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)
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...? [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  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)


Extra information
22 registered and 30 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: 2215

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics