration works better for me than the flat top format of the UO HDs and the BGOs. Image quality is difficult to beat. As gravy, I use the 25mm in a 60mm finder for cyclops views that rival many binoculars. IMO, The UO Abbes are among the best of the old school eyepieces.

#13 telescopemullet

telescopemullet

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2009

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:20 PM

What say the masses about their 80 degree 2" oculars?

#14 HCR32

HCR32

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Melbourne Australia

Posted 24 September 2011 - 02:09 AM

Are these the same as Kokusai Kohki Or's

#15 t.r.

t.r.

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 24 September 2011 - 06:17 AM

I had the whole set of VT's as my base eyepiece set. Loved them for all facets of observable objects. Highly recommended within their FOV/ER limitations.

#16 Richard McC

Richard McC

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2393
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:01 AM

Are these the same as Kokusai Kohki Or's


Yes Peter, the KK Orthos are the same as the UO `volcano top' orthos (but not the same as the UO HD series).

#17 astro_baby

astro_baby

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: United Kingdom

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:13 AM

Damn....I just convinced myself to order the 18 and 25 as well.

#18 bgavin

bgavin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 995
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2011
  • Loc: 38°41' x 121°13'

Posted 24 September 2011 - 11:41 AM

I was out at 4am this morning specifically for Jupiter.
The back yard conditions limited me to the BGO 7mm ortho in the XT10, but views are excellent.
I saw at least 4 moons and the various color bands in my first look at Jupiter.

My astigmatism is a non-issue without glasses and the 7mm ortho.
Jupiter is an easy track by nudging the dob.
I am one of those who are not at all put off by the narrower FOV.

#19 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20631
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 24 September 2011 - 02:42 PM

They perform much better in slow telescopes. At f/14.4 to f/16.7 they rock. At f/8.6 to f/10, they are still excellent. At f/7 they start to weaken even on axis. Faster than that, there are better choices.

Regards,

Jim

#20 bgavin

bgavin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 995
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2011
  • Loc: 38°41' x 121°13'

Posted 24 September 2011 - 04:25 PM

Jim,

What would be your pick in an XT10 1200/4.7, in the 5~10mm range for sharpness and contrast?

#21 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20631
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:27 PM

How much you wanna spend and do you want/need decent eye relief?

Here's my "Ortho" collection, by the way:

Posted Image

My faves are the Pentax SMCs.

- Jim

#22 bgavin

bgavin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 995
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2011
  • Loc: 38°41' x 121°13'

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:50 PM

You were quite specific about the UO orthos being already soft at f/7, so I'm curious out your herd, which are Exc performers at f/4.7?

The Pentax SMC is a pretty rare bird, and flies in the same rarified atmosphere as the ZAO, ZAO-II.
I'm thinking of something a bit more close to the ground..

#23 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20631
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:48 PM

Honestly no Orthos other, perhaps, than the ZAO-IIs are going to do reasonably well at f/4.7.

How about an 6.7mm ($99), 8.8mm or 11mm ES 82 ($119)?

For about the same price (~$130) you might be able to pick up an 8mm Vixen LVW (my favorite in that series).

At f/4.7, I'd stick with well-corrected designs.

- Jim

#24 bgavin

bgavin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 995
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2011
  • Loc: 38°41' x 121°13'

Posted 24 September 2011 - 11:36 PM

I have the ES 4.7mm 6.7mm, 11mm and also 18mm.

I'm surprised at the expected ZAO performance, considering the design is much older than f/4.7 scopes.
I really value your expertise, but this is drifting off topic from the OP's question about UO orthos.

In adhoc daylight terrestrial testing, I don't see any appreciable sharpness/contrast differences between my ES6.7, the BGO 7, the Nagler 9T6, and my Radian 14.
The noticeable difference is with my low-end LERs.
I expected this, as the LER are intended for use in an f/6.2 environment.

If I am fortunate enough to find an AT111EDT, I can try out my orthos at f/7 and see if there is a noticeable improvement.

#25 buddyjesus

buddyjesus

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2236
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Davison, Michigan

Posted 25 September 2011 - 12:16 AM

That is my dream collection Jim. Please put me in your will!






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics