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

Meade 26mm 100AFOV

  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#51 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,561
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 21 April 2020 - 04:20 PM

If it's edges look washed in an F/10 than probably not worth it. Otherwise it's a decent addition for a beginner or anyone using an F8+ scope.
  • RichA likes this

#52 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,285
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 22 April 2020 - 05:31 PM

If it's edges look washed in an F/10 than probably not worth it. Otherwise it's a decent addition for a beginner or anyone using an F8+ scope.

My scope is a 17.5" f4.1 therefore this eyepiece is NOT for me.

 

P.S.  The ES 20mm 100 AFOV required a coma corector and even with it the outer stars are not pinpoints (but 95% there).

 

Ken



#53 Tom Masterson

Tom Masterson

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Pacific Northwest - Astro-Hell

Posted 23 April 2020 - 10:00 PM

While this may not translate into how the 26 performs I have the 5mm version and like it. There is a reason the competition costs more. Compared to my ES100s, I estimate the Meade 5mm MWA to have an 88-90 degree apparent field. To get this estimate I hold one eyepiece up to one eye, and the other to the other, and point them at the sky. Then try to overlap the fields in my vision enough to compare. I did this with a 100 degree eyepiece, and an 82. The Meade MWA was clearly smaller than the 100, and larger than the 82, with the difference being slightly closer to the 82 which is where I got the 88 bottom number. Eye relief was less than advertised but still pretty good. I could see the whole field with glasses on IF, I pressed them against the eyecup which I'd rather not do. In light polluted skies it does exhibit some edge of field brightening although I don't remember it being obvious in a dark sky. I find it quite sharp in my refractors and viewed Mars during opposition in my 94mm Brandon and was very impressed with the contrast and sharpness of the planet. I picked mine up used for a bargain after reading some comments that is WASN'T a 100 degree eyepiece. I needed an eyepiece in that focal length and figured for the price I'll except the exaggerated apparent field and maybe less sharp stars off axis. I expected worse, but it exceeded my expectations. All three of my scopes are easy on eyepieces, and I am pleased with it's sharpness across the field. I don't use it in my 12' SCT, because it gives silly-high magnification for 99.9999% of nights seeing.

 

I think the description of it being a bargain hyperwide is accurate. As long as you don't expect Ethos performance for a bargain price, and ignore the 100 degree claim, it could be worth a try. Note, my tastes are weighted in the direction of being tolerant of some flaws if I feel a piece of equipment represents a good value. I'm not one who spends a lot to get the very best. For the price I paid - a little over $100 for a barely used eyepiece, the Meade offers very good performance for the price, which equals a very good value for me.

 

One bad thing is the rubber eye cup. While nice, soft and pliable, it's too pliable and comes lose way to easily when trying to roll the eye cup up. Been considering trying to use some kind of adhesive to secure it in place. Not sure if anything will stick to it though. All that said, it's a keeper for me. 


  • eros312, OneGear and naramsin like this

#54 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,094
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 24 April 2020 - 12:25 AM

This kind of begs the question: why not Speers-Waler series 4? 86 AFOV, $200 and reportedly compare well with Naglers according to the 1.3 people who have purchased one. I suppose maybe they are overstating AFOV like Meade. Certainly they have less ER, but eyepiece is smaller. But if you really can get practically the same AFOV but with excellent edge correction and not needing to allocate the space of two normal size eyepieces in your case, for about the same price, shouldn’t that be a consideration? Granted the SW4 25mm is only 74 AFOV. But wouldn’t the 14mm 86 AFOV have close to the same FOV as a 15mm 88-90 AFOV? How would the 9mm compare to the 10mm MWA? Or the SW4 6mm versus the 5mm MWA?

We all know now that if you get a MWA you are not going to get a great eyepiece. The SW4 are said to be excellent (again extremely small sample size). Seems to me, if one can forego a few degrees AFOV, it might be worth taking a chance on something that might be great at best, and likely as good or better than MWA at worst. But no one is buying the SW4. I might have to break down and get one myself to satisfy my curiosity and be able to report back. I would just rather someone else be the guinea pig. But the 14 would fill a gap for me...

Scott

#55 naramsin

naramsin

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 03 May 2016

Posted 24 April 2020 - 05:49 PM

I've had an experience similar to Tom in post #53. I just got a used (like new) 21mm MWA for about 1 Benjamin and have had a chance to take it out a few times. So far, I've used it in an ST-80 (with 2" focuser) and a 6" F8 Newt. It was fantastic in both. Objects included the open clusters in Auriga, M35, Double Cluster, and a number of globulars (M13, M3, M53). A 2X Orion barlow was used as well. I realize there was field curvature in the ST80 and mild coma in the Newt. I'm under no delusions it's anything like 100 degrees.

 

The pinpoint stars in the central area, and the decent enough stars in the outer field, made it a pleasant experience. It has a big eyelens compared to similar EPs I've used. I'm sure it's no Ethos, though I've not had the pleasure. I have peeped through an Apollo 11mm though. I know Al Nagler's products are tops. I just can't afford them. I also don't own a Patek Phillipe, a Ferrari Berlinetta, or a Learjet.

 

The views of M35, M37, and M38 were particularly nice, with myriad pinpoint stars.

 

As a side note, my daughter and I met Al Nagler last year at NEAF, and he was charming. I had just bought a TV 7.4mm Plössl. I took it out of my pocket to show him, and praise his work. He asked if I was a collector. Looking at my kid, I just told him I'm a dad with young kids. Maybe when they're out of college I can think about adding an Ethos to my lineup. Meanwhile, I'll get many years out of the MWA......


  • eros312 and Procyon like this

#56 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,094
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 24 April 2020 - 08:32 PM

The FC could have been coming from the ST-80 instead of the MWA. But you saw coma at F8?

Scott

#57 naramsin

naramsin

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 03 May 2016

Posted 24 April 2020 - 08:54 PM

I could see the coma was there (but not distracting—you have to look for it), and I have a corrector that I’ll use next time with my 8” f5. The big newt will be a challenge for it. The 6” f8 is forgiving as you suggest. I recall the st80 has lots of fc in its own. My takeaway was the 21mm was surprisingly good, but I need to give it more testing before I make any conclusions.

#58 Ahouseman

Ahouseman

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2016
  • Loc: Washington, DC

Posted 02 May 2020 - 10:47 PM

I finally got a chance to test out the Meade 26mm 100deg in the ES 16in f4.5 with the coma corrector installed. It was a world of difference from the first night with no cc: stars were pretty sharp right out to near the edge and it ended up very pleasant experience to use.

Its going to do exactly what I hoped it would and yield the widest TFOV possible for a 2in eyepiece in a 1820mm focal length 16" scope while keeping the exit pupil at an acceptable 5mm. (And not break the bank to boot)
  • eros312 likes this

#59 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,094
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 03 May 2020 - 01:06 AM

Great report!

#60 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,210
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 03 May 2020 - 09:46 AM

I finally got a chance to test out the Meade 26mm 100deg in the ES 16in f4.5 with the coma corrector installed. It was a world of difference from the first night with no cc: stars were pretty sharp right out to near the edge and it ended up very pleasant experience to use.

Its going to do exactly what I hoped it would and yield the widest TFOV possible for a 2in eyepiece in a 1820mm focal length 16" scope while keeping the exit pupil at an acceptable 5mm. (And not break the bank to boot)

I'll be interested to hear more of your comments later, after you've used the eyepiece a few times.

A lot of ES 92° eyepiece users might be interested.

 

Your focal length with the ES HRCC installed is 1939mm, and f/ratio is f/4.77, therefore exit pupil is almost 5.5mm.

You didn't say you used the ES HRCC coma corrector.  I assumed, and was probably wrong.

If you used a Paracorr, then the focal length is 2103mm, the f/ratio 5.18 and the exit pupil 5mm.


  • 25585 likes this

#61 Ahouseman

Ahouseman

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2016
  • Loc: Washington, DC

Posted 03 May 2020 - 10:46 AM

I'm using the GSO coma corrector.

With the moon out and requisite clouds rolling in, I for sure didn't get in quality time. I have been enjoying it in in the Z8 in my inner-surburban yard (as much as Bortle 8 can be enjoyed).

I'll give an update later after some more use and hopefully after star parties resume, with some comparisons in other types of scopes and vs some higher end competition.

#62 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,210
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 03 May 2020 - 10:53 AM

I'm using the GSO coma corrector.

With the moon out and requisite clouds rolling in, I for sure didn't get in quality time. I have been enjoying it in in the Z8 in my inner-surburban yard (as much as Bortle 8 can be enjoyed).

I'll give an update later after some more use and hopefully after star parties resume, with some comparisons in other types of scopes and vs some higher end competition.

Ah,  f/4.95, FL 2012mm, Exit pupil 5.25mm

A very reasonable low power eyepiece. 

In both scopes.



#63 RLK1

RLK1

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 03 May 2020 - 11:15 AM

I finally got a chance to test out the Meade 26mm 100deg in the ES 16in f4.5 with the coma corrector installed. It was a world of difference from the first night with no cc: stars were pretty sharp right out to near the edge and it ended up very pleasant experience to use.

Its going to do exactly what I hoped it would and yield the widest TFOV possible for a 2in eyepiece in a 1820mm focal length 16" scope while keeping the exit pupil at an acceptable 5mm. (And not break the bank to boot)

I've got the same experience in my 16" F4.5 with a generic 26mm 70 AFOV I bought years ago for considerably less than what they're selling for now. I wouldn't even consider using it without a paracorr but it does well in conjunction with one. Here's an example of the eyepiece:

https://agenaastro.c...a-eyepiece.html



#64 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,561
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 06 May 2020 - 07:28 PM

Can someone please post a pic with it side by side with another eyepiece for fun.
  • 25585 likes this

#65 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,959
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 07 May 2020 - 07:29 AM

Tele Vue has already said that 21mm was the limit of the design and that they could not go longer without many compromises.

Given the edge vignetting and outer field problems with the 25mm ES, and my experience with the 21mm Ethos versus the 17mm Ethos, it is obvious that

21mm is not really the limit for the design, merely where TeleVue decided to draw the line.

So I would not look for TeleVue to expand the Ethos line into longer focal lengths.

Tele Vue's lines = sales advantages for other makes. ES120, ES92s as well as others.  

 

Don, I am surprised you don't sell Meades, as a popular brand. ES use ex-Meade range lenses & HD-60s are good budget eyepieces, same optics as Celestron X-Cel LXs. question.gif scratchhead2.gif  

 

When 26mm MWAs get to the UK, I will buy one. Looking at its eye lens https://www.meade.co...piece-26mm.html if their eye relief figure is accurate, I estimate effective eye relief to be about 19mm. 



#66 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,210
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 07 May 2020 - 11:04 AM

You may be able to see them under the Omegon label, too.


  • 25585 likes this

#67 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,959
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 07 May 2020 - 02:26 PM

You may be able to see them under the Omegon label, too.

No 26mm yet  https://www.astrosho...egon 100 degree



#68 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 85,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 07 May 2020 - 02:40 PM

My scope is a 17.5" f4.1 therefore this eyepiece is NOT for me.

 

P.S.  The ES 20mm 100 AFOV required a coma corector and even with it the outer stars are not pinpoints (but 95% there).

 

Ken

 

There's a few reasons I sold my ES 20 mm 100° right after a 21 mm Ethos arrived. This was one of them.. 

 

Jon



#69 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 85,034
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 07 May 2020 - 03:15 PM

just measured with the eye piece pointed at a window and piece of paper.  sharpest focus was right about 22mm back from the lens (which is curved, so +/- a couple mm).

 

20 mm of eye relief with a 90° AfoV requires a 40 mm diameter eye lens.  Maybe you could measure the eye lens diameter. 

 

That's huge and makes for a heavy eyepiece.

 

What you measured was not the AfoV but the TFoV.  Eyepieces can have field distortion so the TFoV is wider than the TFoV = AFoV/Mag implies.

 

The 23 mm Celestron Luminos is one such eyepiece. 

 

The AFoV can be measured. David Knisely' projected beam method is what I use.

 

https://www.cloudyni...d-up/?p=6604421

 

AFOV Measuring .jpg
 
Jon

  • 25585 likes this

#70 Ahouseman

Ahouseman

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2016
  • Loc: Washington, DC

Posted 08 May 2020 - 09:37 AM

Eye lens is 38mm.

 

size comparison vs a couple others.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20200508_103645.jpg

  • John Rogers, eros312, Procyon and 2 others like this

#71 DRodrigues

DRodrigues

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2011

Posted 08 May 2020 - 09:37 PM

Eye lens is 38mm.

 

size comparison vs a couple others.

The photo would be even more interesting if the eps didn´t had the dust-caps...flowerred.gif


  • eros312 likes this

#72 Ahouseman

Ahouseman

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2016
  • Loc: Washington, DC

Posted 09 May 2020 - 12:08 AM

Better?

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20200509_010758.jpg

  • John Rogers, eros312, Procyon and 1 other like this

#73 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,959
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 09 May 2020 - 02:40 AM

Not quite as large an eye lens as ES92s have? Would the effective eye relief with cup down be long enough for wearing eyeglasses? 



#74 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,210
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 09 May 2020 - 09:29 AM

Not quite as large an eye lens as ES92s have? Would the effective eye relief with cup down be long enough for wearing eyeglasses? 

If it's 90° instead of 100°, the eye lens need only be 40mm wide to have 20mm of eye relief.

A 38mm lens implies, using 90° as the field, an eye relief of 19mm.

It looks like the lens could be maybe 2mm below the rubber surface of the eyecup, so an effective eye relief of maybe 17mm.

 

Of course, if the apparent field is <90°, the eye relief is longer.  If the apparent field is >90°, then the eye relief is shorter.

At a true 100°, the eye relief with a 38mm lens is 15.9mm, making effective eye relief <14mm, so not compatible with glasses.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#75 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,959
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 09 May 2020 - 11:38 AM

If it's 90° instead of 100°, the eye lens need only be 40mm wide to have 20mm of eye relief.

A 38mm lens implies, using 90° as the field, an eye relief of 19mm.

It looks like the lens could be maybe 2mm below the rubber surface of the eyecup, so an effective eye relief of maybe 17mm.

 

Of course, if the apparent field is <90°, the eye relief is longer.  If the apparent field is >90°, then the eye relief is shorter.

At a true 100°, the eye relief with a 38mm lens is 15.9mm, making effective eye relief <14mm, so not compatible with glasses.

Big gamble to buy an eyepiece in case its OK. The 12 & 17mm ES92s & Morpheus range are exceptional, those were reviewed enough for me to try them one by one, & from a seller who would refund if I found any unsuitable. That last factor is very important for online buying.




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