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

Comparative Trial Run of the ES 30/52

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 BarrySimon615

BarrySimon615

    Pa Bear

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,639
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2004
  • Loc: New Orleans, LA

Posted 31 October 2018 - 10:40 AM

Ok, as promised, I did get the opportunity last night to compare my new ExploreScientific 30 mm (52 degree field) eyepiece to other similar focal length eyepieces and to see if it truly has a place in my ExploreScientific 1.25" eyepiece case.

 

The short answers are:  1) It does very well, and 2) Yes, it has it's place in my ES 1.25" eyepiece case, but as some of you probably want more information than this...…...here it is:

 

Last night in New Orleans was good, not great, but for what I was doing good was good enough.  The temperature was in the mid-70's and the humidity was low enough that the eyepieces and the telescope objective did not fog.  Being that I am just about 5 miles from the activity on Bourbon Street shocked.gif , on the best of nights my limiting magnitude is about 4.7.  I did not take a reading last night but I estimate it was about 4.4 to 4.5.  The Moon was not a factor because I was done hours before Moon rise.

 

I only looked at one object/area for my comparative testing, the Double Cluster in Perseus which was about 30 degrees up when I started and about 45 degrees up when I finished.  The telescope used was my Astro-Tech AT 102ED f/7 with the FeatherTouch upgrade, so I was operating at just about 700 mm of focal length.  The mount used was my Astro-Tech Voyager which has a single fork arm.  Perfect for grab and go and a good match for this telescope.  The diagonal used is an older TeleVue 2" mirror diagonal, which has been in my arsenal for probably about 20 years.  It is relatively rare as it has "TeleVue" in green lettering (go figure) printed tastefully on the upper prism housing at the base of the eyepiece receptacle.

 

Eyepieces in 1.25" format used include - ES 30/52, ES 26/62, ES 24/68, ES 20/68, TV 30 mm plossl, and my Vixen LVW 22 mm (this one is actually a hybrid as the upper barrel allows for direct use with a 2" diagonal).  The other 1.25" eyepieces required the use of a 2" to 1.25" adapter in the diagonal.

 

Eyepieces in 2" format used included - TeleVue 22 mm Type 4 Nagler, ES 24/82 and my Astro-Tech 22 mm AF 70  (reportedly the Olivon 22 mm has the same optics).

 

Let me first say that while I created a crude chart on paper and periodically took notes, made checks and compared one eyepiece to another before moving on (#1 compared to #2, then #1 compared to #3 and #2 compared to #3, and so forth, and periodically coming back to eyepieces as I worked down the line, ultimate favorites/keepers are as much about how it all works together than it is about adding points and determining a winner.  What I believe is good or best may be completely different from what others may think because of what telescope I used, my viewing conditions, my eyes, etc.  I try to be as unbiased as I can be and as all the eyepieces used are mine, there is no bias in respect to comparing my eyepiece(s) to someone else's eyepiece.  Every eyepiece has a place use except for one.  It and one other were purchased at the same time by me, both are new and very carefully handled - one to keep and one to be a door prize at our upcoming Deep South Star Gaze.  Had they been further apart in focal length I would be keeping both or if I could find some way to rationalize keeping both in spite of being close in focal length I would be keeping both.  Ultimately I could not do that so someone will be winning a very nice eyepiece.

 

On my evaluation page I had columns for:  the eyepiece name/focal length/apparent field, a second column for overall impression, a 3rd column for eye relief utility without glasses (I wear glasses but observe without them),  4th column for eye relief utility with glasses on, a 5th column for perception of astigmatism, a 6th column for perception of flatness of field, a 7th column for sharpness, and a final column for contrast coupled with notes that could relate to anything.

 

30 mm/52 ES eyepiece - the first eyepiece put in the diagonal.  I was curious.  It was very, very nice.  I noted no astigmatism and the field was nice and flat.  Brighter stars within the Double Cluster brought to the field edge remained undistorted and in focus.  I repeated this process several times to verify.  I like it!!!!!   No problem at all with eye relief in spite of the fact that the eye lens is recessed about 14 mm below the top edge of the folded down eye cup.  The field stop edge is very sharp, easily seen and frames the field nicely.  I tried again with my glasses on.  (My correction is 2.25+ and my lenses are relatively thin.)  I could not see the full field, but I could see most of it, and this eyepiece did better in this respect than most of the other eyepieces.  In fact, with glasses on I could not see the full field in any of the eyepieces used.  Maybe it is me as I don't ever observe thru an eyepiece with glasses on, I don't need too.  I have no astigmatism, or if I do, it is minimal.  I can focus stars to sharp points and if the telescope/eyepiece combinations are good, stars remain tight stars across the field if properly focused.

 

32 mm TeleVue plossl - I have always liked this eyepiece and have used it in the past for afocal projection of the Sun using one of my point and shoot digital cameras.  However the ES 30 mm/52, to me, is a better eyepiece.  The overall view in the ES is better, sort of an impression hard to describe, but just better.  Objectively the field is not quite as flat with the TV30.  Allowing stars to drift to the field edge in the TV 30, I would have to tweak focus a little bit.  I did not need to refocus with the ES 30/52.  If I was in a situation where I would only be keeping one, it would be the ES 30/52.   The TV plossl had good eye relief, and was the best one, eye relief wise if I had to observe with my glasses on.  Non issue for me however.

 

26 mm/62 ES eyepiece - this is one of those eyepieces that just feels good to the eye.  However as others have said in other posts, it does suffer from astigmatism in stars closer to the field edge.  Really a shame as the eyepiece yields an overall good view.  With the Double Cluster I would notice that brighter stars began to become "spiky" about 60% of the way out from the center, mild at first but objectionable at about 80% of the way out.  Focus would not help as it would had this been a flatness of field issue (but then if focus would help near the edge, stars at the center would be out and my eyes are too old to accommodate well).  I had done a lot of comparison with this eyepiece and the next eyepiece reviewed, and testing last night helps confirm my initial impressions.  In respect to eye relief the ES 26/62 is much like the ES 30/52, both are very nice eye relief wise without glasses - great sharp field stops with the whole field easily seen.  With glasses on the ES 26/62 has a field edge which "almost" can be completely seen, not quite, but almost.

 

24 mm/68 ES eyepiece - among the best low magnification wide field 1.25" format eyepieces.  In an earlier post my impression was that I did (and do) like it better than my TeleVue 24 mm Panoptic, and that is saying a lot.  Compared to the ES 26/62 it has a marginally wider field, but at a higher magnification and with better contrast, making it more immersive.  No astigmatism noted, or if there it is very mild.  The field exhibits mild "unflatness" with mild refocus needed for stars at the edge.  A compromise focus may be possible for most, particularly those that can accommodate well.  I view this as a non issue.  I was very happy with the overall view.  Eye relief was good without glasses but I was more aware of my upper cheek and eyebrow resting on the eyecup (but not pressed into it).  The 26/62 was better in this respect.  I would unfortunately say that this is an eyepiece that would not work well for those who have to observe with glasses on, I tried and it did not work for me.  Yes, I could see the central field, but too much of the wide field is taken away.  Great eyepiece for me as I do not wear glasses to observe.  Those with glasses on will be disappointed due to the restrictions.

 

Vixen LVW 22 mm with a 65 degree field - sort of a hybrid barrel, although it was not advertised that way.  1.25" lower chrome barrel with the body of the eyepiece being very close to 2" diameter with a widening above that.  Any in the series of discontinued eyepieces from the 3.5 mm up to the 22 mm will work in a 2" diagonal and the lower 1.25" barrel will not hit the mirror on a 2" diagonal.  I typically use mine in a 2" diagonal without any adapter.  (I only use in diagonals that I have replaced the metal thumbscrew with a nylon one to avoid scratching or denting the eyepiece.  The 22 LVW performed last night as expected - No astigmatism, with a nice flat field with stars remaining tight points to the field edge.  As reported by many others, there is an impression that the light thru-put is not quite up there with other eyepieces.  I get this impression too but when I then chase the faintest stars in the field and compare to other eyepieces where I get the impression that they have a brighter thru-put, I see very little difference.  Maybe on the order of 1/10th of a magnitude, and a determination that requires careful study.  One other aspect of using any of the LVW eyepieces is that eye placement is very good.  Novices "can find the view".  Additionally, due to the long eye relief this is a good outreach eyepiece as there is little chance of eyelash or makeup contact with the eye lens.

Having said this, the eyecup is pretty thick and stiff.  I do not need to fold it down.  I have "kinda tried" but have not pursued this as my impression is that if it could be folded down it would have a short longevity and would likely crack/split after moderate use.  With my glasses on, I cannot see the full field, but not an issue for me.  If folded down, I think many with glasses might be able to see the full field.  I have not experimented with taking the rubber eyecup completely off.  While a 65 degree field is reasonalbly large, it did seem "smallish" when compared to the next eyepiece.

 

20 mm/68 ES - little brother (or is it sister) to the 24 mm/68 ES - another real nice eyepiece and a great complement to the 24 mm/68.  Same features and benefits compared to the ES 24/68.  Real differences are increased magnification and a darker background sky as your exit pupil is now smaller.  Eye relief friendly if you do not wear glasses, but will not work well for those keeping their glasses on, you will lose a lot of field.  Mine, for me, is a keeper.

 

TeleVue 22 mm Type 4 Nagler - this 2" eyepiece has an 82 degree apparent field and it along with my 17 mm Type 4 Nagler are among my most frequently used eyepieces.  Eye relief is great without glasses and fairly good with glasses on, not perfect, but good.  No astigmatism noted by me, and the field is fairly flat, with very mild re-focus necessary for stars at the field edge.  Pick of the litter for all eyepieces tested last night.  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!

 

Astro-Tech 22 mm AF 70 - not a bad 2" eyepiece at all for the price.  Now discontinued, but many feel that the Olivon eyepieces which are available thru Eyepieces Etc. have the same optics in different bodies (I have the Olivon 13 mm and it is well made and performs well).  The AT 22 performs in all parameters except field size about the same as the 22 TV Nagler.  Eye relief is good without glasses.  It does have a stiff and thick eyecup which resists folding down and I did not want to challenge it for this comparative review.  With the eye cup up it does not work with glasses on.  With the eyecup removed it may work for some, but I will not speculate beyond this.  The 22 mm Olivon has a twist up eye cup and it may be a good and only option as the Astro-Tech AF 70 series is discontinued.

 

24 mm/82 ES - this is a 2" eyepiece.  It is a big and heavy eyepiece.  Adequate eye relief without glasses and with the eye cup down.  But my impression is that it will not work for those wearing glasses, too much field loss, at least for me.  No astigmatism noted, and an almost completely flat field with only mild re-focus needed when stars drift to the field edge.  A less expensive option to the 22 Type 4 TV Nagler…….but, that hard to describe greatness goes to the 22 Nagler.  To me, the 22 Nagler has the more magnificent view.

 

So that is it and I find the 30mm/52 to be a great complement to my ES 24mm/68.  Star images are perfect thru the 30 mm/52, and while the apparent field is smaller - 52 degrees vs 68 degrees, the true field is smaller by only about 1/10th of a degree, an inconsequential loss.  The appearance of the 30 mm makes it easier to not lament not keeping the 26 mm/62.

 

Hopefully my review will help those in a position to make some buying and selling decisions.

 

Barry Simon


Edited by BarrySimon615, 31 October 2018 - 10:46 AM.

  • JIMZ7, Jaimo!, eros312 and 11 others like this

#2 dcornelis

dcornelis

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2012

Posted 31 October 2018 - 11:35 AM

so maybe they are an interesting option for low power binoviewing too ...


  • Ohmless and nicoledoula like this

#3 lylver

lylver

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 949
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2017
  • Loc: France

Posted 01 November 2018 - 03:52 AM

Hi Barry, how is it about color saturation of stars. Did you see colored stars in the double cluster ?


  • 25585 likes this

#4 rogeriomagellan

rogeriomagellan

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,814
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2016

Posted 02 November 2018 - 11:34 AM

thanx.gif , Barry.



#5 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,124
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 02 November 2018 - 12:36 PM

With the recessed eye lens it is of no use to me.  Too bad because it sounds like a good performer.


  • 25585 likes this

#6 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,734
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 02 November 2018 - 05:02 PM

Hi Barry, how is it about color saturation of stars. Did you see colored stars in the double cluster ?


Some ep's don't show colored stars?

#7 BarrySimon615

BarrySimon615

    Pa Bear

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,639
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2004
  • Loc: New Orleans, LA

Posted 02 November 2018 - 05:14 PM

Hi Barry, how is it about color saturation of stars. Did you see colored stars in the double cluster ?


Did not strike me as being too vivid in any eyepiece but all at low power and under mag 4.4 skies.

Barry Simon

#8 lylver

lylver

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 949
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2017
  • Loc: France

Posted 03 November 2018 - 01:23 PM

Sorry Barry, that was a stupid question in your sky condition, I have skipped some introduction lines of your report. I'll wait for someone else to check that.

Regards

Myriam



#9 rogeriomagellan

rogeriomagellan

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,814
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2016

Posted 04 November 2018 - 10:53 AM

I haven't bought any of them yet but what I liked most about these new ES 52° eyepieces when I first learned about them on the Internet was the barrel's fit-and-finish. They really looked well-made, a solid piece of metal, rubber and glass. Could I somehow be wrong here, BarrySimon615?


  • nicoledoula likes this

#10 BarrySimon615

BarrySimon615

    Pa Bear

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,639
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2004
  • Loc: New Orleans, LA

Posted 05 November 2018 - 05:57 AM

You

 

I haven't bought any of them yet but what I liked most about these new ES 52° eyepieces when I first learned about them on the Internet was the barrel's fit-and-finish. They really looked well-made, a solid piece of metal, rubber and glass. Could I somehow be wrong here, BarrySimon615?

You are not wrong, the construction and materials is the same as the other ES eyepieces irrespective of series.  In my ES 1.25 eyepiece case are all of the 82's from the 4.7 to the 14 and then the 20/68 and the 24/68 and finally the 30/52.  They look like a litter of black Labrador Retriever puppies, slightly different sizes but basically all the same.

 

Barry Simon


  • nicoledoula likes this

#11 rogeriomagellan

rogeriomagellan

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,814
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2016

Posted 08 November 2018 - 06:25 PM

Thanks, Barry.



#12 rogeriomagellan

rogeriomagellan

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,814
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2016

Posted 03 December 2018 - 06:53 PM

One comparison that I'd love to read is between the ES 30mm/52° and the Baader 32mm Ortho or between any of the Baader Orthos and the new ES 52° eyepieces. I know that it is highly unlikely that an ES 52° eyepiece would beat a Baader Ortho, except for generous eye relief. But even so I'd be pleased to read a review. Don't you all think that it'd be an interesting comparison?


Edited by rogeriomagellan, 04 December 2018 - 06:45 PM.

  • eros312 likes this

#13 Svalbard

Svalbard

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2015
  • Loc: USA

Posted 03 December 2018 - 10:41 PM

One comparison that I'd love to read is between the ES 30mm/52° and the Baader 32mm Ortho or between any of the Baader Orthos and the new ES 52° eyepieces. I know that it is highly unlikely that an ES 52° eyepiece would beat a Baader Ortho, except for generous eye relief. But even so I'd be pleased to read a review. Don't think that it'd be an interesting comparison?

I'd read it. I don't see much on the Baader orthos...



#14 eros312

eros312

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 03 December 2018 - 10:55 PM

One comparison that I'd love to read is between the ES 30mm/52° and the Baader 32mm Ortho or between any of the Baader Orthos and the new ES 52° eyepieces. I know that it is highly unlikely that an ES 52° eyepiece would beat a Baader Ortho, except for generous eye relief. But even so I'd be pleased to read a review. Don't think that it'd be an interesting comparison?

Funny you should ask... I picked up a BGO 10mm and a ES 10mm 52° from Don at eyepiecesetc.com last week. And a 10mm Burgess Ultra Mono a few weeks back. Was planning on comparing them in the coming weeks. No promises though, sometimes life gets in the way.


  • Astrojensen, rogeriomagellan and nicoledoula like this

#15 CeleNoptic

CeleNoptic

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,735
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Mid-Atlantic, Bortle 7

Posted 03 December 2018 - 11:36 PM


One comparison that I'd love to read is between the ES 30mm/52° and the Baader 32mm Ortho or between any of the Baader Orthos and the new ES 52° eyepieces. I know that it is highly unlikely that an ES 52° eyepiece would beat a Baader Ortho, except for generous eye relief. But even so I'd be pleased to read a review. Don't think that it'd be an interesting comparison?

 

There is no 32mm Baader Ortho, you, probably, mean the 32mm Baader Classic Plossl? If you are interested there is a review by Dave Russell on 32mm Plossls including the 32mm Baader Classic on A-mart, but it's available to AM members only. According to Dave that Plossl has 45*AFOV. IIRC, Dave (russell23) has posted his review on the 32mm ES62 in this forum recently. Maybe he'll chime in, or you can PM him, if interested. Even though it's not an A-B comparison to ES52, but the ES62 might be quite similar and Dave's info could be very useful.


  • nicoledoula likes this

#16 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,988
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the SW UK. Dark end of the street.

Posted 04 December 2018 - 12:02 PM

Ok, as promised, I did get the opportunity last night to compare my new ExploreScientific 30 mm (52 degree field) eyepiece to other similar focal length eyepieces and to see if it truly has a place in my ExploreScientific 1.25" eyepiece case.

 

The short answers are:  1) It does very well, and 2) Yes, it has it's place in my ES 1.25" eyepiece case, but as some of you probably want more information than this...…...here it is:

 

Last night in New Orleans was good, not great, but for what I was doing good was good enough.  The temperature was in the mid-70's and the humidity was low enough that the eyepieces and the telescope objective did not fog.  Being that I am just about 5 miles from the activity on Bourbon Street shocked.gif , on the best of nights my limiting magnitude is about 4.7.  I did not take a reading last night but I estimate it was about 4.4 to 4.5.  The Moon was not a factor because I was done hours before Moon rise.

 

I only looked at one object/area for my comparative testing, the Double Cluster in Perseus which was about 30 degrees up when I started and about 45 degrees up when I finished.  The telescope used was my Astro-Tech AT 102ED f/7 with the FeatherTouch upgrade, so I was operating at just about 700 mm of focal length.  The mount used was my Astro-Tech Voyager which has a single fork arm.  Perfect for grab and go and a good match for this telescope.  The diagonal used is an older TeleVue 2" mirror diagonal, which has been in my arsenal for probably about 20 years.  It is relatively rare as it has "TeleVue" in green lettering (go figure) printed tastefully on the upper prism housing at the base of the eyepiece receptacle.

 

Eyepieces in 1.25" format used include - ES 30/52, ES 26/62, ES 24/68, ES 20/68, TV 30 mm plossl, and my Vixen LVW 22 mm (this one is actually a hybrid as the upper barrel allows for direct use with a 2" diagonal).  The other 1.25" eyepieces required the use of a 2" to 1.25" adapter in the diagonal.

 

Eyepieces in 2" format used included - TeleVue 22 mm Type 4 Nagler, ES 24/82 and my Astro-Tech 22 mm AF 70  (reportedly the Olivon 22 mm has the same optics).

 

Let me first say that while I created a crude chart on paper and periodically took notes, made checks and compared one eyepiece to another before moving on (#1 compared to #2, then #1 compared to #3 and #2 compared to #3, and so forth, and periodically coming back to eyepieces as I worked down the line, ultimate favorites/keepers are as much about how it all works together than it is about adding points and determining a winner.  What I believe is good or best may be completely different from what others may think because of what telescope I used, my viewing conditions, my eyes, etc.  I try to be as unbiased as I can be and as all the eyepieces used are mine, there is no bias in respect to comparing my eyepiece(s) to someone else's eyepiece.  Every eyepiece has a place use except for one.  It and one other were purchased at the same time by me, both are new and very carefully handled - one to keep and one to be a door prize at our upcoming Deep South Star Gaze.  Had they been further apart in focal length I would be keeping both or if I could find some way to rationalize keeping both in spite of being close in focal length I would be keeping both.  Ultimately I could not do that so someone will be winning a very nice eyepiece.

 

On my evaluation page I had columns for:  the eyepiece name/focal length/apparent field, a second column for overall impression, a 3rd column for eye relief utility without glasses (I wear glasses but observe without them),  4th column for eye relief utility with glasses on, a 5th column for perception of astigmatism, a 6th column for perception of flatness of field, a 7th column for sharpness, and a final column for contrast coupled with notes that could relate to anything.

 

30 mm/52 ES eyepiece - the first eyepiece put in the diagonal.  I was curious.  It was very, very nice.  I noted no astigmatism and the field was nice and flat.  Brighter stars within the Double Cluster brought to the field edge remained undistorted and in focus.  I repeated this process several times to verify.  I like it!!!!!   No problem at all with eye relief in spite of the fact that the eye lens is recessed about 14 mm below the top edge of the folded down eye cup.  The field stop edge is very sharp, easily seen and frames the field nicely.  I tried again with my glasses on.  (My correction is 2.25+ and my lenses are relatively thin.)  I could not see the full field, but I could see most of it, and this eyepiece did better in this respect than most of the other eyepieces.  In fact, with glasses on I could not see the full field in any of the eyepieces used.  Maybe it is me as I don't ever observe thru an eyepiece with glasses on, I don't need too.  I have no astigmatism, or if I do, it is minimal.  I can focus stars to sharp points and if the telescope/eyepiece combinations are good, stars remain tight stars across the field if properly focused.

 

32 mm TeleVue plossl - I have always liked this eyepiece and have used it in the past for afocal projection of the Sun using one of my point and shoot digital cameras.  However the ES 30 mm/52, to me, is a better eyepiece.  The overall view in the ES is better, sort of an impression hard to describe, but just better.  Objectively the field is not quite as flat with the TV30.  Allowing stars to drift to the field edge in the TV 30, I would have to tweak focus a little bit.  I did not need to refocus with the ES 30/52.  If I was in a situation where I would only be keeping one, it would be the ES 30/52.   The TV plossl had good eye relief, and was the best one, eye relief wise if I had to observe with my glasses on.  Non issue for me however.

 

 

Vixen LVW 22 mm with a 65 degree field - sort of a hybrid barrel, although it was not advertised that way.  1.25" lower chrome barrel with the body of the eyepiece being very close to 2" diameter with a widening above that.  Any in the series of discontinued eyepieces from the 3.5 mm up to the 22 mm will work in a 2" diagonal and the lower 1.25" barrel will not hit the mirror on a 2" diagonal.  I typically use mine in a 2" diagonal without any adapter.  (I only use in diagonals that I have replaced the metal thumbscrew with a nylon one to avoid scratching or denting the eyepiece.  The 22 LVW performed last night as expected - No astigmatism, with a nice flat field with stars remaining tight points to the field edge.  As reported by many others, there is an impression that the light thru-put is not quite up there with other eyepieces.  I get this impression too but when I then chase the faintest stars in the field and compare to other eyepieces where I get the impression that they have a brighter thru-put, I see very little difference.  Maybe on the order of 1/10th of a magnitude, and a determination that requires careful study.  One other aspect of using any of the LVW eyepieces is that eye placement is very good.  Novices "can find the view".  Additionally, due to the long eye relief this is a good outreach eyepiece as there is little chance of eyelash or makeup contact with the eye lens.

Having said this, the eyecup is pretty thick and stiff.  I do not need to fold it down.  I have "kinda tried" but have not pursued this as my impression is that if it could be folded down it would have a short longevity and would likely crack/split after moderate use.  With my glasses on, I cannot see the full field, but not an issue for me.  If folded down, I think many with glasses might be able to see the full field.  I have not experimented with taking the rubber eyecup completely off.  While a 65 degree field is reasonalbly large, it did seem "smallish" when compared to the next eyepiece.

 

 

I own three LVW 22s, did own a TV 32mm Plossl, and have a Celestron Ultima LX 22mm 70° which had thr same optics as your Astro Tech, the Olivon you mentioned, and Sky Watcher 22mm SWA 70 degree https://www.amazon.c...e/dp/B00UJUTEFS

 

Wearing glasses, the 32mm TV had least eye relief and was most critical for eye position. Good performance, but the 40 is much more forgiving, as are the 32's rivals, a Celestron Ultima 35mm and Takahashi 28mm Erfle. Those latter 2 are great bino viewer eyepieces, that Erfle - a modern ep, has 60° AFOV.

 

 Vixen's 22mm LVW is heavier, but is also great for all bino and mono viewing. All you say is true, it is one of those eyepieces that is appreciated by those who have used one, and dismissed by those are more impressed by brand or want a wider field of view. The Vixen with its eye cup folded down, just allows me to see the whole FOV wearing largish glasses. All LVWs, like the LVs that preceded them, do not vary in eye relief, they all have 20mm, and the same easy eye comfort.  Baader's Morpheus range have filled their slot apart from the 30 and 42mm models.

 

My Celestron Ultima LX 22mm 70° AFOV, is also good. I do not know how deeply recessed the AT or Olivon or SW versions are but Celestron has its eye lens near enough the top to not present any problem there. Eye relief and positioning are easy, this ep, though heavy as a 2 inch only fit, can almost be considered a beefed-up LVW 22mm. Both are good edge to edge, no astigmatism. 

 

Best 30-something for low weight and light trandmission, IME is the Takahashi 32mm Abbe Ortho. It is expensive, and has a 43° AFOV, but gives very sharp, bright, clear, contrasty images. Barlows well also.


  • nicoledoula likes this

#17 CelestronDaddy

CelestronDaddy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,226
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Central Texas

Posted 04 December 2018 - 12:40 PM

I’ve been considering this particular eyepiece and wondering how it would perform with my 80 ED ... thanks for posting ... 👍🏻
  • nicoledoula likes this

#18 rogeriomagellan

rogeriomagellan

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,814
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2016

Posted 04 December 2018 - 06:50 PM

There is no 32mm Baader Ortho, you, probably, mean the 32mm Baader Classic Plossl? If you are interested there is a review by Dave Russell on 32mm Plossls including the 32mm Baader Classic on A-mart, but it's available to AM members only. According to Dave that Plossl has 45*AFOV. IIRC, Dave (russell23) has posted his review on the 32mm ES62 in this forum recently. Maybe he'll chime in, or you can PM him, if interested. Even though it's not an A-B comparison to ES52, but the ES62 might be quite similar and Dave's info could be very useful.

Hi, Vlad. 

 

You're right. It is called Baader Classic Plössl. Only the other focal lengths of the series (6mm, 10mm and 18mm) have Ortho-like design. 



#19 CeleNoptic

CeleNoptic

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,735
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Mid-Atlantic, Bortle 7

Posted 04 December 2018 - 08:43 PM

Hi, Vlad. 

 

You're right. It is called Baader Classic Plössl. Only the other focal lengths of the series (6mm, 10mm and 18mm) have Ortho-like design. 

 

What sounds funny to me is that the Plossl has 45*AFOV vs the rest three Orthos with 50*AFOV smile.gif



#20 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,528
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 06 December 2018 - 01:40 PM

What sounds funny to me is that the Plossl has 45*AFOV vs the rest three Orthos with 50*AFOV smile.gif

 

Not so fast. The 32mm has a removable field stop, which, when removed, gives it just as wide a field as the other Plössls. Removing the field stop makes eye placement significantly more critical, i.e. just as bad as the other 32mm Plössls (I've had GSO and Televue). With the field stop in place the BCO 32mm is a fairly comfortable eyepiece.


Edited by Peter Besenbruch, 06 December 2018 - 01:41 PM.

  • CelestronDaddy and nicoledoula like this

#21 nicoledoula

nicoledoula

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,180
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2018

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:13 PM

30 Es 52* or TAO 32mm? 



#22 CeleNoptic

CeleNoptic

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,735
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Mid-Atlantic, Bortle 7

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:00 PM


Not so fast. The 32mm has a removable field stop, which, when removed, gives it just as wide a field as the other Plössls. Removing the field stop makes eye placement significantly more critical, i.e. just as bad as the other 32mm Plössls (I've had GSO and Televue). With the field stop in place  the BCO 32mm is a fairly comfortable eyepiece.

 

Comfortable soda straw? OK, good to know grin.gif  At 32mm I have no problem with the TV Plossl with its huge eye lens.



#23 leonard

leonard

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,345
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2007
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:28 PM

Hello ,

 

      BerrySimon615 

 

              You state that the eye lens on the ES 30/52 is recessed about 14mm below the folded down rubber eye cup ,  this eyepiece has total stated eye relief of 19.5 mm .

this leaves me to guess that this eyepiece only has a useable eye relief of about 6 to 7 mm.

Is this correct or am I misreading something ?

 

    



#24 BarrySimon615

BarrySimon615

    Pa Bear

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,639
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2004
  • Loc: New Orleans, LA

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:27 PM

You are correct. The ES 30/52 has an eye lens recessed that far. The eyepiece was very comfortable for me to use, but I do not observe with my glasses on. With them on I could see most, but not all of the field.

Barry Simon

#25 leonard

leonard

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,345
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2007
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:24 PM

Hello Berry Simon ,

 

 

 

          Thank you for you reply .

 

From your review the 30/52 degree looks like a fine low power eyepiece , something a lot of people using 1/14 eyepieces 

can enjoy . Why ES chose to sink the eye lens so far is a mystery to me . But ES must have a good reason .




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.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics