HD Ortho EPs versus wide fields

I wonder if some have the same experience i had.

Looking at double and triple stars in cancer a couple of nights ago, i studied a triple star more carefully.

Seeing and transparancy were average, the 8SE was cooled down for three hours and i was not using my focal reducer. Observation from the city. Collimation was spot on.

The triple star was supposed to be white, yellow and blue. Do not remember the number of the star.

In the 15mm plossl and 13T6, two stars were white and one was almost yellow (yellow-white). Same with the 11 plossl from TV.

Then i used a new 12,5mm HD ortho from UO. Wow, stars were pinpoint in opposite to the plossl and nagler, and they were of the exact color. White, yellow and blue. I almost had a 'refractor-like' view of the triple due to pinpoint images of stars. I switched back and forth, and obtained the same results. Using a 7mm EP was out of the question because of seeing that night. The 9T6 did not give me the colors i obtained with the ortho and i did not have a 9mm ortho for comparisons (but i have bought one yesterday!!).

I never thought that the ortho would give a better view of star colors than the TV plossl, and nagler T6s I used my Pan 24 and again, althoug the view was very pleasant, the colors were all white (that may be because of lower magnification).

If the orthos give a better image in terms of star colors, they are a keeper, they are essential for double star observation.

Has anybody on CN also noted that the ortho bring out in a better way the star colors than other EP desings?? ANd these stars were really pinpoints with the 12.5mm. The only other EP that gave these star images that night was the 16T5 (which is one of the best nagler i have ever looked trough up to now).

Is that your excperience?? If so, i understand why many (like Doug on CN) continue to use orthos!!

I like to use a variety of EP designs now!

I like to use a variety of EP designs now!

You have learned the secret to eyepiece happiness...YES, the orthos do something different...NO, not everyone sees it. ...Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war!

Compared a 18 UO HD to 19mm Panoptic and well the UO was sharper in a 11" SCT viewing a star cluster.
Not sure about the colors but image was sharper to my eyes.
Had same situation also when compared my Smoothie TV plossl vs a few Naglers.
I like simple glass for detail i do however love the WF eyepieces also for general viewing.
clear skies

I have two orthos: BGO 9.0 and 12.5mm.
Both are new, and optically identical to the UO HD series.

In Von's BT70 scope, I had my 9mm in the right scope, and his Agena 9mm EWA in the left scope.
Using my dominant eye and jumping back and forth, the EWA brought stars to a sharper poinpoint.

I then tried the same experiment with my 12.5mm BGO compared with Von's SmartAstronomy (Long Perng OEM) Long Eye Relief 12.5mm, and found sharper star points with the LER.

My BGO were originally intended for my (incoming) BT70, but I found the Long Perng LER gave me a sharper, nicer image. No idea why.
Perhaps it is a scope-specific condition...

Our sponsor sells the Long Perng as the Astro-Tech LER at bargain-basement pricing, so I picked up multiple pairs for the BT70 at less than half the price of BGO pairs.

Yes, I have noticed color rendition on planets to be much better with orthos. The only plossl I've used was a TV plossl which I borrowed, and I noticed it's "warm" planetary depictions right away. Some people like the effect, I don't. I don't recall if the Naglers, Pans, and Radians had the same "warm effect", I hardly use them anymore, sticking mostly to the "cool" orthos and S-monos.

>>Has anybody on CN also noted that the ortho bring out in a better way the star colors than other EP desings??

yes, many have noticed that the glass used by TV tends to impart a very slight yellow cast to the images. UO HD orthos are under-rated IMO.

That's why I use orthos. My primary eyepieces are the Zeiss ZAO-II complemented by Baader orthos (same or similar to UO HD) to fill in the holes. The orthos are used 95% of the time. I also have 4 Ethos for wide field, used about 5% of the time.

I also have 4 Ethos for wide field, used about 5% of the time.

Precisely why I went with the ES 100's over the Ethos to save a few bucks...minimal use compared to the Brandons.

I'd say not so much an optical design thing, but more due to the tonal differences because of glass types used and/or coatings. TVs are generally warmish toned, compared to things like the UO HDs (which I find to be very color neutral). Generally not obvious until you do a side-by-side. When the Moon is out try your compare again and you'll be surprised how white the highlands of the Moon appear, as well as ejecta patterns in Maria, and how they look more warm or yellow cast in the TVs.

FWIW, I generally gravitate towards cooler toned EPs just for the reasons you saw, colorful doubles stand out better and show truer colorations, and I also like the more neutral coloration of the Moon, and for planetary I find the neutral or cool toned EPs show the many faint coloration hues of the atmosphere's better (sometimes the warm toned EPs don't show some color gradations at all whereas the cool toned ones do).

Would be nice (for me), if TV could cool down their tones (which I presume is primarily from the coatings used for the Plossls, not sure for the others as they use more exotic glasses).

I will quote a passage, BillP wrote in the thread "Which eyepieces most used for planetary viewing?":

It is usually atmospheric dependent, but the "first" eyepiece in the slot is usually a wide field so I can acquire the target most easily, then assess the atmospheric conditions. I now use my Meade 5000 8.8mm UWA almost exclusively in this role. As a side, I have this eyepiece mounted in a special housing from Germany called a ZoomSet which separates the housing from the barrel allowing it to zoom as it changes distances between the two halves. So its effective range in this setup is about 5.5mm-8mm, very handy range for planetary in my scopes under my skies.

If I assess that the atmosphere is steady enough and transparent enough to warrent more capable planetary specialized eyepieces, then I move to the 8mm TMB Supermono or the 8mm AP-SPL, the 6mm ZAO-II, and Pentax 5mm XO. If I'm hunting a particular feature and cannot find it with these, and need to tweak out the last possible iota of contrast and resolution, then I use a 5.9mm Couture Ball singlet or a 4.4mm Ball singlet (these latter two are home made affairs).

I myself are getting more and more to adopt this course of action.

From 2009 to early 2011, I used the Antares Speers Waler 5-8mm Series II variable focal lenght eyepiece. Some weeks ago I bought the Series I version of the Speers 5-8mm as well. I have always been very happy with those eyepieces at my 10" f/5.

Some weeks ago, I bought a 7mm Nagler T6 and modified it the way Bill did, using the ZoomSet, which coverts the 7mm T6 into a 7mm to 3.5mm variable focal lenght eyepiece as well.
I am very happy with that eyepiece, too.

My first ever bought Brandon arrived on Saturday. It's a 6mm Vernonscope Brandon. I have some UO Orthos as well, including a 6mm UO Ortho.

The tone of the Speers Waler is a gnat's whisker warmer than the tone of the T6 Nagler.
The tone of the T6 Nagler is a little bit warmer than the tone of the Orthos I use.

While I love the wide field of the T6 Nagler, I also want to praise the image quality the Orthos deliver compared to the T6.

Yesterday I was able to compare the Nagler to the Orthos while observing Saturn, M13 in Hercules and the Ring Nebula in the constellation of Lyra.
At any of these given objects, I liked the Brandon more.
Why? First of all, the cooler tone seems more aesthetically and "true" to me.

But more important than this: I could make out some very unremarkably details on Saturn's surface. The details have been very hard to recognize, but have been visible. Comparing the Brandon 6mm side by side to the T6 Nagler, I've not been able to see them, even as I knew where and what to look for.
For about 5 minutes I switched the eyepieces very fast to make sure, that not seeing conditions might be the reason for that. But the game was the same all the time. Details which could slightly be seen in the Brandon did not show up while using the T6.

While looking at M13 and M57, I could not identify any details while using the Brandon which would not have been shown by the T6 as well, but the image looked "better".
To say it in easy words: the T6 seemed to show the same details, but the image felt like I was looking through a thin layer of clouds.

So, my personal bottom line is that: I will keep the Orthos and the T6 as well, because both deal lots of delight to me.

M13 filled the full FOV of the 6mm Brandon.
M13 did not fill the full FOV of the T6 Nagler, but furthermore showed some stars around it.
Both views have been great, i.e. the "framed look" while using the Brandon and the "there is more around look" of the T6.

One more personal thing to consider: the FOVs of both eyepieces might matter to the observer when using an untracked telescope. Saturn for example will stay much longer in the FOV of the T6 compared to an equal focal lenght's Brandon.
I myself use a 10" f/5 dobsonian mounted telescope. I have no problem to track Saturn with either of the eyepieces.
Newbies might find that aspect of a smaller FOV-EP kinda hard perhaps. But I guess it's worth learning, because you will have lots of fun.

The triple star was supposed to be white, yellow and blue. Do not remember the number of the star.

It would be great if you could tell the names of these stars because I would like to test the eyepieces on them myself.

Regards, Brend.

Bill,

You make a very good point relative to the older TeleVue Plossl, Panoptic, and Nagler general eyepiece tone. I wonder if the Ethos and Explore Scientific widefield eyepieces would do as well, color-wise, on Zeta Cancri as a UO HD ortho? This would be an interesting observation.

Thanks for all your replies.

obviously, different EPs for different purposes. I will continue to appreciate my 82° EPs for what they do the best. But will keep these orthos for double star duty. I owned an Ethos for more than a year and from what i remember, did not see more coloured stars than with my naglers.

I find the Meade 5000 UWAs fairly neutral in tone. Why I prefer them to T6s in the shorter focal lengths.

BillP,

Do you think the new ES-82's have a more cooler tone?

I dont know if Bill has tried any of the newer ES82N2 line yet but the ones I just received a few weeks ago have the same cooler tone just like the UO ortho volcano tops I have and the Meade 5K UWA's were very much the same cooler tone as well to my old eye's. I tried this on the two T6's I have 9&13 against the ES11 and even on saturn you would see the differences plus on different large open star clusters as well.
Jim

i'll say this carefully, not meaning to knock TV in any way... but i never understood why people say they see a coffee tone through TV eyepieces... and i had many TV eps, from Naglers - T4-5-6, Ethos, Radians, Panoptics, and even plossls... then i tryed a Sterling Plossl and the first thing i noticed was star colors... i never noticed colors in stars before.
so i moved to more Sterlings, UO Orthos, and Pentax XWs, and enjoy the colors of the stars i never saw before with the TVs!
end of story, i have no TVs except for the one in the drawer i keep forgetting to sell... they are great eps for what the do, just not for me.

Surprised at the broad stroke, the Ethos look more neutral than the other TV eyepieces to me.

For widefields, I find the Nikon NAVs to be very neutral in color rendition, similar to the ZAO-IIs and Pentaxs.

i'll say this carefully, not meaning to knock TV in any way... but i never understood why people say they see a coffee tone through TV eyepieces... and i had many TV eps, from Naglers - T4-5-6, Ethos, Radians, Panoptics, and even plossls... then i tryed a Sterling Plossl and the first thing i noticed was star colors... i never noticed colors in stars before.
so i moved to more Sterlings, UO Orthos, and Pentax XWs, and enjoy the colors of the stars i never saw before with the TVs!
end of story, i have no TVs except for the one in the drawer i keep forgetting to sell... they are great eps for what the do, just not for me.

Perhaps my next step will be to replace the 9T6, 9mm ortho a 11T6 (that i am still hesitating to buy), by a pentax 10mm??? So many on CN praise the pentax EPs

I see more star colors with my 16T5 than i did with my Ethos 17. But that may be a very personnal issue!!

I agree that the Ethos is a bit cooler than the Naglers and the coatings on the Ethos are amazing.

Once TeleVue makes a set of orthos using the same coatings as the Ethos...Al are you listening. Ya we know that you have Plossl's...but the problem is that there aren't any shorter than 8mm.

I'm with BillP...I'm hoping for a TV NEAF announcment..."Introducing the Televue Planetary Connoisseur's Eyepiece, the PCE Line..."!

My wallet would open!

HD Orthos are great eyepieces, no question. It's the only eyepiece I could see Enceladus with and the contrast on the moon blows away others (not premium) I've tried. Better than Plossls, which are great, too, IME.

I would grab some Orthos if TeleVue made them too!!!

How do the Tak LE compare to the Orthos?

How do the Tak LE compare to the Orthos?

The Zeiss orthos are a nice step up from the Tak LE's. The only one I was abole to directly compare was the 10mm of both eyepieces. The 6mm Zeiss is too far from the 5 and 7.5mm Tak LE's to do a fair assessment.

The Baader orthos is also a little bit better than the Taks, but not by much. The Taks are easier to look through and wider.