Jump to content


Photo

Brandon Standouts?

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 desertlens

desertlens

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2010
  • Loc: 36°N 105°W

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:04 PM

I'm generally aware of the characteristics of the Brandon design and its execution by Vernonscope but wonder if any are particularly good. I'm considering a 24mm flat top at the moment but that could change. Thanks for your input.

#2 urassner

urassner

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 301
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2012

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:13 PM

Hi Craig, I just got my volcano top Brandons (24, 16 and 12 mm) a few days ago and have only gotten a couple nights in under less than ideal conditions. Image quality was excellent in all of them. The 24 and 16 had enough eye relief to use them with my glasses on, the 12 mm not quite.
Just posted about it here.
Ulrich

#3 desertlens

desertlens

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2010
  • Loc: 36°N 105°W

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:31 PM

Thanks Ulrich. I saw your post/photos. They look beautiful... and simple. The latter is my mantra these days.

#4 Sean Cunneen

Sean Cunneen

    Let Me Think

  • *****
  • Posts: 3217
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Blue Island Illinois

Posted 17 August 2013 - 02:24 PM

I think the 24 is very special. The 8 isn't so bad either...

#5 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5612
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 17 August 2013 - 04:31 PM

My vote would be for the 24. It barlows wonderfully too. A better presentation than the 10 Delos. That's saying a lot coming from a Delos fan.

#6 MRNUTTY

MRNUTTY

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Mendon, MA

Posted 17 August 2013 - 04:50 PM

hmm.. Ilke the all. I have the quad turret and can only fit 4 out of 5 of the 1.5 inch ones. So I have the other probem; which am I willing to do without... often it's the 24 so I can get the 32 in for widest field. interesting, maybe I need to mix it up more.

#7 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 17 August 2013 - 04:54 PM

The 24mm is 53 degrees, so fairly wide for a planetary and the largest AFOV of the Brandon line. As said they barlow really well, I use mine with a 2.5X Powermate. The 24mm flattops make beautiful binoviewer pairs.

Attached Files



#8 desertlens

desertlens

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2010
  • Loc: 36°N 105°W

Posted 17 August 2013 - 05:53 PM

Thanks all. This is helpful input. Would the 24mm play well with a conventional Barlow (TV 2x) or would you recommend the Powermate (or 2.4x Dakin)? I'm working on building a "simple set", perhaps 2 EPs and a Barlow. My experience with longer FLs and Barlows has not been very good.

#9 Mak2007

Mak2007

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 620
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2007

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:38 PM

I'm generally aware of the characteristics of the Brandon design and its execution by Vernonscope but wonder if any are particularly good. I'm considering a 24mm flat top at the moment but that could change. Thanks for your input.


You need to try it. It depends on your telescope. Brandons are insuperable in long focal telescopes. I usually read and learn here, I don't like to comment. But let me tell you my own experience: I did compare in my ETX-125 (f/15) a 16mm Nagler Type 6 and a 16mm old Brandon, volcano top. The difference was huge in favor of the Brandon. The Nagler was very good with a wide field, but it has noticeable pincushion. The Brandon doesn't show pincushion, and the view was more pleasant to my eye, and with more contrast. I had no doubts: I sold the 16T6 Nagler and my 24mm Panoptic, and replaced with Brandons (16, 24 and 32).

#10 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5612
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:25 PM

hmm.. Ilke the all. I have the quad turret and can only fit 4 out of 5 of the 1.5 inch ones. So I have the other probem; which am I willing to do without... often it's the 24 so I can get the 32 in for widest field. interesting, maybe I need to mix it up more.


If I had to do without one ... probably the 6 for eye relief as I can barlow a longer one.

Thankfully I don't have to do without one though :grin:

Side discussion - my 16 is definitely not parfocal with the rest. Does anyone else see this?

#11 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5612
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:27 PM

Thanks all. This is helpful input. Would the 24mm play well with a conventional Barlow (TV 2x) or would you recommend the Powermate (or 2.4x Klee)? I'm working on building a "simple set", perhaps 2 EPs and a Barlow. My experience with longer FLs and Barlows has not been very good.


If it is a quality barlow I should think so. I'm using an AP Barcon (1.7x) and a Dakin (2.4x) with excellent results.

#12 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16381
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 17 August 2013 - 11:45 PM

I have the 6mm through 32mm Brandons. For planet viewing, I like the Brandon 6 and 8mm best monoviewed. The eye relief is not uncomfortable to me. I like pairs of the 12 and 16mm for binoviewing planets.

Mike

#13 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14448
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 18 August 2013 - 12:25 AM

I like them all; but if I had to pinpoint any, I'd go for the 6mm and the 48mm.

#14 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16381
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 18 August 2013 - 10:35 AM

I've avoided the 4mm and 48mm Brandons. The 4 is said to be a relative clunker, and the 48 has too long a focal length for any of my scopes.

Mike

#15 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5612
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 18 August 2013 - 02:23 PM

The eye relief is not uncomfortable to me.


It's funny how one learns to live with it given some time and effort.

Of course, I still prefer longer - but I will no longer allow a reputation for short eye relief to automatically rule out an eyepiece.

#16 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16381
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 18 August 2013 - 03:11 PM

The eye relief is not uncomfortable to me.


It's funny how one learns to live with it given some time and effort.


No, not at all. The eye relief on the Brandon 6 and 8 NEVER seemed uncomfortable to me. It does not matter how it seems to anyone else. This is something that each individual observer can only determine for themselves.

Of course, I still prefer longer - but I will no longer allow a reputation for short eye relief to automatically rule out an eyepiece.


This is a good principle to live by. Sure, I had heard the horror stories about the tight eye relief of the 6 and 8. These stories made me reluctant to acquire them. By after I acquired and tried them for myself, I found that for me, they are not uncomfortable at all. Especially when fitted with shallow eye cups, I find them both pretty comfortable. I use them more often than the longer focal length Brandons. In fact, I hardly use the 24 and 32 at all.

Mike

#17 desertlens

desertlens

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2010
  • Loc: 36°N 105°W

Posted 18 August 2013 - 03:13 PM

I'm not troubled by short eye relief either but I don't need glasses to observe. I've been using a lot of Abbes lately and rarely think about it.

#18 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16381
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 18 August 2013 - 03:16 PM

I don't need glasses to observe through the telescope - only to read and to see the stars. But for convenience sake, I keep my glasses on as often as possible when I'm observing. Certainly for the Brandon 6 and 8 I need to take my glasses off. No big deal.

Mike

#19 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: The Netherlands, Europe

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:07 PM

In my Questar 7, the 24 was superb. For higher mags, the 12 worked wonderfully. The 16 is perhaps a sweet spot in most scopes, depending on F.L. Never really enjoyed the 32mm, much preferred the 24 over that one. Would keep the scope slow though, f/12 or slower, but not faster than f/8.

If I could pick only 1, it would have to be the 24mm Brandon.

#20 vahe

vahe

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 829
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Houston, Texas

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:20 PM

In my TEC 200/20 a pair of Brandon 24’s with Zeiss viewer are simply stunning on Jupiter, In this combination the views are very similar to looking through an apo.
These flat top Brandons are the closest thing to my other planetary favorite with this Mak, the 25mm ZAO-I’s.

Vahe

#21 Scott99

Scott99

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 18 August 2013 - 10:29 PM

When I had a set of Brandons the 16 and the 24 were my favorites, I pretty much wussed out on the eye relief of the shorter ones, didn't want to deal with it, but they're just as good.

#22 Kevin Ellis

Kevin Ellis

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Danbury Essex England

Posted 19 August 2013 - 03:00 PM

I recently acquired a full set of Brandons for my long focus refractors including the 6mm & 48mm.

Before purchasing I did read some concerns about eye relief. Some were favouring Brandons with flat tops. I don’t need glasses for viewing, so I ordered all of mine with the rubber eyecups as they can be unscrewed should you have a problem with eye relief. In addition, I ordered a few extra screw on eye cups without the rubber cup. The idea being that I could replace the screw on rubber eye cups with just the metal screw on insert. This then covers the threads on the top of the eyepiece making them almost flat tops. However, I have had no problem with eye relief, so the rubber eye cups have remained.

The 6mm and 48mm don’t come with eye cups.

#23 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12650
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 19 August 2013 - 07:41 PM

Several weeks ago, when Jupiter was up, I took out my newly purchased, used Brandon 8 to try with my 12.5 inch Portaball. I met up with a guy who had a 5 inch refractor (I forgot the brand) but it was one of the better ones. He was totally mesmerized by the view of Jupiter with the Brandon 8. On axis with my F5 Dob, I also appreciated the excellent views. The refractor guy kept coming back, and back, and back to get the Brandon and view.

I have only used a Brandon 8, but in my opinion, it is a mighty fine eyepiece. I am acquiring a small glass collection of a few eyepieces. However, I do prefer viewing with Delos and Ethos eyepieces in the majority of cases.

#24 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14448
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 20 August 2013 - 12:44 AM

I've avoided the 4mm and 48mm Brandons. The 4 is said to be a relative clunker, and the 48 has too long a focal length for any of my scopes.

Mike


The 4mm would have been a disappointment if I hadn't been forewarned. I only got one to complete the set; but it's not particularly better than my old no-name 4mm ortho. The old Chester lenses were good, but they just weren't even close to Don Yeier standards. Don only put out the 4mm's because we all hollered for them once we found out he had the lenses. He actually sort of tried to talk me out of buying one! (But I'm glad I did.)

And I hear you about the 48mm. I'd have the same problem if I didn't use a SCT. (But I do use one, and WOW!)

#25 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 20 August 2013 - 07:06 AM

That was the beauty of Don...he would tell you up front if they worked or not. He warned me of the performance or lack thereof, of the new 4mm release too, so I also avoided adding them to my Anniversary collection. I already had a Pentax 40XW too so the 48 was not justified. I even tried to get Don to make a 4&48mm Anniversay expansion set with the gold annodized coating...he said the cost of the short run wouldn't justify the price/performance ratio, even if I and others will willing to pay for it!!! I hope the new owners are as forthright about their product. Something tells me, they are. ;)






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics