Jump to content


Photo

Any DSO killer-ortho?

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 gregory93

gregory93

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 150
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012

Posted 15 October 2013 - 08:57 AM

Hello again !
Since ES has still production issues regarding the short fls i thought that maybe i could use some orthos to do my job.I will mostly use them on DSO's and not that much in planets(never been my favorite). Has anyone tried any orthos on galaxies,pns,and globs?Especially at 6-7mm range?

Clear skies.

#2 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10443
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:03 AM

Not in a dob I wouldn't....maybe in the ST80.....

#3 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5583
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:06 AM

Hello again !
Since ES has still production issues regarding the short fls i thought that maybe i could use some orthos to do my job.I will mostly use them on DSO's and not that much in planets(never been my favorite). Has anyone tried any orthos on galaxies,pns,and globs?Especially at 6-7mm range?

Clear skies.


I have started using Astro-Physics SPL's on select DSO's - excellent results thus far, superior to Delos in many cases (I'm thinking of the Bug Nebula in particular). One must choose the DSO carefully though. Larger open clusters for example, not so good. On the restricted field I lose the context of the object, since my telescope has a fairly long focal length of 2800 mm. But the types you mentioned I think you will be pleasantly surprised if your scope has smooth motions - or tracking.

#4 gregory93

gregory93

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 150
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:31 AM

Forgot to mention but i will be using them (if i get any) on a XT8". Mostly at faint galaxies and planetaries,since they are not that extensive objects.I do not have any experience with ortho,the smallest AFOV i have encountered is the AFOV of the 24mm Hyp Zoom and i do not have tracking.But got somehow smooth movements.

#5 aatt

aatt

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 450
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2012
  • Loc: CT

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:59 AM

I use my UO orthos on globs (12.5mm) and it is great for that, but some is invariably cut-off. I use the 9mm on planetaries or small globs sometimes. Can't complain, but I use mostly widefields on those objects as a rule.

#6 Tank

Tank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:14 PM

I find all simple glass Ortho/plossl/Mono to be great on DSOs however you do loose the FOV.
I find a Delos or XW works best for me yes not as much transmission but the presentation is wonderful with the large FOV.
Planetary I find is really where the orthos and simple glass shine!

#7 hfjacinto

hfjacinto

    I think he's got it!

  • *****
  • Posts: 11803
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Land of clouds and LP

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:56 PM

I used TMB supermono's and if if looking for the clearest planetary nebula and planet eyepiece, that was it. As for Globulars, it was weird, the extra FOV of a widefield made the globular pop more. This was becuase I needed to use less power to fit it all in with a TMB, so if looking for a PN buster the TMB's are it, otherwise get a few widefields, they frame almost all other objects better.

#8 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12631
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:15 PM

I used TMB supermono's and if if looking for the clearest planetary nebula and planet eyepiece, that was it. As for Globulars, it was weird, the extra FOV of a widefield made the globular pop more. This was becuase I needed to use less power to fit it all in with a TMB, so if looking for a PN buster the TMB's are it, otherwise get a few widefields, they frame almost all other objects better.


I use Ethos and Delos eyepieces for most of my viewing. More recently I have picked up some small glass eyepieces to see if I get a little better performance on planets and deep sky objects. I will need another six months to a year to firm up my conclusions. The small glass eyepieces I am testing include a 5 XO, a 7 TMB Super Mono, an 8 Brandon (planetary) and a 9 HuTech. Dim DSO's and stellar points are at the bottom of the list of objects I like to view. Two reasons are my interest, and the fact that I have to drive such a long distance to a good dark sky site. When I have a chance to do more observing comparing my big and small glass eyepieces, I will provide an update.

#9 ThreeD

ThreeD

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1029
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Sacramento suburbs

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:34 PM

Hello again !
Since ES has still production issues regarding the short fls i thought that maybe i could use some orthos to do my job.I will mostly use them on DSO's and not that much in planets(never been my favorite). Has anyone tried any orthos on galaxies,pns,and globs?Especially at 6-7mm range?

Clear skies.

I must say the difference in detail on the deer lick group between a 6mm Ethos and 6mm ZAO-II in Alvin's 22" F/4 was obvious. With my 16" F/4.5 my BGOs can give a minor improvement in detail over my Naglers. I believe the larger the scope the greater the difference.

http://faintfuzzies.com/AboutUs2.html

#10 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11358
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 15 October 2013 - 08:21 PM

I believe the larger the scope the greater the difference [with better eyepieces].


This has certainly been my experience over the years of eyepiece shootouts.

#11 Jim Curry

Jim Curry

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2007
  • Loc: STL

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:35 PM

I've used my Pentax SMC ortho's to good advantage on dim galaxies, Brandon's, too. Of course the Brandon's are easily purchased as well.

Jim

#12 bremms

bremms

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2012
  • Loc: SC

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:14 PM

Most of the time I use a wide field eyepiece for DSO's. However, the 10.5mm RGO is great on globulars and Planetaries. Also use UO orthos, Parks gold (Masuyama), TV smoothies. The 11mm and 8.8mm ES 82's are very good though.

#13 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10239
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:21 PM

On planetary nebula and other objects that don't seem or feel cropped with a 43 degree field Orthos are fine. Something like the veil however would benefit with another kind of ocular design.


Peye

#14 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10239
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:21 PM

On planetary nebula and other objects that don't seem or feel cropped with a 43 degree field Orthos are fine. Something like the veil however would benefit with another kind of ocular design.


Pete

#15 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10239
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:29 PM

I believe the larger the scope the greater the difference [with better eyepieces].


This has certainly been my experience over the years of eyepiece shootouts.


I wonder if its mainly because larger scopes commonly use larger exit pupils where coma and such comes into play where the better more pricey oculars strut their stuff. Said anotherway if it were views at 35x per inch perhaps the benefits wouldn't be nearly as apparent.

Just floating a thought.

Pete

#16 russell23

russell23

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4280
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 16 October 2013 - 06:16 AM

Not that they are easy to come by, but my 28mm Meade RG Ortho is very engaging as a DS eyepiece. There is something special about the combination of eye relief, presentation, flat field, and razor sharp field stop that comes together really nicely.

Dave

#17 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11358
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 16 October 2013 - 07:02 AM

When I met the guy I sold my set of Pentax SMC Orthos to, I expected he wanted them for planetary observing. I came to find out that he was part of a group of big Dob owners that travelled to local dark sites and a DSO hunter. He explained to me that he and his buddies didn't care that the AFOV was small on these Pentax Orthos as what mattered is that their transmission and contrast was so good he said that they easily picked up more details and structure on faint galaxies and nebula. As example, here's a review that includes simulation of the difference about 1/2 way down - 12mm Tele Vue Radian & 12mm SMC Pentax XF.

#18 SteveC

SteveC

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3376
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Sunshine State & Ocean State

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:56 PM

When I met the guy I sold my set of Pentax SMC Orthos to, I expected he wanted them for planetary observing. I came to find out that he was part of a group of big Dob owners that travelled to local dark sites and a DSO hunter. He explained to me that he and his buddies didn't care that the AFOV was small on these Pentax Orthos as what mattered is that their transmission and contrast was so good he said that they easily picked up more details and structure on faint galaxies and nebula. As example, here's a review that includes simulation of the difference about 1/2 way down - 12mm Tele Vue Radian & 12mm SMC Pentax XF.


Wow, I owned the 8mm Radian, and was impressed with its light transmission. I can honestly say that I never witnessed such a dramatic difference as was shown in the Sombrero drawing when I compared it to other eyepieces. My opinions were based on observations of planets, moon, and globs.
Edit, maybe it was the 6mm I owned, still, I have the same impression.

#19 JustaBoy

JustaBoy

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3934
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2012

Posted 16 October 2013 - 10:13 PM

I've always thought that the Radians looked dim.
-Chuck

#20 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5583
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:09 PM

I've always thought that the Radians looked dim.
-Chuck


I try not to make sell decisions rapidly, especially after selling the 17T4 Nagler.

But after the first outing with Brandons, I listed my Radians on Astromart within a couple of days.

#21 Starman81

Starman81

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1925
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Metro Detroit, MI, USA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:01 AM

You guys that don't need long eye relief eyepieces to observe are pretty lucky! Wait... No, I'm pretty lucky because more of my money stays in my wallet!

#22 george tatsis

george tatsis

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 709
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Flushing, NY - Europe

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:09 AM

I've always thought that the Radians looked dim.
-Chuck


I try not to make sell decisions rapidly, especially after selling the 17T4 Nagler.

But after the first outing with Brandons, I listed my Radians on Astromart within a couple of days.


Isn't it weird how we all perceive things differently!

I did the exact opposite with my Brandons!

As far as Amalia's report goes, I get the feeling that she was using one of the first generation Radians which didn't have the transmission the latest batches of Radians had.

I'm almost certain that this is what happened because I've gone through three different Radian sets over the last 13 years and there is a noticeable difference amongst them.

For instance, I have a 4mm Radian which at 225X is as bright as a first generation Radian at 180X. That says a lot about the improvement in coatings over the last ten years.

The latest run is as bright as any premium eyepiece out there! The question is if you can find them and tell which is which :question:

One piece of advice is valid though. The higher transmission Radians are the ones that lack the lower knurled grip on the lower part of the housing, like this one.

http://www.televue.c..._page.asp?id=50

This is the old one:

http://www.buytelesc...an-125-eyepiece

George

#23 Shneor

Shneor

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 837
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Northern California

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:40 AM

I use a Baader Classic Ortho when I want to tease a bit more detail out of a galaxy, especially if it's pretty faint.

#24 BillP

BillP

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11358
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Vienna, VA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 07:45 AM

Wow, I owned the 8mm Radian, and was impressed with its light transmission. I can honestly say that I never witnessed such a dramatic difference as was shown in the Sombrero drawing when I compared it to other eyepieces.


When the Radians first came out, they got a lot of bad press related to dim image. Coatings were updated on them I think about 2 years after introduction, then additional times I am sure. The updated coatings did miracles for them as George points out. When buying used Radians, I always tried to determine their approximate vintage from the sellers, or when they were purchased new to try to better my odds that they were newer stock. I've purchased some used Radians where the transmission was horrible, then re-purchased used ones of same focal length where the transmission is up to par. With newer stock, I compared my 12mm Radian to my 12mm XF and felt they were neck-in-neck.

Since vnedors always update their coatings as the coating manufacturers update their process, it is always important when reading shootout reviews to take this into account. If the reviewer does not specify the approximate purchase date of the eypieces, then an old stock of one brand vs a new stock of another could show differences just because of the updated coatings. So for eyepieces that have been around for a while it is important that one is working with the newest stock possible. While I like to buy used, if the eyepiece is a critical one for my observing I tend to buy new to ensure the most updated coatings...and I usually call the vendor to ask if it is old stock or new stock on their shelves.

#25 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5583
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:34 AM

As far as Amalia's report goes, I get the feeling that she was using one of the first generation Radians which didn't have the transmission the latest batches of Radians had.

I'm almost certain that this is what happened because I've gone through three different Radian sets over the last 13 years and there is a noticeable difference amongst them.


I don't recall the exact dates I acquired my Radians (all purchased new in focal lengths 14, 8, and 5) but it was certainly no later than 1999, and likely very shortly after their introduction. That would make them first generation I guess.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics