Quote:

---

I have not tried the new BCOs yet, but in my Apos, I have compared my UO HD Orthos to my Pentax XWs. They are really very close, especially on sharpness, but I would have to say the contrast advantage goes to the Orthos. For looking at planets I prefer to use a 3x barlow and longer focal length orthos rather than a Pentax, assuming I am using a mount that can track easily at high power. The reason for barlowing is just so I can use the 9mm, 12mm, and 18mm orthos which provide much better eye relief than the shorter ones. For everything other than planets I will use the Pentax XWs.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The 6mm BCO compared to the Pentax 5&7 xw's and Delos 6mm, well there is no comparison. The Pen & Del show the little red spot on Jupiter, and there isn't even a hint of it in the BCO with my 10" dob. The BCO's are overhyped and the same as any other ortho/plossl you can buy today.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I've had mine for a couple months now and am actually warming up to them and find them pretty good, with reservations...

First off, I agree with those who said they give the BGO's etc, a run for the money. And color transmission is excellent. When comparing it to my other eyepieces, it does have better throughput and sharpness of my other eyepieces, and as said better color transmission and have no trouble seeing colors and detail on Jupiter. They're also excellent double star and variable (carbon) star eyepieces, being very sharp and showing star colors quite well. Finally, I really like the barlow.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If we take out eye relief and fov

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I've had mine for a couple months now and am actually warming up to them and find them pretty good, with reservations...

First off, I agree with those who said they give the BGO's etc, a run for the money. And color transmission is excellent. When comparing it to my other eyepieces, it does have better throughput and sharpness of my other eyepieces, and as said better color transmission and have no trouble seeing colors and detail on Jupiter. They're also excellent double star and variable (carbon) star eyepieces, being very sharp and showing star colors quite well. Finally, I really like the barlow.

---

I'd love to hear more specifics regarding the barlow. What eyepieces have you used it with? Does it vignette more than longer barlows? Is it better/similar in performance than other specific barlows you've used? How does it work threaded into the eyepieces for 1.3x?

Thanks!

Dave

---

Well, that'll be kind of difficult to answer Dave, I'm not able to directly A-B it with others. However, the barlows I've owned and am comparing it to are the Klee (really wish I still had it), and the TV 2x and 3x barlows (these I owned and used together).

That said, I consider the Baader Classic barlow quite favorable in performance - it doesn't degrade the image in anyway whatsoever upon insertion. All you get is simply a magnified image while maintaining sharpness, flatness of field, and color accuracy; the same criteria I've always used for barlows. If I can't "see" the barlow, then it's good.

As for what eyepieces I've used it with, I use it with the 18, 10, and 6mm BCO's, in 2.25x mode (which gives me 8mm, 4.5mm, and 2.7mm eyepieces). I suppose it might vignette the longer focal length BCO's but to be honest, at least with the 18mm BCO I don't notice it, haven't really looked. And I've not tried it with the 32mm; for low power, my 36mm and 21mm Hyperions are rather hard to beat in my scope.

Also, the 1.3x mode does work, but I find it incredibly inconvenient, preferring the 2.25x mode instead of fumbling with threading and unthreading and playing around in the dark; same reason I don't like the Hyperion tuning rings. And since all the focal lengths are duplicated as the chart below shows, it's kind of pointless for me to use the 1.3x feature, YMMV.

Resulting BCO F/L's with Barlow:
Eyepiece-----2.25x---1.3x
32mm--------14mm---25mm
18mm---------8mm---14mm
10mm-------4.5mm----8mm
6mm-------2.7mm--4.5mm

Hope this answers some of your questions on the barlow. For the price it's pretty good. And at it's size which is very close to that of a Klee, it's very convenient and easy to handle and store.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I've had mine for a couple months now and am actually warming up to them and find them pretty good, with reservations...

First off, I agree with those who said they give the BGO's etc, a run for the money. And color transmission is excellent. When comparing it to my other eyepieces, it does have better throughput and sharpness of my other eyepieces, and as said better color transmission and have no trouble seeing colors and detail on Jupiter. They're also excellent double star and variable (carbon) star eyepieces, being very sharp and showing star colors quite well. Finally, I really like the barlow.

---

I'd love to hear more specifics regarding the barlow. What eyepieces have you used it with? Does it vignette more than longer barlows? Is it better/similar in performance than other specific barlows you've used? How does it work threaded into the eyepieces for 1.3x?

Thanks!

Dave

---

Well, that'll be kind of difficult to answer Dave, I'm not able to directly A-B it with others. However, the barlows I've owned and am comparing it to are the Klee (really wish I still had it), and the TV 2x and 3x barlows (these I owned and used together).

That said, I consider the Baader Classic barlow quite favorable in performance - it doesn't degrade the image in anyway whatsoever upon insertion. All you get is simply a magnified image while maintaining sharpness, flatness of field, and color accuracy; the same criteria I've always used for barlows. If I can't "see" the barlow, then it's good.

As for what eyepieces I've used it with, I use it with the 18, 10, and 6mm BCO's, in 2.25x mode (which gives me 8mm, 4.5mm, and 2.7mm eyepieces). I suppose it might vignette the longer focal length BCO's but to be honest, at least with the 18mm BCO I don't notice it, haven't really looked. And I've not tried it with the 32mm; for low power, my 36mm and 21mm Hyperions are rather hard to beat in my scope.

Also, the 1.3x mode does work, but I find it incredibly inconvenient, preferring the 2.25x mode instead of fumbling with threading and unthreading and playing around in the dark; same reason I don't like the Hyperion tuning rings. And since all the focal lengths are duplicated as the chart below shows, it's kind of pointless for me to use the 1.3x feature, YMMV.

Resulting BCO F/L's with Barlow:
Eyepiece-----2.25x---1.3x
32mm--------14mm---25mm
18mm---------8mm---14mm
10mm-------4.5mm----8mm
6mm-------2.7mm--4.5mm

Hope this answers some of your questions on the barlow. For the price it's pretty good. And at it's size which is very close to that of a Klee, it's very convenient and easy to handle and store.

---

Thanks! That is what I was looking for. There haven't been a lot of reports on this barlow yet so I jumped on a chance to dig for more feedback!

It is odd that Baader ends up with a barlow that duplicates itself with the eyepiece line it is designed for.
Dave

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have not tried the new BCOs yet, but in my Apos, I have compared my UO HD Orthos to my Pentax XWs. They are really very close, especially on sharpness, but I would have to say the contrast advantage goes to the Orthos. For looking at planets I prefer to use a 3x barlow and longer focal length orthos rather than a Pentax, assuming I am using a mount that can track easily at high power. The reason for barlowing is just so I can use the 9mm, 12mm, and 18mm orthos which provide much better eye relief than the shorter ones. For everything other than planets I will use the Pentax XWs.

---

Did you conduct your comparison w/wo the barlow on the OU HD?

Jaimo!

---

Yes, I compared the 6mm UO HD to the 18mm UO HD plus 3x Televue Barlow. I could not see any difference except for the extra eye relief of the 18. I know that the extra glass of the barlow should mean it would transmit less light or cause some other problem, but if it does then my eyes are not good enough to detect it.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

When using them to split Sirus recently I found a "pecking order" as follows:

1st - Baader GO 6mm
2nd - Baader CO 6mm
3rd - Tele Vue Ethos 6mm

The Ethos could barely show Sirus B whereas it was visible for longer periods with the Bader GO's and CO.

---

Very interesting. I like reading field reports which tend to persuade me not to get an Ethos. My bank account likes reading them, too!

So far the best eyepieces that I've used for doubles are the Pentax XO's. They gave me excellent views of the Pup!

Quote:

---

At 5mm I found the Baader GO just a little better than a Pentax XW 5mm.

---

Post Extras: