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
OUAstrphys
super member
Reged: 12/31/07
Posts: 102
Loc: Norman, OK
|
|
Generally speaking, which EP model is of higher optical quality, the Celestron Axiom or the Meade UW 5000?
Thanks!
--------------------
Alex
--------------------
14" RCX400
Edited by OUAstrphys (08/01/08 04:51 PM)
|
hoof
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/07/05
Posts: 1424
Loc: Irvine, CA
|
|
I would be surprised if the *build* quality of the Meade UWA was as good. However, optically (where it really counts), I'd love to hear about it.
I own the 18mm and 30mm Meade 5000 UWAs. The 30 was chosen after back-to-back tests with the 31mm Nagler, and I preferred the 30's reduced pincushion distortion over the flatter field of the 31mm. Both yielded nearly identical true-field-of-viewm, and ability to maintain pinpoint stars at the edge even at F/4. The 18mm is a scaled version of the 30mm, so it was a logical step when I needed a medium-focal-length UWA (plus it's 1.25", the lowest power 1.25" Nagler is a 16mm, lowest power axiom is 15mm, and 16mm for the UWAN).
The reason I bring this up is that I'd love to hear about the 31mm Axiom's pincushion (in addition to its sharpness, off-axis performance, and ability to handle steep light cones). If the 31mm Axiom has as little pincushion as the 30mm UWA, along with reduced field curvature, I might have to replace mine.
--------------------
Jonathan Hoof
15" F/4.14 Discovery Truss
8" F/5.9 Orion XT8i
6" F/6 Intes-Micro MN66
4.5" F/4 Orion Starblast
80mm F/7.5 Orion 80ED
18x50 IS Canon binoculars
|
helpwanted
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/04/07
Posts: 1757
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
i'd love to hear about the 10mm Axiom... and the sub-10mm Meades... thanks to the original poster for starting this!
--------------------
|
coutleef
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 02/21/08
Posts: 821
Loc: Montreal and St-Donat, Québec,...
|
|
I like this thread. We know so little about the axiom EPs and they seem so godd at a good price.
--------------------
François
Nexstar 8 SE
50mm StellarVue finderscope, Astronomik UHC-E and Orion OIII filters
WO Swan 40mm; TV Pan 22mm; TV Nagler 9T6, 12T4, 17T4; TV Plossl 11mm and 15mm.
WO 2" dielectric diagonal retrofitted with Denk Power Switch (and now reach the zenith with the shorty adapter).
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 777
|
|
Quote:
I would be surprised if the *build* quality of the Meade UWA was as good. However, optically (where it really counts), I'd love to hear about it.
?? I have them all and the build quality is excellent on all of them. My only complaint against them is the sheer bulk of the 24mm and 30mm. Looking through the latter is like peeking through a big hole in a fence. The top side is more like a wall than an eyepiece. The 30mm + Paracorr weighs as much as small counterweight.
Optically, they are impossible to top for the money. As you said, in some ways better than Naglers - not as good at suppressing stray light.
I would certainly like to hear more about the Axiom line. They are very handsome eyepieces as well.
-drl
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 777
|
|
Quote:
i'd love to hear about the 10mm Axiom... and the sub-10mm Meades... thanks to the original poster for starting this!
The sub-10 Meades are all totally outstanding and very consistent performers from model to model. It's impossible to pick one over the others based on merit, but for ease of use and perfect views, I'd say I use the 6.7mm the most. The CN reviews of the 18mm and 30mm are representative of the entire set. You can get a pair of 6.7s and a binoviewer for the price of 1 8mm Ethos.
-drl
|
OUAstrphys
super member
Reged: 12/31/07
Posts: 102
Loc: Norman, OK
|
|
I bought a 23mm Axiom with my CPC and then I received a 23mm UW5000 with my RCX400. The Axiom runs ~$100 less than the UW 5000 series for the same aperture. That's why I was wondering if there was any difference in quality. I do agree with the posts on this thread, I was really surprised at how well the Axiom performed.
--------------------
Alex
--------------------
14" RCX400
|
Lawrence Sayre
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 3699
Loc: N.E. Ohio
|
|
Is this potentially a case where both distributors are having their eyepieces manufactured by the same source?
--------------------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a moral being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
|
jack45
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/07/03
Posts: 2060
Loc: Lacey WA
|
|
I don't think so! Celestron has the Axiom 7mm,10mm,15mm,19mm,23mm and 31mm LX which don't add up to the Meade UWA EPS. I guess it could be the same manufactured but doesn't seem so!
Clear Skies!
--------------------
16"f/4.5 Discovery Split Tube/TV Paracorr
12.5"f/5 Discovery PDHQ/TV Barlow
Orion SkyQuest f/4.9 XT12"Intelliscope
Orion 120mm F/8.3 Refractor
Burgess BV 24mm aperture/Siebert 4 pc OCA
BV Pairs:26mm,20mm,17mm,14mm,12.5mm
Tele Vue Smooth Side Plossl,10.5mm,13mm,21mm,26mm,TV 11mm
UO Abbe Set,40mm 5000s Plossl,31mm Axiom LX,26mm T/5,LX,23mm Axiom LX,20mm T/2,16mm T/2,15mm Panoptic,14mm Meade UWA,10mm Axiom LX!
|
Lamb0
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/25/07
Posts: 668
Loc: Fairbury, Nebraska
|
|
 I prefer the old UW 4000 to newer UW 5000 - except for the coatings on the older eyepiece. I would not be surprised if the Axiom LXs outperformed the Meade UW 5000s. 
--------------------
John "Have eyepiece - will travel!"
8" f/5 Dob w/2.14" sec in a 12" alum tube 'The Mortar' - w/PCorr 2° TFoV @ 36.5X ~70% illum *NICE*
Typical eyepieces: 32 Burg, 24 Pan, 20T5, 5-8 SW, Others ALL 2": Pcorr, 2X PwrMt, Ast H-b, Lum UHC + OIII
60mm $50 Walmart Special in training - aka "Backpack Observatory"
Minolta Activa 12x50 , Steiner 15X80
|
jcjr
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/06/08
Posts: 563
Loc: TN, USA
|
|
Can anyone offer opinion about the Meade UW 5000 18mm eye relief, as compared to Nagler T6?
Have been playing with a new 13mm Nagler T6. For me that T6 is as close as it could get and still be tolerable. The Meade 18mm sounds desirable, IF it has practical eye relief at least as good as a Nagler T6. Preferably a little longer eye relief than a Nagler T6 (grin).
--------------------
CPC 1100, C102SLT, SV F80, Meade 70 & 60 AZT
Q70 38mm, Pan24, Meade 5K 18mm UW, Axiom LX 15mm, Nagler 13T6, Axiom LX 10mm, Expanse 20mm, 9mm, 6mm, BO/TMB 5mm, 2.5mm
|
amys
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/06
Posts: 1767
Loc: Groton, CT
|
|
Isn't there a comparison of those 2 eyepieces in the Review section on cloudy nights? I thought I just read it. If it's not there, check the Astromart reviews.
--------------------
Amy
|
hoof
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/07/05
Posts: 1424
Loc: Irvine, CA
|
|
On paper, the 18mm UWA has slightly shorter eye relief (I think) vs T6 Naglers. In actual use, I find the 18mm much more comfortable to use vs my 11T6 that I used to own.
There are two reasons for this that I can think of. The first is the strongly curved eye lens for the 18. This better fits the eye's natural curve. Not sure if this has anything to do with it, but I suspect the "dish" shape of the 18's lens helps with the eye relief.
The other reason is a reduced tendancy to black out and a better formed exit pupil. The T6's are pretty good (better than the 14mm and shorter series 5000 UWA's), but the 18mm UWA is better. I cannot get the 18mm to kidney-bean while I could easily do that with the T6. Plus, I don't feel like I have to cram my eye in to see the whole eye like with the T6's (and especially the 14mm and shorter UWAs). Again, the T6's aren't bad, but the 18mm is simply more comfortable to me.
IMO, the 18mm UWA is the best of the Meade UWA line. Except for the eye relief, I'd argue it's almost as good as the series 4000 14mm (although the 14mm suffers from kidney-beaning). If you don't mind the T6's eye relief, the 18mm should be fine for you.
--------------------
Jonathan Hoof
15" F/4.14 Discovery Truss
8" F/5.9 Orion XT8i
6" F/6 Intes-Micro MN66
4.5" F/4 Orion Starblast
80mm F/7.5 Orion 80ED
18x50 IS Canon binoculars
|
ChrisEl
newbie
Reged: 08/04/08
Posts: 1
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
|
I have both the Meade 18mm UWA 5000 and the Nagler 13mm T6. For me the eye relief for the Meade is at least as good as the Nagler, perhaps a bit better. I observe without eyeglasses. I tend to use the Meade as my finder eyepiece in both my 10" Antares dob and my 6" Orion Mak-Newt. It's an excellent eyepiece.
|
Mike B
Starstruck
Reged: 04/06/05
Posts: 4455
Loc: shake, rattle, & roll, CA
|
|
Hmmmm... almost every source i've seen lists the Meade 18mm UWA as having ~17mm of ER, & the T6's as having 12mm. In fact, i've been tinkering with the thot of trying the Meade 18's in a BVer! Will they allow full-field viewing for an eyeglass wearer? What's the verdict on that aspect?
 mike b
--------------------
Just for giggles- Next time when the money comes out the ATM, scream "I Won!, I Won!"
* * 15" F4.55 Starsplitter Dob * *
 Pacheco State Park
 Fremont Peak
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 777
|
|
They should barely fit - about 2.5" (64mm) distant when touching. edit: wrong! bad arithmetic. More like 3" (76mm).
-drl
Edited by deSitter (08/04/08 07:03 PM)
|
jcjr
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/06/08
Posts: 563
Loc: TN, USA
|
|
Thanks for the good info!
--------------------
CPC 1100, C102SLT, SV F80, Meade 70 & 60 AZT
Q70 38mm, Pan24, Meade 5K 18mm UW, Axiom LX 15mm, Nagler 13T6, Axiom LX 10mm, Expanse 20mm, 9mm, 6mm, BO/TMB 5mm, 2.5mm
|
|
22 registered and 21 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Greg K., Jason B, csa/montana
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 416
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
