Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Antares 0.965" Plossls -- A Classicist's Dream?

  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#26 Doug76

Doug76

    Long Achro Junkie

  • *****
  • Posts: 10839
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Refractor Heaven

Posted 11 March 2011 - 05:30 AM

How they are done...

Attached Thumbnails

  • 4441694-Antares Plossls 006.jpg


#27 Joe Cepleur

Joe Cepleur

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3273
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Dark North Woods

Posted 11 March 2011 - 06:56 AM

The bodies of the Antares Plossls are pretty much standard 1.25" size, and they are fitted with an adapter to replace the 1.25" barrel, and then a .965" barrel fits into the adapter.


What is the effect? Other than not requiring an available inch of inward focus to compensate for the length of an adapter, is the effect any different from just using 1.25" oculars with an adapter? Specifically, the kidney beaning I want to suppress is the result of trying to look through the edge of the field available to the 1.25" lens, but having it clipped by the narrow 0.965" drawtube. To prevent that, one would need not just an appropriate field stop, but also a smaller eye hole, to force avoiding the forbidden area. Is that correct? Anyway, how do they work? Problem solved, or not?
  • Augustus likes this

#28 Hitech

Hitech

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: NW PA.

Posted 11 March 2011 - 10:09 AM

Getting rid of the original focuser and replacing it with a 1.25" unit would have required cutting and drilling of the OTA . It would also take away from the originality of the scope.
Solution : The Antares .965" Plossl .
These units have made this particular telescope 200 percent more enjoyable to use .


I'm also very reluctant towards altering the "originality" of the OTA I'm using. My present collection of .965" EPs are dismal in performance. To hear of a fellow observer stating a 200% improvement is encouraging. I think I'm gonna go for it. Now to figure out which ones best suit my needs.

#29 scopeboy42

scopeboy42

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC USA

Posted 11 March 2011 - 10:33 AM

How they are done...


Very interesting. Could one also buy additional 1.25" barrels and have the best of both worlds?

Such as:

http://www.surplussh...item/m3243.html

#30 Doug76

Doug76

    Long Achro Junkie

  • *****
  • Posts: 10839
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Refractor Heaven

Posted 11 March 2011 - 11:14 AM

The bodies of the Antares Plossls are pretty much standard 1.25" size, and they are fitted with an adapter to replace the 1.25" barrel, and then a .965" barrel fits into the adapter.


What is the effect? Other than not requiring an available inch of inward focus to compensate for the length of an adapter, is the effect any different from just using 1.25" oculars with an adapter? Specifically, the kidney beaning I want to suppress is the result of trying to look through the edge of the field available to the 1.25" lens, but having it clipped by the narrow 0.965" drawtube. To prevent that, one would need not just an appropriate field stop, but also a smaller eye hole, to force avoiding the forbidden area. Is that correct? Anyway, how do they work? Problem solved, or not?


Actually, a standard Plossl's field of view, up to about the 25mm focal length, is not clipped by the .965" barrel. A longer Plossl would be.
I think the elimination of the extra adapter makes these Plossls a better solution, as they add no length that the focuser would have to be making up.

#31 Doug76

Doug76

    Long Achro Junkie

  • *****
  • Posts: 10839
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Refractor Heaven

Posted 11 March 2011 - 11:16 AM

How they are done...


Very interesting. Could one also buy additional 1.25" barrels and have the best of both worlds?

Such as:

http://www.surplussh...item/m3243.html


IDK, but I plan to see if it's possible.

#32 greju

greju

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2005

Posted 11 March 2011 - 01:55 PM

Thanks for making my point, though unintentionally I bet! :lol: Without the benefit of actual having one of the Antares eyepieces in front of me I spoke out of turn. :rainbow: If they are as you have described and pictured then they are a 1.25" eyepiece with the adaptor already included. Does look to be the best of both worlds! Picture of three 9mm. eyepieces. One 1.25" Meade, a .965 Celestron Circle V and a Orion. Although they all give "good" views I know which one I would rather look thru.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 4442414-PICT0001 (640x480).jpg


#33 greju

greju

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2005

Posted 11 March 2011 - 01:59 PM

All the .965 eyepieces I have are just that, .965, and by just the design of the Antares eyepieces focused on in this thread I would have to say that my earlier opinion of wasted money is probably wrong, based on the information I had at the time, and give a thumbs up for these as replacement .965 eyepieces. Pictured are the same three eyepieces.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 4442420-PICT0003 (640x480).jpg


#34 Joe Cepleur

Joe Cepleur

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3273
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Dark North Woods

Posted 11 March 2011 - 02:54 PM

Overall, here's my impression. Folks who know, please comment:

(1) These are at least as good quality, and maybe better, than is typical of this price range. (Star Rancher especially liked the coatings, and Truckstop Astronomer approves.)

(2) For focusers lacking travel to fit adapters, they are an excellent solution.

(3) The kidney beaning I see in my scope has little to do with 0.965" versus 1.25" oculars. It's more related to trying to use longer oculars with my skinny little 0.965" drawtube. These Antares oculars will not likely help that problem.

(4) Vixen, Hutech, and Blue Fireball adapters with 1.25" oculars likely yield equivalent results in many focusers.

(5) Sales and marketing matter. From this thread alone, one sale could have snowballed into many. I wrote to Hands On Optical, asking them to confirm their vague, optional policy regarding whether they would charge a restocking fee if these oculars did not improve my scope's performance. They would. Pay $12 to return a set of four if they were no better? Likely not.

Too bad. The possibility was exciting while it lasted.

#35 magic612

magic612

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3837
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2008

Posted 13 March 2011 - 11:19 AM

seems there is a market for an eyepiece barrel extension at .965 that would screw into the filter thread of the 1.25" eyepieces, you would need the spare in focus to do so though.
Grendel


My dad has a metal lathe, and I asked him to make an adapter for me so I could unscrew the 1.25" barrels on my present Plossls and put the 1.25" to .965" brass adapter on when desired. Looks like Antares has pretty much done this with what they offer. My set up is obviously a bit more cumbersome when I wish to change EP's (I only have the one adapter!), so one of these days I'll probably pick up some of their .965" Plossls.

I do have a Celestron .965" 40mm Kellner I bought way back when I purchased my first "real" telescope (a very inexpensive 50mm Meade alt-az). That Kellner has come in handy since I started picking up vintage scopes. :)

#36 Sandpiper

Sandpiper

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2011

Posted 13 March 2011 - 02:04 PM


I am hoping the Antares are a good choice.



What other choice is there ?


Not sure I follow your question there, there is a ton of choices for .965 eyepieces if you don't mind either dirt cheap or very expensive.


it is one of the only places I found with Plossl eyepieces for a .965.



They are the only place I was able to find them . They don't even show up on the Antares web site .


Island Eyepiece has the Antares for $35, lots of other places have .965 Plossls for much more money.

for my 11TE-5



You didn't order the 20mm unit did you ?


Not sure why I would or why you'd ask?

#37 starrancher

starrancher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 13 March 2011 - 04:24 PM

Not sure I follow your question there, there is a ton of choices for .965 eyepieces if you don't mind either dirt cheap or very expensive.



Read in one of my previous posts . Although there really isn't a "ton" of choices , you do have a couple . Like you mention as I did , one choice would be the vintage Huygens oculars , (fairly inexpensive) , but isn't the entire purpose of this thread about gaining an improvement ? And the other being the much more expensive Orthos that were (and a few still are being) made in the .965" format . In that realm , you are talking about oculars that approach price levels exceeding that of the telescope itself . To me , that approach goes right out the window . So as it isn't the only choice , it more than likely makes the most sense .
All that aside , other than the Plossls , your choices all have a very narrow AFOV . (maybe 40degrees) A 50 degree AFOV is one of the biggest positives received by investing in these as an upgrade .


Island Eyepiece has the Antares for $35, lots of other places have .965 Plossls for much more money.



In one of my previous posts , I mention that Hands on Optics has them for 20 bucks a piece . If there are other 0.96" Plossls available , I certainly wasn't able to locate them in my search . If on the other hand , you were , feel free to post it for everyone's benefit .


Not sure why I would or why you'd ask?



In one of my previous posts , I conveyed that the 20mm unit needed a good half inch more "in" travel to reach focus on my 11TE-5 than the stock focuser is able to achieve . This resulting in it being useless for that particular scope , therefore it was returned to the vendor .
I posted this in an attempt to prevent someone else from running into the same problem . IME , that 20mm unit is NOT going to focus in your 11TE-5 . I paid the return shipping on two 20mm units . I wish "I" had been warned about the focus issue with the 20mm on the 11TE-5 .
:smirk: :grin: :imawake:

#38 PeterWar

PeterWar

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Roses, Girona (Spain)

Posted 29 September 2011 - 01:33 PM

Hi all,

I also have a tasco 11T that I'm restoring right now, I've sent the mirrors for recoating at Orion Optics and I've already bought two eyepieces, that I'll test next week as soon as I get my mirrors back.

In the meantime, I've purchased two eyepieces that will finally allow me to move away from the *BLEEP* H20mm

The eyepieces that I have now are:
kkohki Kellner 20mm 0.965"
kkohki OR 12.5mm 0.965"

I wwould like to try these Antares PLOSSL that you've talked about in this post, I was thinking about buying two or three, what whould be your suggestions? I was thinking about the 25mm, the 7.5mm and/or the 6mm

Thanks! also, thank you for the warning about the 20mm one not coming into focus.

#39 roscoe

roscoe

    curmudgeon

  • *****
  • Posts: 10224
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2009
  • Loc: NW Mass, inches from VT

Posted 29 September 2011 - 03:02 PM

It seems to me that it's the quality of the glass and polish and design of the objective that determines optical quality, not the size of the tube the lens is mounted in. Yep, there are lots of 'soda-straw' .965 EP's, there are lots of .965's that look like there is a sheet of waxed paper in between the glass elements, but there are many .965 eyepieces that offer just as good a view as a good 1.25 EP. I have several Vixen and Kasai (UO) EP's that are visually indistinguishable from their big-body cousins. The glass diameter in a 10mm .965 ortho and a 10mm 1.25 ortho is exactly the same, as is the FOV, as is the view they present. Side-by-sides in my big scope confirm this.
And, a 1.25 format doesn't guarantee quality either, I've got several that came with starter-scopes that are the same grade of slingshot ammo as their smaller cousins.

Same quality differential applies to diagonals, by the way.

I now have two good 60mm scopes, in both I use .965's, because I like the look of skinny EP's in skinny scopes, and decent ones really do work well. Really, how many of us use the cheap EP's that came with our scopes? If they were any good, Televue would be out of business.
....that's MY two cents....
Russ
  • terraclarke likes this

#40 MacScope

MacScope

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Western Pennsylvania USA

Posted 30 September 2011 - 12:35 AM

I have a large number of vintage .965 eyepieces and some of my Huygens are very good to excellent eyepieces for planetary work. I have been slowly building up a set of .965 Orthoscopic eyepieces 25mm, 12.mm, 7mm, 6mm, and 4mm, only missing an 18mm and a 9mm. I have a symmetric 40mm along with a 40mm Meade MA and a 25mm Meade MA all in .965, the MA's are available on e-bay currently. I spoke to Gary Hand at the Black Forrest Star Party and he told me the Antares .965 Plossls were going up in price, I just ordered the 17mm it is still $20 the others are now $28 which is not bad.

#41 pogobbler

pogobbler

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 565
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Central Indiana, USA

Posted 01 October 2011 - 04:48 AM

I was sorry to see the price increase, but I'm still going to pick up a few for my classic scope. On one hand, they've gone up 50%, but I still think they're worth it; certainly they're an improvement over the original Kellners, Huygens, and Ramsdens that many classic scopes came with. For those who started in astronomy in the early 80s or before, if you can remember back that far, $30 (around $11.50 in 1980 dollars) for a decently made, coated Plossl eyepiece in any barrel size is a pretty darn good deal.

#42 PeterWar

PeterWar

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Roses, Girona (Spain)

Posted 08 October 2011 - 06:23 PM

I'm gonna buy the antares 25mm but I have yet to decide wether to buy the 7.5mm or the 6mm, what would you recommend for the 11T? (4.5" aperture, 900mm)

I already have a K20mm and an OR 12.5

#43 Joe Cepleur

Joe Cepleur

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3273
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Dark North Woods

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:02 PM

The 6mm would yield 157x at 35x per inch of aperture. The 7.5mm would yield 120x at 27x per inch of aperture. Your scope has the resolution to handle the 6mm frequently. For the fun of seeing extra detail, the 6mm would be great. The 7.5mm would be fine, too, and better if you lived under frequent poor seeing, but what fun to be able to use the 157x that is too much power for the many scopes of smaller aperture. Go for the 6mm!

#44 PeterWar

PeterWar

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Roses, Girona (Spain)

Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:29 AM

I got my 25mm 15mm and 6mm Antares plossl this week.

Just a little warning for tasco 11T owners, the 25mm plossl is at the very edge of focus using the vintage 11T focuser, Viewers with a severe myopia might not be able to use 25mm without glasses. Also, I would have liked the 25mm and the 15mm to have come with black painted inner barrels like the 6mm does.

Overall I'm very pleased with all of them, the 25mm does wonders on globular clusters ;)

#45 core

core

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1604
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Mostly in Norman, OK

Posted 27 October 2011 - 08:06 PM

From Doug76's pics, it looks like the 17mm and 25mm eye lens are recessed quite a bit (much like the standard Meade 26mm 1.25" Plossls) - can anyone please confirm? My issue would be the tight eye relief with glasses.

#46 PeterWar

PeterWar

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Roses, Girona (Spain)

Posted 28 October 2011 - 02:25 PM

Hi core,

I can only speak for the 25mm, I think eye relief is pretty adecuate with glasses but I still haven't got much experience with eyepieces, perhaps there's someone else that can help on this?

#47 PeterWar

PeterWar

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Roses, Girona (Spain)

Posted 29 August 2012 - 05:48 AM

Hi everyone, just wanted to let you know that this Antares Plossl can be unscrewed to be used with a 1.25" barrell, I've recently upgraded to a Skywatcher 200/1000 telescope and I've been using this eyepieces with great results in ny new F5 scope. I'm afraid the 25mm won't provide enough eyerelief to be used with glasses though.

#48 Giorgos

Giorgos

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 322
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Athens, Greece

Posted 29 August 2012 - 06:06 AM

Why do you want to unscrew them and replace barrels? just buy an 1.25" to 0.96" adapter.

#49 Joe Cepleur

Joe Cepleur

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3273
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Dark North Woods

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:48 AM

this Antares Plossl can be unscrewed to be used with a 1.25" barrell


Interesting. How? By replacing the 0.965" barrel with a 1.25" barrel from the aftermarket?

#50 PeterWar

PeterWar

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Roses, Girona (Spain)

Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:59 AM

this Antares Plossl can be unscrewed to be used with a 1.25" barrell


Interesting. How? By replacing the 0.965" barrel with a 1.25" barrel from the aftermarket?


Actualy the skywatcher scope came with two Modified Acromats (25mm and 10mm), I figured that Plossl would give a better image, specialy on a fast scope, so I unscrewed the 1.25" barrel on the modified acromats and I put it in the Plossl, they work fine!


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics