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

APM Ultraflat 30 mm: Initial impression

  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#101 25585

25585

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,354
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the SW UK. 51°N

Posted 17 January 2019 - 05:38 PM

Love mine. Thank you Markus Ludes!



#102 Disciplus55

Disciplus55

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2014
  • Loc: East of France

Posted 18 January 2019 - 02:17 AM

How does it compare to the XW 30 ?



#103 astrophile

astrophile

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013
  • Loc: NoVA Green then Yellow now Orange Zone :-(

Posted 18 January 2019 - 06:01 AM

That’s a comparo I would love to see. That said, it wouldn’t change my ep set, I’m quite satisfied with the APM’s performance at significantly lighter weight and way less cost.

#104 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,750
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 18 January 2019 - 01:24 PM

How does it compare to the XW 30 ?

 

 

That’s a comparo I would love to see. That said, it wouldn’t change my ep set, I’m quite satisfied with the APM’s performance at significantly lighter weight and way less cost.

APM is optically better IMO. I described initial impressions in post 52 above. Those impressions have not changed.

 

The only down side I have on the APM is that there's a ring of paint or some kind of goop on an internal lens (blackening for an internal field stop?), and it has a habit of leaving behind spots that are hard to remove. But if you aren't the kind of fool who opens up eyepieces, this shouldn't be an issue.


  • russell23 and Disciplus55 like this

#105 25585

25585

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,354
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the SW UK. 51°N

Posted 18 January 2019 - 01:47 PM

Of 28 - 35mm in 2", along with my APM, I have Antares 30 Modified Erfle, Pan 35, GSO 30, TS 32, Vixen NLVW 30, LV30, ES Maxvision 28 & 34, Sky Watcher LET 28, and a couple of different Vixen Erfle 32s.  

 

A F5 refractor and a F5 Newtonian to test them against each other.


Edited by 25585, 18 January 2019 - 01:53 PM.


#106 russell23

russell23

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,292
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 18 January 2019 - 03:57 PM

APM is optically better IMO. I described initial impressions in post 52 above. Those impressions have not changed.

 

The only down side I have on the APM is that there's a ring of paint or some kind of goop on an internal lens (blackening for an internal field stop?), and it has a habit of leaving behind spots that are hard to remove. But if you aren't the kind of fool who opens up eyepieces, this shouldn't be an issue.

I just reread that post.  Question: After another year or so of use and setting aside TFOV difference, how do you think the APM compares with the 27mm Pan.  


  • rogeriomagellan likes this

#107 spaceoddity

spaceoddity

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,072
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Cloudsylvania

Posted 18 January 2019 - 08:16 PM

Farpoint has them back in stock. I just ordered one yesterday. 82 degree ep's in the 30mm range are just too big and heavy. Good riddance! I will gladly sacrifice 12 degrees for something that performs well in a fast scope but doesn't strain the focuser, or send the nose of the scope crashing. Can't wait to try it out. It will hopefully replace 3 ep's - 31 axiom(WAY too big and heavy), 32 agena SWA(bad field curvature in fast scopes) and Meade 28 SWA(good ep but would like a little more fov). I'm a little reluctant to sell the 28 as it's been a favorite of mine but if the 30 APM FF performs to my expectations, it will be expendable.


  • CollinofAlabama likes this

#108 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,750
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 18 January 2019 - 09:41 PM

I just reread that post.  Question: After another year or so of use and setting aside TFOV difference, how do you think the APM compares with the 27mm Pan.  

I've rarely compared them directly, so I just did a quick A-B test on the star fields above Orion in my 80mm F6 apo.

 

The APM feels more like a Morpheus than the Pan. I've also noticed that you have had issues with eye relief in the 27 Pan using glasses. So I tried both with my glasses on, and the APM is the easier of the two. The Pan wasn't terrible, but the extra in the APM makes taking in the field easier with glasses.

 

The APM shows less field curvature in this scope than does the 27 Pan, but both are very mild, and I'm not sure how much to attribute to the scope vs. eyepiece here. I think there's touch more astigmatism to be seen at the edge in the Pan, but again very subtle.

 

Also, and this is very subjective, I do get the impression of a touch more contrast in the Pan, but then we are comparing two slightly different focal lengths and apparent fields.


  • russell23, rogeriomagellan and 25585 like this

#109 range88

range88

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1,935
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2014
  • Loc: Shanghai

Posted 18 January 2019 - 10:41 PM

This is definitely my fav. Long focal length eyepiece of 2018, and to make it better, it's a bargain.
  • 25585 likes this

#110 25585

25585

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,354
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the SW UK. 51°N

Posted 19 January 2019 - 04:46 AM

Farpoint has them back in stock. I just ordered one yesterday. 82 degree ep's in the 30mm range are just too big and heavy. Good riddance! I will gladly sacrifice 12 degrees for something that performs well in a fast scope but doesn't strain the focuser, or send the nose of the scope crashing. Can't wait to try it out. It will hopefully replace 3 ep's - 31 axiom(WAY too big and heavy), 32 agena SWA(bad field curvature in fast scopes) and Meade 28 SWA(good ep but would like a little more fov). I'm a little reluctant to sell the 28 as it's been a favorite of mine but if the 30 APM FF performs to my expectations, it will be expendable.

The Meade 5000 SWA 28mm is 68° so only 2° AFOV less than an APM, but the latter has more eye relief and comfort.



#111 25585

25585

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,354
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the SW UK. 51°N

Posted 19 January 2019 - 04:52 AM

I've rarely compared them directly, so I just did a quick A-B test on the star fields above Orion in my 80mm F6 apo.

 

The APM feels more like a Morpheus than the Pan. I've also noticed that you have had issues with eye relief in the 27 Pan using glasses. So I tried both with my glasses on, and the APM is the easier of the two. The Pan wasn't terrible, but the extra in the APM makes taking in the field easier with glasses.

 

The APM shows less field curvature in this scope than does the 27 Pan, but both are very mild, and I'm not sure how much to attribute to the scope vs. eyepiece here. I think there's touch more astigmatism to be seen at the edge in the Pan, but again very subtle.

 

Also, and this is very subjective, I do get the impression of a touch more contrast in the Pan, but then we are comparing two slightly different focal lengths and apparent fields.

Better comparison with a 35 Pan. APM is a little lighter, and a lot cheaper. For eye comfort, relief is similar, but the APM has slightly easier exit pupil retention. Both 30 & 35 are great, the latter is my favourite TV eyepiece.



#112 russell23

russell23

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,292
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 19 January 2019 - 07:19 AM

I've rarely compared them directly, so I just did a quick A-B test on the star fields above Orion in my 80mm F6 apo.

 

The APM feels more like a Morpheus than the Pan. I've also noticed that you have had issues with eye relief in the 27 Pan using glasses. So I tried both with my glasses on, and the APM is the easier of the two. The Pan wasn't terrible, but the extra in the APM makes taking in the field easier with glasses.

 

The APM shows less field curvature in this scope than does the 27 Pan, but both are very mild, and I'm not sure how much to attribute to the scope vs. eyepiece here. I think there's touch more astigmatism to be seen at the edge in the Pan, but again very subtle.

 

Also, and this is very subjective, I do get the impression of a touch more contrast in the Pan, but then we are comparing two slightly different focal lengths and apparent fields.

Thank you for taking the time to make that comparison.  I’m considering the 30mm APM.


  • CollinofAlabama, areyoukiddingme, rogeriomagellan and 1 other like this

#113 astrophile

astrophile

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013
  • Loc: NoVA Green then Yellow now Orange Zone :-(

Posted 19 January 2019 - 12:54 PM

APM is optically better IMO. I described initial impressions in post 52 above. Those impressions have not changed.

 

The only down side I have on the APM is that there's a ring of paint or some kind of goop on an internal lens (blackening for an internal field stop?), and it has a habit of leaving behind spots that are hard to remove. But if you aren't the kind of fool who opens up eyepieces, this shouldn't be an issue.

Sorry Scott, I don't know how I missed that entire page of this thread.  Yes, thank you for reporting your comparisons, that's useful and interesting.


  • rogeriomagellan likes this

#114 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,750
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 19 January 2019 - 05:29 PM

Thank you for taking the time to make that comparison.  I’m considering the 30mm APM.

Given that the APM new is less than a typical price for a used 27 Pan, it has got to be worth a try.

 

It is quite a bit heavier, but it also requires a bit less out-focus than the Pan.



#115 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,750
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 19 January 2019 - 05:32 PM

Sorry Scott, I don't know how I missed that entire page of this thread.  Yes, thank you for reporting your comparisons, that's useful and interesting.

No worries. Easy to miss in these long threads. Hopefully some others will chime in with comparisons. I've not been able to get away to really dark skies to make the comparision.



#116 25585

25585

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,354
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the SW UK. 51°N

Posted 19 January 2019 - 06:09 PM

Though their eye relief is likely too short for me, TS sell a UF 30mm https://www.teleskop...ent-Design.html

 

Also a 35mm.

 

It would be interesting to compare those two with the APM UFF and Pan 35mm respectively.


Edited by 25585, 19 January 2019 - 06:14 PM.


#117 earlyriser

earlyriser

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,208
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016
  • Loc: Cincinnati

Posted 11 October 2019 - 08:28 AM

Of 28 - 35mm in 2", along with my APM, I have Antares 30 Modified Erfle, Pan 35, GSO 30, TS 32, Vixen NLVW 30, LV30, ES Maxvision 28 & 34, Sky Watcher LET 28, and a couple of different Vixen Erfle 32s.  

 

A F5 refractor and a F5 Newtonian to test them against each other.

Any conclusions on which of these you like best? It sounds like the APM UFF and TV Panoptic are the front-runners.



#118 vkhastro1

vkhastro1

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Vankleek Hill, Ontario, Canada

Posted 11 October 2019 - 08:37 AM

Any conclusions on which of these you like best? It sounds like the APM UFF and TV Panoptic are the front-runners.

You are correct.

Best options of the eyepieces listed are the APM 30 UFF and Panoptic 35mm.

For the $, the APM 30mm is the better choice.

Best eyepiece (more expensive option) is the TeleVue 31mm Nagler type V.



#119 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 64,352
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 11 October 2019 - 10:41 AM

In my f/5 scope, coma corrected, the APM 30mm isn't fully corrected for astigmatism.

The 31mm Nagler is.

However, I recognize there is a big difference in price.



#120 earlyriser

earlyriser

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,208
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016
  • Loc: Cincinnati

Posted 11 October 2019 - 11:51 AM

I thought when I bought the Nagler 31, I'd be set at 30mm forever. But, since I recently bought a Paracorr I, the Nagler has fallen out of favor. I can't use it with the Paracorr while wearing glasses due to a lack of eye-relief. If I remove my glasses and correct for my vision by adjusting the focuser, the image looks soft. The Panoptic 35 is looking pretty good on paper, but I hear Pentax is bringing back the 30XW, so maybe that is the answer. I recently got my ES82 back from a friend I loaned it to, and it will likely displace the Nagler in my kit if it allows me to correct for my nearsightedness by adjusting the tuneable top in the Paracorr.



#121 25585

25585

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,354
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the SW UK. 51°N

Posted 11 October 2019 - 01:13 PM

Any conclusions on which of these you like best? It sounds like the APM UFF and TV Panoptic are the front-runners.

They are equals. I use the 30 APM more as it's lighter, not noticed any astigmatism. A Nagler 31 has insufficient usable eye relief, and I have read enough about other aspects of it not to want one. Instead I have a Celestron Axiom LX 31mm which is rated highly and has better eye relief

https://www.celestro...x-31mm-eyepiece

https://www.cloudyni...de-5k-30mm-uwa/

https://www.cloudyni...31mm/?p=1915931



#122 junomike

junomike

    ISS

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 22,462
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 11 October 2019 - 07:06 PM

In my f/5 scope, coma corrected, the APM 30mm isn't fully corrected for astigmatism.

The 31mm Nagler is.

However, I recognize there is a big difference in price.

This is good to know.  I'm assuming it was using a Coma Corrector (for both)?



#123 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 64,352
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 11 October 2019 - 08:55 PM

Yes, Paracorr II in an f/5 scope.

However, I'm unusually sensitive to astigmatism and coma.

Not vignetting or axial sharpness as much.



#124 Tyson M

Tyson M

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,214
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 07 July 2020 - 05:39 PM

I will be posting my initial impressions of this eyepiece soon in this thread.

 

No numbers or specs, just observations. 

 

20200707_163738.jpg


  • areyoukiddingme, 25585 and Alan White like this

#125 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 64,352
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 07 July 2020 - 06:33 PM

Yes, Paracorr II in an f/5 scope.

However, I'm unusually sensitive to astigmatism and coma.

Not vignetting or axial sharpness as much.

I have to post an update on my earlier comments.

 

I recently obtained a special pair of glasses for just observing and had the correction dialed in to the degree on astigmatism correction in the eye.

I now see naked eye stars as tiny points without spikes.  That won't last long because inevitably my eyes will change.

 

But, after getting the glasses, I had a long night to compare the 30mm APM with the 30mm XW and the 31mm Nagler.

 

All 3 eyepieces were used with glasses and I have some comments:

1. The 31mm Nagler has a sharp field all the way across, but a tad more chromatic aberration near the edge than the APM.  Also, I noticed the

rectilinear distortion as giving a "bowl-shaped" view of the field, not quite, but almost, as if looking at a star field on the inside of a bowl.  That is a slight exaggeration to give you the impression.

That could be the glasses, I suppose, but it was noticeable, especially after using the 30mm APM.

2, The APM 30mm, in comparison, has a dead flat field.  I told my wife it was like looking at a map with stars on it.  No noticeable curving of the field at all.

It is a narrower field stop than the Nagler, and has 2 more elements, so it's not hard to imagine the correction of RD being a bit tighter.

3. The 30mm XW had two things to a greater degree than the other 2--chromatic aberration in the outer field, and astigmatism.

 

The APM had round, non-astigmatic star images right up to the field stop, though a slight defocusing showed the stars weren't perfectly round right near the field stop.  The Nagler also deteriorated right at the field stop,

though after all, that was a lot farther out in the field than the others.  The 30mm XW showed a slightly oval star image when defocused starting about 50-60% of the way from center to edge.  It didn't appear bad in focus, but the CA plus astigmatism made the stars a bit soft well in from the edge.

 

Where lateral field chromatic aberration was concerned, the APM had the least, the 31 Nagler more, and the 30mm XW the most.

 

All 3 eyepieces had their coma correction optimized with the Paracorr II in a 12.5" f/5 (f/5.75 with Paracorr).

 

My conclusion was that my earlier glasses didn't fully correct for astigmatism, so I apologize for my earlier comments.  The 30mm APM UFF, in my opinion, "runs with the Big Boys", and is far better than it should be for the price.

Plus, the contrast in the eyepiece was phenomenally good--on a par with the Nagler, and better than the XW.

Like nearly all KUO eyepieces, there are a few flecks of dust inside, but so far from the focal plane they are unnoticeable except with a bright LED flashlight examining the eyepiece to specifically look for them.  I suggest you not do that.lol.gif

 

I can't wait to hear Tyson M's comments, negative or positive.


  • tony_spina, Doug Culbertson, vkhastro1 and 7 others like this


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