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 | (show all)
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé
      #5849127 - 05/09/13 12:10 AM

I didn't do an all out definitive test splitting the finest 1% difference but I thought Id pass along my experiences on Baaders 10mm Classic Ortho...

It was Saturn via my 70mm Ranger and my eyepiece kit comprised of TV Plossls, Barlows, UO Abbes and one BAADER C.O.

I did different configurations with barlows and the mentioned oculars switching them back and fourth and hovering around on views at 114x-120x. The upshot is on Saturn the BCO was virtually interchangeable with the other oculars in detail. Cassinis was the specific test and it looked no better nor worse than TV or UO ocular set ups. The one and only thing I noticed however was the very far edge of the field - maybe a couple Saturn widths from the fieldstop was not as sharp as the other oculars. I think in the name of making a plossl wide ortho they incurred some negative here. It wasn't BAD but I could tell it was a little softening to the contrast unlike the others. For a drift method observer its actually a little better than a UO ortho because you have the extra wide field to regain the object once its passed by. By the time the planets clear if the far edge along the fieldstop vibration has died out and the rest is fine.

I want to say I didn't do a heavy comparison here. This would have involved bright stars with dim companions, the moon, etc etc etc. In a simple Saturn observation however with a 2.5x TV Barlow this ocular was fine. Aside from the edge issues (mild) it was seeing what the others did. A brighter planet would test more severly but this was fine and a welcome addition to my kit.

Pete


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

Reged: 07/16/06

Loc: South West England
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5849748 - 05/09/13 10:46 AM

I've done similar comparisons and with Baader Genuine Ortho's and the newly arrived Hutech orthos also in the mix. My results are the same as yours. I think the Baader Classic Orthos are very good for their cost

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

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5849775 - 05/09/13 10:56 AM

I've seen similar results when comparing these eyepieces for Saturn through my 90mm Mak and C6. Too close to call.

But I did see an obvious improvement in perceived contrast for areas away from the lunar terminator when a TV Plossl was in the focuser. I saw this immediately when the eyepieces were switched in a turret.

I think that larger aperture might be needed to start to see appreciable differences among these eyepieces when observing Saturn.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ibase
Vendor Affiliate
*****

Reged: 03/20/08

Loc: Manila, Philippines 121*E 14*N
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5849797 - 05/09/13 11:03 AM

Yes, on the larger aperture scope (22"), the BCO 10mm was rated between top dog ZAO II 10mm and the Delos 10mm here. Just as John mentioned, not bad for a sub-$100 EP.

Best,


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

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: ibase]
      #5849868 - 05/09/13 11:46 AM

Quote:

Yes, on the larger aperture scope (22"), the BCO 10mm was rated between top dog ZAO II 10mm and the Delos 10mm here. Just as John mentioned, not bad for a sub-$100 EP.




This comparo was through a 22" Dob for galaxies at a dark site. The light transmission for the BCO was between the ZAO-II and Delos. Since reading that, I make sure to bring along my BCO 10 when I go to my dark site.

But this result doesn't necessarily mean that the performance of the BCO will fall between the ZAO-II and Delos when viewing bright planets or the Moon or double stars. IME & IMO, the importance of the specific objects viewed is often "misunderestimated" in eyepiece comparisions - or at any rate, perhaps, by many readers of the comparisons.

For instance, I wish I had a buck for every time I read a thread in which the OP says that eyepiece A trounced eyepiece B when viewing such and such double stars, and other posters say they will base their future eyepiece acquisitions on that review - whether or not they themselves are actually going to use the eyepiece for observing double stars. A good eyepiece for doubles might not be a good eyepiece for Jupiter might not be a good eyepiece for the Moon.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ibase
Vendor Affiliate
*****

Reged: 03/20/08

Loc: Manila, Philippines 121*E 14*N
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5849941 - 05/09/13 12:35 PM

Agree, just like surgical instruments, different tools for different purposes.

Best,


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5850082 - 05/09/13 01:54 PM

Although different makes of EPs obviously can vary in performance in various ways (even if of the same EP type and FL), it is not clear to me why the Ortho design would be expected to outperform Plossls on planets (as is commonly claimed), or an other target type.

Consulting "Telescope Optics" (Rutten et al) and "Telescopes, Eyepieces, Astrographs" (Smith et al) does not provide support for the superiority of Orthos over Plossls as far as I can detect. The spot diagrams look very, very similar and the latter book in fact asserts equivalent performance.

Can some one clear this up for me? Why should I get an Ortho if I have a good Plossl of the same FL?


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

Reged: 12/06/10

Loc: 36°N 105°W
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abb new [Re: careysub]
      #5850219 - 05/09/13 03:00 PM

Quote:

Why should I get an Ortho if I have a good Plossl of the same FL?




I don't know that "should" is the right word. It would almost certainly be redundant unless (possibly) you're talking about a ZAO and then the difference would be the last 5% of performance. Most orthos and plossls are reasonably priced so owning both is within reason.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kevint1
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 04/19/11

Loc: West Michigan
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abb new [Re: desertlens]
      #5850497 - 05/09/13 05:17 PM

Can you tell us which focal length TV plossl and UO eyepieces you were using?

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

Reged: 11/26/06

Loc: Vienna, VA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: careysub]
      #5850522 - 05/09/13 05:36 PM

Quote:

The spot diagrams look very, very similar and the latter book in fact asserts equivalent performance.

Can some one clear this up for me? Why should I get an Ortho if I have a good Plossl of the same FL?




Basically, you cannot depend on these spot diagrams. Most makers vary the lens prescription (e.g., TV, Sterling, others use concave top surfaces for eye and field lens, which is not Plossl-normal; ZAO-Is and ZAO-IIs have different prescriptions as they are specified to work down to different focal ratios, etc.). So any textbook spots will only show for a very specific prescription and these prescriptions are not adhered to for many brands.

The best way to tell which is best, is the tried and true method of field testing them with your eyes using your equipment. And which ever provides the better view, it naturally the winner. Field results trumps about everything


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

Reged: 09/07/10

Loc: Ontario Canada
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: careysub]
      #5850686 - 05/09/13 07:03 PM

Quote:

Can some one clear this up for me? Why should I get an Ortho if I have a good Plossl of the same FL?




Good question, I was thinking of buying the 10 BCO but own the older TV 10.5mm.
I'm presently Ortholess.
Sam


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

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: planet earth]
      #5850794 - 05/09/13 07:47 PM

It's probably not a good idea to rely on generalizations derived from optical principles and diagrams. For instance, the XO's are asymmetrical Plossls with a singlet or doublet field lens. Shouldn't BGO's perform better, since they are Abbe Orthos? Not necessarily.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GeneT
Ely Kid
*****

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: John Huntley]
      #5850908 - 05/09/13 08:50 PM

Quote:

I've done similar comparisons and with Baader Genuine Ortho's and the newly arrived Hutech




How did the BGO's and HuTech's compare?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GeneT
Ely Kid
*****

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: BillP]
      #5850911 - 05/09/13 08:52 PM

Quote:

Field results trumps about everything




Exactly!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ibase
Vendor Affiliate
*****

Reged: 03/20/08

Loc: Manila, Philippines 121*E 14*N
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5851129 - 05/09/13 11:16 PM

Quote:

I didn't do an all out definitive test splitting the finest 1% difference but I thought Id pass along my experiences on Baaders 10mm Classic Ortho...

It was Saturn via my 70mm Ranger and my eyepiece kit comprised of TV Plossls, Barlows, UO Abbes and one BAADER C.O.

I did different configurations with barlows and the mentioned oculars switching them back and fourth and hovering around on views at 114x-120x. The upshot is on Saturn the BCO was virtually interchangeable with the other oculars in detail. Cassinis was the specific test and it looked no better nor worse than TV or UO ocular set ups. The one and only thing I noticed however was the very far edge of the field - maybe a couple Saturn widths from the fieldstop was not as sharp as the other oculars. I think in the name of making a plossl wide ortho they incurred some negative here. It wasn't BAD but I could tell it was a little softening to the contrast unlike the others. For a drift method observer its actually a little better than a UO ortho because you have the extra wide field to regain the object once its passed by. By the time the planets clear if the far edge along the fieldstop vibration has died out and the rest is fine.

I want to say I didn't do a heavy comparison here. This would have involved bright stars with dim companions, the moon, etc etc etc. In a simple Saturn observation however with a 2.5x TV Barlow this ocular was fine. Aside from the edge issues (mild) it was seeing what the others did. A brighter planet would test more severly but this was fine and a welcome addition to my kit.

Pete




Nice comparisons and observations, thanks for posting. Maybe it boils down to the question of which EP does one prefer, sharp to the edge ortho performance or wide ortho view but not perfect at the edge? The BCO can be both, just stop down the view by 25% (50-deg. BCO vs 40 ortho) by a cardboard field stop maybe, and it satisfies either way. Just 2 cents.

Best,


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

Reged: 08/31/12

Loc: SC
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: ibase]
      #5851854 - 05/10/13 11:39 AM

Did a bit of comparison on Saturn last night as well. 6" F10 Jaegers achro. Used a TV 7.4mm Circle NJ, UO 7mm Abbe, TV 6mm and 8mm Radians. No clear winner. They all gave really nice views. I preferred the 6mm Radian since it has good eye relief wider field and just as much detail the other two. The contrast was a tiny bit better in the 7.4 mm plossl than the Radian and UO ortho. The UO ortho is dusty on the field lens so it would have fared better if clean.
The 6 and 8mm are really nice EP's. The other two will show a little more contrast if you a nit picking.


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

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Scotophobe Maryland, USA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: bremms]
      #5851861 - 05/10/13 11:45 AM

bremms,

Quote:

The contrast was a tiny bit better in the 7.4 mm plossl than the Radian and UO ortho.




I've seen this with TV Plossls, also, when viewing Jupiter and the Moon, especially. I really think it is due to the warm tone ... besides the fact that TV Plossls are all around decent eyepieces. But then again the Radians have that warm TV tone, also, so I'm at a loss there ...

Repeat the observation with a good contrast filter on the UO ortho. A Baader Moon & Sky Glow is the best I've found. The level of contrast will be similar to that in the TV Plossl without a contrast filter.

Mike


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

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5852291 - 05/10/13 04:37 PM

Quote:

It's probably not a good idea to rely on generalizations derived from optical principles and diagrams. For instance, the XO's are asymmetrical Plossls with a singlet or doublet field lens. Shouldn't BGO's perform better, since they are Abbe Orthos? Not necessarily.

Mike




That is pretty much what I was aiming at - that there seems to be no fundamental reason to expect an Ortho to perform better than a Plossl on planets or anything else, and vice versa; it is the actual specifics of manufacture rather than EP type that would make the difference.

Still, Orthos seem to get more mention when discussing planetary EPs than Plossls which is curious. Using a search engine returns more hits for ortho+planetary than plossl+planetary, even though plossl+eyepiece has more hits than ortho+eyepiece


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mvw
super member


Reged: 03/07/13

Loc: Somewhere in the universe
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5853685 - 05/11/13 12:13 PM

As to the Abbes, I wonder where Clave eyepieces would come into a choice? Just heard the name recently and another aus-jena which I thought were the Abbes.

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

Reged: 08/31/12

Loc: SC
Re: Baader Classic Ortho versus TV oculars, UO Abbé new [Re: mvw]
      #5854155 - 05/11/13 05:23 PM

I had a couple Clave's they are very good. Scattering and throughput are top end. the TV plossls are better edge of field. TV smoothies are 1/5 the price and nearly the same on axis and better at the edge of field. Clave's are good as a ZAO let's put it that way.

Edited by bremms (05/11/13 05:30 PM)


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


Extra information
11 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: 1835

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics