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)
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Starman1]
      #5841386 - 05/05/13 10:13 AM

Quote:

Well, as a dealer for both lines, I feel I can comment here:

1) The pricing of goods made in mainland China, labor-wise, is a tiny fraction of the significantly higher wages paid in Taiwan, and a much tinier percentage of the labor paid in Japan. You really can't compare products made in China by price alone.

2) If labor were the only difference, it might be foolish to buy Taiwanese or Japanese goods, but labor is not the only difference.

3) There are ways in which the TeleVue products are superior: coatings and light transmission, superior polish, suppression of scattered light (a biggie, in my book), edge-of-field astigmatism correction, edge of field vignetting control, edge of field distortion correction, mechanical construction, lower incidence of dirt in between lenses, tighter tolerances for barrel diameters, individual QC testing, continual improvement of the product without price increases, more expensive glass types used, etc.

4) The pricing of ES eyepieces is below that of the same manufacturer's eyepieces when they were sold by others. There are reasons for that and not every one is related to JOC owning the supply chain. The retail pricing should be a lot higher but isn't because of predatorily low pricing (when ES dropped the 20mm 100 degree from $599 to $299, did the cost go down by 50%? No.). It has driven many other companies out of the eyepiece market (in 2009, there were almost 1600 eyepieces available to the US consumer; now fewer than 1000). The eyepieces would have sold just as well at somewhat higher prices. Some Chinese manufacturers' equivalent products do. In fact, the low prices have resulted in a world-wide shortage, proving that prices could have been higher, given the supply/demand curve realities. If the supply now goes back up, and prices rise just a little, the mfr. will be in a much stronger market position.

5) Whether a price is high or not is in the eye of the beholder. To people on fixed incomes, or who have little discretionary income, TeleVue prices seem high and TeleVue gets picked on incessantly because of that. Yet, Zeiss, Takahashi, Nikon, Docter, Leica, and several other brands are higher (in some cases a LOT higher) yet they don't get picked on for their prices. Are they somehow worth their high prices when TeleVue is not? Or is a lot of the conversation about TeleVue prices because they are actually desired but just difficult to afford? If you compare TeleVue's prices with others, how about comparing them to other companies instead of arbitrarily taking the Chinese company with the lowest prices on similar models? How well does Audi compete with Hyundai on prices? It's probably better to compare Audi with Acura. At least they're comparable. Looked at in that way, TeleVue is the cheapest brand among the high-end companies, and the closest to affordable by everyone.

6) The supposedly high prices for TeleVue really aren't that high. It's that expectations have changed. If you take the average weekly income for a typical American worker, a TeleVue 82 degree Nagler costs less than a week's income. An Erfle eyepiece in 1965 would have been pretty close to the same percentage of a week's income. Yet, the Nagler is better in every single parameter of eyepiece design and manufacture. In a sense, the Nagler is cheaper, if you think in 1965 dollars and only count inflation. With inflation only, a $50 eyepiece in 1965 would be $359 today. Yet, $359 today gets a vastly superior eyepiece to $50 in 1965. We paid $50 for a lot of eyepieces then. Why doesn't everyone look at paying $359 the same way?

7) And along the way, the cost of aluminum, brass, glass, rare earths, coatings, freight, and energy, and labor costs have all gone up, yet most of those cost increases don't show up in the retail prices.

8) So is it possible for a person who has a modest income to be able to afford to buy a TeleVue eyepiece? Sure, but it's all about priorities. When I was young and couldn't afford a car or even a telephone, I had a top-of-the-line bicycle. And that bicycle cost me a month's income. I was racing, and that was my priority. I have friends who fish and golf and race cars, and they all spend vastly larger sums on their hobbies than I spend on astronomy. My friend who races cars spends the equivalent of an Ethos eyepiece every week on racing. Obviously, his income isn't as limited as some people looking at purchasing a TeleVue eyepiece for whom that expenditure would be hard. But it's his priority. I owned over a hundred eyepieces at a time when my income was 1/5 the level it is now. Now I have 8 for 3 scopes and though they are more expensive per unit, I have a lot less money tied up in eyepieces than I did then. Priorities.

9) I can totally understand why purchasing a top-of-the-line eyepiece might not be a priority in your life. But if you felt like you could afford it, would you? And are there other things in your life you spend more money on than astronomy? Then you are merely prioritizing your purchases. Most people I know who work for a living and have a take home pay could afford to buy TeleVue eyepieces. You might buy fewer of them than the inexpensive brands, and your purchases might take more time. But, telescopes come and go, while eyepieces stick around a lot longer (witness the number of CNers who have piles of them).

10) Last, TeleVue does have some lower-priced eyepieces. They are super high quality 50 degree field eyepieces, just not 82 degree.

There is no question that the inexpensive eyepieces have improved in quality over the last couple decades. And that's a good thing for astronomy. Telescopes have gone down and have improved a lot. We have China to thank for that. But if you look at where the top-of-the-line astronomy stuff comes from, it's Japan, USA, Europe, where labor costs are high, and design quality and standards are still higher. Taiwan is transitioning (or has transitioned) into that market. It's no accident the high-end stuff comes from those places.

Just a little different point of view from some posters.




Great post, Don. I see the "why can't Televue be as affordable as ES?" point being raised all the time here on CN, yet I never see "why can't Nikon be as affordable as Televue?"...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5841390 - 05/05/13 10:17 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Probably in LARGE part due to different supply chains. btw, everyone is in the business for PROFIT...so in that respect all are of the same nature and no vendor is more altruistic than another that's for sure!




I think its worth making a distinction between manufacturers who are amateur astronomers and got into the business because of their interest in amateur astronomy and those that are just in business as a way to make money.

I think both Uncle Al and Roland Christen could have used their talents elsewhere and made buckloads of money but I think for both of them, what they do is a labor of love.

I also think that without their creativity, willingness to stretch the limits, our choices as amateur astronomers would be much more limited.


Jon




+1 We as amateur astronomers are very fortunate indeed that they aren't in it just for the money.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
russell23
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/31/09

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: russell23]
      #5841515 - 05/05/13 11:52 AM

Quote:

Quote:


The only additional point I would make is that I have compared the ES68 line in the field with other eyepieces of similar focal length. Despite the comments from others, I find they have significant problems with stray light and do not produce the contrast in the image of the comparable TeleVues.
Especially when the Moon is up or a really bright star is just outside the field of view.
[I used to give binoculars the "streetlight test"--you put a streetlight just outside the field of view and see if 1) you can tell there is a streetlight outside the field of view and 2) what direction the streetlight lies. Nearly every binocular at every price failed the first test, and many, if not most, failed the second as well. With one particular Leica, when the streetlight was outside the field of view, it simply disappeared from reality. It was the only binocular I ever tested that passed that test with an "Excellent".]
So it is with the ES68s. They're not bad eyepieces in general, and better than most in the price range, but they only get a "poor" rating from me on the "bright star outside the field of view" test. In contrast, the equivalent Panoptics rated much higher. The brightness seen is more an overall field brightness than it is the revelation of fainter stars.




I had just tried this "bright star" test myself 2 nights ago and after reading this I tried it again last night with more scrutiny. I guess I would need to buy a 27mm Pan again to see because I had Vega in and out of the edge of the field multiple times including panning slowly toward it from 5 or 6 degrees away and I saw no difference between the 28mm ES68, 20mm ES68, and 20mm XW. When Vega was just a sliver outside the field stop there was a tiny faint semicircle of glow that reached slightly into the field. I perhaps saw just the slightest brightening of the outer 10% of the field on the side of Vega as I approached Vega - but only when Vega was just outside the field stop.

My skies are excellent dark rural skies so I don't think stray light issues are being hidden by light pollution.

Looks like I've got another clear night so I guess I'll check it out again tonight.

Dave




Last night I did a drift test to compare the 20mm XW and 20mm ES68. I moved Saturn well outside the field and allowed it to drift into the view. I timed how long it took from the first definitive sighting of light from Saturn bleeding into the field until the rings of Saturn first crossed the field stop into view. Both eyepieces were used with the 2" Dakin barlow in front of my star diagonal so the magnification was ~96x. I did multiple trials and then also checked with a 17mm Silvertop. The results were:

17mm Silvertop: 15 seconds
20mm XW: 12 seconds
20mm ES68: 10 seconds

So there was a longer period of time before the planet appeared into the field for which it's light could be seen with the XW than with the ES68. I don't have a 19mm Pan to put against them.

The stray light was not bad for either eyepiece.

Dave


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

Reged: 09/06/10

Loc: always cloudy, washington
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #5841554 - 05/05/13 12:14 PM

Apparently you don't do research before spouting incorrect information. TeleVue plossls are corrected to f4. So are ES82s. Since I own both, I would say my assessment is fair not fanboy. If I was a fanboy, I would be more of an ES fanboy anyway. They brought quality eyepieces to a price that made me try them. Then I bought all of them. The 100* aren't quite as good as the 82* in my opinion because they lose too much light. I compared the 9mm to the 8.8 ES82 and the on axis difference was easily seen and better in the eyepiece with less glass, the 8.8. The on axis difference between the 21e and 24mm ES82 is not as obvious.

TeleVue commands a higher price because their products are superior. Being bitter because you can't afford them doesn't changed that fact.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
russell23
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/31/09

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: la200o]
      #5841557 - 05/05/13 12:17 PM

Quote:

What are the optical performance aspects that the low cost ep's are better at than the premium ep's?

Bill




Bill,

Specifically I'm referring to the ES68's vs. the XW's and TV Pan's. I have directly compared the 20mm ES68 to the 20mm XW on multiple nights in a row of excellent seeing. Here are how they compare:

Edge of field brightening: 20mm ES68 none, 20mm XW some. Winner 20mm ES68.

Sharpness of stars at edge of field: 20mm ES68 pinpoint sharp to at least 90% of field, mild falloff in last 10%. 20mm XW pinpoint sharp to 75% of field with significant falloff in last 15%. Winner 20mm ES68.

Scatter: See previous post about timed drift test with Saturn. Slight edge to 20mm ES68.

Blackouts: 20mm ES68 none, 20mm XW just a little. Slight edge to 20mm ES68.

Central field star images: Slightly tighter pinpoints in 20mm ES68.

Transmission: Nebulous light slightly richer in 20mm XW. Slight edge to 20mm XW.

Contrast: Central field sky background darkness unbarlowed (40x) was the same in both eyepieces. When barlowed the XW had an edge in contrast.

Comfort: Both eyepieces have enough eye relief to see the full field with glasses on but with the 20mm ES68 I have to push my glasses as high on the bridge of my nose as possible. Slight edge to XW. Without glasses when barlowed slight edge to ES68.

What I decided as the night went on is that the 20mm ES68 destroys the 20mm XW unbarlowed - between the superior edge sharpness and the nice evenly black sky background across the field. However, when barlowed so that the edges of the XW are cleaned up, the edge in transmission shows itself at the smaller exit pupil with slightly brighter nebulous light and slightly better contrast.

So actually having both eyepieces is of benefit. The 20mm ES68 is significantly better at native FL with the XW slightly better when I break out the barlows due to coatings that allow for better transmission. This is not exactly unexpected because some people consider XW's to have the best tranmission of any widefield eyepiece.

As for the 28mm ES68. I have not done a direct comparison with the 27mm Panoptic. But without question the 28mm ES68 is far superior in terms of pincushion distortion - which the 27mm Pan is loaded with. While others dispute it, for the time I had the 27mm Pan I felt that it was losing light. Maybe I had an older sample and coatings are better now, but BillP reported similar results when he compared the 24mm ES68 to the 24mm Pan. Jim Barnett reported on this thread that he feels the Pans have better transmission.

I'm not saying the ES68's are the "better" eyepiece. I'm just pointing to performance characteristics which in some cases are preferable and superior in the ES68's as compared to certain premium eyepieces. If the performance characteristics the ES68's are better at are important to an observer, then the ES68's might be the better way to go.

Dave


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

Reged: 09/06/10

Loc: always cloudy, washington
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #5841562 - 05/05/13 12:21 PM

Quote:

Quote:

TeleVue plossls are corrected to f4.

--------------------
Sean




Really? Please SHOW me in a real scope.

Quote:

I don't think any plossls are corrected for f4 scopes.
I could be wrong!
Clear Skies
Sam




They aren't, and TeleVue Plossls are not either. TV does make good EP's, but the 19mm and 22mm Pan's are a mess at the edges in a fast scope compared to other offerings.

The 22mm Vixen LVW has way better edge correction in a fast scope w/o a Paracorr than both the 19mm and 22m Pans. Heck, even the 17mm Vixen LVW has way better edge correction in a fast scope w/o a Paracorr than the 19mm Pan. Not ALL TeleVue eyepieces are corrected down to F/4 !

I tried a 35mm Panoptic for the third time last Thursday and I finally came to the conclusion that it had excellent correction, but horrible eye placement, kidney beans all over the place and had edge of field brightening in my fast 10" F/4.7 reflector. I then tried it in a friend's F/8.3 refractor and it was excellent......so the saying that TV EP's are corrected down to F/4 is A MYTH. IMO, the 34mm ES is eons better in a fast scope. I am looking forward to trying out the 28mm ES that is on the way and I bet 10 to 1 that it out-does the 27mm TV Panoptic in the same department I just mentioned except for correction.

Quote:

I own both ES and TeleVue eyepieces. I used to complain about how much TV eyepieces cost but, they keep selling. If they weren't, TV would have to lower the price but, they sell enough it seems.
The first purchase that changed my opinion was the paracorr. It has excellent fit and finish and it works EXACTLY as advertised. How many astro ads promise far more than they deliver? Too many. Anyway this item works very well. Then trying some Nagler and Ethos eyepieces at star parties and comparing them to my ES eyepieces made me appreciate the quality of TeleVue eyepieces as well. Then I bought a TeleVue refractor. Again excellent quality and performance which sold me on Al Nagler's vision of extreme widefield views with larger aperture than what was available before. Flat field 4"f5.4 &5"f5.2 are two of my favorite refractors made today. They compliment large reflectors perfectly and give wonderful uberwide views.
Star parties are great for pointing your future purchases in the right direction. I got to try some Naglers and compare them to my ES82s. I also got to use some ethos and took note of the differences. ES eyepieces are great values and are the best that I have used at their price point.
TeleVue eyepieces are an obvious improvement though and the extra polishing and attention to detail costs money. TeleVue also offers repair services if you drop one or scratch a lens or buy one with damage. Plus if you call with a question, you could easily be talking with an amateur astronomy legend. Service like that is another reason I like to deal with the great American companies like starlight, moonlite, and TeleVue. They have better customer service than almost any other business including outside of this hobby.
I almost forgot to say that TeleVue eyepieces are far better than ES during the day. Try that comparison yourself if you doubt.

--------------------
Sean




There are many TeleVue "fanboiz" here. I can name quite a few, but I won't name names to save a war from erupting.

TV makes great Ep's, I agree, but TV isn't all roses either.

Now all of the TV "fanboiz" will go ballistic on me for saying what I just said, BUT IT IS TRUE AND HARD TO SWALLOW.

Cheers,




Coma is not an eyepiece issue. A paracorr has nothing to do with correcting astigmatism. ANY eyepiece put in the focused of a sub f6 newtonian without a paracorr will have some edge issues. Coma comes from the telescope not the eyepiece. Similarly, a paracorr will not fix eyepiece induced astigmatism. Eyepieces also don't correct for field curvature (in most cases). TeleVue uses an f4 refractor to test their eyepieces during development and their website says that their plossls are corrected to f4.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
russell23
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/31/09

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5841580 - 05/05/13 12:30 PM

Quote:

Quote:


My point is just that they have made the choices they made - reputation of producing premium eyepieces, goal of developing new lines (Ethos) that push the envelope, limitation of resources as a smaller company. I get all that and don't argue that they should have done anything differently. But they could have done it differently and just as they have been pushing the market wider and wider and better and better - so too have the low cost options been improving.




TeleVue has always offered a variety of choices and for a given field of view, be it 50 degrees, 68-70 degrees, 82 degrees or 100 degrees, they are arguably the best at what they do.




"Best at what they do" is arguable because it depends upon what performance characteristics the observer values the most. For some observers they are the best. For others not so much. Which TV eyepiece line? I can't stand the pincushion of the Pans - but that was a design choice made to get to their objective. For me the ES68 is much better. Which FL within the specified line? I absolutely loved the 10mm Delos but didn't like the 17.3mm Delos. Is TV the best at eyeguard adjustment mechanism? Or how about locking screws on barlows and powermates?


Quote:

I am not sure how they could have done it differently and maintained their quality approach.

Jon




That is why I am referring to the fact that they made "choices". TV chose not to market a lower cost widefield line. What reasons would be pure speculation and certainly are justifiable. It is their company and they can market what they want and not market what they don't want. But that doesn't change the fact that they could have made a different choice instead of abandoning the low cost widefield market to Celestron and Meade.

I already gave some reasons in an earlier post why I would speculate it might not have made sense for TV to go that route. But the success of ES shows that there is a huge segment of the market that was hungering for quality low cost widefield's. And it is a good thing for amateur astronomy because a large number of people no longer have to figure out how to scrape together the $ to afford a single 82 deg or 100 deg TV eyepiece.

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jeff Morgan
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 09/28/03

Loc: Prescott, AZ
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: russell23]
      #5841615 - 05/05/13 12:49 PM

There is another test for scatter I read about on the Astro-Physics UG. Do a search for the Sidewalk Test. Here is another link to it.

I was thinking it would be kind of fun to set up a controlled test with my eyepiece collection - a sort of single elimination tournament. That is, draw up up a set of brackets just like the NCAA basketball tournament and randomly seed the brackets with my eyepiece collection. Do the Sidewalk Test on each pairing and see which two advances to the Finals.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Jeff Morgan]
      #5841654 - 05/05/13 01:11 PM

Quote:

Apparently you don't do research before spouting incorrect information. TeleVue plossls are corrected to f4. So are ES82s. Since I own both, I would say my assessment is fair not fanboy. If I was a fanboy, I would be more of an ES fanboy anyway. They brought quality eyepieces to a price that made me try them. Then I bought all of them. The 100* aren't quite as good as the 82* in my opinion because they lose too much light. I compared the 9mm to the 8.8 ES82 and the on axis difference was easily seen and better in the eyepiece with less glass, the 8.8. The on axis difference between the 21e and 24mm ES82 is not as obvious.

TeleVue commands a higher price because their products are superior. Being bitter because you can't afford them doesn't changed that fact.

--------------------
Sean




Bitter? Can't afford TV?

I've owned quite a few TeleVue eyepieces myself. You should do some research on what others have owned in the past before Sputtering off yourself. Try not to get too angry, after all, they are only eyepieces, and not people's entire lives.

Calm down there Terminator.

Quote:

Coma is not an eyepiece issue. A paracorr has nothing to do with correcting astigmatism. ANY eyepiece put in the focused of a sub f6 newtonian without a paracorr will have some edge issues. Coma comes from the telescope not the eyepiece. Similarly, a paracorr will not fix eyepiece induced astigmatism. Eyepieces also don't correct for field curvature (in most cases). TeleVue uses an f4 refractor to test their eyepieces during development and their website says that their plossls are corrected to f4.

--------------------
Sean




Really? Oh wow, thanks for the clarification...I wasn't aware of that,

....Obviously.

So just because you read that, you believe it all? Guess what? I have 500 million dollars, I own land all over the world, and I speak every language known to man. You just read it, so it is true.

I was merely stating a fact that the 22mm Vixen LVW smacked the 22mm pan upside the head and you lost it. Try not to get too mad bro. I am not trolling you either, because trolling isn't a part of CN. I just stated a fact or two and you flipped out.


The 22mm Vixen LVW has way better edge correction in a fast scope w/o a Paracorr than both the 19mm and 22m Pans. Heck, even the 17mm Vixen LVW has way better edge correction in a fast scope w/o a Paracorr than the 19mm Pan. Not ALL TeleVue eyepieces are corrected down to F/4 !

Quote:

I tried a 35mm Panoptic for the third time last Thursday and I finally came to the conclusion that it had excellent correction, but horrible eye placement, kidney beans all over the place and had edge of field brightening in my fast 10" F/4.7 reflector. I then tried it in a friend's F/8.3 refractor and it was excellent......so the saying that TV EP's are corrected down to F/4 is A MYTH. IMO, the 34mm ES is eons better in a fast scope. I am looking forward to trying out the 28mm ES that is on the way and I bet 10 to 1 that it out-does the 27mm TV Panoptic in the same department I just mentioned except for correction.




WHERE DID I EVEN MENTION COMA HERE EINSTEIN?

Calm down there dude, it's not worth the stress.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
planet earth
Pooh-Bah
****

Reged: 09/07/10

Loc: Ontario Canada
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Sean Puett]
      #5841661 - 05/05/13 01:17 PM

"Coma is not an eyepiece issue. A paracorr has nothing to do with correcting astigmatism. ANY eyepiece put in the focused of a sub f6 newtonian without a paracorr will have some edge issues. Coma comes from the telescope not the eyepiece. Similarly, a paracorr will not fix eyepiece induced astigmatism. Eyepieces also don't correct for field curvature (in most cases). TeleVue uses an f4 refractor to test their eyepieces during development and their website says that their plossls are corrected to f4."

No argument over the above Sean, but me not being a eyepiece expert, (corrected to f4) doesn't really tell me much.
Maybe other brand Plossls are corrected to f4?
Either way it's a non issue.
Clear Skies
Sam


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nicknacknock
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 02/20/12

Loc: In a galaxy far far away...
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: planet earth]
      #5841741 - 05/05/13 02:00 PM

Like em, buy them.. Don't like em, get something else but don't complain about the price.

The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question and a few people tried to give a logical explanations, whereas most chose to "fight it out".

I for one was happy to read what jrbarnett, Don and Jon Isaacs had to say about it. The replies were spot on regarding the actual question asked and they were educational as well.

Just leave it at that folks. We are all into this hobby for the sheer pleasure of it!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nicknacknock
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 02/20/12

Loc: In a galaxy far far away...
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: planet earth]
      #5841742 - 05/05/13 02:00 PM

Like em, buy them.. Don't like em, get something else but don't complain about the price.

The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question and a few people tried to give a logical explanations, whereas most chose to "fight it out".

I for one was happy to read what jrbarnett, Don and Jon Isaacs had to say about it. The replies were spot on regarding the actual question asked and they were educational as well.

Just leave it at that folks. We are all into this hobby for the sheer pleasure of it!


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

Reged: 09/06/10

Loc: always cloudy, washington
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: russell23]
      #5841744 - 05/05/13 02:00 PM

Dave, I can see why they don't market an economy line because it would take away from their sales in other areas. When I speak about TV eyepieces, I can't comment or defend panoptics because I haven't used them. Same goes with Delos. I would like to try some Delos because their website says that they took lessons from the ethos and used them in the design of the Delos. The ethos I have used seem to have extremely good throughput and no color tone that I detect. If that same clarity and "invisible" glass technology (my words) were used in an eyepiece with less elements, the results could be very nice. I do believe that the Delos line is priced pretty well. Naglers as well. Ethos are high but, still within reach if you want to save up for them.
ES are more instant gratification. They are quality and affordable enough so you can have a set quickly. As far as ES, I have never used the 68*. I didn't see the point because the 82* are so good and the price is roughly the same. Anyway, these keep coming up in comparisons and I can't comment or compare them. I am always going to keep my ES82s. They aren't that great for resale and they are great performers so to me, it would make more sense to sell my TV eyepieces should I need money.

I can't afford a tak 6" refractor. They would sell more if they were $2000. Does that make them over priced? AP sells more scopes than they can make and they charge an amazing amount of money for them. Again they sell so the price is not too high. Gso makes focusers for $100. Does that make moonlite or feathertouch overpriced? It all depends on who you ask. I thought my Gso focuser was fine until I bought my feathertouch upgrade for my refractor. 3 months later, I had to have a new focuser on my dob because I just couldn't stand the GSO anymore. As you acquire better gear, your tolerance for imperfections gets reduced. You also notice any improvement over what you are used to easier. When I started my 2 favorite eyepieces were the GSO 30mm supervised and meade 4000 swa 20mm. I now find them unusable. I also used to complain about how much Naglers cost and thought that everyone in this hobby must be rich to afford them.
Part of why ethos are worth more is that you can replace multiple eyepieces with one. I could replace my 18mm and 24mm ES82 with my 21e. I could also replace my 11mm &14mm with my 13e. Add to shorter focal lengths and I would have a very usable set with only 4 eyepieces. TeleVue does not have a monopoly on this. You could do the same with the ES100 line once the 5.5 comes out.


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

Reged: 09/06/10

Loc: always cloudy, washington
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #5841798 - 05/05/13 02:43 PM

You called me a fanboy and quoted my statements. I am not the angry one. I didn't start name calling or disputing TeleVue's statements with nothing to back it up. Besides as already stated, I have never even used pans. With the coma statement, comparing edge correction in a newtonian without a paracorr means nothing. There are too many variables that to say that one eyepiece has better edge correction. That is like comparing edge correction in a fast refractor with horrible field curvature.

I do agree that the last price increase by TeleVue was a bit excessive but, that doesn't mean that their eyepieces are all of the sudden not as good. I am a machinist so I am not rich but, it took 2.25 work days for what I paid for the 21e. 1.35work days for the 13e. In reality, I sold a bunch of gear I didn't use anymore and got a moonlite focuser and a 21e with no additional money.
I have no reason to doubt TeleVue's statements because every one I have read was accurate. So when they say that their plossls are corrected to f4, I believe them. ES says their eyepieces are corrected to f4 as well. They must be lying as well. Normally it means they correct for astigmatism to f4. There is enough inaccurate information on this site already. Why add to it because of personal preference? For an example the achro vs apo endless debate or the CO making newtonian all but useless. Threads like, "5" apo spanks 12" newtonian" are repeated over and over. What happens when people read this stuff and spend their limited money expecting to have the same results? Best case, they get angry. Worst, they quit the hobby.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jeff Morgan
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 09/28/03

Loc: Prescott, AZ
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #5841910 - 05/05/13 03:49 PM

While you replied to my post, you quoted another person in the reply, which could create the impression I made comments which I did not.

For the record, please note I made no comments whatsoever about being bitter.

Perhaps its time.


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

Reged: 09/06/10

Loc: always cloudy, washington
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #5841937 - 05/05/13 04:05 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Apparently you don't do research before spouting incorrect information. TeleVue plossls are corrected to f4. So are ES82s. Since I own both, I would say my assessment is fair not fanboy. If I was a fanboy, I would be more of an ES fanboy anyway. They brought quality eyepieces to a price that made me try them. Then I bought all of them. The 100* aren't quite as good as the 82* in my opinion because they lose too much light. I compared the 9mm to the 8.8 ES82 and the on axis difference was easily seen and better in the eyepiece with less glass, the 8.8. The on axis difference between the 21e and 24mm ES82 is not as obvious.

TeleVue commands a higher price because their products are superior. Being bitter because you can't afford them doesn't changed that fact.

--------------------
Sean




Bitter? Can't afford TV?

I've owned quite a few TeleVue eyepieces myself. You should do some research on what others have owned in the past before Sputtering off yourself. Try not to get too angry, after all, they are only eyepieces, and not people's entire lives.

Calm down there Terminator.

Quote:

Coma is not an eyepiece issue. A paracorr has nothing to do with correcting astigmatism. ANY eyepiece put in the focused of a sub f6 newtonian without a paracorr will have some edge issues. Coma comes from the telescope not the eyepiece. Similarly, a paracorr will not fix eyepiece induced astigmatism. Eyepieces also don't correct for field curvature (in most cases). TeleVue uses an f4 refractor to test their eyepieces during development and their website says that their plossls are corrected to f4.

--------------------
Sean




Really? Oh wow, thanks for the clarification...I wasn't aware of that,

....Obviously.

So just because you read that, you believe it all? Guess what? I have 500 million dollars, I own land all over the world, and I speak every language known to man. You just read it, so it is true.

I was merely stating a fact that the 22mm Vixen LVW smacked the 22mm pan upside the head and you lost it. Try not to get too mad bro. I am not trolling you either, because trolling isn't a part of CN. I just stated a fact or two and you flipped out.


The 22mm Vixen LVW has way better edge correction in a fast scope w/o a Paracorr than both the 19mm and 22m Pans. Heck, even the 17mm Vixen LVW has way better edge correction in a fast scope w/o a Paracorr than the 19mm Pan. Not ALL TeleVue eyepieces are corrected down to F/4 !

Quote:

I tried a 35mm Panoptic for the third time last Thursday and I finally came to the conclusion that it had excellent correction, but horrible eye placement, kidney beans all over the place and had edge of field brightening in my fast 10" F/4.7 reflector. I then tried it in a friend's F/8.3 refractor and it was excellent......so the saying that TV EP's are corrected down to F/4 is A MYTH. IMO, the 34mm ES is eons better in a fast scope. I am looking forward to trying out the 28mm ES that is on the way and I bet 10 to 1 that it out-does the 27mm TV Panoptic in the same department I just mentioned except for correction.




WHERE DID I EVEN MENTION COMA HERE EINSTEIN?

Calm down there dude, it's not worth the stress.

Cheers,




Commenting on eyepiece performance with or without paracorr brings coma into your argument. Since you are so angry, it seems that you are the fanboy.
I never said all TeleVue eyepieces were corrected to f4. I do not know whether they are or not. TeleVue plossls are corrected to f4 is what I said. I did mention that they use an f4 refractor to test eyepiece designs because they do.
The OP asked about why a 21 ethos cost so much more than a ES100 20mm. I answered with my point of view since I own both then you got all butt hurt and started calling names like a child. I pointed out TeleVue plossls because everyone forgets about them and they are nice eyepiece that are affordable for everyone.
This thread has outlived its usefulness now.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
russell23
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/31/09

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Sean Puett]
      #5842237 - 05/05/13 06:50 PM

Quote:

Dave, I can see why they don't market an economy line because it would take away from their sales in other areas.




Sean, I agree with this reasoning. I think I mentioned something similar in an earlier post. To do a quick reset here I think some people may think I am arguing TV eyepieces are overpriced. That is not what I am saying. I'm responding to the notion that because TV eyepieces are more expensive, they are better than ES eyepieces in all optical performance characteristics. All I am saying is that when you choose an eyepiece, I don't think you should assume that the more expensive eyepiece will be better for you. You need to evaluate the performance characteristics of each eyepiece and pick the eyepiece will better suit your needs. My comparison of the 20m XW and 20mm ES68 above is an example of what I mean. The less expensive 20mm ES68 wins in most performance characteristics, but the 20mm XW does a little better in transmission and contrast when barlowed.

Quote:

When I speak about TV eyepieces, I can't comment or defend panoptics because I haven't used them. Same goes with Delos. I would like to try some Delos because their website says that they took lessons from the ethos and used them in the design of the Delos. The ethos I have used seem to have extremely good throughput and no color tone that I detect. If that same clarity and "invisible" glass technology (my words) were used in an eyepiece with less elements, the results could be very nice.




That was exactly what I saw with the 10mm Delos. I can't think of any performance characteristics I would rate it down on. Essentially perfect. But then I made the mistaken judgement that I could assume the 17.3mm Delos would be exactly as good and that I would use it as a low mag finder and then barlow it to higher magnifications. So I sold the 10mm Delos for a 17.3mm Delos which I did not like nearly as much as the 10mm in certain performance characteristics (Had some blackouts, had some edge brightening, lost sharpness near the edge, wierd barrel effect with light near the edge).

But others love the 17.3mm Delos - again my theme is pick your performance traits that matter most. If I had it to do over again I would've just kept the 10mm Delos.

Quote:

ES are more instant gratification. They are quality and affordable enough so you can have a set quickly. As far as ES, I have never used the 68*. I didn't see the point because the 82* are so good and the price is roughly the same. Anyway, these keep coming up in comparisons and I can't comment or compare them. I am always going to keep my ES82s. They aren't that great for resale and they are great performers so to me, it would make more sense to sell my TV eyepieces should I need money.




To continue my "reset": regarding my comments about TV offering a low cost widefield option. I'm not saying I think TV should have offered a low cost option. As I said, I can see why TV would have good reasons not to do so. But some people feel that ES is stealing sales from TV. My point is simply that TV has never chosen to market low widefield eyepiece and what has always been a possible consequence of that is that eventually someone would put out low cost lines with similar specs to the TV lines that would be good enough that people might prefer them to TV for more reasons than just cost. That was always a risk in TV's decision not to market low cost widefields. ES finally has exposed that risk. But ES also has a huge advantage with lower labor costs.

Dave


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

Reged: 09/06/10

Loc: always cloudy, washington
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: Jeff Morgan]
      #5842289 - 05/05/13 07:26 PM

Quote:

While you replied to my post, you quoted another person in the reply, which could create the impression I made comments which I did not.

For the record, please note I made no comments whatsoever about being bitter.

Perhaps its time.



I quoted the whole post and apologize if your quote was included. This has gone on long enough though, I agree. I may have just used quick reply and it just replies to the last post. Again sorry for any confusion.


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

Reged: 09/06/10

Loc: always cloudy, washington
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: russell23]
      #5842311 - 05/05/13 07:39 PM

The first part of that post was directed toward you Dave. The rest was just explaining my thoughts on my ES experience. I am grateful that they had their sale and brought their eyepiece selection low enough in price that I was willing to take a chance on them a few years ago. I had been burned by false claims and cheap widefields and didn't really trust any advertising at the time. It was a pleasant surprise to find that they were very good and not more hype.
I like the waterproof idea too. That is one thing that makes me nervous about my ethos. There are alot of elements to get moisture inside. The moisture may be scared by the size of the 21e though.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Cost of Televue Eyepieces new [Re: BillP]
      #5842472 - 05/05/13 09:16 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I think both Uncle Al and Roland Christen could have used their talents elsewhere and made buckloads of money but I think for both of them, what they do is a labor of love.




I think they are both doing just fine in the money department and neither is "just getting by" I also don't see the labor-of-love aspect as they both are good businessmen and good professionals in their chosen fields and doing quite better than well compared to the median standard I'd say. Of course it's always good when a business professional also enjoys their work from a hobby perspective also. But when the rubber hits the road, its usually on a dollar.




I suspect our attitudes towards others are partially projections of our own personal attitudes. To my eye, both Roland and Al are doing OK financially but could have done much better had they made other choices. Both have taken the high road when it comes to maintaining quality.

At this point in his life, I believe Roland is still finishing each and every A-P objective, that's hardly the choice of someone trying to make as much money as possible.

Jon


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


Extra information
25 registered and 34 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  ausastronomer, Scott in NC, iceblaze 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 6031

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics