44 replies to this topic

[Astrojensen]

Hello everyone!

Last night brought finally brought a clear sky with no moon. Transparency was variable and the SQM hovered around 21.05. Good, but not excellent.

I tested my new ES 82 eyepieces on deep-sky objects with several telescopes: My 150mm f/8 achromat, my 70mm f/6 ED and my 12" f/5 Meade Lightbridge.

In the 150mm refractor, the ES 30 is a super stunning wide field performer. Stars, except for the very brightest, are so sharp, they seem to have no dimensions. Observing rich star fields with this combo was a breathtaking experience. Highlights include the entire sword of Orion, M35 and NGC 2158, NGC 891 floating among countless stars, NGC 7789 in Cassiopeia as a rich swarm of pinpoint stars in a very rich field. And of course the Double Cluster. Forgive me, but I forgot the Pleiades!

In the 12", it's a stunning low power eyepiece. Coma is well controlled. It isn't sharp to the edge, but it's really good.

In the 72mm f/6, it's not sharp to the edge at all. I have to refocus a lot. This detracts a bit from the aesthetics.

In all scopes it is an extremely comfortable eyepiece.

*

The 18mm just plain works in every scope I stick it into. Sharp to the edge, except in the 12", where there's a minor unsharpness near the edge, from coma. Extremely comfortable on all scopes.

*

11mm: A superb deep-sky eyepiece on the 150mm refractor. Sharp to the edge and pleasing dark background and still lots of field for medium size objects. Equally at home on the 12" and sharp to the edge, as far as I could judge. Extremely good views of galaxies.

*

8.8mm: Fantastic high power eyepiece, especially on galaxies in the 12". Also superb on the 150mm refractor. It was better on galaxies in the 12" than the 11mm, due to the higher magnification and darker background.

*

I tested the 11mm ES 82 against a 10mm Zeiss Jena ortho, using faint stars in and near NGC 2158 to judge the transmission. Both resolve numerous stars in NGC 2158. I could not detect a difference between them. I never found a star I could see in one that I could not in the other, with the same amount of averted vision and time. They felt so alike that apart from the huge difference in apparent and true field and ergonomics, it was near impossible to tell them apart. This is extremely remarkable, since the 10mm, given its slightly higher magnification, should have done better resolving the cluster and darkened the sky background and showed fainter stars. I saw no such clear effect. In the end, I had to declare it a draw. Or maybe I should declare the ES a clear winner, since it was showing the same as the 10mm Zeiss, but at a longer focal length, had infinitely better ergonomics and vastly larger true and apparent field. This test does take a lot of doubt off my mind. I can now confidently observe with my wonderful ES eyepieces and enjoy the huge fields with crisp wall-to-wall stars without speculating that I might see more, if I used an excellent minimum-element eyepiece.

Oh, and the Zeiss ortho is from one of the latest series and has Zeiss T-lag coatings. It was not completely pristinely clean, but it was not in any way greasy or dirty either. A close inspection today revealed only a few dust motes. I can (and probably will) do the test again or against other eyepieces, if there's any interest.

*

Thus tested and my worries confirmed unfounded, I continued the rest of the evening with enjoyable observations. A highlight must be the observation of clear spiral arms and several HII regions in M101 with the 12" and 8.8mm. Superb view!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[csrlice12]

I too, am finding the ES82 8.8mm to be one fine eyepiece. It does one fantastic job on planets in my 10XTi.

[stevew]

Thomas, Glad to hear your enjoying your ES eyepieces.
The 8.8 mm is the next one on my list.
Strange though, every scope I have tried my 30mm in has been sharp to the edge. Everything from my 16 F-4.5 and TMB130 F-7 through to my C11.
Maybe it's just my eyes

Steve

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[andrew hampton]

I guess the problem with the 30mm in the 72 f6 was one of field curvature - short tube refractors will generate a hugh amount. Good to read the report, thanks.

andrew

[Astrojensen]

I guess the problem with the 30mm in the 72 f6 was one of field curvature - short tube refractors will generate a hugh amount.

Yup! A refractor with a focal length of 430mm will have a focal plane curvature with a radius of around 150mm! With a field diameter of 40mm, this will mean that the edges are 1.3mm out of focus!!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[MikeBOKC]

I used my 30 in a new Orion xx14g f/4.6 for the scope's first light last night and was very impressed. It will likely be my go-to eyepiece in this new scope.

[dlapoint]

glad to hear they are preforming well. I have the 11 and 8.8 awaiting first light.

[GeneT]

With the 12 Dob, did you use a Paracorr?

[GeneT]

Nice report! I like AB comparisons.

[stevew]

11mm: A superb deep-sky eyepiece on the 150mm refractor. Sharp to the edge and pleasing dark background and still lots of field for medium size objects. Equally at home on the 12" and sharp to the edge, as far as I could judge. Extremely good views of galaxies.


I tested the 11mm ES 82 against a 10mm Zeiss Jena ortho, using faint stars in and near NGC 2158 to judge the transmission. Both resolve numerous stars in NGC 2158. I could not detect a difference between them. I never found a star I could see in one that I could not in the other, with the same amount of averted vision and time. They felt so alike that apart from the huge difference in apparent and true field and ergonomics, it was near impossible to tell them apart. This is extremely remarkable, since the 10mm, given its slightly higher magnification, should have done better resolving the cluster and darkened the sky background and showed fainter stars. I saw no such clear effect. In the end, I had to declare it a draw. Or maybe I should declare the ES a clear winner, since it was showing the same as the 10mm Zeiss,
Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

I have been a big fan of the Meade 4000 UWA and have owned them for years. I started purchasing the ES eyepiece to compliment my old Meade's, but the ES 82* eyepieces seem to have better light transmission. I suppose it's the modern coatings and glass types.
The ES 11mm is a very sharp eyepiece, and is one of my favorites.
Very useful for globular clusters, and nebula, it also works really well as a planetary eyepiece in the proper scope.
I suppose I will have to start collecting the other focal lengths.
I'm truly amazed at the quality of the views for the money.


Steve

[Astrojensen]

With the 12 Dob, did you use a Paracorr?

Hi Gene

Nope, no Paracorr. And I am not in a hurry to get one. I can see the coma near the edge, but the spot sizes are still pretty small, so when I look towards the center of the field, it all looks good.

Maybe I'll get one down the road, but right now there are more important things to get.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[Astrojensen]

I'm truly amazed at the quality of the views for the money.

This! I continually have to pick up my jaw from the ground, every time I turn the scopes toward a new target. Just flat out incredible views!

Rolls-Royce performance for Toyota price!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[Astrojensen]

Nice report! I like AB comparisons.

Me too! I think I'll try comparing the 8.8mm ES to a very late production model 9mm Kasai (Circle T) volcano top ortho or perhaps my 9mm KK 0.965" ortho, which I suspect is actually the better of the two orthos. The 18mm ES can similarly be compared to an older 18mm Circle T ortho or an 18mm KK 0.965" ortho. I can also throw in a 20mm GSO Superview in the mix, but I'm afraid it won't stand a chance.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[Tophat3]

I think it would be a good idea throwing the 20mm GSO in the mix.

[MRNUTTY]

I found the ES100, 82, and 68mm EP's to be excellent regardless of cost. I sincerely regret selling my 82 And 68mm sets to fund a TV series. But, it was too expensive to hold all these wide fields. The build quality was excellent, not a blemish in the bunch. The only nit I had was a faint greenish tint that showed in the 82's when during daylight when my eye was close to the blackout position.

[sopticals]

I think it would be a good idea throwing the 20mm GSO in the mix.

I had the 30mm GSO Superview as my main wide field ocular, until my ES 82 30mm arrived. There was no contest, with wider FOV and very much sharper images to be had in the ES eyepiece, (brilliant).

Stephen.(44deg.S.)

[sslcm56]

I am so glad that I found this little thread! I am going to order the ES 30 the 14 and the 4.7 tomorrow or the next day. I have been so NERVOUS about dropping so much money on anything that I don't know that much about. I'm glad that all here seem to like theirs so much. Does anyone have the ES barlow? I might as well get one of those also if it's worth it.

[stevew]

I found the ES100, 82, and 68mm EP's to be excellent regardless of cost.

I'd have to agree.
I tried my ES 30mm against a 31 Nagler and was hard pressed to see the difference.
The only noticeable difference was the extra $300 in my bank account.

Steve

[csrlice12]

Would love to find someone at the Dark Site this weekend with the waterproof ES82 30mm. I have the older, nonwaterproof style and it would be nice to see a head-to-head comparison......

[Stargaz18]

I've got the ES 2" barlow, ES 30, ES 24 and the ES 18. I can't say for sure being still somewhat of a newbie to this but I think the barlow is of the same quality as the EP's. I've been totally blown away with all of them in my new ES ED80. Haven't yet had a chance to try them all out in the C9.25

[csrlice12]

"The only nit I had was a faint greenish tint that showed in the 82's when during daylight when my eye was close to the blackout position."

Didn't your mama tell you you'll go blind doing that?

[Achernar]

You'll be very happy with these eyepieces, but if you don't have a coma corrector, I suggest considering getting one. Chances are there's a local astronomy club near you who has members that have one you can try out in person. Yes, they can be expensive but I picked up a Paracorr for $150.00 used in good shape. Coma is quite noticeable at F/5 and below, and the huge apparent field of view will mean stars will be tiny comets across much of the field. I use Paracorrs in my 10 and 15-inch Dobs, and with the ES 82 degree eyepieces I get pinpoint stars right across the field. That results in fantastic views of objects such as the Pleiades and Double Cluster.

Taras

[russell23]

I am so glad that I found this little thread! I am going to order the ES 30 the 14 and the 4.7 tomorrow or the next day. I have been so NERVOUS about dropping so much money on anything that I don't know that much about. I'm glad that all here seem to like theirs so much. Does anyone have the ES barlow? I might as well get one of those also if it's worth it.

I have a 1.25" 2x ES barlow that I purchased in January. I've only had 2 chances to use it - a night with really lousy seeing conditions and a 2nd night that was pretty good seeing conditions.

Based upon the limited opportunity on that second night I think the ES 2x barlow is probably excellent. However, if the hourly forecast holds up I will have some clear skies this evening and will get back to you with specifics.

Dave

[csrlice12]

I truthfully don't use my barlows anymore, preferring fixed f/l eyepieces. Not that I won't ever use it, but just don't anymore (maybe on that one night in a lifetime where you see the stacked barlow pics). That being said, everyone should have a 2X barlow in their kit. Truth be told, barlows are pretty basic optical technology, and the GSO barlow will perform as well as any and also allows you to take off the bottom of the barlow and put in on your eyepiece and it acts like a 1.5X barlow...down the road though, as you collect more eyepieces (and who doesn't along the way), you'll probably find you use it less and less. I'd probalbly save a few $$ and go with the GSO barlow.

[Scanning4Comets]

I truthfully don't use my barlows anymore, preferring fixed f/l eyepieces. Not that I won't ever use it, but just don't anymore (maybe on that one night in a lifetime where you see the stacked barlow pics). That being said, everyone should have a 2X barlow in their kit. Truth be told, barlows are pretty basic optical technology, and the GSO barlow will perform as well as any and also allows you to take off the bottom of the barlow and put in on your eyepiece and it acts like a 1.5X barlow...down the road though, as you collect more eyepieces (and who doesn't along the way), you'll probably find you use it less and less. I'd probalbly save a few $$ and go with the GSO barlow.

Very valid points made here! I have been exactly the same in this regard to barlows. I've used them, got rid of them, (even more than my eyepieces believe it or not, lol), and I find that fixed FL eyepieces really do a lot better, especially when deep sky observing and needing more power because you only have so much time before the dim object in your sights drifts away from the field if you use a non-driven mount.

When it comes to planets, I will use a barlow any time because the object is bright and you can always find it again if it drifts from the view.

I've owned both the 2" GSO and 2" Antares barlows and can't see any difference in views from each. Just last night I saw a new barlow made by Antares: it has a 2" Twist Lock built right on it and is threaded for 2" filters!

Antares 2" 1.6x Barlow Lens with Twist Lock


Cheers,