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

Ethos 13 mm with Q 3.5

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 GR1973

GR1973

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007

Posted 20 January 2020 - 06:20 PM

What are your experiences with TV Ethos 13 mm with your Q? I read that the only problem is scope balance which could be counteract with declination lock.

 

Does it add a lot in increasing the contrast and field of view?

 

 

All regards 


Edited by GR1973, 20 January 2020 - 06:21 PM.


#2 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,385
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 21 January 2020 - 11:39 AM

I can only say something regarding the Ethos 10 in my Q7. Field is much wider than say the Brandon 12mm. Balance is off a lot and contrast wise, no improvement. Balance would be even more off in a Q 3.5.

 

Over the years, I tried many of my best eyepieces in the Q, including many from Zeiss and TeleVue, and found it really is best mated to the Brandons. They are a wonderful match.


  • cbwerner, Mike Allen, Mike E. and 2 others like this

#3 davidmcgo

davidmcgo

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,080
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2004
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 21 January 2020 - 10:07 PM

I think putting something the size of an Ethos in a Questar is going to be so out of balance it might be an issue for the clutches and wouldn't be that much fun.  You need to think of the impact on RA if polar aligned which doesn’t have a lock.  Also, the lock doesn’t help the slow motions for Dec either.  Also, not sure if the Ethos focuses with the finder.  I think the TV web site indicates it won’t.  I know the 13 Nagler T6 won’t since its nose is too long.

 

The 15mm Panoptic is a lot of fun on the Q3.5.  So is the 19mm Panoptic.  Both of those focus with the finder, Barlow well, and are still pretty small and balanced.  But I did notice much better visibility of some galaxies like M77 and M104 from in town with the 16 Brandon compared to the 15mm Panoptic, so field isn't everything.

 

Dave


  • Erik Bakker and Mike Allen like this

#4 rcwolpert

rcwolpert

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,479
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2012
  • Loc: South Hutchinson Island, Florida

Posted 22 January 2020 - 07:36 PM

I can only say something regarding the Ethos 10 in my Q7. Field us much wider than say the Brandon 12mm. Balance is off a lot and contrast wise, no improvement. Balance would be even more off in a Q 3.5.

 

Over the years, I tried many of my best eyepieces in the Q, including many from Zeiss and TeleVue, and found it really is best mated to the Brandons. They are a wonderful match.

With careful comparisons made, I found the same thing as Erik. If one is compelled to use TeleVue eyepieces, as Dave said above, the Panoptics are the best match. However, I found the contrast better with the Brandons, and hence an overall better view more times than not.


  • Mike Allen likes this

#5 GR1973

GR1973

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007

Posted 23 January 2020 - 02:51 AM

With careful comparisons made, I found the same thing as Erik. If one is compelled to use TeleVue eyepieces, as Dave said above, the Panoptics are the best match. However, I found the contrast better with the Brandons, and hence an overall better view more times than not.

Thank you for all answers. I found Brandons are the best for contrast but TV panoptics are much better in light grasp. I did a comparison on orion nebula in many nights and I sketched the nebula with both.

 

With Panopitc 19 mm (Barlowed and not) I could detect the E star in Trapezium, Mottling appearance in the center and Little extensions in the nebula wings. I sketched roughly what I saw. All these did not appear in both Brandons 32 and 27 mm.


Edited by GR1973, 23 January 2020 - 02:51 AM.


#6 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,385
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 24 January 2020 - 08:34 AM

Thank you for all answers. I found Brandons are the best for contrast but TV panoptics are much better in light grasp. I did a comparison on orion nebula in many nights and I sketched the nebula with both.

 

With Panopitc 19 mm (Barlowed and not) I could detect the E star in Trapezium, Mottling appearance in the center and Little extensions in the nebula wings. I sketched roughly what I saw. All these did not appear in both Brandons 32 and 27 mm.

You probably meant Brandons 32 and 24 mm. Maybe the difference in exit pupils between these two and the 19 PO also played a role. Did you also try the Brandon 16mm in comparison to the 19 PO? Especially for doubles and contrast in bright nebulae, the smaller exit pupil can help.


  • rcwolpert likes this

#7 davidmcgo

davidmcgo

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,080
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2004
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 24 January 2020 - 11:16 AM

I agree with Erik on this point.  My comparison of the 15 Panoptic with the 16 Brandon came out well in favor of the Brandon.  Also, I find the 16 Brandon is my favorite eyepiece for M42 with the Q3.5 since it provides additional image scale which helps the eye see finer details.

 

Dave

 

You probably meant Brandons 32 and 24 mm. Maybe the difference in exit pupils between these two and the 19 PO also played a role. Did you also try the Brandon 16mm in comparison to the 19 PO? Especially for doubles and contrast in bright nebulae, the smaller exit pupil can help.


  • rcwolpert likes this

#8 GR1973

GR1973

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007

Posted 25 January 2020 - 02:35 AM

I agree with Erik on this point.  My comparison of the 15 Panoptic with the 16 Brandon came out well in favor of the Brandon.  Also, I find the 16 Brandon is my favorite eyepiece for M42 with the Q3.5 since it provides additional image scale which helps the eye see finer details.

 

Dave

Totally agree about contrast specially for open clusters. Yesterday, I used the Q finder for star hopping to see constellations and searching for M 50, M 47 and M 46. I live in the inner city (Bortle 8-9).

 

I reached M 50 using my 19 Panoptic . Low power view did not impress me. I changed to Brandon 27 mm and Wow. Big difference in image definition thus I continued my observation with it. M 47 and M 46 were great with this Brandon.

 

Panoptic 19 mm still doing better on Orion nebula. I do not use the 16 mm Brandon because I like the bat shape I get with with my 19 Panoptic. High power 16 mm Brandon did not give me the wing extensions.


  • rcwolpert likes this

#9 GR1973

GR1973

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007

Posted 26 January 2020 - 04:48 AM

One more update

 

Yesterday, I observed M 46 again and I wanted to compare the three eyepieces (Brandon 32, 24 and TV Panoptic 19). I used the finder for star hopping with the 19 Panoptic.

 

I changed to 32 Brandon and It was difficult to discriminate the stars of M 46 from the light polluted background. I changed to 24 Brandon and I could resolved many numbers of stars in this cluster. I could clearly saw the cluster with high contrast.

 

With the 19 Panoptic, I found the cluster easily and the number of stars I saw was more by one third of what I had seen with the 24 mm Brandon ( better light grasp with Panoptic). I saw not less than 30 stars and even more with averted vision.

 

The panoptic will get more use in my extremely light polluted sky.

 

I still prefer Brandons for high contrast well illuminated targets and in dark sky trips.


Edited by GR1973, 26 January 2020 - 06:55 AM.


#10 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,385
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 26 January 2020 - 06:52 AM

One more update

 

Yesterday, I observed M 46 again and I wanted to compare the three eyepieces (Brandon 32, 27 and TV Panoptic 19). I used the finder for star hopping with the 19 Panoptic.

 

I changed to 32 Brandon and It was difficult to discriminate the stars of M 46 from the light polluted background. I changed to 27 Brandon and I could resolved many numbers of stars in this cluster. I could clearly saw the cluster with high contrast.

 

With the 19 Panoptic, I found the cluster easily and the number of stars I saw was more by one third of what I had seen with the 27 mm Brandon ( better light grasp with Panoptic). I saw not less than 30 stars and even more with averted vision.

 

The panoptic will get more use in my extremely light polluted sky.

 

I still prefer Brandons for high contrast well illuminated targets and in dark sky trips.

You keep referring to using a 27mm Brandon in your 3.5" Questar with 1 1/4" eyepiece port. To the best of my knowledge, no such eyepiece exists. You did probably mean the 24mm Brandon?



#11 GR1973

GR1973

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007

Posted 26 January 2020 - 06:59 AM

You keep referring to using a 27mm Brandon in your 3.5" Questar with 1 1/4" eyepiece port. To the best of my knowledge, no such eyepiece exists. You did probably mean the 24mm Brandon?

lol.gif

 

Yes, I mean 24 mm Brandon. I edited my last post. No option for editing the old one.

 

I apologize for not expressing well

 

Regards 


  • Erik Bakker likes this

#12 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,385
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 27 January 2020 - 04:41 AM

Glad there is no such thing as a "secret" 27mm Brandon foreheadslap.gif


  • medpeds likes this

#13 cbwerner

cbwerner

    Bicycle Repairman

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 7,767
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Maidens, VA

Posted 30 January 2020 - 07:16 PM

I'll reiterate previous comments in that I too tried several other eyepieces, but in the end decided that they provided no advantage over the Brandons. The combination of magnification, FOV, balance issues - shoot, the Brandons just work really well with the little guy.


  • Erik Bakker, GR1973, Mike Allen and 2 others like this

#14 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,385
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 31 January 2020 - 04:32 AM

+1 to what Chris says in post #13 waytogo.gif


  • GR1973 and JamesMStephens like this

#15 RobertPettengill

RobertPettengill

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 06 February 2020 - 01:21 AM

I really enjoy the TeleVue Delos 10 in the Questar for looking at the moon.  It captures the entire lunar disk in the field of view and is just spectacular.  It's bigger than the Brandons, but no problem on the Questar 3.5.


  • Erik Bakker, GR1973, rcwolpert 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