217 replies to this topic

[25585]

You can buy the 35mm as Baader Eudiascopic still https://www.firstlig...-eyepieces.html

[MarkGregory]

Well, that's a humor.

 

I don't suffer from the nostalgy feelings, maybe my feelings are generally too cold.

 

However, there are some classics among the the old eyepieces designs:

Zeiss Astroplan, see Masuyama

the forgotten CZJ  A-series Kellners

CZJ orthos, ZAOs, Pentax orthos

Pentax XOs - and I would place between them  the Baader Symmetric Diascope 3.6mm Edition for the Zeiss Diascope

Leitz triplet, TMB Monocentric triplet

the König revival by Zeiss (E-Pl) and by Leica (HC Plan, L Plan), also great even on the fast telescopes

 

and the revivals of the old designs by the manufacturers of today (or in near past), are sure not because of the nostalgy.

 

Best,

JG

Good morning. Can you please explain to me what you mean by “kidney bean?’  Thanks< Mark

[j.gardavsky]

I have it's older version.

 

It is the Thomas Baader's revival of the old Zeiss Astroplan for the glass materials in Far East.

The new version has changed multicoatings.

The term "Eudiascopic" means "good for the telescopes" referring to the Zeiss Diascopes.

 

On the side line,

the term "Astroplan" as used by Zeiss, derives from the "Astroplanum" - the first known telescope manufactured in Germany and displayed in a museum in Munich. The Astroplanum telescope has seen the first light long ago before the Zeiss company has emerged.

 

Best,

JG

[j.gardavsky]

Good morning. Can you please explain to me what you mean by “kidney bean?’  Thanks< Mark

Hello Mark,

 

it has been discussed here, https://www.cloudyni...he-kidney-bean/

 

In plain language, it is a dark (or even black) bent oval when you are looking at a "wrong angle" and at a "wrong distance" through an eyepiece, so it is a misalignment of the observing eye.

Often encountered on the generic ultrawide eyepieces.

 

It can be suppressed when using the expensive very high refractive index with the low dispersion glass materials, but the cost can be a shorter eye relief. And even then, your eye must find and keep the sweet spot distance.

 

It is fairly good corrected on the DOCTER UWA f=12.5mm 84° eyepiece, when you are ready to pay 4x as much if compared with some generic ultrawides.

 

Best,

JG

[Grahaml]

For me i think  its often i forgot why i sold them  and need to buy them again  to check  

[j.gardavsky]

For me i think  its often i forgot why i sold them  and need to buy them again  to check  

I also purchased some old EPs back to have them again.

 

When young, I did not know how good the Carl Zeiss Jena Abbe orthos are, this used to be my only eyepiece, so no comparison.

 

Now, I have the sweet sixteen back,

JG

[macdonjh]

But one should not underestimate nostalgia. Millions of so-so and bad pictures spark a wow after an Instagram-like filter. They evoke something in people's minds, the blurry past, a dream, a story. We like "film-like" looking movies. Its under-perfection tells our brains that's indeed a movie, a fiction, not the reality. And we have accustomed or brains through decades to these aesthetics of less than perfect images (black and white, grain, washed colors, slow frame rate, "low" resolution).
 

That is an interesting analogy.  There are a few old films I really like, and in many of them I think the story telling is better than modern films so I keep coming back.  One easy example is Casablanca as compared to Barb Wire.  At first, that's kind of a cheap comparison.  But to me, the combination of black-and-white film, good dialog and actors who can deliver it, a multi-dimensional story, wardrobe, setting, the back drop of the war even if the fighting is distant and on and on, all add up to a movie experience unmatched by the more modern version.

 

Two more examples, then off my soap box:

• Close Encounters of the Third Kind: I was watching that one day and my son kept breezing through the room.  He sat in for the last half hour or so.  During the end credits I asked him what he thought: "It's so cliché, Dad."  I told him the movie came out the same year Star Wars (a franchise he really likes, the first trilogy more than the second or even the third by a lot; another victory for good stories), so he should consider that many of the things he thought cliché about Close Encounters are because every "alien" movie he's seen borrows something from it. 
• Jaws: both my kids (even my daughter, who hates scary movies) love this one, cheesy special shark effects and all.  I am so glad it's not been remade.

[Starman1]

Good morning. Can you please explain to me what you mean by “kidney bean?’  Thanks< Mark

Mark,

Read this:

https://www.handprin...O/ae4.html#SAEP

and pay attention to the illustrations.

The most common form of blackouts are caused by getting too close to the eyepiece, inside the exit pupil position.

Many people confuse normal blackouts with "kidney bean" blackouts, which have a different cause and are far less common.

Edited by Starman1, 04 April 2020 - 04:27 PM.

[faackanders2]

On this site, some people are collectors of eyepieces, desire extinct classis, or desire to get complete sets.  Some are historical firsts,

 

I have a University Optics 40mm 70 AFOV Koenig MK70 which gives widest view for a 40mm and love it, but UO stopped making it and then went out of bussiness, but I will never part from it while I am still living and observing.

[25585]

I would like the 40mm Vernonscope Erfle...

[russell23]

I would like the 40mm Vernonscope Erfle...

I was working at Vernonscope when Don Yeier was making those.  At the time I was too young to imagine that 35 years later they would still be sought after.

[MarkGregory]

Hello Mark,

 

it has been discussed here, https://www.cloudyni...he-kidney-bean/

 

In plain language, it is a dark (or even black) bent oval when you are looking at a "wrong angle" and at a "wrong distance" through an eyepiece, so it is a misalignment of the observing eye.

Often encountered on the generic ultrawide eyepieces.

 

It can be suppressed when using the expensive very high refractive index with the low dispersion glass materials, but the cost can be a shorter eye relief. And even then, your eye must find and keep the sweet spot distance.

 

It is fairly good corrected on the DOCTER UWA f=12.5mm 84° eyepiece, when you are ready to pay 4x as much if compared with some generic ultrawides.

 

Best,

JG

Thanks, JG. Appreciate your note. Mark

[j.gardavsky]

Hello Mark,

 

I have purchased my Docter directly from the manufacturer, it has been on a display in the company gallery.

The eyepiece has a S/N (here the "o" series), and the QR code, as it should be the case,

 

 

Thank you for your kind words,

JG

[astroroman]

Hi, passion for old eyepieces? I dont understand what are you speaking about...

Album: Clave eyepieces collection

1 images

0 comments

[j.gardavsky]

Hi, passion for old eyepieces? I dont understand what are you speaking about...

... possessing

is sometimes better than not understanding what the others are speaking about,

 

JG

[BKSo]

The premise of this thread is a bit off. Not every eyepiece currently on sale have wide afov, and many inexpensive wide fields are poorly corrected on a fast scope. Yet these eyepiece must have some appeal so that they are still being made.

[russell23]

The premise of this thread is a bit off. Not every eyepiece currently on sale have wide afov, and many inexpensive wide fields are poorly corrected on a fast scope. Yet these eyepiece must have some appeal so that they are still being made.

The appeal of the inexpensive poorly corrected wide fields is probably mostly the "inexpensive" part because when your budget allows for the better corrected eyepieces the poorly corrected ones do become less appealing.  Obviously you can still enjoy the inexpensive eyepieces for many years. 

[Starman1]

As has been often said:

Widefield.....Well-corrected.....inexpensive.  Pick any two.

[BKSo]

And I don’t think old wide fields are that popular to being with, compared with, say old orthos.

[SandyHouTex]

Hi, passion for old eyepieces? I dont understand what are you speaking about...

[BillP]

As has been often said:

Widefield.....Well-corrected.....inexpensive.  Pick any two.

When I had an f/17 refractor I could easily pick all three! 

[Jeff Morgan]

Hello Mark,

 

I have purchased my Docter directly from the manufacturer, it has been on a display in the company gallery.

The eyepiece has a S/N (here the "o" series), and the QR code, as it should be the case,

 

Docter QR code and SN.jpg

 

Thank you for your kind words,

JG

 

That QR code is too small to scan on my phone. Where does it lead?

 

Did not find it on the box - might be covered by a barcode decal.

 

Just noticed that the Docter has a T2 thread - I can attach my NV eyepiece! Should be awesome for star cluster photos - if I can just get a decent cell phone adapter. They all seem to have squareness issues deriving from the location of the camera sensor on a smart phone. Perhaps I'll just switch to a point-n-shoot as Mike Lockwood is doing.

 

BTW, our serial numbers are only 47 numbers apart - mine is xxx29.

[Jeff Morgan]

The premise of this thread is a bit off. Not every eyepiece currently on sale have wide afov, and many inexpensive wide fields are poorly corrected on a fast scope. Yet these eyepiece must have some appeal so that they are still being made.

 

Speaking of premises that are off - not every scope is f/5.

 

Outside of the Newtonian world, that kind of speed is unusual.

 

The bulk of apochromats center around f/7 with longer being more common than shorter.

 

Cassegrain variants generally start at f/10 with f/12 and f/15 being common.

Edited by Jeff Morgan, 05 April 2020 - 01:24 PM.

[25585]

Older design eyepieces generally go with telescopes of their era, those being what was popular, what their designs were, and what their limitations covered up.

 

Go back to the 80s & 90s, SCTs & long FL refractors & Newtonians were the trend. Eyepieces that fail in modern faster, more advanced scopes of today, would have been OK for then. There are still more eyepieces made better suited for longer, slower FL telescopes, like SCTs, than fast refractors & Newtonians, probably as much from lower budget as design.

 

What are most popular today? SCTs, 8" F6 or 6" F8 Dobsonians, F7 or slower refractors. Back yard scopes for occasional skygazing. Nothing specialist, fairly to very forgiving on old & poorer quality eyepieces, that also do not cost much new or pre-owned. 

 

And any telescope with any eyepiece will show more sky than the naked eye, & better comfort higher up than binoculars. Outside tiny geeky communities, the majority. Ditto for all particular interests & hobbies.

 

I am glad of the budget category kit & that can be bought, be it new or old. Its the portal to bring in new enthusiasts, and introduce them to the cosmos near & far. Anything that helps there is good.  

[j.gardavsky]

That QR code is too small to scan on my phone. Where does it lead?

 

Did not find it on the box - might be covered by a barcode decal.

 

Just noticed that the Docter has a T2 thread - I can attach my NV eyepiece! Should be awesome for star cluster photos - if I can just get a decent cell phone adapter. They all seem to have squareness issues deriving from the location of the camera sensor on a smart phone. Perhaps I'll just switch to a point-n-shoot as Mike Lockwood is doing.

 

BTW, our serial numbers are only 47 numbers apart - mine is xxx29.

Hello Jeff,

 

tomorrow under the daylight, I will try to take a closer pic of the QR code. There are some bar codes on the box, I can also take pics.

 

Our S/Ns are not far apart, that's interesting.

I have had my purchasing finger on the first Docter EP from the preliminary series, when offered by ICS.  It had field of 90° or even above, but the eye relief has been shorter.

 

Best,

JG