105 replies to this topic

[Russ S.]

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.

I think the microscope EP's from Leica, Zeiss and Nikon are much closer in quality across their lines than they are different. I recently picked up a Zeiss W 10x/25 that's not supposed to be as good as the PL or E-PL versions, but mine gives extremely sharp views, and one noted reviewer, denis0007dl, said he didn't see much of a difference between it and the supposed better one:  

 

Carl Zeiss W eyepeices:

Very good eyepieces, and I couldnt see any obvious difference between then and any PL version, no matter where here attached model 10x/25 have 3 lenses only. I like his big FOV.

 

I suspect many are splitting hairs when they're talking about differences

Edited by Russ S., 30 August 2022 - 11:01 AM.

[Highburymark]

I think the microscope EP's from Leica, Zeiss and Nikon are much closer in quality across their lines than they are different. I recently picked up a Zeiss W 10x/25 that's not supposed to be as good as the PL or E-PL versions, but mine gives extremely sharp views, and one noted reviewer, denis0007dl, said he didn't see much of a difference between it and the supposed better one:

Carl Zeiss W eyepeices:
Very good eyepieces, and I couldnt see any obvious difference between then and any PL version, no matter where here attached model 10x/25 have 3 lenses only. I like his big FOV.

I suspect many are splitting hairs when they're talking about differences

That’s my experience too, certainly among the top rated microscope eyepieces. I also have a pair of Zeiss OPMI 10x/22 which are a gnat’s whisker away from the Leicas, though a slightly greyer tone to my eyes. But they are all a joy to look through.

[Spartinix]

I am fortunate to be at a B2 location and I content myself with my OPMI 8x/22 eyepieces. I believe a few eyepieces might be marginally better but I don't care for at most a very tiny improvement.
Plus, I can attach the OPMI's directly with T2 to the binoviewer, gaining optical path length to facilitate viewing at native resolution with some of my scopes.

[Highburymark]

I am fortunate to be at a B2 location and I content myself with my OPMI 8x/22 eyepieces. I believe a few eyepieces might be marginally better but I don't care for at most a very tiny improvement.
Plus, I can attach the OPMI's directly with T2 to the binoviewer, gaining optical path length to facilitate viewing at native resolution with some of my scopes.

I’m the same - happy with what I’ve got - the big improvement in views was experienced upgrading from astronomical to microscope eyepieces. The Zeiss S-PLs sound amazing but they’re very narrow, very rare and very expensive. I’ll probably sell two of my three microscope pairs at some stage as they’re so similar in quality. Grateful to Denis et al for the original CN thread which sparked my interest in the first place.

[j.gardavsky]

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.

Hello Mark,

 

this is a very good pair of the pairs, glad you have them, and thank you for sharing the pic!

 

The wide field Leica (and ZEISS, Carl Zeiss) eyepieces have more glass inside, are eventually better corrected, but for the low surface brightness DSOs I need a minimum of glass delivering the maximum of light and contrast.

 

The Leica HC Plan 10x/20 (no S) are compatible with the optics of the old ZEISS West Germany SV4 stereo microscopes, and they offer a better match (flat field and less residual CA) than the original ZEISS W 10x/25 #46 40 03 eyepieces, when mounted on the SV4.

 

When hunting the difficult-to-see large DSOs, I have 3 different focus lengths Leicas, and three different focus lengths Carl Zeiss eyepieces, and using the astronomy wide field eyepieces just for the star hopping.

 

Best,

JG

[j.gardavsky]

I’m the same - happy with what I’ve got - the big improvement in views was experienced upgrading from astronomical to microscope eyepieces. The Zeiss S-PLs sound amazing but they’re very narrow, very rare and very expensive. I’ll probably sell two of my three microscope pairs at some stage as they’re so similar in quality. Grateful to Denis et al for the original CN thread which sparked my interest in the first place.

As nearly everything at ZEISS and Carl Zeiss, the S-Pl eyepieces have experienced the continuous quality improvements, and it makes sense to choose them from the later manufactured batches.

My favourite is the Carl Zeiss S-Pl 10x/20 #44 40 39

 

https://www.cloudyni...0x20-and-12516/

 

Best,

JG

 

 

 

[30mmgunpilot]

I’m responding late to this thread, but wanted to shout out a big “Thank you!” to elstargazer12 for his work in putting this together and sharing it with us. After reading the reviews, I purchased a couple of the Leica eyepieces for my binoviewer, and can’t wait to try them for myself.

[Highburymark]

I’m responding late to this thread, but wanted to shout out a big “Thank you!” to elstargazer12 for his work in putting this together and sharing it with us. After reading the reviews, I purchased a couple of the Leica eyepieces for my binoviewer, and can’t wait to try them for myself.

Very nice! Do report back when you’ve had chance to test them.

[lwbehney]

This is a very cool topic. Regarding the interest in 25 mm eyepiece fields, I want to say that if I multiply the apparent fov of the Morpheus 17.5 mm 76º eyepiece by its focal length, I get 1330 and if I multiply a 25 mm plossl eyepiece X 50º I get 1250. So pretty close in true field of view. The experience of using a pair of 25 mm plossl eyepieces in my TV Bino Vue is really very nice. However, on the Moon, I like the extra magnification the Morpheus pair brings without any loss of true field. It is very immersive having the slightly greater apparent field of view on the moon. The Lunar terrain is interesting all around and the extra true field is valuable to me.

I want to say that I happened to view Izar with my Bino Vue one night and was flabbergasted by how good it looked using the Morpheus 17.5 and the 2X amplifier. Very cleanly split, with wonderful color despite having half the light to each eye. I was using my five inch refractor. This experience was very recent, and my goal is to see if I can crack doubles at lower magnification using my Bino Vue than I can using a single eyepiece. 

If anyone here has already done this experiment, please let us know.

[j.gardavsky]

Hello all,

 

since 2020, I have added to my arsenal a pair of the Carl Zeiss OPMI 12,5x/18B T* f=25mm #464027, opened box.

The optical system is looking like (field stop - 1 - 2 - 1), the coatings have a purple teint, the glass materials may be the Modern Schott,

 

https://www.cloudyni...eiss-opmi-pair/

 

 

And the Carl Zeiss S-Pl 10x/20 #44 40 39  f=25mm visual (photo-visual) eyepiece.

The optical system is (2 - field stop - 1 - 1 - 2), multicoatings, the glass materials may be the modern Schott

 

And the Carl Zeiss S-Pl 12,5x/18 #44 40 49 f= 20mm photo eypiece.

The optical system is (field stop - 1 - 2 - 1), single coatings, the glass material is the old Schott.

 

https://www.cloudyni...0x20-and-12516/

 

The Zeiss S-Pl reveal a high level of the correction on my 6" F/5 achro.

The Zeiss OPMI is still waiting on the tests.

 

Best regards,

JG

[25585]

 I have two 25mm OPMIs, but one lacks a converter to 31.7mm. BWO had run out.

[RyanAstroMan]

I really like using the Fujinon HD-OR 25mm in my binos, the afov is tight but the stars are very crisp and I get great detail on the moon, my binos also have a power switch and I use powermates sometimes with it. 

[Highburymark]

Hello all,

since 2020, I have added to my arsenal a pair of the Carl Zeiss OPMI 12,5x/18B T* f=25mm #464027, opened box.
The optical system is looking like (field stop - 1 - 2 - 1), the coatings have a purple teint, the glass materials may be the Modern Schott,

https://www.cloudyni...eiss-opmi-pair/


And the Carl Zeiss S-Pl 10x/20 #44 40 39 f=25mm visual (photo-visual) eyepiece.
The optical system is (2 - field stop - 1 - 1 - 2), multicoatings, the glass materials may be the modern Schott

And the Carl Zeiss S-Pl 12,5x/18 #44 40 49 f= 20mm photo eypiece.
The optical system is (field stop - 1 - 2 - 1), single coatings, the glass material is the old Schott.

https://www.cloudyni...0x20-and-12516/

The Zeiss S-Pl reveal a high level of the correction on my 6" F/5 achro.
The Zeiss OPMI is still waiting on the tests.

Best regards,
JG

I’ll be interested in your thoughts on your very nice OPMI pair JG. Don’t see the 12.5x come up often. The 10x/22B OPMIs are pretty much the equal of the Leica HC Plan S 10x/22 in my view. But I’m using them for the Moon and planets mostly, not searching for faint deep sky objects like yourself.

[j.gardavsky]

I’ll be interested in your thoughts on your very nice OPMI pair JG. Don’t see the 12.5x come up often. The 10x/22B OPMIs are pretty much the equal of the Leica HC Plan S 10x/22 in my view. But I’m using them for the Moon and planets mostly, not searching for faint deep sky objects like yourself.

An evaluation of the OPMI 12.5x/18B T* may take some time, as I still don't have the adapters.

 

The performance of this OPMI will be compared against my Leica HC Plan 12.5x/16.

 

Best,

JG

[25585]

What screw thread size in diameter and thread gauge do OPMI eyepieces have?

[j.gardavsky]

What screw thread size in diameter and thread gauge do OPMI eyepieces have?

The thread diameter is 36mm, but I have not measured the gauge.

 

Best,

JG

[vahe]

 

The question is: Can I find a pair of microscope eyepieces with 25mm focal length (i.e., 10x in microscope lingo) that have close to 27mm field diameter, decent edge sharpness, and preserve the extremely pleasing on-axis sharpness, contrast, and overall viewing comfort that I have come to love about my microscopes at work?

 

 

 

Not microscope eyepiece, these are probably the finest 25-mm Orthos for telescope use.

.

Vahe

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Sarkikos]

elstargazer12,

 

I have never owned or used any of the microscope eyepieces commented on in this thread.   So, I have nothing to say about them.

 

I do have an older version CZJ Orthoskop-Ocular 12.5x microscope eyepiece.  It has very poor light transmission.  

 

I can verify the comparatively inferior light transmission of Brandon eyepieces*.   To me, it is obvious.  I am surprised when any observer says that Brandons have bright views for deep sky.  They would not be my first choice for observing deep sky objects.   However, they are decent eyepieces for double stars.   For planets, I think they are not bad but BGO's and ZAO-II's are better.  Over the years, I have had all the focal lengths of Brandons - except the rare 4mm, which I will pass - but eventually sold them, except for the 48mm.  Lately, I've acquired them all again.  I think I'll hang onto them this time.  

 

Ironically, the simple coatings (FC) of the Brandons are supposed to make them better for viewing planets and double stars, though you reported more obvious scatter around bright planets when viewed through the Brandon.  The idea is that the simple coating tends to minimize "high angle scatter."   But is this really the case, and does it produce a sharper and more contrasted planet image than eyepieces with complex coatings (FMC)?   I'm curious about what kind of coatings the various microscope eyepieces reviewed here have.  

 

Brandons do show outer field aberrations in fast telescopes.  I know this, and so I don't usually view through Brandons except in my slow scopes, such as the f/10 and slower Cats, or the slow refractors.   It's just something that the observer should keep in mind.

 

The Leica microscope eyepieces apparently have a warm tone.  I noticed a warm tone in my Leica Zoom.  

 

The Baader Zoom Mark IV was one of the eyepieces reviewed, or at least mentioned.   In my experience, both the Mark III and Mark IV have decent optical performance.  To my eyes, their most obvious flaw is nonparfocality along their focal lengths.  In other words, I need to refocus when I dial from high to low power, or vice versa.   The Mark IV is actually less parfocal than the older Mark III.  In my opinion, nonparfocality is a fatal flaw for a zoom eyepiece.  The Baader Zooms become much more parfocal if used with a Barlow or in a slow telescope.  You were observing with an "A-P 130GTX with Denk II binoviewer and power switch yielding f/8.2, f/11.0, and f/15.0."  At these f numbers, you probably would not notice the nonparfocality of the Baader Zooms.   

 

* Though I have never directly compared a Brandon with my old CZJ microscope eyepiece, I suspect the CZJ would have even worse light transmission than the Brandon!

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 July 2023 - 12:17 PM.

[Sarkikos]

Not microscope eyepiece, these are probably the finest 25-mm Orthos for telescope use.

.

Vahe

Yes, if you can find them and can afford them. 

 

Mike

[j.gardavsky]

Re: CZJ Orthoskop-Ocular 12.5x microscope eyepiece

 

Those branded as the Orthoskop-Okular are in fact CZJ Kellners adapted for the microscopes before WWII. Here it is shown at left,

 

https://www.cloudyni...eichert-vienna/

 

The late CZJ Kellners, as shown in the middle, have been AR coated and fairly good.

 

Best,

JG

[vahe]

JG,

.

Did Zeiss ever offer any 20mm telescope eyepieces? Ortho, Kellner or anything, just curious. On either sides of 20mm Zeiss offered 16mm & 25mm but as far as I know nothing in between these two focal lengths.

.

Vahe

[j.gardavsky]

JG,

.

Did Zeiss ever offer any 20mm telescope eyepieces? Ortho, Kellner or anything, just curious. On either sides of 20mm Zeiss offered 16mm & 25mm but as far as I know nothing in between these two focal lengths.

.

Vahe

I am not aware of any astronomy eyepieces at f=20mm from Carl Zeiss Jena.

There might be some Abbe orthos from Emil Busch in Rathenow, who has been making also some astronomy optics and eyepieces in contract with CZJ.

 

Best regards,

JG

[25585]

The thread diameter is 36mm, but I have not measured the gauge.

 

Best,

JG

Possibly a 36.4mm to 31.7mm adapter might fit then. Via T2 parts for such an assembly...

 

https://www.firstlig...-2-adapter.html

[SteveC]

Not microscope eyepiece, these are probably the finest 25-mm Orthos for telescope use.

.

Vahe

Been waiting for you to post this. What took you so long?

[Highburymark]

Not microscope eyepiece, these are probably the finest 25-mm Orthos for telescope use.
.
Vahe

I haven’t had the pleasure of trying any Zeiss abbés, but I wonder how they 25mm compare with the best Zeiss and Leica microscope eyepieces?

Edited by Highburymark, 09 July 2023 - 04:18 PM.