Jump to content


Photo

ES 25mm 100 AFOV Shipped

  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#76 mountain monk

mountain monk

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1950
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Grand Teton National Park

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:54 PM

Tammy,

Thank you for that post. Since I have the 31mm Nagler, I don't even have to think about the ES 25!

Dark skies.

Jack

#77 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:22 AM

Since I have the 31mm Nagler, I don't even have to think about the ES 25!



Maybe not and maybe yes. I don't think the reason to get a 100° eyepiece should be to get a bigger true field, but to get a bigger true field in that given focal length. I can personally attest that the increase in apparent field of view can be most impressive and clearly worth upgrading to, if you can afford it. I couldn't so I went with some 82° ES eyepieces, since I could get three really useful focal lengths for the price of one 100° eyepiece. But I'd still like to have a couple 100° eyepieces. They sure are intoxicating, much like binoviewers.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#78 Dick Jacobson

Dick Jacobson

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 906
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Plymouth, Minnesota, USA

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:27 AM

Since I have the 31mm Nagler, I don't even have to think about the ES 25!



Maybe not and maybe yes. I don't think the reason to get a 100° eyepiece should be to get a bigger true field, but to get a bigger true field in that given focal length. I can personally attest that the increase in apparent field of view can be most impressive and clearly worth upgrading to, if you can afford it. I couldn't so I went with some 82° ES eyepieces, since I could get three really useful focal lengths for the price of one 100° eyepiece. But I'd still like to have a couple 100° eyepieces. They sure are intoxicating, much like binoviewers.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

Another reason to prefer the ES 25/100 is that it has a smaller exit pupil, meaning that for many people the stars will be brighter. If you have an f/5 scope, the 31mm Nagler gives an exit pupil diameter of 31/5 = 6.2mm so a substantial amount of light is wasted if you're a typical middle-aged person with 5mm pupils. As I see it, the ES 25/100 is the only eyepiece in existence that delivers nearly all of the light that enters a 2" drawtube into your eye (again, for the f/5, 5mm pupil case).

Astrojensen, I have a binoviewer and a couple of 100° eyepieces, and I agree 100% they are intoxicating!

#79 Tamiji Homma

Tamiji Homma

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3134
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:07 PM

Hi Jack,

You're welcome. Field stop size of ES25-100 was one of interest as well.
I uploaded closeup ES25-100 photo of side-by-side with Nagler 31T5.

Regarding visual experience, I have nothing to add beyond Don described earlier. I agree with him in all accounts.

ES25-100 needs about 2.8mm Inward focus distance lesser than N31T5 but if your diagonal 2" holder hits bottom, you loose the advantage. It happened with Baader 2" diagonal. Astro Physics MaxBright was OK. I mean nosepiece went in all the way.
Posted Image

Field lens side, trying to show blue fuzzy field stop that people are talking about:
Posted Image

Eye lens side:
Posted Image

Upper body shot:
Posted Image

Tammy

#80 mountain monk

mountain monk

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1950
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Grand Teton National Park

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:17 PM

Thomas,

I understand the infatuation with 100 degrees. I have four Ethoi---17mm, 13mm, 8mm, and 6mm--and they have provided me with an enormous amount of pleasure in my scopes. I do not have have the extraordinary amount of knowledge you all display here on CN, but I can report that none of the above spends more time in the focusers than the 31mm Nagler. For me, it is the magical eyepiece, though the 13mm is close...

Dark skies.

Jack

#81 Starman81

Starman81

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2055
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Metro Detroit, MI, USA

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:16 PM

Thanks for the visuals Tamiji. It definitely looks like a very impressive eyepiece, however the blue fuzzy field stop is quite apparent, even in the photo.

#82 Shneor

Shneor

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Northern California

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

Got mine yesterday, an hour before I left for Lake Sonoma. Transparency was mediocre, on average, but varied from poor to fair. Getting this eyepiece shortly before I left contributed to my neglecting to swap my regular contact lenses for my observing set (meaning my distance vision was not as good, so fainter stars I could ordinarily see became invisible to me). A fellow observer's 24" barely showed a 15th magnitude galaxy.

Nevertheless, this was first light for my new eyepiece. I was pleasantly surprised by the apparent lack of come - only to realize (as another observer pointed out) that the designers had cleverly used another optical aberration to correct for coma - field curvature. Of course, this is noticeable only when panning the eyepiece, so it's a nice compromise. In my 22" f/4, this eyepiece gives a true field of one degree six arcminutes (1.1°). Even though conditions were poor, this eyepiece let me view several galaxies in the Fornax cluster at the same time, requiring less panning. Contrast was good, but it's hard to determine due to the absence of good transparency. The view of M42 with an NPB filter was stunning - the extended view of the nebulosity was amazing. And some bright galaxy trios looked good. but Markarian's chain looked better in my 20mm ES100°.

Incidentally, I believe the field stop is not internal.

Clears,

#83 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23167
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:29 PM

Shneor,
This eyepiece is NOT coma-corrected. I only got a chance to look at the Perseus Double Cluster with my 12.5" f/5. The eyepiece performed fine in the Paracorr, and the predominant aberration visible without the coma corrector was.....coma.
That coma may have been combined with field curvature and astigmatism to bloat the amount of visible coma, but there it was.
Eyepieces, except for a couple 50 degree samples from the "80s, are not coma-corrected. And note that an eyepiece can have field curvature without correcting for coma in the scope, and vice-versa.

#84 Shneor

Shneor

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Northern California

Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:58 PM

Don, stars were pretty sharp to near the edge. I'm not the only one who saw this. The field curvature was obvious, and it appeared to offset coma to a significant degree.

In general, if it's only my eyes, I won't post. In this case, a very experienced observer noted the apparent correction.

Clears,

#85 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23167
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:20 PM

What do you mean when you say field curvature offset coma?
Field curvature slowly defocuses the star images, but they stay round. Coma stretches the star images radially into fan shapes.
Field curvature can defocus coma, too, making the comatic image slightly larger and out of focus, but it doesn't reduce coma. It can only make the appearance of it worse.
So what you say cannot be reconciled.
I notice a slight amount of astigmatism near the edge, and depending on which side of focus you sit, this could appear to reduce the radial width of the comatic star (while stretching it circumferentially). On the other side of focus, it would make it worse.
I got a quick glance at the Perseus Double Cluster with the eyepiece in a Paracorr II, and the star images displayed a trace of astigmatism, but no obvious coma or field curvature. Since the Paracorr corrects the last two, it's not surprising what I saw. Without the Paracorr, it displayed the normal amount of coma for an f/5 scope and a 100 degree field, i.e. a lot.
However, if the eyepiece actually corrected coma, it would display coma in the Paracorr, and it did not.
Once again, current eyepieces do not correct for coma. If they did, they'd only be useful in short f/ratio newtonians.

Edit:
It just dawned on me that what you are calling field curvature is actually rectilinear distortion (wherein straight lines appear curved near the edge of the field, so ||| becomes )|( in the eyepiece.
Yes, the eyepiece has a lot of that, as do other 100 degree eyepieces.
The correction of RD is impossible in a widefield eyepiece without leaving in tons of Angular Magnification Distortion (AMD), which is considered to be the more deleterious form of distortion in astronomical viewing.
RD is more noticeable when panning quickly, but usually doesn't bother most observers.
AMD, on the other hand, distorts images terribly, so most modern designers opt for RD over AMD.

Field curvature is when the focal plane is curved toward or away from the eye at the edge and it results in out of focus stars. I don't think that was what you were talking about.

#86 herrointment

herrointment

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4812
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2011
  • Loc: North of Hwy. 64

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:08 PM

I'll contribute my usual *BLEEP* photo....

Attached Files



#87 MRNUTTY

MRNUTTY

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Mendon, MA

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:50 AM

Vundabar! Herr Ointment! I'm still waiting...

#88 herrointment

herrointment

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4812
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2011
  • Loc: North of Hwy. 64

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:59 PM

Ja, sehr gut!

#89 JMorey

JMorey

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2006

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:03 PM

Hi Guys,

I had a thought: Being that the ES 30mm 2" 82 degree eyepiece has six elements, and the ES 25mm 2" 100 degree eyepiece has eight elements would there actually be that much of a difference in magnitude because of the two extra elements in the ES 25mm? There true field of view is almost the same. I think it would be interesting to hear a report concerned with both eyepieces, and the differences noted in coatings on the eyepieces. Any thoughts? Thanks much, and clear skies.

Best,
Joe

#90 herrointment

herrointment

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4812
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2011
  • Loc: North of Hwy. 64

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:14 PM

Mine won't see any action 'till sometime next month by the looks of it.

The weather has been ridiculously uncooperative for longer than I care to recall.

#91 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:32 PM

Sounds like around here. Ever since I ordered my ES eyepieces on December 23rd, it's been completely overcast. And the very day I received them, it started snowing. It's been cold and snowy since. Just got another two inches while I was eating dinner...

Those eyepieces must be ridiculously good!!!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#92 Phillip Creed

Phillip Creed

    Idiot Seeking Village

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2094
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Canton, OH

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:38 PM

I measured TFOV and calculated field stop of ES25-100 along with Nagler 31T5.

41.1mm ES25-100 (last 1% vignetting/fuzzy field stop)
42.2mm Nagler 31T5 (clean to the very edge)

Tammy


I'm a bit surprised that the 31T5 has a bigger field stop. I would have guessed the opposite, even assuming there was a fair bit of pincushion distortion.

Clear Skies,
Phil

#93 Darren Drake

Darren Drake

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2807
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2002
  • Loc: Chicagoland

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:01 PM

Looks like there is some pincushion in the pic. The 9mm looks a little distorted lol.

#94 herrointment

herrointment

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4812
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2011
  • Loc: North of Hwy. 64

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:06 PM

Yes, the 9 looks a bit out of sorts although the exact cause is debatable!

#95 Starman81

Starman81

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2055
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Metro Detroit, MI, USA

Posted 14 January 2013 - 05:33 PM

Jim (herrointment), are you planning on keeping the 20mm now that you have the 25mm? You could probably do without it but then the set would no longer be complete.

Darren, isn't that 'barrel distortion' when the image distorts in a concave sort of way at the edge?

#96 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23167
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:04 PM

Barrel Distortion (Negative rectilinear distortion):

||| becomes (|)

Pincushion Distortion (Positive rectilinear distortion):

||| becomes )|(

Most eyepieces produce pincushion. The picture of the ES eyepieces has barrel distortion.

#97 herrointment

herrointment

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4812
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2011
  • Loc: North of Hwy. 64

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:08 PM

For me, these eyepiece amount to an insane extravagance. My employer decided to keep us busy to the tune of 400+ hours of overtime last year and these Eps are my reward.

If I buy something I tend to hang on to it and so far I'm plenty happy with the 9, 14 and 20.



#98 thrawn

thrawn

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:33 PM

Someone put a tiny piece of tape on that stop near the field lens, and check if it's in focus (or almost in focus) looking through the eye end. Then we'll know for sure if the field stop is external or internal.

I'm not on CN much anymore btw so I may not notice the answer.

#99 Jobryant

Jobryant

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2009

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:17 PM

Is the rubber eye guard permanently attached or can it be taken off either by unscrewing it or just pulling it off?

So from the reports I've read so far this EP would not be suitable for daytime use. How would it compare to the Ethos 17 when it comes to pincushion distortion or the Nagler 31? I found the Ethos 17 fine to use as a daytime EP. My current daytime EP is the 88deg 30mm Leitz and I love it. I do see distortion(fishbowl effect) but it doesn't bother me. After months of side by side comparisons I actually choose the Leitz over the Pentax XW40 for my daytime viewing to give you idea of my tolerance to pincushion distortion. That being said would the ES25 100 still be considered a bad choice to use as a daytime EP for a guy like me that isn't too sensitive to the distorted fishbowl effect?

#100 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23167
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:35 PM

Is the rubber eye guard permanently attached or can it be taken off either by unscrewing it or just pulling it off?

It pulls right off.

So from the reports I've read so far this EP would not be suitable for daytime use. How would it compare to the Ethos 17 when it comes to pincushion distortion or the Nagler 31?

Note that TeleVue's philosophy of design tends to reduce Angular magnification distortion to a minimum in their eyepieces. That means that rectilinear distortion (pincushion is one example) will be present in proportion to the width of the field of view. That means a 31 Nagler would have less than a 17 Ethos. It appears the 25mm has also solved for AMD because RD is noticeable when you look for it. That's good for astronomy.

I found the Ethos 17 fine to use as a daytime EP.

So long as the 25mm doesn't produce too big an exit pupil for your daytime eye, you would find it similar.

My current daytime EP is the 88deg 30mm Leitz and I love it. I do see distortion(fishbowl effect) but it doesn't bother me. After months of side by side comparisons I actually choose the Leitz over the Pentax XW40 for my daytime viewing to give you idea of my tolerance to pincushion distortion. That being said would the ES25 100 still be considered a bad choice to use as a daytime EP for a guy like me that isn't too sensitive to the distorted fishbowl effect?

Well, RD isn't usually a problem unless you look at fields of view with a lot of linear features (such as trees), or pan the eyepiece rapidly. Of course, AMD would be bad in panning as well because every object would appear to start distant at the edge of the field, get closer in the center and then grow more distant again.
That both forms of distortion would result in something antithetical to distortion-free daytime observing is, in my purview, the primary reason to stick to slightly narrower fields of view in the daytime--the percentages of distortion at the edge of the field would be less.
However, if the distortion doesn't bother you (and for stationary viewing it seldom is obtrusive), then go for the wider field of view.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics