36 replies to this topic

[Dave1066]

Hi everyone

 

Whilst researching the new Tak Abbe ortho eyepieces, I came across this review, in the review he compares the new Tak Abbe to TMB monocentrics, Circle T Ortho's, and Baader Genuine Ortho's.

 

I used google translate to translate the article from Italian, link is here https://translate.go...t-text=&act=url

 

All in all a good review, and looks like the Tak Abbe are just above all other Ortho's and only very slightly behind TMB Monocentrics on planets.

Edited by Dave1066, 18 March 2018 - 06:03 PM.

[BillP]

I feel they are better, slightly, than the other quality orthos like UO HD, BGO, Fujiyama.  The do show less scatter.  But not up to what a ZAO or TMB Mono can do.  I would put them not quite as close as that reviewer did to the TMB Supermono, but still better than any other current production Abbe out there.  I think if the reviewer had used a higher quality diagonal on their scope, they woud have noticed the TMB Supermono pull a little further ahead than it did for them.  The Tak prism diagonal is good, but not the best diagonal one can get.  Every component between the objective and the eyepiece make a difference for how well an eyepiece gets to strut-its-stuff.

Edited by BillP, 18 March 2018 - 06:03 PM.

[JakeJ]

The better question is how do the TOE's stack up against orthos?

[Dave1066]

So just to clarify, as I have never been able to find this out anywhere. What does ZAO stand for? Does it stand for Zeiss Abbe Ortho? And if so, is that Carl Zeiss Jena Orthoscopic eyepieces ( 0.965" )?

[John Huntley]

The ZAO's are 1.25" eyepieces. There have been 2 versions as far as I know, the ZAO and the ZAO II's. Both out of production now. The CZJ .925" eyepieces are not the same although still good eyepieces. I think your guess is correct about the meaning of ZAO.

 

This is what ZAO's look like:

 

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[John Anthony]

I hate it when Bill P. is right, only because it makes me want to purchase what I don't have, I really really, REEEEEEALLY want the TAK Abbe's.  Problem is I need them like I need a hole in my head and according to some that hole is already there.  

 

  "They do show less scatter" (compared to other Ortho's) - I know they do.  Amazing how that little detail can make me want them with a desire that burns like Arizona asphalt on a hot summer day.  

[Joe1950]

Bill P. is the man!  

 

But don't forget... you'll have to get the super expensive Baader/Zeiss prism to appreciate them.

 

I have the Tak prism (the only piece of Takahashi equipment I have) so it wouldn't do me any good to get the Tak Abbe's. Which is a relief, since I can't afford either! 

 

I have deep pockets... just nothing in them.

Edited by Joe1950, 18 March 2018 - 08:52 PM.

[Peter Besenbruch]

The better question is how do the TOE's stack up against orthos?

Way too easy to stub.

Edited by Peter Besenbruch, 18 March 2018 - 10:02 PM.

[Astrojensen]

I hate it when Bill P. is right, only because it makes me want to purchase what I don't have, I really really, REEEEEEALLY want the TAK Abbe's.  Problem is I need them like I need a hole in my head and according to some that hole is already there.  

 

  "They do show less scatter" (compared to other Ortho's) - I know they do.  Amazing how that little detail can make me want them with a desire that burns like Arizona asphalt on a hot summer day.  

I know exactly how you feel.   

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[Astrojensen]

Bill P. is the man!  

 

But don't forget... you'll have to get the super expensive Baader/Zeiss prism to appreciate them.

 

I have the Tak prism (the only piece of Takahashi equipment I have) so it wouldn't do me any good to get the Tak Abbe's. Which is a relief, since I can't afford either! 

 

I have deep pockets... just nothing in them.

The Baader/Zeiss T2 prism isn't *that* expensive. It goes for 215 euros at this time, but you also need a 1.25" adapter in both ends, of course. 300 euros should do it and it is DEFINITELY worth it. I bought one years ago and haven't regretted it for a second. It really is the one diagonal that shows the least difference between diagonal and straight through. 

 

Now, the 2" version, THAT one is QUITE expensive!

 

BTW, if you want to find out, whether your diagonal is worth anything or not, try comparing it with a view straight through. The difference can be shockingly obvious. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[Astrojensen]

I feel they are better, slightly, than the other quality orthos like UO HD, BGO, Fujiyama.  The do show less scatter.  But not up to what a ZAO or TMB Mono can do.  I would put them not quite as close as that reviewer did to the TMB Supermono, but still better than any other current production Abbe out there.  I think if the reviewer had used a higher quality diagonal on their scope, they woud have noticed the TMB Supermono pull a little further ahead than it did for them.  The Tak prism diagonal is good, but not the best diagonal one can get.  Every component between the objective and the eyepiece make a difference for how well an eyepiece gets to strut-its-stuff.

When doing an eyepiece review, I think it's important to decide, whether you want to find the true difference between eyepieces, as fairly as you possibly can, or you want to find how the eyepieces work in your setup. If the former, then you want to avoid as many other influencing factors as at all possible, including the diagonal (in a refractor or SCT/Mak, obviously not possible in a newtonian! ). This means observing straight through, which is NOT convenient, when objects are high overhead. 

 

On the other hand, including the diagonal will show how the eyepiece performs in a real world scenario, even if it means that the eyepiece will perhaps not reveal its full potential. 

 

Both methods thus have merit, but I think it's important to discuss in the review why one was chosen over the other, both to help the readers make informed decisions, but also to explain possible odd findings, for example that one reviewer finds eyepiece X to be clearly better than Y, because he observes straight through, while another observer can't tell the difference between them, because he's using a diagonal, possibly of inferior quality. 

 

Even the telescope quality matters, obviously, for the same reasons as for the diagonals. And even the very best diagonals do *slighty* degrade the image. In my Zeiss Telemator, I can tell the difference in clarity between observing straight through or through my Baader/Zeiss T2 diagonal. So can my neck, unfortunately. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

Edited by Astrojensen, 19 March 2018 - 02:12 AM.

[Dave1066]

The ZAO's are 1.25" eyepieces. There have been 2 versions as far as I know, the ZAO and the ZAO II's. Both out of production now. The CZJ .925" eyepieces are not the same although still good eyepieces. I think your guess is correct about the meaning of ZAO.

This is what ZAO's look like:

Thanks John. So the CZJ Ortho's would still be rated above the Tak Ortho's?

Atleast now I now the different terminology and which eyepieces is referring to which.

[Dave1066]

Bill P. is the man!

But don't forget... you'll have to get the super expensive Baader/Zeiss prism to appreciate them.

I have the Tak prism (the only piece of Takahashi equipment I have) so it wouldn't do me any good to get the Tak Abbe's. Which is a relief, since I can't afford either!

I have deep pockets... just nothing in them.

Thank, luckily I have a Baader 2" Zeiss prism diagonal. So I'm all good on that front. Maybe in the future I will invest in a Baader BBHS diagonal.

Edited by Dave1066, 19 March 2018 - 08:05 AM.

[Dave1066]

I feel they are better, slightly, than the other quality orthos like UO HD, BGO, Fujiyama. The do show less scatter. But not up to what a ZAO or TMB Mono can do. I would put them not quite as close as that reviewer did to the TMB Supermono, but still better than any other current production Abbe out there. I think if the reviewer had used a higher quality diagonal on their scope, they woud have noticed the TMB Supermono pull a little further ahead than it did for them. The Tak prism diagonal is good, but not the best diagonal one can get. Every component between the objective and the eyepiece make a difference for how well an eyepiece gets to strut-its-stuff.

Thanks BillP. How would you rate Brandon eyepieces in comparison to the Tak Abbe Ortho's?

Edited by Dave1066, 19 March 2018 - 08:07 AM.

[Allan Wade]

I've put my Tak Abbe's up against most other available minimum glass eyepieces for nearly five years now, and they still form a core part of my min glass set. The only other eyepieces that have remained are my ZAO II's which fit neatly alongside the Taks. All other comers were generally bested by the Taks and sold off. The TMB SMC's were obviously great eyepieces as well, but performed poorly in my dobs, as one would expect, so I sold those off as well.

 

In my eyepiece case, they represent the greatest performance at the price of any eyepiece I own.

 

[Dave1066]

That's high praise indeed, Allan, do you compare them to Brandon eyepieces? Reason I ask is I had started to build up a set of Brandon eyepieces, I have a Brandon 8mm. I would only be able to afford 1 set of high quality eyepieces, so I will either continue to invest in Brandon or I will start to invest in Tak Abbes.

[Allan Wade]

I had some Brandon’s for a while and they compared very well to the Tak Abbes. They showed minimal scatter and were exceptionally sharp. Optically I rated the two eyepieces the same.

 

There were a few reasons I preferred the Taks overall. Despite the AFOV specs being similiar, I perceived the Taks to have a slightly larger field. Similarly with the eye relief, I don’t believe the stated specs for the Brandon’s and found the Taks slightly more comfortable. The Brandon’s are more suited to longer focal ratio scopes, while the Taks still perform well in my faster scopes. As a bonus the Taks are also cheaper.

 

Something I didn’t investigate is the fact the Brandon’s are not multi coated, while the Taks are. I use my Taks for threshold deep sky objects where multi coated optics is advantageous.

 

The Brandon’s are certainly great eyepieces and you wouldn’t go wrong building a collection. For my style of observing in my scopes though, the Tak Abbes are better eyepieces.

[Astrojensen]

 

Thanks John. So the CZJ Ortho's would still be rated above the Tak Ortho's?

No, the old 0.965" CZJ orthos are not on par with the ZAO and ZAO orthos. The TAOs (Tak Abbe Orthos) have much more modern coatings than the CZJ orthos, for example. 

 

A tip: If someone wants to use the TAOs in their 0.965" Zeiss or Takahashi diagonals or eyepiece turrets, they can be changed from 1.25" into 0.965" eyepieces with this adapter:

 

https://www.teleskop...nengewinde.html

 

The adapter also fits the UO orthos, the UO HD orthos, the Baader Genuine Orthos, most Chinese and Taiwanese plössls up to and including 25mm focal length. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[Dave1066]

I had some Brandon’s for a while and they compared very well to the Tak Abbes. They showed minimal scatter and were exceptionally sharp. Optically I rated the two eyepieces the same.

 

There were a few reasons I preferred the Taks overall. Despite the AFOV specs being similiar, I perceived the Taks to have a slightly larger field. Similarly with the eye relief, I don’t believe the stated specs for the Brandon’s and found the Taks slightly more comfortable. The Brandon’s are more suited to longer focal ratio scopes, while the Taks still perform well in my faster scopes. As a bonus the Taks are also cheaper.

 

Something I didn’t investigate is the fact the Brandon’s are not multi coated, while the Taks are. I use my Taks for threshold deep sky objects where multi coated optics is advantageous.

 

The Brandon’s are certainly great eyepieces and you wouldn’t go wrong building a collection. For my style of observing in my scopes though, the Tak Abbes are better eyepieces.

Thanks for the feedback. Well given the design of Brandon and the fact they use 2 high index glasses, and 2 very high index glasses, I was lead to believe they didn't need a multi coating to control the scatter. That's why Brandon eyepieces are so expensive because of the glasses used. See in my telescopes being atleast F15 I don't think being sharp to the edge of the field is going to be a problem. 

 

Certainly is food for thought, I seriously have to think now which route I am going to go. 

[Dave1066]

No, the old 0.965" CZJ orthos are not on par with the ZAO and ZAO orthos. The TAOs (Tak Abbe Orthos) have much more modern coatings than the CZJ orthos, for example. 

 

A tip: If someone wants to use the TAOs in their 0.965" Zeiss or Takahashi diagonals or eyepiece turrets, they can be changed from 1.25" into 0.965" eyepieces with this adapter:

 

https://www.teleskop...nengewinde.html

 

The adapter also fits the UO orthos, the UO HD orthos, the Baader Genuine Orthos, most Chinese and Taiwanese plössls up to and including 25mm focal length. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

 

Thanks Thomas. Certainly is food for thought, as mint CZJ 0.965" Orthos go for over £200-£250 in mint condition in this day an age. In my opinion given the performance of Brandon and TAO eyepieces. The CZJ Ortho's aren't worth it.

 

Dave

[csrlice12]

While probably not the quality of a ZAO of TAC Abbe, I have found my old Nikon Orthostars outperform my UO HDs.  In fact, for their age (coast version, plated steel barrels), it' surprising just how good they are.

[Astrojensen]

 

In my opinion given the performance of Brandon and TAO eyepieces. The CZJ Ortho's aren't worth it.

No, they're not worth it, not any more, with the advent of the TAOs, UO HDs, etc. They are collector's items now, which is what drives the prices. Of course they're still mighty fine eyepieces, but you don't need to hunt them down, just because you want a good planetary ortho. 

 

I stopped chasing them years ago and now watch the ads with amusement, when the prices climb. The only thing that bothers me is that I didn't buy the whole remaining stock the Danish Zeiss dealer had, when Zeiss stopped production in 1995. I could have earned QUITE a bit of money on them by now.   An 8mm (less than 200 ever made!) was just $125.   Today they sell for ten times that. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[Astrojensen]

Thanks for the feedback. Well given the design of Brandon and the fact they use 2 high index glasses, and 2 very high index glasses, I was lead to believe they didn't need a multi coating to control the scatter. That's why Brandon eyepieces are so expensive because of the glasses used. See in my telescopes being atleast F15 I don't think being sharp to the edge of the field is going to be a problem. 

 

Certainly is food for thought, I seriously have to think now which route I am going to go. 

I'm no expert, but isn't polish the overwhelmingly most important factor in controlling scatter in an eyepiece?

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[t.r.]

Imho, Brandon's are excellent planetary eyepieces with scatter control only bested by the SMCs and ZAOs.

[Dave1066]

No, they're not worth it, not any more, with the advent of the TAOs, UO HDs, etc. They are collector's items now, which is what drives the prices. Of course they're still mighty fine eyepieces, but you don't need to hunt them down, just because you want a good planetary ortho. 

 

I stopped chasing them years ago and now watch the ads with amusement, when the prices climb. The only thing that bothers me is that I didn't buy the whole remaining stock the Danish Zeiss dealer had, when Zeiss stopped production in 1995. I could have earned QUITE a bit of money on them by now.   An 8mm (less than 200 ever made!) was just $125.   Today they sell for ten times that. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

I already have a complete set of Circle T Ortho's, which I got secondhand for a good price. I was really looking for something better, hence looking at the buying even better eyepieces, I already have a Brandon eyepiece which is 8mm. But as some are saying TAO are above other Ortho's I may go that route, as TAO's are nearly £100 less!

 

Well that would of been one heck of a deal if you did buy all the remaining Zeiss Denmark stock! Have to say Thomas I like reading about you using your Telementor, its nearly inspired me to purchase one, who knows maybe in the future I will! At the moment APM have a mint early Telementor in stock, with the helical focuser.

 

Dave

Edited by Dave1066, 19 March 2018 - 02:59 PM.