Jump to content


Photo

ZAO I vs. ZAO II...?

  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#26 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16183
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:00 PM

My only Zeiss lens is the one in my smartphone camera. Therefore, I'm volunteering; send me your losing ZAOs and I'll make sure they're properly diciplined (may take a few years, you know how those ZAOs can be).


This must have been directed to the thread in general or someone else in particular. I don't have any ZAO's. The closest I have to ZAO's are my two XO's.

:grin:
Mike

#27 Levine

Levine

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2006
  • Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" W

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:09 PM

Obligatory pic #2:

Attached Files



#28 RodgerHouTex

RodgerHouTex

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:44 PM

OK. I'll ask again, what exactly were the differences in the diffraction patterns that your friend saw to allow him to draw his conclusion? Did he see surface roughness, astigmatism, more scatter, what?

#29 RodgerHouTex

RodgerHouTex

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:48 PM

And wait, Roland considers Brandon one of his BEST planetary eyepieces. :jump:

I have the black anniversary set.

#30 Levine

Levine

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2006
  • Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" W

Posted 06 May 2013 - 02:01 PM

OK. I'll ask again, what exactly were the differences in the diffraction patterns that your friend saw to allow him to draw his conclusion? Did he see surface roughness, astigmatism, more scatter, what?


He did not specify or elaborate.

:shrug:

#31 RodgerHouTex

RodgerHouTex

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:27 PM

Thanks for the response Levine.

#32 Paul G

Paul G

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4934
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:39 PM

Obligatory pic #2:


Sweet! Congrats on scoring the 34.

#33 Levine

Levine

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2006
  • Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" W

Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:14 PM

Obligatory pic #2:


Sweet! Congrats on scoring the 34.


Thanks! :grin:

#34 stevenwav

stevenwav

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: New England

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:16 PM

I had bino pairs of both sets. I felt it was a bit redundant having both sets and I obviously had a lot of money tied up in them. I became quite interested in planetary and lunar observing and consequently my scope collection started to feature longer and longer focal lengths.
Having read about the development of the ZAO first generation ep's, I discovered that they were originally created to optimize the Zeiss APQ line- with focal lengths of f/8. Of course, they would optimize any focal length but they were made with the APQ series in mind. As a previous post mentions, the ZAO II's are optimized for faster scopes, but of course, excellent for all others as well.
As my focal lengths went up, f/8 - f/20 for my planetary specialists, it became an obvious choice to stick with the first generation ZAO's for me. I guess I am a purist.
It should be noted that the CZJ's are also excellent, and they were optimized for f/10 according to what I read, but again, they are terrific across the board. The 16's even beat my ZAO II bino pairs on the moon one night when I compared them - more contrast and detail seen on that particular night, under that particular sky (tmb 100/800).

Attached Files



#35 vahe

vahe

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 817
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Houston, Texas

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:45 AM

lengths.
As my focal lengths went up, f/8 - f/20 for my planetary specialists, it became an obvious choice to stick with the first generation ZAO's for me. I guess I am a purist.



What F/20 do you have? I am just curious as I believe that F/20 seems to be the ideal ratio for dedicated planetary scope if you happen to be a purist.

Also, do you have any experience with Pentax SMC Orthos, I have recently completed pairs of 6, 7, 9, 12 & 18, the 6mm has a nasty eye relief and is very uncomfortable to use, the 7mm is just about the shortest useable eyepiece from that series.

Vahe

#36 stevenwav

stevenwav

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: New England

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:59 AM

Hi Vahe - my Royce Optics DK 10" is at f/20. Recently acquired, i haven't had time to fully utilize it yet. It has the smaller co, so it is optimized for planetary.
I have not used the Pentax SMC but was offered a set in trade. I would be very interested in your evaluation of them for future reference.

#37 etsleds

etsleds

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2009

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:02 PM

Steve, the Pentax work very well in the AP178, excellent field correction at that focal ratio and lovely overall performance.

#38 vahe

vahe

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 817
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Houston, Texas

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:41 PM

I would rate Pentax SMC’s the next best Ortho’s after ZAO’s, my favorite planetary SMC is the 18mm, it’s my Jupiter eyepiece with MC200/20 giving x277. The other favorite is the 9mm, I just recently completed SMC 7mm pairs but have not tried them yet, the 7’s produce x250 with my AP155 EDT right at that scopes optimum power for Moon & planets.
Too bad Pentax did not continue the series with longer than 18mm.

Vahe

#39 stevenwav

stevenwav

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: New England

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:26 PM

:foreheadslap: Not what I wanted to hear -LOL! I'm trying to achieve a sense of peace and contentment over here. I was afraid I was missing out on something by passing on the Pentax set. I may just have to try them if I get a chance at some again.

#40 etsleds

etsleds

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2009

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:44 PM

Nah, Steve, not a problem when you have the ZAO set!

The Zeiss essentially do everything well without serious deficits. On a night of superb seeing, nothing really beats them.

The Pentax I use more often because they are cheaper, are more of a full system focal lengths, and on less than perfect nights lose nothing to the ZAO-IIs. Other minimal glass performs superbly, but there are more obvious compromises under normal seeing, eg the TMB Supermono fov, the Tak MC glare control, etc.

For the AP178, I use the 7mm and 9mm the most for 178x and 229x - my seeing usually supports that and I just don't find planetary viewing below about 150x much fun anyway. If seeing supports better, out come the ZAO-IIs and 5XO, if worse, switch to Nikon SWs for a more comfortable & wider view.

Maybe picking up a 7mm or 9mm is the ticket?

#41 stevenwav

stevenwav

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: New England

Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:59 PM

I will definitely keep an eye out for some clean examples - I'm intrigued. Great to hear how specific eps work with specific scopes and focal lengths.

#42 NickG

NickG

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 750
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:06 AM

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:

"The Abbe Orthoscopic I 1.25 inch eyepiece is THE original by Carl Zeiss Jena. The Abbe II is an inferior copy by Baader, and is frankly the biggest insult to astronomy that I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a fair few in my time.

The Abbe II is trying to piggyback the Abbe I for success.
You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.

I use a full set of the originals in my observatory, and there is nothing that comes close, they are that good."

So, this persons opinion is quite clear. Not my opinion mind you! So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss?? :shrug:

Clear skies.

#43 ManuelJ

ManuelJ

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 765
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Madrid, Spain

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:18 AM

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:

"The Abbe Orthoscopic I 1.25 inch eyepiece is THE original by Carl Zeiss Jena. The Abbe II is an inferior copy by Baader, and is frankly the biggest insult to astronomy that I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a fair few in my time.

The Abbe II is trying to piggyback the Abbe I for success.
You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.

I use a full set of the originals in my observatory, and there is nothing that comes close, they are that good."

So, this persons opinion is quite clear. Not my opinion mind you! So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss?? :shrug:

Clear skies.


:roflmao:

#44 great_bear

great_bear

    Viking 1

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

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:39 AM

You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.


Hmmm... Great detective work.
Alternatively, just read the label.

So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss??


IIRC Baader paid Zeiss to do a new production run. It sounds like the person you spoke to misunderstood this and incorrectly believed Baader "copied" the original Abbe's.

#45 Sgt

Sgt

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Under the southern horn of the bull

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:48 AM

The person who told you that doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:

"The Abbe Orthoscopic I 1.25 inch eyepiece is THE original by Carl Zeiss Jena. The Abbe II is an inferior copy by Baader, and is frankly the biggest insult to astronomy that I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a fair few in my time.

The Abbe II is trying to piggyback the Abbe I for success.
You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.

I use a full set of the originals in my observatory, and there is nothing that comes close, they are that good."

So, this persons opinion is quite clear. Not my opinion mind you! So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss?? :shrug:

Clear skies.



#46 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16183
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:59 AM

etsleds,

If seeing supports better, out come the ZAO-IIs and 5XO, if worse, switch to Nikon SWs for a more comfortable & wider view.


I have an XO 5 and XO 2.5, but have never owned or even looked through a ZAO-I or ZAO-II. I like the XO's very much for planets and double stars. I have heard that the XO's are at the same level of performance as the ZAO's. In your experience, how do you think they compare on nights of good seeing?

Mike

#47 NickG

NickG

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 750
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 08:17 AM

The person who told you that doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:

"The Abbe Orthoscopic I 1.25 inch eyepiece is THE original by Carl Zeiss Jena. The Abbe II is an inferior copy by Baader, and is frankly the biggest insult to astronomy that I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a fair few in my time.

The Abbe II is trying to piggyback the Abbe I for success.
You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.

I use a full set of the originals in my observatory, and there is nothing that comes close, they are that good."

So, this persons opinion is quite clear. Not my opinion mind you! So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss?? :shrug:

Clear skies.


Ok fair enough. Sounds like he was talking rubbish.

#48 NickG

NickG

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 750
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 08:22 AM

You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.


Hmmm... Great detective work.
Alternatively, just read the label.

So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss??


IIRC Baader paid Zeiss to do a new production run. It sounds like the person you spoke to misunderstood this and incorrectly believed Baader "copied" the original Abbe's.


Thanks for clearing this up. A misunderstanding or deliberately trying to mislead people?? Hmmm

Clear skies
Cheers

#49 stevenwav

stevenwav

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2012
  • Loc: New England

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:23 AM

I think I saw that post once and I believe it was refuted later in the chain. The views from the II's were fantastic - that should be enough evidence right there. I also believe in the AP-UG, Roland expresses that he has sets of both and that both views were not different. I can find it if I need to for CN regs.

#50 RodgerHouTex

RodgerHouTex

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:07 AM

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I heard something similar. That the ZAO Is were designed and made by Zeiss. The ZAO IIs lenses were made by Zeiss but the body of the eyepieces were made for Baader by someone else. It kind of makes sense to me because I own the so called Zeiss barlow that came with the ZAO II set and it has Baader marked on the side.

It has also been the Baader model to do that with some of their prism diagonals which contain Zeiss prisms as well as, if I remember correctly the Baader Mark V binoviewers.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics