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

Which classic eyepieces do you like best

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#126 semiosteve

semiosteve

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004
  • Loc: NEOhio

Posted 01 July 2018 - 12:11 PM

eyepieces
 
I picked up these five .965 Meade orthos recently. They are very nice with my Tascoe 10te. Some superb views of Jupiter and lunar terminator with them of late. Very sharp. Its a nice set to have - I will be on the lookout now for the missing 12.5 to complete the set (HINT)....

  • Don W, Deven Matlick, starman876 and 9 others like this

#127 starman876

starman876

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 17094
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 02 July 2018 - 09:16 AM

I still remember talking to Markus Ludes about .965" eyepieces when I was younger and how I thought they were all so inferior to 1.25" eyepieces.  Boy, did I get an education about eyepieces from him.    I thought I was going to get beat around the head and shoulders for saying something so stupid.  


  • deSitter, Jim Curry, memento and 2 others like this

#128 ftwskies

ftwskies

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Under Fort Worth skies...

Posted 02 July 2018 - 03:49 PM

My favorite.  Wish I could put together a complete set.  FWIW this seems to be a 1.25 eyepiece with an adapter similar to the one Thomas linked to here, but the adapter wasn't fitted later, the eyepiece came this way.

 

gallery_240021_6443_14866.jpg

 

gallery_240021_6443_687.jpg

 

(The 1.25" barrel in the lower photo is stolen from a Series 500 Plossl that I got with my Discovery DHQ Dob.  The K.18 came with the 0.965 adapter fitted already.)


  • Deven Matlick, Bomber Bob, bbqediguana and 1 other like this

#129 roscoe

roscoe

    curmudgeon

  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2009
  • Loc: NW Mass, inches from VT

Posted 04 July 2018 - 08:26 AM

I still remember talking to Markus Ludes about .965" eyepieces when I was younger and how I thought they were all so inferior to 1.25" eyepieces.  Boy, did I get an education about eyepieces from him.    I thought I was going to get beat around the head and shoulders for saying something so stupid.  

I think most of us used to think this....back when most .0965's were made at a price point to work well enough with disposable telescopes....and good ones were the stuff of dreams.

 

But a couple of years ago, I measured the glass diameter in several 1.25 and corresponding .965 Tani ortho EP's, and lo and behold, they were just the same.  same glass, different housing.   To check, I made a .965 adapter, and..... same focal length, same performance in the scope.

 

I currently have 4 scopes, two are native to .965 accessories, and I use .965's partly/mostly because the system was designed for that size, and they just look 'right' stuck in there.

 

I'm still missing one ortho to build out my set of minis, I've been posting over in the classifieds now and then looking for that size, one will come to me sometime, I'm sure.  it is a time-consuming task to build out a set of vintage EP's...in any barrel diameter.


Edited by roscoe, 04 July 2018 - 08:35 AM.

  • deSitter, starman876, steve t and 5 others like this

#130 starman876

starman876

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 17094
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 04 July 2018 - 02:13 PM

I have been buying some of the 100 degree eyepieces.  the first one I got I thought I might have to get a bigger mount just because of the eyepiecelol.gif


  • memento, steve t, Paul Morow and 5 others like this

#131 Jim Curry

Jim Curry

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2523
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2007
  • Loc: STL

Posted 04 July 2018 - 08:09 PM

I have found NS Ortho Eyepieces to be of high quality. Able to run with the best of modern orthoscopics in side by side comparisons.
Jim
  • starman876, steve t, Paul Morow and 1 other like this

#132 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 07 July 2018 - 04:43 PM

I think most of us used to think this....back when most .0965's were made at a price point to work well enough with disposable telescopes....and good ones were the stuff of dreams.

 

But a couple of years ago, I measured the glass diameter in several 1.25 and corresponding .965 Tani ortho EP's, and lo and behold, they were just the same.  same glass, different housing.   To check, I made a .965 adapter, and..... same focal length, same performance in the scope.

 

I currently have 4 scopes, two are native to .965 accessories, and I use .965's partly/mostly because the system was designed for that size, and they just look 'right' stuck in there.

 

I'm still missing one ortho to build out my set of minis, I've been posting over in the classifieds now and then looking for that size, one will come to me sometime, I'm sure.  it is a time-consuming task to build out a set of vintage EP's...in any barrel diameter.

Yup, I had my Tasco all fitted out with a 1.25" drawtube and every time I used it I thought "I'm looking through plumbing". So I restored it to its native state :)

 

-drl


  • semiosteve, roscoe and Bomber Bob like this

#133 bremms

bremms

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5011
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2012
  • Loc: SC

Posted 08 July 2018 - 08:32 AM

Had a nearly complete set of the Meade Research Grade eyepieces. Only missing the 2" 32mm WA (erfle?). My favorites of those were the 20mm WA and the 28mm Ortho. The 28 Ortho gave a beautiful low power view that was sharp to the edges. Not wide field but just a clean image. After this pic was taken I found the missing eyepiece box.

Had two of the 28mm RGO's at one point. I machined one of the field stops 3mm larger. Still sharp to the edge and now it has a good bit wider field. They are my favorite eyepiece from that era. Although,the TV smoothies are superb too.



#134 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 08 July 2018 - 09:18 AM

Had two of the 28mm RGO's at one point. I machined one of the field stops 3mm larger. Still sharp to the edge and now it has a good bit wider field. They are my favorite eyepiece from that era. Although,the TV smoothies are superb too.

I think the limit on the ortho field is more a matter of exactly that, orthoscopic-ness (lack of barrel and pincushion distortion).

 

-drl


  • steve t likes this

#135 semiosteve

semiosteve

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004
  • Loc: NEOhio

Posted 09 July 2018 - 03:43 PM

So I have this Cave 8" F4.5 RFT with a 1.25 helical focuser.

 

I am using classic Brandons with it and they are great EP's. The 32mm is pretty magical with this scope.

 

Still, I find myself  wondering what kind of larger AFOV 1.25 eyepiece might work well with this scope (classic preferred).

 

Seems like I am banished to 48 degree land unless I go replace the original Cave focuser with a modern 2inch one. And I am loathe to do that.

 

Any classic eyepiece suggestions for this situation?


  • steve t and terraclarke like this

#136 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17615
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Zinzinnati

Posted 09 July 2018 - 06:05 PM

So I have this Cave 8" F4.5 RFT with a 1.25 helical focuser.

 

I am using classic Brandons with it and they are great EP's. The 32mm is pretty magical with this scope.

 

Still, I find myself  wondering what kind of larger AFOV 1.25 eyepiece might work well with this scope (classic preferred).

 

Seems like I am banished to 48 degree land unless I go replace the original Cave focuser with a modern 2inch one. And I am loathe to do that.

 

Any classic eyepiece suggestions for this situation?

I’m at the same place with the 6” F4.5 that I built 52 years ago Steve. I cannot bring myself to replace the original Jaegars focuser so I’m stuck with my 1.25” eyepieces. Luckily I too have a 32mm Brandon and also a large for its time, 1.25” 32mm circle T Erfle. I also have a 38mm brass WWII gunsight eyepiece that I machined a 1.25” adapter for which I think is cool and very period.


  • semiosteve, steve t and Bomber Bob like this

#137 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 10 July 2018 - 11:25 AM

I’m at the same place with the 6” F4.5 that I built 52 years ago Steve. I cannot bring myself to replace the original Jaegars focuser so I’m stuck with my 1.25” eyepieces. Luckily I too have a 32mm Brandon and also a large for its time, 1.25” 32mm circle T Erfle. I also have a 38mm brass WWII gunsight eyepiece that I machined a 1.25” adapter for which I think is cool and very period.

The Meade HD series comes in 25mm which at f/4.5 gives a 6mm exit pupil - at our age as much as we can use. That will give you a 60+ degree FOV and you can keep your focuser! They are really good eyepieces even at the edge in fast scopes. Very little distortion too. Sort of like wide field orthos.

 

-drl


  • steve t, terraclarke and bremms like this

#138 bremms

bremms

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5011
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2012
  • Loc: SC

Posted 10 July 2018 - 12:18 PM

So I have this Cave 8" F4.5 RFT with a 1.25 helical focuser.

 

I am using classic Brandons with it and they are great EP's. The 32mm is pretty magical with this scope.

 

Still, I find myself  wondering what kind of larger AFOV 1.25 eyepiece might work well with this scope (classic preferred).

 

Seems like I am banished to 48 degree land unless I go replace the original Cave focuser with a modern 2inch one. And I am loathe to do that.

 

Any classic eyepiece suggestions for this situation?

I find that interesting.. For me Brandons are not good below F10 ( much worse edge correction then an Abbe Ortho or green letter 32mm). Below F6, I find them unusable. The TV 32mm holds up well at F5 the Brandon had at least 5 times as much astigmatism at the edge and was really soft even half way to the edge. I know people love them, but they have the worst edge correction below F6 of any eyepiece I have seen. Glad you like it.. Couldn't stand the edge correction even at F10.



#139 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 10 July 2018 - 12:27 PM

I find that interesting.. For me Brandons are not good below F10 ( much worse edge correction then an Abbe Ortho or green letter 32mm). Below F6, I find them unusable. The TV 32mm holds up well at F5 the Brandon had at least 5 times as much astigmatism at the edge and was really soft even half way to the edge. I know people love them, but they have the worst edge correction below F6 of any eyepiece I have seen. Glad you like it.. Couldn't stand the edge correction even at F10.

How do Radians do below f/6?

 

-drl


  • semiosteve likes this

#140 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17615
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Zinzinnati

Posted 10 July 2018 - 04:08 PM

I find that interesting.. For me Brandons are not good below F10 ( much worse edge correction then an Abbe Ortho or green letter 32mm). Below F6, I find them unusable. The TV 32mm holds up well at F5 the Brandon had at least 5 times as much astigmatism at the edge and was really soft even half way to the edge. I know people love them, but they have the worst edge correction below F6 of any eyepiece I have seen. Glad you like it.. Couldn't stand the edge correction even at F10.

Could be your eyes. I’ve seen all kinds of all over the board reactions to many different eyepiece designs. I think people forget that when someone looks through an eyepiece they are effectively adding an additional compound lens (cornea + lens) plus a photo receptor with a curved back (retina) all of which may have various aberations, and then maybe even throw in prescription lenses to what is already a fairly complicated optical system. And as we get into wider field systems coupled with large exit pupils and longer eye relief and individual experiences become even more variable. Some people see kidney beaning and others don’t, some get vertigo and others don’t, some experience blackouts, see things sharp to the edge, fuzzy edges, more or less pronounced pin cushioning, etc. The more complex eyepiece designs become, even more varied reactions it seems. That’s why I take sweeping pronouncements about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ eyepieces with a grain of salt. I find suggestions about trying things far more useful. Let the individual then make up his or her mind!


Edited by terraclarke, 10 July 2018 - 04:15 PM.

  • semiosteve, Lewis Cason, steve t and 2 others like this

#141 Mike W

Mike W

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 723
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2006
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 10 July 2018 - 04:39 PM

How do Radians do below f/6?

 

-drl

They are made for Televue scopes, many are f/5.4.


  • terraclarke likes this

#142 steve t

steve t

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 385
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: SW Ohio

Posted 10 July 2018 - 05:30 PM

Could be your eyes. I’ve seen all kinds of all over the board reactions to many different eyepiece designs. I think people forget that when someone looks through an eyepiece they are effectively adding an additional compound lens (cornea + lens) plus a photo receptor with a curved back (retina) all of which may have various aberations, and then maybe even throw in prescription lenses to what is already a fairly complicated optical system. And as we get into wider field systems coupled with large exit pupils and longer eye relief and individual experiences become even more variable. Some people see kidney beaning and others don’t, some get vertigo and others don’t, some experience blackouts, see things sharp to the edge, fuzzy edges, more or less pronounced pin cushioning, etc. The more complex eyepiece designs become, even more varied reactions it seems. That’s why I take sweeping pronouncements about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ eyepieces with a grain of salt. I find suggestions about trying things far more useful. Let the individual then make up his or her mind!

Hi Terra,

Well said.


  • terraclarke likes this

#143 roscoe

roscoe

    curmudgeon

  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2009
  • Loc: NW Mass, inches from VT

Posted 10 July 2018 - 07:44 PM

Could be your eyes. I’ve seen all kinds of all over the board reactions to many different eyepiece designs. I think people forget that when someone looks through an eyepiece they are effectively adding an additional compound lens (cornea + lens) plus a photo receptor with a curved back (retina) all of which may have various aberations, and then maybe even throw in prescription lenses to what is already a fairly complicated optical system. And as we get into wider field systems coupled with large exit pupils and longer eye relief and individual experiences become even more variable. Some people see kidney beaning and others don’t, some get vertigo and others don’t, some experience blackouts, see things sharp to the edge, fuzzy edges, more or less pronounced pin cushioning, etc. The more complex eyepiece designs become, even more varied reactions it seems. That’s why I take sweeping pronouncements about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ eyepieces with a grain of salt. I find suggestions about trying things far more useful. Let the individual then make up his or her mind!

So........ you're saying those $6 plastic Symmetrical Ramsdens are actually just fine, and it's just our eyeballs distorting their perfect images?  undecided.gif

 

 

In the real world, on the other hand, that's a good analysis of why some rave about and some pan pretty much anything above the above-mentioned $6 gems


Edited by roscoe, 10 July 2018 - 07:47 PM.

  • terraclarke and bremms like this

#144 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14382
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 11 July 2018 - 05:22 AM

How do Radians do below f/6?

 

-drl

Super. Had more than one set over the years and they did great with my around f/4.3 Dobs.  The 5mm Radian last nite was giving crazy sharp views of Jupiter in the TMB 105/650.


  • steve t likes this

#145 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17615
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Zinzinnati

Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:14 AM

So........ you're saying those $6 plastic Symmetrical Ramsdens are actually just fine, and it's just our eyeballs distorting their perfect images?  undecided.gif

 

 

In the real world, on the other hand, that's a good analysis of why some rave about and some pan pretty much anything above the above-mentioned $6 gems

Now don’t you be dissin’ my plastic! :roflmao:


  • Lewis Cason, roscoe, steve t and 1 other like this

#146 bremms

bremms

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5011
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2012
  • Loc: SC

Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:23 AM

How do Radians do below f/6?

 

-drl

They are designed for use down to F4 according to uncle Al.



#147 semiosteve

semiosteve

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004
  • Loc: NEOhio

Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:52 AM

I think there is also an issue of personal taste on which distortions bother us more. I am not much bothered by softness at the edges but warping of the the star field as you pan bothers me a lot. Others are the opposite.

 

So the Brandon's are good in this respect as they maintain a relatively "flat" field even when moving the scope.

 

Bottom line for me is whether there are any 1.25 classic EP's that are a bit wider in AFOV, but don't warp the field.

 

So far that sounds like one of the following

 

  • 32mm circle T Erfle
  • Meade HD  25mm

Other options perhaps:

  • I remember all sort of wide angle EP ads from University Optics back in the day - Koenig's ? Or were those also "32mm circle T Erfle's" branded as UO?
  • Also maybe one of the Galoc/Gailand's ? But if I recall, those were also ortho's and not much better AFOV than Brandon's.

 

Trying to stay on topic of Classic EP's here, but narrowing a bit to the ones that fit this situation.

 

Thanks

 

Steve


  • steve t and terraclarke like this

#148 steve t

steve t

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 385
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2009
  • Loc: SW Ohio

Posted 11 July 2018 - 09:30 AM

In my opinion it is very important to keep the Systems aspects of an optical train, including the eye, in mind when selecting eyepieces. Some thought and research needs to be placed into the original intent of an eyepiece design to help judge how it will perform with a particular exit pupil and focal ratio. 

 

Last summer, out of curiosity,  I did an experiment to see "how bad the good old days were smile.gif" by comparing 25mm Ramsden,  Kellner, Orthoscopic, Brandon, and Plossl eyepieces. By choosing 25mm I was able to keep the exit pupil close to the sweet spot for my eye (~3mm). Using my 6" F8 Newtonian the TFoV was between 50' to 60' which kept coma at a minium. In the end I was surprised at how well all of the eyepieces performed,  including the simple old Ramsden.

Now if I had use a scope that had a focal ratio of F4 I'm sure my results would have been much different.


  • terraclarke, rcwolpert, bremms and 1 other 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