Jump to content


Photo

Modern eyepieces in a vintage 60mm?

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 KeithC

KeithC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Atlanta GA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:52 PM

This is a question I used to wonder about in the 70's but I never acted on it. If I had ordered some better eyepieces for my Sears 60mm refractor would I have seen a significant improvement in performance? It came with an 18mm Kelner, (which I liked) and then some others that I disliked. To the best of my recollection there was also an SR 4 mm, which was aweful and then 2 others which I don't remember except that the eye relief was poor. I hated this telescope and said I would never want another one like it but now I find myself missing it.

#2 Darren Drake

Darren Drake

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2774
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2002
  • Loc: Chicagoland

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:03 PM

If it takes 1.25 inch eyepieces then absolutely yes. You may have to deal with weight issues and a wobbly mount if you're talking about the heavy wide field eyepieces. But the long f ratio of the scope does mean that even rather poor eyepieces will perform fairly well in the scope. That said just about any modern decent quality eyepiece should perform better than almost any low end throw in eyepiece from yesteryear.

#3 KeithC

KeithC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Atlanta GA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:10 PM

Thank you Darren. It was a .96" Japanese Standard.

#4 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43570
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:15 PM

Thank you Darren. It was a .96" Japanese Standard.


You could have used a hybrid diagonal that fit the 1.25 inch eyepieces and the 0.965 focuser. Or maybe you could have swapped the 0.965" visual back for a 1.25 inch.

But as Darren said, just about any modern eyepiece would provide a much better view.

Jon

#5 strdst

strdst

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Oregon Territory

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:35 PM

Did you hit him?


other keith

#6 roscoe

roscoe

    curmudgeon

  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2009
  • Loc: NW Mass, inches from VT

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:52 AM

Kieth,

Yep, back in the day, there were good/excellent EP's available in the then standard .965 barrel size...... and there are still some good ones made, but not many. Used ones still appear in the classifieds, and over time I have assembled a nice set of orthos and Kellners for my vintage 60mm scopes - I like the look of skinny EP's on skinny scopes.
Russ

#7 KeithC

KeithC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Atlanta GA

Posted 09 February 2013 - 08:53 PM

No Keith...thank goodness I did not hit him with the binoculars.

Thank you all for your suggestions. After 43 years, my rekindled interest in this scope has taken me by surprise. Especially considering how intensely I disliked it. But this is the scope that I found Saturn with all by myself. I still remember my cousins gasp at the eyepiece when I showed it to her. She exclaimed, "It's real!" "It really has a ring around it!" Pretty heady stuff for a 6th grade boy.

To the best of my recollection it came with 4 eyepieces. A large yellow one with a K designation, then an H, then an R, the worst of the lot being the SR 4mm.

I guess it's OK to take a long, slow look back...after all, this is where it all got started, many, many years ago.

#8 Glen A W

Glen A W

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 783
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2008
  • Loc: USA

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:02 PM

Yes, I bought a .965 5mm Circle T Ortho long ago for a 60 and the difference was awesome, specifically on Saturn. I had a Bushnell and the objective was really very good. GW

#9 KeithC

KeithC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Atlanta GA

Posted 13 February 2013 - 02:51 PM

Thanks for that tip Glen.

As a kid I spent countless hours studying the University Optics catalogs and drooling over their orthoscopic line. I never stopped wondering how much they might have improved the views.

#10 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5115
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:09 PM

They would have improved it tremendously. I also began my astronomy career with a pair of binoculars and a few years later, a 60mm refractor. I used a 15mm achromatic ramsden on it, from a cannibalized binocular and it was extremely sharp and crisp. A friend loaned me some really good orthos and symmetrics for it and the scope really performed.

Unfortunately, the scope has passed away many years ago (it was mostly plastic, except the objective), but the memories are still with me. I saw countless things with it.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#11 pogobbler

pogobbler

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 522
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Central Indiana, USA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:45 AM

I think that happens with a lot of observers who started off when young with a small refractor like that. You get into this love/hate relationship with it and then, years later, grow nostalgic for it. That eyepiece lineup sure sounds like the typical one that came with most of the 60mm refractors of old. I picked up one a couple years ago, from around 1982, and it came with a 21mm KE (Kellner), a 12mm H (Huygenian) and a 4mm SR (Ramsden). The 21mm was a decent eyepiece, though with a narrow field of view. The 12mm was decent with this scope, too, though with an even narrower field of view. The 4mm was just too much magnification to be useable with only 60mm aperture and a 30 degree or so field of view. I did get a .965" to 1.25" adapter and used that some, but it seemed like too much weight hanging off the end of the scope, so I ended up buying a few .965" Plossl eyepieces from Hands on Optics. They work very well with the scope, are inexpensive at $33 each, and the 50 degree or so field of view is a nice change. I think those are about your only option for buying new eyepieces in the .965" format, but you can always look on the used market. I've always wanted a set of classic .965" orthos for this scope, but, all in all, the modern Plossls probably do as good or better a job than reasonably priced used classics would.

#12 Roger64

Roger64

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Syracuse, NY

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:41 AM

PM sent.

#13 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4798
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: The Bluegrass State

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:57 PM

Here's some fairly modern 0.965 eyepieces, 2 Meade, 5 Celestron, circle T and Circle V, all achromatic, two orthos.

Attached Files



#14 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4798
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: The Bluegrass State

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:05 PM

Of course, there is always the older eyepieces :grin:

Terra

(Top row: 25 mm H. 18 mm K, 12.5 mm K, 9 mm Sym, 7mm Sym)
(Bottom row: 40 mm Mono, 5 mm Ortho, moon filter, sun filter)
*Sun filter for display purposes ONLY!

Attached Files



#15 KeithC

KeithC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Atlanta GA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:24 PM

Holy Cow that is some nice stuff!

Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts and (pics)!

#16 Compressorguy

Compressorguy

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Clayton, NC

Posted 15 February 2013 - 05:10 PM

Hi KeithC, I can say modern eyepieces made a tremendous difference in my Lafayette 60mm. The wider field of view and increased eye relief make these old scopes much more enjoyable to use. Here's a shot with a 5000 series Meade 8.8 UWA. Also note the PVC clamp I made to secure the hybrid diagonal from rotating and possibly falling out(that Meade eyepiece is quite heavy).

Here's a link to that post.


http://www.cloudynig...d=classics&a...

Attached Files



#17 KeithC

KeithC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Atlanta GA

Posted 15 February 2013 - 08:28 PM

I got a real chuckle out of that picture! Now you've really got me wondering. Thanks for sharing the link.

#18 Glen A W

Glen A W

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 783
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2008
  • Loc: USA

Posted 16 February 2013 - 06:43 PM

Hey, I had a Telrad on top of my 60mm. Hard to tell what the primary instrument was! GW






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics