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 | (show all)
Levine
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
ZAO I vs. ZAO II...?
      #5841640 - 05/05/13 01:04 PM

I recently corresponded with a friend overseas. He had bench tested the two generations of ZAO's with a laser interferometer, and found the results to be so dissimilar that he felt that there was hardly basis for comparison.

He much prefers and recommends the I's over the II's

Now, those are his eyes, and all of our eyes are FAR less sensitive than an interferometer.

So the question: given the following conditions -

Dark and steady skies with optimal seeing
An optically perfect telescope
Sample EP's from both batches selected at random
An experienced observer who has worked with "good" orthos for a long period of time

- would any *MEANINGFUL* differences in performance be detected?

Any of you who have had "head to head" experience with these pieces, please tell us about your observations and preference.



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

Reged: 10/19/07

Loc: West Virginia
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5841705 - 05/05/13 01:34 PM


Hello ,

>>>>> I recently corresponded with a friend overseas. He had bench tested the two generations of ZAO's with a laser interferometer, and found the results to be so dissimilar that he felt that there was hardly basis for comparison.

He much prefers and recommends the I's over the II's <<<<<

Which brings up the question , what did this test show your friend ????????????????????????


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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: leonard]
      #5841765 - 05/05/13 02:19 PM

Quote:


Hello ,

>>>>> I recently corresponded with a friend overseas. He had bench tested the two generations of ZAO's with a laser interferometer, and found the results to be so dissimilar that he felt that there was hardly basis for comparison.

He much prefers and recommends the I's over the II's <<<<<

Which brings up the question , what did this test show your friend ????????????????????????





Only that the resulting diffraction patterns were different.
That's all.


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

Reged: 10/19/07

Loc: West Virginia
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5841868 - 05/05/13 03:24 PM

Hello Levine,

IMO , this test your friend did would have no bearing on the optical performance of these two eyepieces . I may be wrong but both the Zeiss 1 an Zeiss 2 are excellent .
The fact this person is basing his judgement on a different pattern says nothing at all.

Leonard


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

Reged: 09/28/03

Loc: Prescott, AZ
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5841896 - 05/05/13 03:39 PM

Good question.

Send me a set of each and I'll get back to you in a year.


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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: leonard]
      #5841899 - 05/05/13 03:41 PM

Quote:

Hello Levine,

IMO , this test your friend did would have no bearing on the optical performance of these two eyepieces . I may be wrong but both the Zeiss 1 an Zeiss 2 are excellent .
The fact this person is basing his judgement on a different pattern says nothing at all.

Leonard




Right...Interferometry, and viewing with one's eye, are two different things: you cannot directly infer or predict "real world" perfomance based solely upon bench testing.



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

Reged: 06/15/06

Loc: Sunshine State & Ocean State
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: leonard]
      #5841900 - 05/05/13 03:41 PM

I compared both sets and couldn't find any visual differences, other than the fact that ZAO I's were available in 25mm and 34mm (?). I kept the ZAO II's because they were newer and sold off the I's..............except for the 25mm, which I still own.

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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: SteveC]
      #5841904 - 05/05/13 03:44 PM

Quote:

I compared both sets and couldn't find any visual differences, other than the fact that ZAO I's were available in 25mm and 34mm (?). I kept the ZAO II's because they were newer and sold off the I's..............except for the 25mm, which I still own.




I have the 34 and 25 ZAO I's, plus the II set.
My eyes, 'scopes, and seeing are all so-so.
Given that, I have found no reson to complain.



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

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5841916 - 05/05/13 03:55 PM

The ZAO-IIs are supposed to have better edge correction for faster scopes, down to f4. Whether this makes a difference on axis I dunno since I don't have any ZAO-Is for comparison.

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

Reged: 06/15/06

Loc: Sunshine State & Ocean State
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5842005 - 05/05/13 04:42 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I compared both sets and couldn't find any visual differences, other than the fact that ZAO I's were available in 25mm and 34mm (?). I kept the ZAO II's because they were newer and sold off the I's..............except for the 25mm, which I still own.





I have the 34 and 25 ZAO I's, plus the II set.
My eyes, 'scopes, and seeing are all so-so.
Given that, I have found no reson to complain.






You're a lucky guy, that 34mm ZAO is a rare bird. I gave up my search for one a couple of years ago, just too difficult to find.


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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: SteveC]
      #5842096 - 05/05/13 05:31 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I compared both sets and couldn't find any visual differences, other than the fact that ZAO I's were available in 25mm and 34mm (?). I kept the ZAO II's because they were newer and sold off the I's..............except for the 25mm, which I still own.





I have the 34 and 25 ZAO I's, plus the II set.
My eyes, 'scopes, and seeing are all so-so.
Given that, I have found no reson to complain.






You're a lucky guy, that 34mm ZAO is a rare bird. I gave up my search for one a couple of years ago, just too difficult to find.




Pieces like this require determination, to be sure!

Acquisition requires 4 ingredients:

Time
Persistence
Ready cash
LUCK

When one finally came up for auction, I refused to allow it to slip away.

In my experiece, just about any EP you could imagine can eventually had, if you just stick to your guns.

For example, I once assembled a FULL Set of Clave focal lengths, including the 2" pieces.

I did it in 11 months.

10 piece Silvertop set? Two weeks.

Etc...



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul G
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5842985 - 05/06/13 06:42 AM

Quote:

I recently corresponded with a friend overseas. He had bench tested the two generations of ZAO's with a laser interferometer, and found the results to be so dissimilar that he felt that there was hardly basis for comparison.

He much prefers and recommends the I's over the II's

Now, those are his eyes, and all of our eyes are FAR less sensitive than an interferometer.

So the question: given the following conditions -

Dark and steady skies with optimal seeing
An optically perfect telescope
Sample EP's from both batches selected at random
An experienced observer who has worked with "good" orthos for a long period of time

- would any *MEANINGFUL* differences in performance be detected?

Any of you who have had "head to head" experience with these pieces, please tell us about your observations and preference.






I've side-by-sided the I's and II's, both mono and binoviewing with the Mk V, in several scopes including the following Astro-Physics refractors and Mak-Cass:

92 mm f4.9
92 mm f6.6
105 mm f5.8
130 mm f6
130 mm f6.3
155 mm f7
175 mm f8
254 mm f14.6

I've seen no noticeable difference between the I's and the II's. It's possible that one might notice a slight difference in edge correction in a fast scope if one were observing in an area with excellent seeing, but that's not where I live. In our seeing here, no difference.

The real gems of the I's were the 25 and 34mm. I was disappointed they didn't include those focal lengths when they brought out the II's.

Edited by Paul G (05/06/13 06:44 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ManuelJ
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/19/05

Loc: Madrid, Spain
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Paul G]
      #5843009 - 05/06/13 07:14 AM

ZAO II: less afov, better corrected for fast optics
ZAO I: less eye relief, I like the eyecup of the 16

That's all, folks ;-)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: ManuelJ]
      #5843040 - 05/06/13 07:40 AM

Two ways to look at this:

1 Newer is always better, be that an eyepiece, a camera, a car or whatever, if you subscribe to this theory then there is your answer !!!!

2 I took that question to ap-ug and got an answer from Roland (#61232 & #61241)
According to Roland;

They are optically the same, mechanically a bit different. The newer ones have smaller field stops because a few picky people complained in the past that the outer part of the field were not sharp in the version 1, so Baader had them made with smaller field stops.

And for coatings;
I have both and they look quite similar, I am not sure there was any great improvement. Both types produce very dark fields and both produce the same sharp planet images.

I have three pairs of version 1, 16, 25 & 34mm, with my F/20 Maks the 34mm offers the finest planetary views of any eyepiece, head and shoulder above all else including ZAO-25 and 24mm Brandons which are my only eyepieces that rival Zeiss on planets.

Vahe


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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: vahe]
      #5843045 - 05/06/13 07:48 AM

Quote:

Two ways to look at this:

1 Newer is always better, be that an eyepiece, a camera, a car or whatever, if you subscribe to this theory then there is your answer !!!!

2 I took that question to ap-ug and got an answer from Roland (#61232 & #61241)
According to Roland;

They are optically the same, mechanically a bit different. The newer ones have smaller field stops because a few picky people complained in the past that the outer part of the field were not sharp in the version 1, so Baader had them made with smaller field stops.

And for coatings;
I have both and they look quite similar, I am not sure there was any great improvement. Both types produce very dark fields and both produce the same sharp planet images.

I have three pairs of version 1, 16, 25 & 34mm, with my F/20 Maks the 34mm offers the finest planetary views of any eyepiece, head and shoulder above all else including ZAO-25 and 24mm Brandons which are my only eyepieces that rival Zeiss on planets.

Vahe




Great stuff!



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott99
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/10/07

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5843264 - 05/06/13 10:58 AM

there is one obvious difference.....the dreaded undercut. ZAO I has it and also the sliding eyeguard

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott99
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/10/07

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: vahe]
      #5843273 - 05/06/13 11:02 AM

Quote:

I have three pairs of version 1, 16, 25 & 34mm, with my F/20 Maks the 34mm offers the finest planetary views of any eyepiece, head and shoulder above all else including ZAO-25 and 24mm Brandons which are my only eyepieces that rival Zeiss on planets.




Interesting, I don't do much planetary with the longer ones but I've heard this before - people also liking the 25mm orthos best for planetary and just using barlows to get to higher magnfication.

Could it be that larger lenses somehow deliver better contrast? Maybe because the light is spread out over a larger area of glass. People have been saying for a long time that you get better contrast with a high quality Barlow + ortho rather than with an eyepiece with a tiny integrated barlow, could be the same effect.


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

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Scott99]
      #5843276 - 05/06/13 11:05 AM

Take into account that his Mak is an f/20.


Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul G
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5843288 - 05/06/13 11:12 AM

Obligatory pic:



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

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Scott99]
      #5843289 - 05/06/13 11:13 AM

Scott,

Quote:

Could it be that larger lenses somehow deliver better contrast? Maybe because the light is spread out over a larger area of glass. People have been saying for a long time that you get better contrast with a high quality Barlow + ortho rather than with an eyepiece with a tiny integrated barlow, could be the same effect.




FWIW, my XO 5.1 showed more perceived contrast and ease of discerning surface detail than my BGO 5. The XO 5.1 has 5 elements in 3 groups, the BGO has 4 elements in 2 groups. Some observers have said that the XO's are at the same level as the ZAO's.

I think that how well an eyepiece with an integrated Barlow (Smyth lens or whatever) performs might vary quite a bit from eyepiece to eyepiece. I usually avoid separate Barlows except to bring my binoviewer to focus in my Newts.

Mike


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

Reged: 06/15/06

Loc: Sunshine State & Ocean State
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5843300 - 05/06/13 11:15 AM

Quote:

Take into account that his Mak is an f/20.


Mike




That's the reason why I stopped searching for the 34mm ZAO, not enough power even for my f/15 Mak...................that and the cost, I'm retired and on a budget. I'm waiting for my wife to break her budget deal - I need another mount.

Edited by SteveC (05/06/13 11:23 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Scott99]
      #5843454 - 05/06/13 12:28 PM

Quote:


Could it be that larger lenses somehow deliver better contrast? Maybe because the light is spread out over a larger area of glass.





For visual astronomy there are three factors that contribute to a satisfactory performance, scope, eyepiece and the eye. Eyepiece and eye interface and compatibility is one reason why super high quality short focal length and short eye relief eyepieces just do not deliver the same level of performance as the longer focal length eyepieces.
I have tried 4 & 6mm ZAO eyepieces and decided thanks but no thanks, not for my eyes.

Of course with longer focal length eyepieces one will need long focus telescope if high magnification is the goal.
Optically a 4mm and 25mm ZAO may be of equal quality but not when you factor in the limitation imposed by our eyes, or at least my eyes for sure.

Vahe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5843496 - 05/06/13 12:46 PM

My only Zeiss lens is the one in my smartphone camera. Therefore, I'm volunteering; send me your losing ZAOs and I'll make sure they're properly diciplined (may take a few years, you know how those ZAOs can be).

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul G
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: vahe]
      #5843577 - 05/06/13 01:19 PM

Quote:

I have tried 4 & 6mm ZAO eyepieces and decided thanks but no thanks, not for my eyes.




It's interesting how tastes differ. After the ZAO I's sold out and started to come up on the used market, the 4mm seemed the least wanted in the US but in Europe it was the most wanted of the set and commanded the highest prices used.

I used to cut off my eyelashes to use the 4 and 6mm, now I just use an eyepiece with greater eye relief.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman81
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 03/06/08

Loc: Metro Detroit, MI, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Paul G]
      #5843664 - 05/06/13 01:55 PM

Quote:

Obligatory pic:






Obligatory WOW!


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

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: csrlice12]
      #5843674 - 05/06/13 02:00 PM

Quote:

My only Zeiss lens is the one in my smartphone camera. Therefore, I'm volunteering; send me your losing ZAOs and I'll make sure they're properly diciplined (may take a few years, you know how those ZAOs can be).




This must have been directed to the thread in general or someone else in particular. I don't have any ZAO's. The closest I have to ZAO's are my two XO's.


Mike


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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5843690 - 05/06/13 02:09 PM Attachment (23 downloads)

Obligatory pic #2:

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

Reged: 06/02/09

Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5843756 - 05/06/13 02:44 PM

OK. I'll ask again, what exactly were the differences in the diffraction patterns that your friend saw to allow him to draw his conclusion? Did he see surface roughness, astigmatism, more scatter, what?

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

Reged: 06/02/09

Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: RodgerHouTex]
      #5843764 - 05/06/13 02:48 PM

And wait, Roland considers Brandon one of his BEST planetary eyepieces.

I have the black anniversary set.


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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: RodgerHouTex]
      #5843776 - 05/06/13 03:01 PM

Quote:

OK. I'll ask again, what exactly were the differences in the diffraction patterns that your friend saw to allow him to draw his conclusion? Did he see surface roughness, astigmatism, more scatter, what?




He did not specify or elaborate.



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

Reged: 06/02/09

Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5843935 - 05/06/13 04:27 PM

Thanks for the response Levine.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul G
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/08/03

Loc: Freedonia
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5844177 - 05/06/13 06:39 PM

Quote:

Obligatory pic #2:




Sweet! Congrats on scoring the 34.


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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Paul G]
      #5844234 - 05/06/13 07:14 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Obligatory pic #2:




Sweet! Congrats on scoring the 34.




Thanks!


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

Reged: 02/06/12

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5844545 - 05/06/13 10:16 PM Attachment (10 downloads)

I had bino pairs of both sets. I felt it was a bit redundant having both sets and I obviously had a lot of money tied up in them. I became quite interested in planetary and lunar observing and consequently my scope collection started to feature longer and longer focal lengths.
Having read about the development of the ZAO first generation ep's, I discovered that they were originally created to optimize the Zeiss APQ line- with focal lengths of f/8. Of course, they would optimize any focal length but they were made with the APQ series in mind. As a previous post mentions, the ZAO II's are optimized for faster scopes, but of course, excellent for all others as well.
As my focal lengths went up, f/8 - f/20 for my planetary specialists, it became an obvious choice to stick with the first generation ZAO's for me. I guess I am a purist.
It should be noted that the CZJ's are also excellent, and they were optimized for f/10 according to what I read, but again, they are terrific across the board. The 16's even beat my ZAO II bino pairs on the moon one night when I compared them - more contrast and detail seen on that particular night, under that particular sky (tmb 100/800).

Edited by stevenwav (05/06/13 10:30 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: stevenwav]
      #5845038 - 05/07/13 07:45 AM

Quote:

lengths.
As my focal lengths went up, f/8 - f/20 for my planetary specialists, it became an obvious choice to stick with the first generation ZAO's for me. I guess I am a purist.






What F/20 do you have? I am just curious as I believe that F/20 seems to be the ideal ratio for dedicated planetary scope if you happen to be a purist.

Also, do you have any experience with Pentax SMC Orthos, I have recently completed pairs of 6, 7, 9, 12 & 18, the 6mm has a nasty eye relief and is very uncomfortable to use, the 7mm is just about the shortest useable eyepiece from that series.

Vahe


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

Reged: 02/06/12

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: vahe]
      #5845216 - 05/07/13 09:59 AM

Hi Vahe - my Royce Optics DK 10" is at f/20. Recently acquired, i haven't had time to fully utilize it yet. It has the smaller co, so it is optimized for planetary.
I have not used the Pentax SMC but was offered a set in trade. I would be very interested in your evaluation of them for future reference.


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

Reged: 11/14/09

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: stevenwav]
      #5846374 - 05/07/13 07:02 PM

Steve, the Pentax work very well in the AP178, excellent field correction at that focal ratio and lovely overall performance.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: stevenwav]
      #5846569 - 05/07/13 08:41 PM

I would rate Pentax SMCs the next best Orthos after ZAOs, my favorite planetary SMC is the 18mm, its my Jupiter eyepiece with MC200/20 giving x277. The other favorite is the 9mm, I just recently completed SMC 7mm pairs but have not tried them yet, the 7s produce x250 with my AP155 EDT right at that scopes optimum power for Moon & planets.
Too bad Pentax did not continue the series with longer than 18mm.

Vahe


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

Reged: 02/06/12

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: etsleds]
      #5846670 - 05/07/13 09:26 PM

Not what I wanted to hear -LOL! I'm trying to achieve a sense of peace and contentment over here. I was afraid I was missing out on something by passing on the Pentax set. I may just have to try them if I get a chance at some again.

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

Reged: 11/14/09

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: stevenwav]
      #5846696 - 05/07/13 09:44 PM

Nah, Steve, not a problem when you have the ZAO set!

The Zeiss essentially do everything well without serious deficits. On a night of superb seeing, nothing really beats them.

The Pentax I use more often because they are cheaper, are more of a full system focal lengths, and on less than perfect nights lose nothing to the ZAO-IIs. Other minimal glass performs superbly, but there are more obvious compromises under normal seeing, eg the TMB Supermono fov, the Tak MC glare control, etc.

For the AP178, I use the 7mm and 9mm the most for 178x and 229x - my seeing usually supports that and I just don't find planetary viewing below about 150x much fun anyway. If seeing supports better, out come the ZAO-IIs and 5XO, if worse, switch to Nikon SWs for a more comfortable & wider view.

Maybe picking up a 7mm or 9mm is the ticket?


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

Reged: 02/06/12

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: etsleds]
      #5846927 - 05/07/13 11:59 PM

I will definitely keep an eye out for some clean examples - I'm intrigued. Great to hear how specific eps work with specific scopes and focal lengths.

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

Reged: 11/06/06

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: stevenwav]
      #5846990 - 05/08/13 01:06 AM

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:

"The Abbe Orthoscopic I 1.25 inch eyepiece is THE original by Carl Zeiss Jena. The Abbe II is an inferior copy by Baader, and is frankly the biggest insult to astronomy that I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a fair few in my time.

The Abbe II is trying to piggyback the Abbe I for success.
You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.

I use a full set of the originals in my observatory, and there is nothing that comes close, they are that good."

So, this persons opinion is quite clear. Not my opinion mind you! So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss??

Clear skies.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ManuelJ
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/19/05

Loc: Madrid, Spain
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: NickG]
      #5847090 - 05/08/13 03:18 AM

Quote:

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:

"The Abbe Orthoscopic I 1.25 inch eyepiece is THE original by Carl Zeiss Jena. The Abbe II is an inferior copy by Baader, and is frankly the biggest insult to astronomy that I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a fair few in my time.

The Abbe II is trying to piggyback the Abbe I for success.
You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.

I use a full set of the originals in my observatory, and there is nothing that comes close, they are that good."

So, this persons opinion is quite clear. Not my opinion mind you! So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss??

Clear skies.






Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
great_bear
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 07/05/09

Loc: Walthamstow, London, UK
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: NickG]
      #5847118 - 05/08/13 03:39 AM

Quote:

You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.




Hmmm... Great detective work.
Alternatively, just read the label.

Quote:

So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss??




IIRC Baader paid Zeiss to do a new production run. It sounds like the person you spoke to misunderstood this and incorrectly believed Baader "copied" the original Abbe's.


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

Reged: 12/17/05

Loc: Under the southern horn of the...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: NickG]
      #5847259 - 05/08/13 07:48 AM

The person who told you that doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Quote:

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:

"The Abbe Orthoscopic I 1.25 inch eyepiece is THE original by Carl Zeiss Jena. The Abbe II is an inferior copy by Baader, and is frankly the biggest insult to astronomy that I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a fair few in my time.

The Abbe II is trying to piggyback the Abbe I for success.
You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.

I use a full set of the originals in my observatory, and there is nothing that comes close, they are that good."

So, this persons opinion is quite clear. Not my opinion mind you! So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss??

Clear skies.




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

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: etsleds]
      #5847341 - 05/08/13 08:59 AM

etsleds,

Quote:

If seeing supports better, out come the ZAO-IIs and 5XO, if worse, switch to Nikon SWs for a more comfortable & wider view.




I have an XO 5 and XO 2.5, but have never owned or even looked through a ZAO-I or ZAO-II. I like the XO's very much for planets and double stars. I have heard that the XO's are at the same level of performance as the ZAO's. In your experience, how do you think they compare on nights of good seeing?

Mike


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

Reged: 11/06/06

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Sgt]
      #5847364 - 05/08/13 09:17 AM

Quote:

The person who told you that doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Quote:

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:

"The Abbe Orthoscopic I 1.25 inch eyepiece is THE original by Carl Zeiss Jena. The Abbe II is an inferior copy by Baader, and is frankly the biggest insult to astronomy that I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a fair few in my time.

The Abbe II is trying to piggyback the Abbe I for success.
You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.

I use a full set of the originals in my observatory, and there is nothing that comes close, they are that good."

So, this persons opinion is quite clear. Not my opinion mind you! So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss??

Clear skies.







Ok fair enough. Sounds like he was talking rubbish.


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

Reged: 11/06/06

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: great_bear]
      #5847373 - 05/08/13 09:22 AM

Quote:

Quote:

You can tell the difference in the top plate where the copy by Baader has ridges on the top whereas the original is totally smooth.




Hmmm... Great detective work.
Alternatively, just read the label.

Quote:

So, is it true, I wonder, were the Abbe II's made by Baader and not Zeiss??




IIRC Baader paid Zeiss to do a new production run. It sounds like the person you spoke to misunderstood this and incorrectly believed Baader "copied" the original Abbe's.




Thanks for clearing this up. A misunderstanding or deliberately trying to mislead people?? Hmmm

Clear skies
Cheers


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

Reged: 02/06/12

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: NickG]
      #5847478 - 05/08/13 10:23 AM

I think I saw that post once and I believe it was refuted later in the chain. The views from the II's were fantastic - that should be enough evidence right there. I also believe in the AP-UG, Roland expresses that he has sets of both and that both views were not different. I can find it if I need to for CN regs.

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

Reged: 06/02/09

Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: stevenwav]
      #5847552 - 05/08/13 11:07 AM

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I heard something similar. That the ZAO Is were designed and made by Zeiss. The ZAO IIs lenses were made by Zeiss but the body of the eyepieces were made for Baader by someone else. It kind of makes sense to me because I own the so called Zeiss barlow that came with the ZAO II set and it has Baader marked on the side.

It has also been the Baader model to do that with some of their prism diagonals which contain Zeiss prisms as well as, if I remember correctly the Baader Mark V binoviewers.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott99
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/10/07

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: NickG]
      #5847708 - 05/08/13 12:47 PM

Quote:

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:





If the guy should remain nameless then perhaps he should remain silent as well?


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

Reged: 02/06/12

Loc: New England
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: RodgerHouTex]
      #5847813 - 05/08/13 01:50 PM

FWIW - I went back to find the reference that I mentioned regarding a similar discussion. While not the actual quoted post, within a similar chain, as a rebuttal to whether or not zeiss was instrumental in the ep construction of the ZAO II's, reference was made to the Alpine Astro website which features this comment...
"
Baader Planetarium has spent years working with Carl Zeiss to design and produce an eyepiece at the limits of modern optical design and fabrication technologies. The result is the Abbe-II.

Every part of the Abbe-II has been fabricated and assembled by Zeiss in their Jena optical facility. In no other way could the demanding specifications and tolerances be achieved, for each and every eyepiece."

It is there now on the site under the ZAO II ep section.


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

Reged: 11/06/06

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Scott99]
      #5848317 - 05/08/13 05:47 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I can't personally substantiate the following comments from someone (who shall remain nameless) when I was enquiring about purchasing Abbe 1 or 2's:





If the guy should remain nameless then perhaps he should remain silent as well?




That was my call to not mention who, obviously. I deliberately removed some of the really juicy bits to keep the peace. And my reason for quoting it was to clear it up, which it has now. The worry is it was a dealer!

Proof that you have to be wary what you read or have communicated to you on the net.


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

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: NickG]
      #5848451 - 05/08/13 06:47 PM

Yeh I'll defer to Roland on this one...

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

Reged: 06/02/09

Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: johnnyha]
      #5848749 - 05/08/13 09:19 PM

Ah. Maybe it was Roland. He did sell them, yes?

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

Reged: 11/12/06

Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: RodgerHouTex]
      #5848758 - 05/08/13 09:21 PM

Just to be clear, I meant Roland is a fan of the ZAO-II and I defer to his opinion, not the "inferior copy" guy. Roland probably knows more about what he's talking about.

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

Reged: 11/06/06

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: RodgerHouTex]
      #5849137 - 05/09/13 12:16 AM

Quote:

Ah. Maybe it was Roland. He did sell them, yes?




RRRRRRRRRRight!



...and in case someone misconstrues this, no, it wasn't Roland.

There's a lot of "clearing things" up. You have to be very politically correct these days

I have to admit that post of mine was a clanger...I should have known better! The bloke came across as though he was an expert and claimed he knew people that worked at Zeiss, hence.....and the rest is history. And history it is now!

Clear skies.

Edited by NickG (05/09/13 12:27 AM)


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

Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: 40° 47' 52" N / 85° 49' 14" ...
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #5853541 - 05/11/13 10:42 AM

Has anyone compared the performance of the much older "vintage" Zeiss 0.965's to their modern counterparts?
Not talking converted microscope pieces; these would be from earlier than 1950.
I was fortunate to come across a an older O-9, but have not had the opportunity to fully evaluate it yet. In addition to the '9, there may also be a 7 and 5 - possibly others?



Edited by Levine (05/11/13 10:50 AM)


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

Reged: 06/24/09

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: vahe]
      #6634121 - 07/14/14 11:45 PM

Quote:

Two ways to look at this:

1 Newer is always better, be that an eyepiece, a camera, a car or whatever, if you subscribe to this theory then there is your answer !!!!
Vahe




In astronomy the newer eyepieces are better because they're the ones that are clean.

GN


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

Reged: 10/19/07

Loc: West Virginia
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: gnowellsct]
      #6634633 - 07/15/14 11:09 AM

Hello ,

>>> In astronomy the newer eyepieces are better because they're the ones that are clean. <<<<

One should never assume things like this as examples exist that belie that statement .

If this were true it would make a buffoon of anyone paying loads of money for a Zeiss ortho 1, as there getting up in age .


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sasa
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/03/10

Loc: Ricany, Czech Republic
Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: Levine]
      #6634795 - 07/15/14 01:12 PM

Quote:

Has anyone compared the performance of the much older "vintage" Zeiss 0.965's to their modern counterparts?
Not talking converted microscope pieces; these would be from earlier than 1950.
I was fortunate to come across a an older O-9, but have not had the opportunity to fully evaluate it yet. In addition to the '9, there may also be a 7 and 5 - possibly others?






I have three vintage 0.965" Pre-WWII uncoated orthos (20mm, 15mm, 9mm, and 5mm) that came with my old AS110. I was not using them too much (except 5mm which was at one point my shortest 0.965" ortho) just few times out od curiosity. Recently I run on similar style 7mm ortho:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=classics&...

I was comparing this 7mm with my 7mm TMB monocentric on Mars with my f/20 82mm oil doublet. I was surprised how the two pieces were more similar than different (except expected glares in uncoated ortho). With more time, when I also run on better conditions, I liked at the end a little bit TMB mono 7mm. I think it was providing a little bit more clear view.

That triggered my interest about the other vintage pieces. Especially about 15mm which is well suited for observing Moon and Jupiter in this long f/20 doublet. Here I do not saw yet any image degradation with respect to TMB 16mm monocentric. The images on the two targets are equally sharp, contrast is the same as well the color fidelity. This vintage 15mm ortho became quickly my favorite choice for Jupiter as it is providing slightly more magnifition than 16mm TMB monocentric:



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
saemark30
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/21/12

Re: ZAO I vs. ZAO II...? new [Re: etsleds]
      #6635314 - 07/15/14 07:10 PM

Vaha, have you compared the Brandon 32mm to the Zeiss 34mm?
I find the Televue plossl 32mm to be the worst of the lot in terms of aberrations even when barlowed. And the 21mm to be my favorite.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)


Extra information
9 registered and 23 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: 2217

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics