Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Eyepieces

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | (show all)
dscarpa
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 03/15/08

Loc: San Diego Ca.
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: ThomasM]
      #5636730 - 01/22/13 11:50 AM

OPT has the orthos in stock but not the Plossl. I have a 18 BCO on backorder with them and should be getting it Wed! David

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stevetaylor199
sage
*****

Reged: 09/21/11

Loc: SE Wisconsin
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: Ain Soph Aur]
      #5636869 - 01/22/13 01:01 PM

I'm curious to hear how the 32mm plossl compares to, say, a Celestron 32mm Omni plossl at half the price. Or, for that matter, a TeleVue 32mm at double the price.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: stevetaylor199]
      #5637148 - 01/22/13 03:20 PM

Quote:

I'm curious to hear how the 32mm plossl compares to, say, a Celestron 32mm Omni plossl at half the price. Or, for that matter, a TeleVue 32mm at double the price.



The image quality is excellent. The build quality is medium. The field stop is a little smaller than some other 32mm Plossls. The edge is very sharp, but the AFOV is more like 45 degrees than 50 degrees.
It does have a larger true field than most 25-26mm Plossls, however.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John Huntley
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 07/16/06

Loc: South West England
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: Starman1]
      #5637627 - 01/22/13 07:52 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I'm curious to hear how the 32mm plossl compares to, say, a Celestron 32mm Omni plossl at half the price. Or, for that matter, a TeleVue 32mm at double the price.



The image quality is excellent. The build quality is medium. The field stop is a little smaller than some other 32mm Plossls. The edge is very sharp, but the AFOV is more like 45 degrees than 50 degrees.
It does have a larger true field than most 25-26mm Plossls, however.




I don't find the edge that sharp when using this eyepiece with my F/6.5 and F/7.5 ED refractors to be honest. It's sharp for 90% or so but not 100%.

I'd estimate the apparent field of view at 45 degrees as well.

So far, for me, the 18mm ortho is the best eyepiece of this set.

Edited by John Huntley (01/22/13 07:53 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: John Huntley]
      #5637742 - 01/22/13 08:57 PM

Gee, has this topic gone off into an examination of any eyepiece that comes to mind? The OP, and I, would like to know about anyone's actual use of a BCO since being delivered this past week or two, not yadda-yadda-yadda. Seeesh!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I'm curious to hear how the 32mm plossl compares to, say, a Celestron 32mm Omni plossl at half the price. Or, for that matter, a TeleVue 32mm at double the price.



The image quality is excellent. The build quality is medium. The field stop is a little smaller than some other 32mm Plossls. The edge is very sharp, but the AFOV is more like 45 degrees than 50 degrees.
It does have a larger true field than most 25-26mm Plossls, however.




I don't find the edge that sharp when using this eyepiece with my F/6.5 and F/7.5 ED refractors to be honest. It's sharp for 90% or so but not 100%.

I'd estimate the apparent field of view at 45 degrees as well.

So far, for me, the 18mm ortho is the best eyepiece of this set.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John Huntley
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 07/16/06

Loc: South West England
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5637840 - 01/22/13 09:47 PM

Quote:

Gee, has this topic gone off into an examination of any eyepiece that comes to mind? The OP, and I, would like to know about anyone's actual use of a BCO since being delivered this past week or two, not yadda-yadda-yadda. Seeesh! ...




I've used the Baader Classic 32mm plossl, the 3 orthos and the 2.25x Q-Turret barlow over the past 7 days.

My comments are based on what I've actually experienced with them, not just "yadda-yadda-yadda"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stevetaylor199
sage
*****

Reged: 09/21/11

Loc: SE Wisconsin
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: John Huntley]
      #5637903 - 01/22/13 10:36 PM

Thanks, Don and John. Peter, the 32mm Plossl I asked about is part of the BCO set.

Edit to add: Now, why the 32mm is the oddball with a Plossl design is a question I can't recall ever seeing answered. I wonder why Baader didn't make this an ortho as well.

Edited by stevetaylor199 (01/22/13 11:56 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: stevetaylor199]
      #5637999 - 01/22/13 11:22 PM

No offense but most of the replies to the OP's question about BCO's have been way off topic (i.e., Plossl's, Q-Turret, compression rings, etc.).

Edited by Peter Natscher (01/22/13 11:30 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
johnnyha
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5638016 - 01/22/13 11:30 PM



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: johnnyha]
      #5638484 - 01/23/13 09:18 AM



Quote:






Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5638754 - 01/23/13 11:41 AM

OK, I can't take the pressure any more. I'll come clean with my comparo.

The same night I took out my 90mm Mak and the Q-Turret, of course I had four eyepieces along with me, too. They were the BGO 9, SF (Sheldon Faworski) Ortho 10.5, TV Plossl 11 ... and the BCO 10. According to Clear Sky Chart, the seeing was supposed to be "poor," but I think it was better than that. I'd give it about a 3.5 to 4 out of five. The Moon was one day past first quarter.

Except for the BGO 9, the eyepieces were nearly parfocal. I just needed to move two of them up a little in the focuser holders. Then I could switch the Q-Turret quickly and easily among the BCO 10, SF 10.5 and TV Plossl 11. For the BGO 9, I had to use the focus knob on the 90mm Mak.

The magnifications and exit pupils were:

BGO 9 _____ 167x _____ 0.9mm
BCO 10 ____ 150x _____ 1.0mm
SF 10.5 ____ 143x _____ 1.1mm
TV 11 ______ 136x _____ 1.1mm

First I observed the Moon. All four eyepieces gave a comparable view of the lunar surface. I couldn't find any detail that was visible in any of the four eyepieces that wasn't visible in all four. But the TV Plossl 11 gave me the most pleasing presentation. There was something about it that was just more "contrasty."

I looked for some detail that was seen in the TeleVue that I couldn't see in any of the others, but there wasn't any. Somehow, though, the TV Plossl presented an image that was "contrastier" which gave the illusion perhaps of a sharper image. This was especially noticeable on the maria, away from the terminator. Maybe this was due to the "coffee" tone? The 11mm is one of the newer TV Plossls, with the undercut. I was surprised, because my previous experience binoviewing the Moon in my 10" and 8" Dobs with a pair of new TV Plossl 25mm (at 12mm or shorter due to an OCA) was nothing special. In those cases, I preferred pairs of BGO's or even SA LERs. Maybe I should try binoviewing the Moon with my shorter focal length TV Plossls?

Next I turned to Jupiter. All four Galilean moons were lined up to the west of the planet. They were about equally spaced. A nice show. I could tell they were not stars, though they were not quite resolved as disks. The NEB and SEB were obvious and easy. The polar regions were also not difficult. When the seeing cleared a bit, I could begin to make out a few more bands. Switching among the eyepieces, I could discern no variation in the level of detail or perceived contrast. Especially when switching quickly among the three "parfocal" eyepieces, no differences were seen in the images. Even the magnifications were close enough that the size of the disk did not change appreciably.

I wouldn't want to make a final judgment based on this comparo. Smaller apertures often cannot show the subtle differences among eyepieces that larger ones can. And the seeing was only mediocre. A better comparo would be in a larger aperture during better seeing. But that night was cold and I knew the seeing wasn't the best. That's why I took out the 90mm, and not my 8" or 10" Dob.

Maybe next time.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
denis0007dl
sage
***

Reged: 04/17/12

Loc: Croatia
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5639091 - 01/23/13 03:19 PM

Quote:

OK, I can't take the pressure any more. I'll come clean with my comparo.

The same night I took out my 90mm Mak and the Q-Turret, of course I had four eyepieces along with me, too. They were the BGO 9, SF (Sheldon Faworski) Ortho 10.5, TV Plossl 11 ... and the BCO 10. According to Clear Sky Chart, the seeing was supposed to be "poor," but I think it was better than that. I'd give it about a 3.5 to 4 out of five. The Moon was one day past first quarter.

Except for the BGO 9, the eyepieces were nearly parfocal. I just needed to move two of them up a little in the focuser holders. So I could switch the Q-Turret quickly and easily among the BCO 10, SF 10.5 and TV Plossl 11. For the BGO 9, I had to use the focus knob on the 90mm Mak.

The magnifications and exit pupils were:

BGO 9 _____ 167x _____ 0.9mm
BCO 10 ____ 150x _____ 1.0mm
SF 10.5 ____ 143x _____ 1.1mm
TV 11 ______ 136x _____ 1.1mm

First I observed the Moon. All four eyepieces gave a comparable view of the lunar surface. I couldn't find any detail that was visible in any of the four eyepieces that wasn't visible in all four. But the TV Plossl 11 gave me the most pleasing presentation. There was something about it that was just more "contrasty."

I looked for some detail that was seen in the TeleVue that I couldn't see in any of the others, but there wasn't any. Somehow, though, the TV Plossl presented an image that was "contrastier" which gave the illusion perhaps of a sharper image. This was especially noticeable on the maria, away from the terminator. Maybe this was due to the "coffee" tone? The 11mm is one of the newer TV Plossls, with the undercut. I was surprised, because my previous experience binoviewing the Moon in my 10" and 8" Dobs with a pair of new TV Plossl 25mm (at 12mm or shorter due to an OCA) was nothing special. In those cases, I preferred pairs of BGO's or even SA LERs. Maybe I should try binoviewing the Moon with my shorter focal length TV Plossls?

Next I turned to Jupiter. All four Galilean moons were lined up to the west of the planet. They were about equally spaced. A nice show. I could tell they were not stars, though they were not quite resolved as disks. The NEB and SEB were obvious and easy. The polar regions were also not difficult. When the seeing cleared a bit, I could begin to make out a few more bands. Switching among the eyepieces, I could discern no variation in the level of detail or perceived contrast. Especially when switching quickly among the three "parfocal" eyepieces, no differences were seen in the images. Even the magnifications were close enough that the size of the disk did not change appreciably.

I wouldn't want to make a final judgment based on this comparo. Smaller apertures often cannot show the subtle differences among eyepieces that larger ones can. And the seeing was only mediocre. A better comparo would be in a larger aperture during better seeing. But that night was cold and I knew the seeing wasn't the best. That's why I took out the 90mm, and not my 8" or 10" Dob.

Maybe next time.

Mike




Thanxs for info!!!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BillP
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/26/06

Loc: Vienna, VA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5639152 - 01/23/13 04:04 PM

Quote:

...the TV Plossl presented an image that was "contrastier" which gave the illusion perhaps of a sharper image. This was especially noticeable on the maria, away from the terminator. Maybe this was due to the "coffee" tone?




Yup...my experience as well with the Maria. Warmer toned eyepieces show Maria features a little better than cooler toned eyepieces. However, take that warmer toned eyepiece and turn it on finely detailed ejecta patterns in and around craters, and all of a sudden it does not show as well as the cooler toned eyepiece will IME. In the end, no one tonal quality is good for all details on the Moon since it is just too rich and varied of a target.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ausastronomerModerator
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/30/03

Loc: Kiama NSW (Australia)
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: BillP]
      #5639349 - 01/23/13 06:12 PM

Keep it on topic please everyone. The thread is about Baader orthos.

Eyepiece turrets, vintage focusers and the like can be discussed in a separate thread.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
keroppilee
member


Reged: 09/14/12

Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: ausastronomer]
      #5639420 - 01/23/13 06:52 PM

I already have a widefield/finder piece in the es 82* 30mm, and a good mid power piece in the es 82* 11mm. Would you recommend the 6mm BCO as a good high power/planetary? Or is it super difficult to use a non widefield piece at that magnification?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter Natscher
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/28/06

Loc: Central Coast California
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: BillP]
      #5639503 - 01/23/13 08:02 PM

I like observing the moon with neutral-toned eyepieces (Brandon's) that show the surface coloring as it really s and more realistically -- a cool gray color. There is no sunrise/sunset earth-like atmospheric coloring on the moon.

Quote:

Quote:

...the TV Plossl presented an image that was "contrastier" which gave the illusion perhaps of a sharper image. This was especially noticeable on the maria, away from the terminator. Maybe this was due to the "coffee" tone?




Yup...my experience as well with the Maria. Warmer toned eyepieces show Maria features a little better than cooler toned eyepieces. However, take that warmer toned eyepiece and turn it on finely detailed ejecta patterns in and around craters, and all of a sudden it does not show as well as the cooler toned eyepiece will IME. In the end, no one tonal quality is good for all details on the Moon since it is just too rich and varied of a target.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
stevetaylor199
sage
*****

Reged: 09/21/11

Loc: SE Wisconsin
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: Peter Natscher]
      #5639560 - 01/23/13 08:57 PM

Chris, if you're using an undriven dob as I believe your Skyquest 8" may be, you might consider another ES 82 eyepiece. A 6mm ortho will have less than half the field of view as your 11mm ES 82. I found that the BCO 6 has a wider and more comfortable FOV than an older Baader 6mm ortho, but it's still pretty limited compared to the 82 deg FOV that allows for such relaxed tracking.

If you're comfortable with moving your scope more than twice as fast to track an object as you currently do with your ES 11, and you can also deal with less eye relief, then try out the BCO. I haven't tried mine in my 8" dob yet, but my expectation is to stick with my ES 6.7 for planet viewing with that scope.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
johnnyha
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression new [Re: stevetaylor199]
      #5639600 - 01/23/13 09:40 PM

Thanks y'all, I'm thinking about getting a set myself. Looking forward to more reviews of the 6, 10, and 18.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Traveler
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 08/19/07

Loc: The Netherlands
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression [Re: johnnyha]
      #5639953 - 01/24/13 02:14 AM

Before i buy some BCO's i have two questions:

Are these BCO's really different (optical wise) then the BGO's besides the differences in coating?

Is it possible to undo the BCO's from the eyeguards? How does that look? Maybe someone is able to show us a picture?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Weir
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/01/04

Loc: Metchosin (Victoria), Canada
Re: Baader Classic Ortho - Initial impression [Re: keroppilee]
      #5639963 - 01/24/13 02:29 AM

Quote:

Would you recommend the 6mm BCO as a good high power/planetary? Or is it super difficult to use a non widefield piece at that magnification?




I would. I just got back from checking out my new 6mm BCO using my f/8 6". I picked it up at the mailbox just a few minutes before. (so much for the equipment curse) The seeing wasn't the best but still Jupiter was fabulous with nice colours and the four moons showed as tiny discs and there was noticeable colour differences between them.

On the Moon I was very impressed. The ejecta around the crater Kepler was as good as I've ever seen it. I can also say the same about the Aristarchus-Herodotu-Vallis Schröter area. I sequenced though my 5mm BGO, 6mm BCO and 7mm UO HD on both objects and all three behaved similarly except with the different magnifications. I'm happy with my purchase.

If you're scope moves smoothly and you're competent with guiding it then a 6mm ortho will be fine. Just don't expect to not be always moving something.

Bill


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | (show all)


Extra information
18 registered and 25 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  ausastronomer, droid, Scott in NC 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 14921

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics