Greetings all,
With full of vigor during the long weekend vacation eating too much and observing near Ukiah, northern California, I had the opportunity to enjoy some half decent viewing conditions and to test some eyepieces that the North Bay extended June/July/August Gloom successfully scuppered.
The Takahashi 1.25" Abbe Ortho, we all know them, many of us no doubt have been tempted to pop at them. Yeah, the sizes stink - where is the 5mm and the 7mm for starters? Why is there a 32mm ortho in any case when a perfectly good 30mm exists in the LE lineup? If ever there was a pointless size for an ortho this was surely it. Price wise, 150bucks is a little pricey maybe for a regular ortho, but it is Takahashi, so perhaps it is better than the rest. That is at least what I thought, so I duly obliged and popped at a couple (6mm and 9mm).
I am not sure on orthoscopics anymore, where they stand in the hierarchy, the pantheon of eyepiece goodness. ZAO-II's and Pentax XO's apart, every orthoscopic I have owned or tested has been trumped by Brandon, several Plossl's, and Monocentrics. Even the glasshouse behemoths like the Pentax XW, Delos or Ethos has given most fair orthoscopics a run for their money. But that is for another discussion, a rainy day one preferably.
Back to orthos:
Most of us are familiar with the 0.965" Takahashi HD ortho. They were good eyepieces but reports of them excelling the cheaper and more commonly available Vixen made 0.965" ortho are not too common. Some say better, some say no real difference. I had always been on the side that thought they were just regular old orthoscopics, good eyepieces, but no better than competiting orthos of the time. The CZJ 0.965's had a distinct edge, while the Zeiss made Pentax 0.965" orthos were the top dog in this barrel size.
What are the contemporary 1.25" Takahashi Orthoscopic competition (in the ortho domain)? Fujiyama / Astro Hutech / Baader Genuine Orthos / Baader Classic Orthos / University HD Orthos, and of course the Zeiss ZAO-I and II's. At the time of purchase, I guessed that the Tak's would be second in line behind the excellent ZAO-I/II, but probably better than the University Optics Ortho. I was wrong on the second count. After intense observation, a lot of soul searching, a lot of nail biting, my conclusion is this: Takahashi have done it again, marketed a generic and garden variety orthoscopic that is absolutely no better than it's competition. It is no worse of course, but one could get a University Optics Ortho for a mere 95bucks - that is 55bucks less than the Takahashi. One could be forgiven for griping that essentially they have paid for a brand but got no different to something less brandy. Of course, the super thrifty folks could shop the second hand market for moderately cheap (<$50) vintage volcano top Celestrons or University orthos and not come out worse observing wise.
I dragged a couple of scopes for the trip. Lucky it was just me and the wife. Luggage in the trunk, an 8" f/6 Newt barely fitting the back set, and a 127mm f/9 APO placed on top. Do not ask how the mounts made it in - needless to say I took them apart. I also took a vintage Pentax Asahi 60mm/800mm for the ride (so make that 3 scopes).
Eyepiece wise, I will not bother writing up detailed notes on how the Takahashi Abbe Orthos compared against some others, lets just say you get what you pay for. I will stick to the comparison with orthos I had - pure and simple - apples to apples. The orthos in question were Vixen made Celestron Volcano Tops, Baader Genuine Orthos, a Meade RG ortho, and a couple of University Optics orthos.
On the 9mm scale, I had a direct comparison between the Takahashi, a Baader Genuine Ortho, and a Celestron/Vixen Volcano Ortho. In all three scopes, on the Moon, Saturn, Mars, and a few larger fuzzies, there was no ostensible difference between any of these. My wife, whom has better averted vision than me, reported that the Baader Genuine Ortho came out trumps here. On lunar and planets, we both agreed, none of these eyepieces particularly excelled nor did any outperform each other. To pick a winner here, I will just go with the Baader Genuine Ortho based on my other half's preference for it - me personally, a three way tie.
On the 6mm scale, a more critical test, I could muster up a comparison between the University Optics HD, Takahashi Abbe, Celestron/Vixen, and a 7mm Meade Research Grade ortho. The 7mm RG ortho produced less magnification although it was the best eyepiece of this lot, but also the eyepiece that will show atmospheric disturbances slightly less. Bottom line, not fair. The Celestron/Vixen ortho was just not as sharp as the University Optics 6mm, while the Takahashi may as well have been a clone - a more expensive clone. Winner, Meade RG ortho, but to be fair, it should be excluded. New winner = tie between the TAK and University Optics.
I sincerely believe the Takahashi Abbes are absolutely the same eyepieces as the University Optics HD ones, available for $95 versus $150. They have the same light transmission, they have exactly the same FOV, the optics may as well have been manufactured and coated in the same factory.
The Takahashi Abbes are by no means bad eyepieces, they are good. Just no better than the immediate competition (I am sure the Fujiyamas and so on will be in the same bracket). The 6mm and 9mm sizes will no doubt be attractive to those that have a full set of LE's where both fill a size gap in regards to a full "TAK" eyepiece collection. Beyond that, if choosing between the Takahashi Abbes over the new University Optics HD's, one would be wise to remember that for the $150 spend, one could get the University Optics Ortho. a pizza, and a couple of six packs. Do not deny yourselves the guilty pleasures of life.
