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

What's your favorite Lunar eyepiece[s]?

  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#101 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted 05 May 2020 - 02:51 PM

Now that is a comparison I am interested in. I own the 2" Baader Zeiss prism diagonal, I have been interested in a BBHS mirror diagonal for years! The more feedback the better! smile.gif

I took some pretty good notes the last few nights out. I'll post what I got when I get off work today.


  • MrJones, Dave1066, j.gardavsky and 1 other like this

#102 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,276
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 05 May 2020 - 02:56 PM

Oops JG replied. The field number is actually the diameter of the top lens in mm and you can see my top lens is slightly larger. It's used to calculate field size to estimate the size of an object being viewed:

 

Field Size = Field Number ÷ Objective Magnification

 

So anyway it's at least a slightly different design.

This is correct!

 

The field number units are mm.

 

So, the field stop in the 33x/6 eyepiece has a diameter of 6mm.

The microscope objective projects the magnified image of the object to be microscopized on the plane of the eyepiece field stop.

The resulting magnification of the microscope is the product of the magnification of the objective times the magnification of the eyepiece.

The maximum used field size of the object in front of the objective is the field number (=field stop diameter) in the eyepiece, but devided by the magnification of the objective.

 

It may sound like a "different" logic, but it has its historical roots,

JG


  • MrJones likes this

#103 CharlieB

CharlieB

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 5,016
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Southern NH

Posted 05 May 2020 - 03:49 PM

The number behind the slash, like the "6" in 33x/6, is the field number, not the eye relief.

Most of the microscope eyepieces have the AFOV between 40° and 50°.

 

Best,

JG

Thank you for the clarification.  You learn something new every day.



#104 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted 06 May 2020 - 11:31 AM

Now that is a comparison I am interested in. I own the 2" Baader Zeiss prism diagonal, I have been interested in a BBHS mirror diagonal for years! The more feedback the better! smile.gif

Looking back in my notes, the first couple of nights were more about finding which eyepieces were a good control group to use in testing. Most of the wide field eyepieces introduced varying amounts of color depending on which diagonal was used, but the false color was brought by the eyepiece, not the objective lens or diagonal. Anyhow, the eyepieces I preferred were the Fujiyama Ortho's & Pentax XW's. The best control group was the ortho's because they did a good job of letting the scope's objective perform up to its capabilities without introducing any variables into the performance.

 

SVA130T with BBHS MIRROR -

 

12.5 Fujiyama Ortho - Completely free of false color. Moon was very sharp, as a 2-dimensional object etched in stone. However, the areas near the Terminator were more 3-dimensional. The Southern Polar Region of the Moon almost looked like Stonehenge in black & white. There was also a Grand Canyon look to Clavius. The cliff faces were layered in different shades of gray, sort of like how the walls of the Grand Canyon look in different shades of red-orange.

 

Issues observed with the mirror diagonal - there was a trivial amount of scattered light towards the Lunar edge. There wasn't a full on halo, but there was a noticeable "shine" to the Lunar surface. There also seemed to be a bigger influence with atmospheric turbulence and/or air currents [or it could just be coincidence]. The image seemed to shimmer more often than with the prism, but again, this could be coincidence.

 

SVA130T with T2 ZEISS PRISM - 

 

12.5 Fujiyama Ortho - Has a 3-dimensional "prismatic" appearance. The Stonehenge portion at the southern polar region and the Grand Canyon features on Clavius had more depth & dimension. There were boulders scattered about on the walls & floor of Clavius that were overlooked when using the mirror, but they seemed to pop out at you in the prism. 

The prism was much better at controlling scattered light. There was a complete cutoff of light at the Lunar edge. There was the bright Lunar surface suspended in the blackness of outer space. There was no "shine" whatsoever. Also, the brightness of the moon wasn't overpowering. You could stare at Lunar features without having to squint to see the detail. Incredible sharpness, as if you were looking at a 4K image on your computer/TV. The image didn't seem to be effected by air currents [could be coincidence*], there was minimal shimmering.

 

 

I really wanted to have a couple of sessions in my FC-100DF to see how the results would vary in a different scope, but the last few nights weren't as clear as the they had been the previous few nights. I'll have to try this another time..


  • MrJones, Sasa, Paul Morow and 5 others like this

#105 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,276
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 06 May 2020 - 11:37 AM

That's a very helpful comparison!

 

Well, the glass scatters less light than the mirror - this old truth still applies, and even with the new technologies.
Thank you very much,

JG


  • bbqediguana and rkelley8493 like this

#106 Deep13

Deep13

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2005
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 06 May 2020 - 11:46 AM

10 and 7mm Pentax XWs are nice on my Dob.


  • rkelley8493 likes this

#107 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted 06 May 2020 - 11:51 AM

Here's what I was looking at.. You can see the Stonehenge portion I was talking about at the bottom of the Moon.

Pardon the kinda crappy picture; I couldn't get a decent photo to save my life that night..

 

0502-sva-5.jpg


Edited by rkelley8493, 06 May 2020 - 11:58 AM.

  • Illinois, Sasa, StarDust1 and 3 others like this

#108 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,136
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 06 May 2020 - 03:31 PM

That's a very helpful comparison!

 

Well, the glass scatters less light than the mirror - this old truth still applies, and even with the new technologies.
Thank you very much,

JG

His description is consistent with a lower light transmission in the prism.

The same thing often happens when a filter is used.


  • AJK 547 and rkelley8493 like this

#109 Dave1066

Dave1066

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 255
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2016
  • Loc: South West, UK.

Posted 06 May 2020 - 04:28 PM

Thanks for the comparison. Think for now I will stick with prism diagonals. 


  • rkelley8493 and j.gardavsky like this

#110 AJK 547

AJK 547

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Chicago, Ill.

Posted 06 May 2020 - 06:10 PM

Looking back in my notes, the first couple of nights were more about finding which eyepieces were a good control group to use in testing. Most of the wide field eyepieces introduced varying amounts of color depending on which diagonal was used, but the false color was brought by the eyepiece, not the objective lens or diagonal. Anyhow, the eyepieces I preferred were the Fujiyama Ortho's & Pentax XW's. The best control group was the ortho's because they did a good job of letting the scope's objective perform up to its capabilities without introducing any variables into the performance.

 

SVA130T with BBHS MIRROR -

 

12.5 Fujiyama Ortho - Completely free of false color. Moon was very sharp, as a 2-dimensional object etched in stone. However, the areas near the Terminator were more 3-dimensional. The Southern Polar Region of the Moon almost looked like Stonehenge in black & white. There was also a Grand Canyon look to Clavius. The cliff faces were layered in different shades of gray, sort of like how the walls of the Grand Canyon look in different shades of red-orange.

 

Issues observed with the mirror diagonal - there was a trivial amount of scattered light towards the Lunar edge. There wasn't a full on halo, but there was a noticeable "shine" to the Lunar surface. There also seemed to be a bigger influence with atmospheric turbulence and/or air currents [or it could just be coincidence]. The image seemed to shimmer more often than with the prism, but again, this could be coincidence.

 

SVA130T with T2 ZEISS PRISM - 

 

12.5 Fujiyama Ortho - Has a 3-dimensional "prismatic" appearance. The Stonehenge portion at the southern polar region and the Grand Canyon features on Clavius had more depth & dimension. There were boulders scattered about on the walls & floor of Clavius that were overlooked when using the mirror, but they seemed to pop out at you in the prism. 

The prism was much better at controlling scattered light. There was a complete cutoff of light at the Lunar edge. There was the bright Lunar surface suspended in the blackness of outer space. There was no "shine" whatsoever. Also, the brightness of the moon wasn't overpowering. You could stare at Lunar features without having to squint to see the detail. Incredible sharpness, as if you were looking at a 4K image on your computer/TV. The image didn't seem to be effected by air currents [could be coincidence*], there was minimal shimmering.

 

 

I really wanted to have a couple of sessions in my FC-100DF to see how the results would vary in a different scope, but the last few nights weren't as clear as the they had been the previous few nights. I'll have to try this another time..

rkelley, many thanks for taking the time for the Baader BBHS mirror vs Baader Zeiss spec BBHS prism.  Your impressions of both pretty much coincide with my own observations with my C6’s and C8-A SCT’s.   The BBHS Sitall mirror gives me a bit more ‘pop’ in color saturation on doubles and especially Carbon stars.  However, there seemed to be a hint more scatter... and a bit more unnatural ‘edge’ to my visual perception.  The Baader Zeiss spec doesn’t give me that visual harsh ‘edge’... but a more natural... pure... smooth detailed visual in both my SCT’s.

 

 Maybe it’s just my scopes, but I’ve had similar impressions over numerous sessions.  If I was a dedicated double and Carbon Star guy the mirror would probably be on my scopes.  For now, the Zeiss prisms remains on both scopes and a Baader Maxbright prism on my dark skies C6.  As you know, both diagonals are quite good, I just prefer the prisms a bit more...

 

Clear, steady nights.


Edited by AJK 547, 06 May 2020 - 06:10 PM.

  • rkelley8493 and j.gardavsky like this

#111 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted 06 May 2020 - 06:21 PM

I forgot to mention the issues I saw with the Prism and the "Wide Field" Eyepieces..

 

This was observed with a 10mm Ethos and Explore Sci 9mm 100º. First off, there was false color at the edge of the moon in the form of a yellow-green line. As observed in both diagonals, there was some purple fringing along the edges of some of the outer craters in the latter 20-25% of the FOV. It was a little more noticeable in the Prism, but in both diagonals, the fringing got steadily worse as the Moon approached the edge.

Also observed in the 10E & ES 9/100º [prism diag.], there was a noticeable Pin Cushion Distortion as the Moon approached the edge, and the yellow-green line turned into a purple line. It was interesting to see how the Moon deformed near the edge of the field, almost into an "egg shape." The Ethos did a better job of suppressing these color defects, but it was a clear indication that these were specifically designed to correct certain areas of this part of the field [i.e. it was made this way].

Anyhow, the part to where the yellow-green line turned into a purple line, I only noticed this in the BBHS Mirror after I observed them with the Prism, so it's one of those things where your eyes pickup certain subtle details once exposed to them. The same as with the purple fringing on the craters as they approached the edge, I only noticed them in the Mirror after I noticed them in the Prism. 


Edited by rkelley8493, 06 May 2020 - 11:28 PM.

  • StarDust1 likes this

#112 Jethro7

Jethro7

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 661
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2018
  • Loc: N.W. Florida

Posted 06 May 2020 - 06:21 PM

I have two eyepieces I use for Lunar viewing.

(1) TV31mm Nagler Type 5, this one frames in the Moon quite nicely.

(2) TV12mm Type 2, this eyepiece makes you think you are looking out the portal of Apollo 11.

 

"HAPPY SKIES AND KEEP LOOKING UP"  Jethro


  • rkelley8493 likes this

#113 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,136
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 06 May 2020 - 06:37 PM

Ultra wide eyepieces necessarily have more distortion at the edge.

Here is a link to how one form of distortion looks.  Bill explains the other.

https://www.cloudyni...like/?p=5428080

Don


  • rkelley8493 likes this

#114 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted 06 May 2020 - 06:53 PM

Oh nice! Thanks for that, Don waytogo.gif

 

RK


Edited by rkelley8493, 06 May 2020 - 06:53 PM.


#115 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,276
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 07 May 2020 - 03:35 AM

His description is consistent with a lower light transmission in the prism.

The same thing often happens when a filter is used.

It is about the contrast and scattering loss of a mirror versus prism, not about the transmission (absorption) loss in the prism.

These are 2 different issues,

JG


  • rkelley8493 likes this

#116 ausastronomer

ausastronomer

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,258
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Shoalhaven Heads NSW (Australia)

Posted 07 May 2020 - 04:56 AM

I use both my 10"/F5.3 SDM and my 14"/F4.5 SDM for lunar viewing. Very occasionally I will use the 18"/F4.5 for lunar viewing.  I use both scopes unfiltered.  My favourite lunar eyepieces in both scopes are my 3.5mm and my 5mm Pentax XW's.  In the 10" scope they give me 270X and 385X and in the 14" scope they give me 320x and 457x. On those very rare nights of exceptional seeing I use my 7mm Pentax XW in the 2.5X TV Powermate for 482X and 571X respectively. On a handful of very rare nights I have been able to use the 5mm Pentax XW in the Powermate for 800X in the 14" and 1050X in the 18". The Pentax XW's give me the right combination of a cool neutral view, good sharpness, high throughput and contrast and most importantly a very high level of comfort, so that I don't get fatigued or uncomfortable over long observing sessions.  Are there better lunar / planetary eyepieces that will show more detail?  Absolutely !!  There are a few of them, notably Zeiss abbe orthos, Pentax SMC orthos, Pentax XO's etc etc etc.  In the shorter focal lengths used for high power lunar viewing, none of them are comfortable and I find I am done with them in a far shorter time frame than when using my Pentax XW's. Less frequently I will use my 6mm Delos if that's where the seeing breaks down.

 

I then take great comfort looking on the whole thing philosophically.  I figure that under excellent seeing conditions with a 3.5mm Pentax XW in my 14" Zambuto powered SDM @ 457X;  I am still going to see a whole lot more,with a lot more comfort and less fatigue, than someone with the planets best 8" APO, or smaller, using the planets best lunar / planetary eyepiece of whatever focal length they care to use smile.gif

 

Cheers


  • Starman1, StarDust1, areyoukiddingme and 4 others like this

#117 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,136
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 07 May 2020 - 09:19 AM

It is about the contrast and scattering loss of a mirror versus prism, not about the transmission (absorption) loss in the prism.

These are 2 different issues,

JG

He said, about the mirror, "there was a trivial amount of scattered light towards the Lunar edge. There wasn't a full on halo, but there was a noticeable "shine" to the Lunar surface. There also seemed to be a bigger influence with atmospheric turbulence and/or air currents [or it could just be coincidence]. The image seemed to shimmer more often than with the prism, but again, this could be coincidence."

That is consistent with how a brighter image interacts with the eye.  The eye is dazzled and there is more light scatter in the eye.

I've noted this with planets, often, that reducing the brightness with a neutral density filter allows more details to be seen.  The difference between the prism and the mirror is likely to be exactly the explanation implied, but it is also consistent with a reduction in brightness in the prism.


  • Paul Morow, StarDust1 and rkelley8493 like this

#118 George Methvin

George Methvin

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,937
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Central Texas

Posted 09 May 2020 - 08:26 AM

A Meade 10mm mwa and a Meade 5.5mm uwa.


  • catboat and rkelley8493 like this

#119 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,673
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 09 May 2020 - 03:44 PM

I like the Ethos 13 which just fills the frame in my 12.5 inch, F5 Portaball. I like Delos eyepieces when zeroing in for high power views--10, 8, 6, and 4.5.


  • russell23 and rkelley8493 like this

#120 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted 23 June 2020 - 10:16 PM

I was going through some of my old Lunar photos and realized I had two pictures of Copernicus on different Lunar Cycles [same phase] with the same scope & eyepiece, but one was taken through the T2 Prism diagonal, and the other through the BBHS Mirror diagonal. See if you can spot the subtle differences. But don't let the difference in brightness throw you off.. cursed cell phone isn't perfect.

 

copern-mirror.jpg

copern-prism.jpg

 

[Top photo is mirror, bottom is prism]


Edited by rkelley8493, 24 June 2020 - 11:16 AM.

  • doctordub, StarDust1, mikeDnight and 1 other like this

#121 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,891
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 24 June 2020 - 04:05 AM

Bottom photo is better to my eye.


  • mikeDnight, rkelley8493 and j.gardavsky like this

#122 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,282
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 24 June 2020 - 04:16 AM

I use both my 10"/F5.3 SDM and my 14"/F4.5 SDM for lunar viewing. Very occasionally I will use the 18"/F4.5 for lunar viewing.  I use both scopes unfiltered.  My favourite lunar eyepieces in both scopes are my 3.5mm and my 5mm Pentax XW's.  In the 10" scope they give me 270X and 385X and in the 14" scope they give me 320x and 457x. On those very rare nights of exceptional seeing I use my 7mm Pentax XW in the 2.5X TV Powermate for 482X and 571X respectively. On a handful of very rare nights I have been able to use the 5mm Pentax XW in the Powermate for 800X in the 14" and 1050X in the 18". The Pentax XW's give me the right combination of a cool neutral view, good sharpness, high throughput and contrast and most importantly a very high level of comfort, so that I don't get fatigued or uncomfortable over long observing sessions.  Are there better lunar / planetary eyepieces that will show more detail?  Absolutely !!  There are a few of them, notably Zeiss abbe orthos, Pentax SMC orthos, Pentax XO's etc etc etc.  In the shorter focal lengths used for high power lunar viewing, none of them are comfortable and I find I am done with them in a far shorter time frame than when using my Pentax XW's. Less frequently I will use my 6mm Delos if that's where the seeing breaks down.

 

I then take great comfort looking on the whole thing philosophically.  I figure that under excellent seeing conditions with a 3.5mm Pentax XW in my 14" Zambuto powered SDM @ 457X;  I am still going to see a whole lot more,with a lot more comfort and less fatigue, than someone with the planets best 8" APO, or smaller, using the planets best lunar / planetary eyepiece of whatever focal length they care to use smile.gif

 

Cheers

Absolutely love my 5mm XW.


  • 25585 and rkelley8493 like this

#123 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted 24 June 2020 - 11:12 AM

Bottom photo is better to my eye.

Same here.. If you zoom in, you can see a slight difference in color. The mirror shows a slight touch of false color in the form of Atmospheric Dispersion [half blue, half red fringe]. The prism shows a slight touch of false color in the form of Purple Fringing. This was barely detectable [if at all] visually, but you can see it when you enlarge the photos.

However, visually, the prism was a tad sharper with higher contrast.


Edited by rkelley8493, 24 June 2020 - 12:44 PM.


#124 sunnyday

sunnyday

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,543
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Ottawa,Canada

Posted 24 June 2020 - 11:30 AM

with my 102mm lunt I use the 82 degrees 4.7 and 8.8 . sometimes 3mm 52 degrees.
with my takahashi fc-100 dz I use my televue, I find that the televue gives me a better view than the ES, but I do not know why.cool.gif


  • rkelley8493 and j.gardavsky like this

#125 barbie

barbie

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,215
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 24 June 2020 - 04:57 PM

My Tak TOE's and Vixen HR 3.4mm eyepieces continue to amaze me with their excellent contrast, no scatter and neutral color qualities!! The moon through these eyepieces is simply amazing and lunar observing takes on a whole new meaning!!


  • mikeDnight and rkelley8493 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