105 replies to this topic

[Astrojensen]

 

Can you describe the edge correction on these in a faster scope?

Uh, I use them on fast scopes so rarely, that I can't really remember how they perform in them... I mean, I usually observe with them in my binoviewer on refractors, of f/8, f/11 and f/13.3 or slower and then only on lunar-planetary targets, where I focus on the center of the field and generally pay little attention to the edge. 

 

I've got no night at the moment, basically, so it'll be a little while before I can test them on a star in my 72mm f/6. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[areyoukiddingme]

I have the Zeiss 22b, and do see a bit of edge of field astigmatism at F6 and F6.65.

 

I haven't used them for a good while, so I will try them in binoviewers tonight if they fog stays away.

[25585]

You really should try a pair of these:

 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

If only BWO still sold them! 

[elstargazer12]

Hi all,

 

Ok, finally, I'm going to write up some observations of things other than double stars and random star fields

 

Eyepieces present are: Leica HC PLAN s 10x/25; Zeiss S-PL 10x/20; Zeiss PL 10x/18 with 24.5mm field stop; Nikon CFUWN 10x/25; Meade 26mm Super Plössl; Brandon 24mm Questar version. 

 

Fair warning: if you're a Brandon fan, you might not like some of these outcomes.  I'm just reporting what I saw!  

 

Testing for deep sky contrast and throughput

 

First target is M27, in A-P 130 GTX at f/15 at 78x.  Keep in mind this is in a white zone, middle of cambridge massachusetts. 

 

Group 1: Leica 10x/25 and Zeiss S-PL.  Not to much surprise here is there?  Both of these eyepieces show the distinct rectangular shape (no "apple core" from these skies), with one end of the rectangular noticeably brighter.  Both shows a bit more nebulosity in averted vision, but somehow the S-PL seems to show just a little more.  I'm tired of the Zeiss being in Group 1 all by itself all the time though, so I'm calling this a near-draw

 

Group 2: Nikon CFUWN, Zeiss PL 10x/18, and Meade Super Plössl were great as well- the nebulosity can be seem as a rectangular patch, but it's just a bit harder to hold in direct vision compared to the Group 1 eyepieces.  

 

Group 3: Sorry Brandon fans... The Brandon brings up the rear here.  It just seems to have less light throughput.  It was the hardest to hold M27 in view.  

 

Second test is M13, same telescope and power as above. 

 

Group 1: Same as above, except the Zeiss 10x/18 joins the S-PL and the Leica HC PLAN s 10x/25.  These eyepieces can see a vast amount of structure, with a full blanketing of tiny stars over the large area, even a fair distance from the "glowy part" of the cluster.  

 

Group 2: Meade and Nikon.  The Meade did surprisingly well and can barely be told apart from the premium makes.  I was pleasantly surprised, but overall, just a bit less "sandy" of a texture on M13.  If I weren't comparing these side by side with the Zeiss and Leicas, I wouldn't think twice.  

 

Group 3: Again, the Brandon seems to have real issues with light throughput, even though it's clean and the single coatings don't have any problems.  It noticeably shows fewer stars compared to the others. 

 

Third test is M11, same scope and mag

 

Group 1: The S-PL and Leica were by themselves in the top bracket again, with impossibly sharp stars that snap to focus.  Even prodding the fine focus on the A-P changed the view significantly.  A truly marvelous sight!  Very rich star field despite the light pollution, especially in the northern part with a lot of texture.

 

Group 2: The Meade is also beautiful and shows a thick veil of resolved stars.  However, the texture in the unresolved stars in the cluster itself is not quite as obvious as in the Zeiss and Leica.  I didn't look through the Zeiss 10x/18 or the Nikon for M11.

 

Group 3: The Brandon sees a lot of the sharp stars in the cluster, just like the S-PL and Leica.  Very pleasing.  But the view is missing a veil of dimmer star over a larger area, so overall I prefer the Meade, even though the slightly cleaners stars in the Brandon has its appeal.  

 

Note on edge sharpness

As I noted in earlier tests, the Zeiss S-PL is perfect at the edges while all the others show some degradation.  I'm pretty picky about edge sharpness, but I have to say, even at f/8.2, the Leica and Zeiss 10x/18 and the Nikon did not bother me.  As long as a very bright star is not at the field stop, there's nothing in the field to remind me of the imperfections, although having a mag 3 or higher star in the outermost FOV does result in some visible messiness around the star.  Not intrusive though.  

 

So overall, for deep-sky, my ranking would be pretty clear:

 

1: Leica and Zeiss S-PL: The S-PL is slightly better, and the 10x/18 is slightly worse than the Leica.  But with wider fields of the Leica makes up for the tiny different in performance and join the S-PL here.  If I picked one, it would probably be the Leica. 

 

2: Nikon and Zeiss 10x/18: The Zeiss is slightly better than the Nikon in edge correction and maybe in that last bit of sharpness and contrast.  The Nikon in turn is slightly better than the Meade, with slightly tighter stars and a slightly bigger AFOV.  But they're all close and pleasing.  Compared to the Zeiss S-PL and Leica, these two eyepieces seems a little less able to pull out the really borderline stars and subtle contrasts in surface brightness, but it's a really really small effect and I'm not even 100% sure it's real.  Just pretty sure...

 

3: Meade: I was pleasantly surprised how small the gap is between this humble stand-by and the really premium brands.  

 

4. Brandon.  Super sharp and beautiful star rendition, but just too dark!  I would say the difference between groups 1 and 2 is small, but the gap between between the Brandon and the others in transmission is quite noticeable. 

 

Roger

Edited by elstargazer12, 17 June 2020 - 04:46 PM.

[areyoukiddingme]

And I did a quick look with binoviewers and the Zeiss 22b pairs last night.

 

With the OCS in my Stowaway, the eyepieces looked to be clean to the edge. I rinsed a repeated putting an Astro-Physics barlow ahead of the diagonal to get some more power to view Jupiter. Same deal on open clusters, the edges performed well with little to no evidence of astigmastism in that configuration.

 

When I swapped out the binoviewers and went mono, then there is quite obvious astigmatism in the last 10% or so of the field (and a bit of lateral color). It's probably adding up with a bit of field curvature, so I should take a gander in my Televue to parse it out.

[elstargazer12]

Hi all,

 

I'm nearing the end of these tests here.  Some notes on the planets, finally.  Around here Jupiter isn't really observable until midnight, so these have been late in coming.  

 

Jupiter (A-P 130 GTX at 78x)

 

Instead of groups, some notes on the Zeiss S-PL, Leica HC PLANs 10x/25, Meade Super Plössl 26mm, and Brandon 24mm. 

 

Most obvious thing to notice- Brandon has some serious internal reflection issues.  There's a prominent circle of glare around Jupiter. This really damages the contrast of surface features.  However, if one looks past this, the image is very very sharp with a prominent barge in the central part of the NEB and some hints of festoons off to the W.  

 

The Meade also has some glare issues, but the circle of light is more subdued compared to the Brandon.  It's surprisingly good and really keeps up with the premium makes!  After swapping a few times, I can tell that it's just a little harder to pick out the more subtle features like the festoons compared to the Zeiss and Leica.  Overall, my impression of the Meade from the double star resolution tests has been that it's a clear step behind the Brandon and most of the microscope eyepieces.  But in the recent tests of non-point sources (DSOs and planets), the gap has been small if there at all.  

 

Finally the S-PL and Leica showed the Jovian features most clearly and had by far the least amount of scatter around the planet.  In fact I didn't notice the scattered circle of light at all until I saw it in the Brandon and Meade and then put the Z and L back in to look for it.  There's one major difference though: the Leica definitely has a warm tint compared to the whiteness of the S-PL.  I thought at time this made some of the festoons in the W and maybe this small barge to the E of the main barge a little harder to see.  But overall, incredible views from both.  

 

Saturn (same scope/power)

Here the Leica and S-PL are pretty much indistinguishable, I guess because Saturn's color is close to the tint of the Leica to begin with. The Meade can see the banding on planet as well, but not as easy to see, comes in and out.  Cassini's Division looks 

 

Overall with the planets tonight, the S-PL is the best with the highest contrast and color balance.  The Leica also shows great contrast, which is a step ahead of the Brandon and Meade (visible only when looking at the subtler features E and W of the main NEB barge I saw).  But the warm tint make it just a tiny bit harder than in the S-PL.  I was surprised by the amount of glare in the Brandon, but if I try looking past it, I can tell it rendered a very sharp and contrasting image as well.  

 

Clear skies

 

 

[elstargazer12]

Hi all,

 

Coming to the end of these tests.  Just a couple more notes and I'll sum up.  

 

Here's a comparison on double stars of two new eyepieces:

 

- Leica HC PLAN s 10x/22- These are the little brother to the 10x/25 Leicas that have been used extensively in this thread.  Also has a field lens before the focal plane.  Overall smaller with smaller diameter eye lens. 

- Baader Mark IV set to 24mm

 

also includes Leica 10/25 and Zeiss PL 10x/18 

 

Porrima, 2.9" separation. A-P 130 GTX at 78x

Leica 10x/25 just a lliiittle easier to see the two components as distinct at highest power compared to PL.  The Leica 10x/22 are more similar to PL.  

 

Edge correction of the Leica 10x/22 and PL 10x/18 are similar.  Both are "very good", with the Leica showing more astigmatism and the PL showing more comet-like stars.

 

Nu scorpii- Can't split the 1.3" pair in any eyepiece, but can split the 2" pair in all at 78x

 

The Leica 10x/25, Zeiss S-PL, Brandon, and Nikon take the top spot- there was little to distinguish them.  The Zeiss PL 10x/18 somehow did not split as cleanly as the eyepieces above.  I was a little surprised, but there it is.  Still very very sharp and pleasing though.  The difference was VERY slight.  The Meade was noticeable worse with slightly more bloated stars even at best focus. 

 

One big surprise was the Baader.  I put it in and my immediate reaction was WOAH... It showed the 2" pair clearly better than any of the other eyepieces.  Could a $300 zoom with 7 elements really beat out top of the line Zeiss and Leica research eyepieces and a Brandon??  Switching the eyepieces a bunch of times and finally putting the Baader and the Leica in the barrels of a binoviewer provided the answer: the Baader was clearly operating at higher power.  In fact, I estimate that the "24mm" setting is more like 21mm.  Very surprising!  Now, there was a focal extender in the optical path (Denk OCS), so it's expected that the different eyepieces are affected differently by this.  But the focus position of the Baader is not that different from the others, so 15-20% difference seems a lot.  Anyways, I put the Baader away and did not test it directly again the others after this.  Still, a very sharp view in the Baader and I wouldn't be surprised if it more or less equaled some of the other fixed f.l. eyepieces. 

 

For anyone wondering, I did try to do a kind of "double blinding".  I often picked eyepieces at random from the box (no consistent places for them) and tried to just hold the eyepieces by the rim so that they are not fully distinguishable.  Sometimes this worked, sometimes not.  But I realized and usually I had no problem telling them apart, even without regard to the AFOV.  

[elstargazer12]

Last comment before summing up- I did get to observe Jupiter on two separate nights with these eyepieces.  The sky was a 5/5 for seeing the first night and maybe 3/5 at best on the second.  

 

The differences between the top eyepieces on Jupiter almost disappeared on this second night.  In fact, I had a lot of trouble seeing ANY difference between the Leica 10x/25, the Zeiss S-PL, the Olympus, and the Zeiss PL 10x/18 (other than a gentle warm tint on the Leica).  Somehow I think the Olympus had just a little more glare- the Southern Polar Region was just a little more washed out, but the boundary was still visible.  

 

I think that just goes to show all slight the differences really are among the best eyepieces here.  Makes me wonder if I'm spending all this time wisely in the end!

 

Still, it's good to know that on those really steady nights, the eyepieces I'm using can take advantage of them!

[elstargazer12]

Here's a table summarizing everything!

 

I read back through everything I wrote.  If an eyepiece was in group one in one of the tests, I gave it an "A" in that category.  The Zeiss S-PL was slightly better than the other A eyepiece in a couple of cases and so got an A+.  

 

I then highlighted all the >B average scores in green and also tallied up the percentage of "A" scores.  

 

By the way, I revised the Olympus's edge correction scores a bit because I realized it gets better after I fiddled with the focus position of the turnable top part (it has a fixed field element).

 

I was pleasantly surprised to see that the eyepieces' scores more or less match my qualitative impressions.  Here are my thoughts overall:

 

Group 1: The best eyepieces that I really want to keep:

 

Zeiss S-PL and Leica HC PLAN s 10x/25.  The Zeiss renders the most perfect image I've ever seen from an eyepiece.  It's slightly sharper and contrastier than anything else here and it has the most perfect edge correction I've ever seen.  In all ways but one, it's better than the Leica HC PLAN s 10x/25.  The latter is also amazing, but I just can't deny that it's not quite as sharp as the Zeiss and I think the warm tint makes Jupiter features just a little harder to see.  BUT... the S-PL has a 43˚ AFOV and the Leica has 57˚.  Sigh.... there is never an easy decision is there?  Anyways, if I pick one eyepiece, I think I'd go with the Leica, especially because it will serve as the widest TFOV eyepiece in my binoviewers, so AFOV is important.  But for now I'm going to keep both.  The Zeiss is just too good!

 

Group 2: The really, really great eyepieces I would be 100% happy with if I didn't see the Group 1 eyepieces. 

 

Zeiss PL 10x/18 (field stop widened to 24mm) and Nikon CFUWN 10x/25.  These are just a tiny, tiny bit less sharp than the top two eyepieces- the difference is so small that it was visible only on marginally resolved double stars.  They both have pleasing ~55˚ AFOVs and good edge correction (not quite Panoptic, but not at all distracting).  If I had to pick between them, I think I'd go with the Nikon as it has a slightly wider AFOV. 

 

Wild card: The Olympus SWHK 10x/26.5.  Not sure this goes in Group 2 or 3... I can't put a finger on it in some ways.  I initially didn't like it in part because of the poor edge correction.  But after playing with the focusing top, the edge correction is actually pretty good.  Not as good as the eyepieces above, but certainly acceptable.  I'm not sure why, but in terms of sharpness it seems to perform inconsistently on different nights and objects.  This last night on Jupiter, for example, I had a really hard time seeing any difference between it and the best Group 1 eyepieces.  I suspect this eyepiece belongs in Group 2 in the end. 

 

Group 3: The eyepieces that are still very good, but since this is a comparison, have to go on the bottom 

Meade Series 4000 Super Plössl; Brandon 24mm, and Mitutoyo 10x/24.  The Brandon is such a marvelous eyepiece in some ways.  The way it rendered point-like stars really lives up to its reputation.  But its poor transmission, edge correction, and problem with reflections really render it a specialty eyepiece that I would not consider as a general purpose, in-my-telescope-all-the-time option.  The Meade and the Mitutoyo behave very similarly, with the Mitutoyo having a tiny bit better on-axis sharpness and wider field but with slightly inferior edge correction.  Honestly though, I would be happy with either of these eyepieces as well.  If I hadn't done these test (and read too much stuff on CN), I would use these eyepieces and never think twice.  

 

In the end, it's decadent to be able to go through all this effort and $ to achieve such a small degree of optimization (although since I bought all these eyepieces used, hopefully my net cost isn't too high).  But tests like these are really more about the fun of doing them than actually optimizing my kit, right?  

 

Anyways, hope this has been / will be helpful to someone.  Clear skies!

 

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Jeff Morgan]

Last comment before summing up- I did get to observe Jupiter on two separate nights with these eyepieces.  The sky was a 5/5 for seeing the first night and maybe 3/5 at best on the second.  

 

The differences between the top eyepieces on Jupiter almost disappeared on this second night.  In fact, I had a lot of trouble seeing ANY difference between the Leica 10x/25, the Zeiss S-PL, the Olympus, and the Zeiss PL 10x/18 (other than a gentle warm tint on the Leica).  Somehow I think the Olympus had just a little more glare- the Southern Polar Region was just a little more washed out, but the boundary was still visible.  

 

I think that just goes to show all slight the differences really are among the best eyepieces here.  Makes me wonder if I'm spending all this time wisely in the end!

 

Still, it's good to know that on those really steady nights, the eyepieces I'm using can take advantage of them!

 

A tough call for sure.

 

In my local area, Pickering 6/10 is reason to pop champagne corks. Some years back I realized I had built an eyepiece collection around 10/10 seeing.

 

Lots of money tied up in premium planetary glass when 95% of the time a Delos or XW would do the trick. Still miss my Supermonos.

 

Excellent thread, enjoyed reading it. Rigorous eyepiece comparisons are a lot of work, thank you!

[j.gardavsky]

Hello elstargazer,

 

this is a very helpful summary, even if not surprizing,

and thank you very much for your having done this excellent job,

 

JG
 

[elstargazer12]

Thanks for the kind words and glad you all enjoyed it.  

 

j.gardavsky, have you gotten a chance to try the Leica photo projection eyepiece?  Thinking about it, I can see why these were made to the highest of the highest standards.  I got into research just long enough ago that the film-based photo equipment was still set up at some of the labs I've been.  Knowing how much effort it took to take photomicrographs using those techniques (many researchers I know developed there own film in house on top of all the effort to just take the photo), I can see why they'd invest in an essentially perfect eyepiece to make the projection image!

 

Roger

[j.gardavsky]

Hello Roger,

 

I have just the Leica HC 12.5x/13 Photo, it is to my right on the desk, but still not tested.

They have been also other Leica Photo eyepieces, but I don't have them.

 

Best,

JG

[lanfeng]

Hi friend What is the difference between HC plan s 10x/25（507808） and HC plan 10x/25（507800）

[j.gardavsky]

Hi friend What is the difference between HC plan s 10x/25（507808） and HC plan 10x/25（507800）

Hello lanfeng,

 

and thank you for asking.

Leica HC Plan S 10x/22 #507807 f=25mm, AFOV 50°

lenses sequence: (1- field stop -1-1-2) intrafocal, version of Zeiss Bertele with a field flattener

This EP may be ragarded as the "flag ship" in the Leica HC series. For the astronomy use, it delivers a very high contrast, flat field, and suppressed distortion,

https://www.cloudyni...plan-eyepieces/

 

I do not have the Leica HC Plan 10x/25.

It's Carl Zeiss West counterpart may be the Pl 10x/25 #44 40 34, AFOV 57°

again the lenses sequence: (1- field stop -1-1-2) intrafocal, version of the Zeiss Bertele with a field flattener,

https://www.cloudyni...10x25-44-40-34/

 

Best,

JG

[25585]

I wish I could find a 31.7mm adapter for a 25mm Zeiss OMNI.

[Procyon]

JG do you happen to know which size eyepiece caps from Agena would fit on a pair of Zeiss W-PL 10x/23 eyepieces? I bought a like new pair and they came with the Zeiss eyecups already installed.

Also ordered the black kodak barrels to attach them underneath.

Edited by Procyon, 20 April 2022 - 09:20 PM.

[lanfeng]

Hello lanfeng,

 

and thank you for asking.

Leica HC Plan S 10x/22 #507807 f=25mm, AFOV 50°

lenses sequence: (1- field stop -1-1-2) intrafocal, version of Zeiss Bertele with a field flattener

This EP may be ragarded as the "flag ship" in the Leica HC series. For the astronomy use, it delivers a very high contrast, flat field, and suppressed distortion,

https://www.cloudyni...plan-eyepieces/

 

I do not have the Leica HC Plan 10x/25.

It's Carl Zeiss West counterpart may be the Pl 10x/25 #44 40 34, AFOV 57°

again the lenses sequence: (1- field stop -1-1-2) intrafocal, version of the Zeiss Bertele with a field flattener,

https://www.cloudyni...10x25-44-40-34/

 

Best,

JG

Thank you very much. I have a pair of Leica HC Plan 10x/25. I blackened their interior, hoping to get better contrast。I also expanded their field of vision aperture to 25.7mm

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[denis0007dl]

Thank you very much. I have a pair of Leica HC Plan 10x/25. I blackened their interior, hoping to get better contrast。I also expanded their field of vision aperture to 25.7mm

Excellent job 

[bulletdodger]

Firstly, which version of Meade Super plossls do you own. The Japan made 4 element version is IMHO better than the later Chinese versions. The 5 element one is even better. 50° is plenty when binoviewing. My favorites were 2 smoithside 5 element Meade 26, then switched to the Celestron 5 element 24mm pair and sold the Meades. They are very sharp and bright.

[lanfeng]

Excellent job 

Thinks denis   Do you konw What is the difference between HC plan s 10x/25（507808） and HC plan 10x/25（507800）

 

Best 

feng

[denis0007dl]

No idea, I know only S one is rarer and more expensive.

[davidgmd]

In the pictures in post #43, is the curvature of the structure at the top of the field an example of pincushion distortion in the ES24 and barrel distortion in the Leica 10x15?

[Highburymark]

In the pictures in post #43, is the curvature of the structure at the top of the field an example of pincushion distortion in the ES24 and barrel distortion in the Leica 10x15?

Yes - that’s the way it looks - Panoptic 24 shows more pincushion distortion than any eyepiece I’ve ever used, and I presume the ES is similar.
But interesting to see a little barrel distortion in the Leica HC 25 picture -I have Leica HC Plan S 22 pair and they have a completely flat field.

[Highburymark]

Just a short addition to this thread. The Leica HC Plan S 10x/22 only made a brief appearance in the main test and the results graphic above, giving the impression it is some way short of the HC Plan S 10x/25 in quality. I’ve been comparing these two sets in a CZAS binoviewer and TSA-120/TV85 for the past six months - mainly on Moon, planets, Sun ha and white light, and apart from the AFOV, they are very, very close - I find the 25 just a tiny bit sharper, but views through the 22 are very slightly brighter - so it’s also ideal for faint DSOs. As JG has testified many times on this forum, the 22 is an outstanding eyepiece, and can be picked up a lot cheaper than the 25. A worthy addition to the list of top microscope eyepieces for astronomers. Just make sure it’s the ‘S’ model.

Attached Thumbnails

•