38 replies to this topic

[teashea]

So, is this re-labeling a good thing or a bad thing?

[SeattleScott]

It can be confusing. But I don’t think it is bad that you can get a 30 Meade UHD for $220 instead of a 30 APM UFF for $230. In another example, the nice Meade HD-60 series is gone, but the optics live on in the Xcel LX series. Having multiple brands seems like it keeps competition healthy.

Scott

[Starman1]

It can be confusing. But I don’t think it is bad that you can get a 30 Meade UHD for $220 instead of a 30 APM UFF for $230. In another example, the nice Meade HD-60 series is gone, but the optics live on in the Xcel LX series. Having multiple brands seems like it keeps competition healthy.

Scott

Many private label versions of the same eyepiece can be quite confusing to the novice, however.

An eyepiece that comes as 8 different brands may not always be clearly identified as the same eyepiece you can simply buy on price alone.

Some versions of the same eyepiece have different eyecups that affect whether the eyepiece can be used with glasses or not, or have different weights due to outer carapace designs.

 

In the case of the Meade versus the APM, the Meade has a cylindrical barrel undercut "safety groove", while the APM has a smooth barrel.

Depending on where you come down on the safety undercut debate, that might disqualify one compared to the other.

[Miranda2525]

I had the 15mm and it lasted 2 weeks in my case. Tight eye relief, a lot of field curvature, and edge-of-field brightening at f/10. Returned it.

Pretty bad if you experienced this at F/10 even.

[Miranda2525]

Uh, no. Different mfr. They are from KUO, not JOC, and probably identical to the Nirvanas. If there is an error in focal length, they're probably 16mm.
William Optics was 4-7-16, and Stellarvue is 4-8-15. The focal lengths may be rounded off.

Aren't the Nirvanas identical to the WO?  That's what I was saying, basically. What I should have noted was it being the same as the 16mm.

Edited by Miranda2525, 21 January 2021 - 06:52 PM.

[Miranda2525]

I doubt this as JOC won't sell eyepieces to any US brand other than ES since 2012.

 

It is likely KUO like the WP Meade UWA, who also make the UWAN/PWA.

 

But I can't confirm, and they could be a whole new OEM same as the luminos perhaps, rather than the initial SV82 which I am pretty sure was the UWAN.

 

In the case of the old JOC days, the axiom LX 15mm was probably the same as the 14mm UWA.

 

For some reason, uncle Al seems to have a monopoly on 13-16mm compact 82s that perform well in fast scopes as the 16 UWAN was the weak link in that line as well, but I don't remember ever trying the 16, or scrutinizing the 15mm axiom LX vs the 14 Meade or ES. My bad experience with the 14 Meade put a bad taste in my mouth so I stuck to the big series 4000 version, and never gave the 5000s and axiom LX much thought even when I had access to try them whenever I wanted . I did sell a lot of axiom LXs though, and owned the 23mm for a while and was impressed with it. It was definitely one of the better ones, as the 24uwa/es82 is, and likely the exact same optics.

 

Unfortunately EP focal lengths are rarely exactly accurate and in the case of the axioms they were obviously paying homage to the original 23mm axiom and 24mm was close enough to call a 23.

 

And the 31 was the same as the 30uwa/82, but obviously marketed as a 31 nagler alternative.

 

Astromania now sells a 32mm, but I suspect it is a 31mm Luminos. 

 

I doubt Vic Maris will reveal who his OEM is

Best FL at 14mm I ever used was the 14mm Delos. No field curvature, extremely well corrected, and very comfortable. It just needs a bit more in focus than the rest, like the 17.3mm Delos. If I ever was to go 14mm again, it would be the Delos without even thinking.

 

Not a big fan of the series 5000 Meade UWA's, but I do like the 5.5mm. I however prefer the 6mm Delos for the eye relief. I also liked the 14mm Meade series 4000 UWA. Sharpness is incredibly good, and really around 78 degrees and not 84 as marked. I did a comparison to the 14mm Delos and AFOV very close. Eye positioning on the 14mm Delos was much better too. If they took the 14mm Meade 4000 UWA, and copied it with today's technology, it would be a real cracker of an eyepiece!

 

I still have a 6mm Delos. They are excellent.

 

Used to have the 8mm Delos also, but I tried a 9mm Baader Morpheus and liked it a lot more. I ended up buying a 12.5mm Morpheus also. I then bought a 22mm Celestron Ultima LX used, (but in exc condition), and then saw a used, (in mint condition), 22mm Vixen LVW.

 

I compared the 22mm LVW to the Ultima LX, and I sold the 22mm Ultima LX. Performance between the two is close, but star tightness is better in the 22mm LVW. The 22mm LVW will stay in my case forever, lol.

 

You really should try some of the Baader Morpheus. They have long eye relief, but there is no kidney beaning, or blackouts, (blackouts will occur if some don't know where to position their eye, I have no problems in positioning my eye even without using the eye cups on them), and the immersive feeling you get is excellent. IMO, the Delos will give you tighter stars and a bit better colour rendition. The 9mm and 12.5mm Morpheus feel and perform just a tad behind the Delos, but the immersive feeling is better.

 

They were measured on here for apparent fields of view. Advertised and marked at 76°, but are wider.

4.5mm -- 78°

6.5mm -- 79°

9mm   --  78°

12.5mm -78°

14mm  -- 78°

17.5mm -74°

Edited by Miranda2525, 21 January 2021 - 07:15 PM.

[Starman1]

Sounds like a 15 luminos to me.

 

Perhaps Vic changed OEM

Still KUO.

But we don't really know where the Luminos EPs come from.

[PJBilotta]

Sounds like a 15 luminos to me.

 

Perhaps Vic changed OEM

Comparable, but better than the Luminos - I tried them both (and the 14mm ES). Sharper and better outer 25% with less EOFB, but tighter eye relief.

[mark379]

So the 8mm SV /82 could actually be a 7mm like the Meade PWA?

Uh, no. Different mfr. They are from KUO, not JOC, and probably identical to the Nirvanas. If there is an error in focal length, they're probably 16mm.
William Optics was 4-7-16, and Stellarvue is 4-8-15. The focal lengths may be rounded off.

 

[Starman1]

So the 8mm SV /82 could actually be a 7mm like the Meade PWA?

Or they both could be 7.5mm and it simply depends on how it's rounded off.

[dufay]

This early review of the original William Optics UWANs noted a discrepancy between the stated and actual focal length of the 7mm, calculating it to be "close to 8mm": https://www.cloudyni...eyepieces-r1444

 

I would assume the same to be the case in the new iterations of this eyepiece.

[Universe XY]

A year ago, they had 3 focal lengths of 82° eyepieces of 4, 7, and 16mm, and I reported them in the 2016 Guide to eyepieces.

They were identical to the UWANs (and 5 other brands of the same eyepieces).

Today, they report 4mm, 8mm, and 15mm and are $50 apiece less expensive, at $149 each.

I'll have to change this in the upcoming 2017 Buyer's Guide.

They are obviously not a redesigned barrel on the old ones.  Field stops are different.

Interesting.

Anyone care to comment how the Stellarview hold up currently? They are on sale for $99.

 

Was considering a 4mm.

 

Wondering how it would compare to a similarly priced 20 year old 4.8mm Nagler besides the reported horrible eye relief on a ~80mm f6 scope)?

 

Thanks

[Jon Isaacs]

I have the Astro-Tech version of the 4 mm UWA as well as the 4.8 mm Nagler.

 

The Nagler is sharper but as you say, short on eye relief. I call it my Nagler-Ortho.

 

Jon

[Universe XY]

I'll pass on the Stellarview. Was curious. I added a TV 4.8mm Nagler from a CN class so it should be fine.

Missed on for a good price on the bay but this was just as good with box & no tax! 

 

Cloudy tonight.