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

question on ES eyepieces

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Hax

Hax

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 31 May 2020
  • Loc: PEI Canada

Posted 01 August 2020 - 03:25 PM

Is there a major difference between their argon purged line of EPs and the regular line? I'm looking into a few but not sure if it's really worth over twice the price for argon purged ones. Any info is appreciated!



#2 sg6

sg6

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,297
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 01 August 2020 - 04:00 PM

No real difference. Sounds good however, as does BaK4 Prisms which also are questionable and actually undefined - there is more then 1 BaK4 glass.

 

Don't own an ES and so all mine will be probably air. Never had a problem of any sort.

 

My opinion is Argon sounds good, it is an inert gas. However so what?

Biggest aspect is if you resell, others may likely be thinking Argon.

 

What you do not want in an eyepiece is water, as vapor as it has this evil habit of condensing on the glass. They used to fill with N2 and N2 is also pretty inert. Again all they really want is a dry gas inside. And Argon sounds better the Nitrogen.



#3 Stellar1

Stellar1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 553
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2018
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 01 August 2020 - 04:04 PM

No real difference. Sounds good however, as does BaK4 Prisms which also are questionable and actually undefined - there is more then 1 BaK4 glass.

 

Don't own an ES and so all mine will be probably air. Never had a problem of any sort.

 

My opinion is Argon sounds good, it is an inert gas. However so what?

Biggest aspect is if you resell, others may likely be thinking Argon.

 

What you do not want in an eyepiece is water, as vapor as it has this evil habit of condensing on the glass. They used to fill with N2 and N2 is also pretty inert. Again all they really want is a dry gas inside. And Argon sounds better the Nitrogen.

There is such thing as water purged eyepieces?



#4 Jim Davis

Jim Davis

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,395
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Lewisberry, PA

Posted 01 August 2020 - 04:25 PM

I'm not aware of a "regular line". Which ones are you referring to?


  • sunnyday likes this

#5 CeleNoptic

CeleNoptic

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Mid-Atlantic, Bortle 7

Posted 01 August 2020 - 04:56 PM

Is there a major difference between their argon purged line of EPs and the regular line? I'm looking into a few but not sure if it's really worth over twice the price for argon purged ones. Any info is appreciated!

 

IMO, the only benefits of Ar filled EPs  are fog free and dust free, no optical difference. Just a matter of preference if you have extra spare money smile.gif. The original version of ES82 made years ago wasn't water proof. Although, they have non-waterproof ES70/Bressler line, those are Erfles that work good only in slow scopes like F/10+.


Edited by CeleNoptic, 01 August 2020 - 05:03 PM.


#6 Hax

Hax

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 31 May 2020
  • Loc: PEI Canada

Posted Yesterday, 06:48 AM

Jim, I just meant the EPs that aren't argon purged. 

 

So so basically what you guys are saying is the argon helps with fog ad maybe dust on the lense... I live in a VERY humid and rather moist environment for now, so maybe the argon would hell battle the dew on the eyepieces. Last night my EP fogged up after an hour or 2, and that kind of sucked lol. Thanks kindly for the info guys!


Edited by Hax, Yesterday, 06:49 AM.


#7 Jim Davis

Jim Davis

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,395
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Lewisberry, PA

Posted Yesterday, 07:20 AM

Jim, I just meant the EPs that aren't argon purged. 

 

 

I'm just not aware of any that are not argon purged.
 


  • Jeff L and sunnyday like this

#8 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,377
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted Yesterday, 08:11 AM

Maybe older ones. Before the ES 24/82 nitrogen purged, ES sold a version that wasn’t waterproof. I was accidentally shipped this by mistake. I returned it for the new nitrogen purged version, more because of the size and weight than the waterproof aspect.

Or he might be referring to the ES 82 series Chinese clones that were just discovered on a Chinese site. No, waterproofing does not make eyepieces twice as expensive. And no, waterproofing probably isn’t worth paying twice as much for. But the fact that they aren’t waterproof says they are not made to the same spec. And if they aren’t made to the same spec one way, there might be other ways they are inferior. Given the price point you have to wonder. I mean SVBONY sells some eyepieces really cheap, but there are reports that some arrive with uncoated lenses and such. For $15 it isn’t worth dealing with an international return. Maybe it is for $100 but would you be able to return it? Would you just lose your eyepiece in addition to your $100 and $30 shipping? Bottom line is this new line is a risk, and will remain that way until some people try to save some money, buy them and report back.

Scott

Edited by SeattleScott, Yesterday, 08:22 AM.


#9 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 26,258
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted Yesterday, 10:56 AM

Had the nonwaterproof ES82 30mm.....weighed over 3 pounds!  ES then changed its clothing and Nitrogen purged them...later they used argon....all three used the same glass.  I also had the 24mm nonpurged...and for some reason, liked the view better than the purged version....looked like a giant Photon sucking tick on the scope.


Edited by csrlice12, Yesterday, 10:57 AM.


#10 Hax

Hax

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 31 May 2020
  • Loc: PEI Canada

Posted Yesterday, 02:19 PM

I’m on Woodland Hills site, ES has cheaper eps for like 1-200$, and the argon ones start at around 300$, that’s why I started to topic, I wasn’t sure what the difference was.. I can’t be sure as I’m still a novice but I think Woodland hills does tend to sell some older products so maybe that’s why some don’t say argon purged... but if the purges helps with dew/fog, that will be the direction I take, because as mentioned I live in a very humid environment.

#11 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,377
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted Yesterday, 03:53 PM

You need to give us more specifics. The waterproofing probably isn’t the reason for the price difference. It could be AFOV or eye relief or quality, etc.

Scott

#12 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,757
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted Yesterday, 04:06 PM

Most of Explore Sci's premium lines are Argon Purged [older models used Nitrogen]. It's not the purging that makes them more expensive, it's the design. Typically, the wider the field of view, the more lens elements are used, the more expensive the eyepiece. There are a few odd balls, but that's the general pattern.

Example, the 68º Series vs. the 70º Bresser [listed on the ES website]. The ES premium lines [68º +] are very well corrected for off-axis aberrations such as coma in reflecting scopes & field curvature in refractors. The 68º Series is going to be better corrected than the 70º Bresser eyepieces. The 68º Series is comparable to the TeleVue Panoptic, where the 70º Bresser are more like a wider field modified plössl design.


Edited by rkelley8493, Yesterday, 04:11 PM.

  • sunnyday and Hax like this

#13 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,598
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted Yesterday, 06:02 PM

Jim, I just meant the EPs that aren't argon purged. 

 

So so basically what you guys are saying is the argon helps with fog ad maybe dust on the lense... I live in a VERY humid and rather moist environment for now, so maybe the argon would hell battle the dew on the eyepieces. Last night my EP fogged up after an hour or 2, and that kind of sucked lol. Thanks kindly for the info guys!

Alas, what they're filled with has no influence on whether the exterior lenses fog up.


  • SteveG, rkelley8493 and sunnyday like this

#14 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,598
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted Yesterday, 06:05 PM

I’m on Woodland Hills site, ES has cheaper eps for like 1-200$, and the argon ones start at around 300$, that’s why I started to topic, I wasn’t sure what the difference was.. I can’t be sure as I’m still a novice but I think Woodland hills does tend to sell some older products so maybe that’s why some don’t say argon purged... but if the purges helps with dew/fog, that will be the direction I take, because as mentioned I live in a very humid environment.

All the ES eyepieces are sealed and dry argon-purged: 52°, 62°, 68°, 82°, 92°, 100°

and that includes many that are under $100.


  • rkelley8493, sunnyday and Hax like this

#15 Xyrus

Xyrus

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2017

Posted Yesterday, 06:33 PM

Argon purging is more expensive, but it's faster as argon is denser than air. Argon is also a noble gas so it is completely inert (outside of a lab). It also has improved thermal properties over nitrogen but that's pretty irrelevant on scale of an eyepiece.

 

Nitrogen is cheap and MOSTLY inert under normal circumstances. It can weakly interact with some elements like titanium, or if oxygen is present an electrical discharge can create NO2. But for all practical purposes (such as making eyepieces) it is inert.

 

Another thing to note is that argon will permeate out of polymer seals faster than nitrogen, on account of it being a smaller (nitrogen is diatomic), although over the life span of a typical eyepiece I don't believe there would be much of a difference.

 

So basically, argon purging hypothetically speeds up eyepiece production and that increase in cost gets passed on to the consumer. It has no effect on the overall eyepiece. But marketing departments do love their technobabble.



#16 SteveG

SteveG

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,607
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted Yesterday, 06:39 PM

So basically the gas placed in eyepieces to make them waterproof will have zero effect on the view, and additionally it will not help with dew on the outside.


  • sunnyday and Hax like this

#17 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,598
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted Yesterday, 09:24 PM

Argon purging is more expensive, but it's faster as argon is denser than air. Argon is also a noble gas so it is completely inert (outside of a lab). It also has improved thermal properties over nitrogen but that's pretty irrelevant on scale of an eyepiece.

 

Nitrogen is cheap and MOSTLY inert under normal circumstances. It can weakly interact with some elements like titanium, or if oxygen is present an electrical discharge can create NO2. But for all practical purposes (such as making eyepieces) it is inert.

 

Another thing to note is that argon will permeate out of polymer seals faster than nitrogen, on account of it being a smaller (nitrogen is diatomic), although over the life span of a typical eyepiece I don't believe there would be much of a difference.

 

So basically, argon purging hypothetically speeds up eyepiece production and that increase in cost gets passed on to the consumer. It has no effect on the overall eyepiece. But marketing departments do love their technobabble.

The seals in the purging equipment wear out faster, and the factory loses more production time changing them, with nitrogen, whereas argon causes no deterioration of seals and results in less down time in the factory.

Argon costs more than nitrogen, but the downtime costs more.



#18 rkelley8493

rkelley8493

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,757
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Southeast USA

Posted Yesterday, 11:43 PM

I saw an episode of How It's Made on making Binoculars. I forget the name brand, Stein-something, but they purge their binoculars with Nitrogen to make them fog-proof & waterproof. They were Nautical Binoculars geared towards using out in the ocean.

 

Edit:

Steiner! They showed the production process on the Steiner Commander Binoculars.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=4GHyftg3zMQ

 

https://www.steiner-...der-global-7x50


Edited by rkelley8493, Yesterday, 11:52 PM.


#19 Don Taylor

Don Taylor

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,242
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Broken Arrow (Tulsa Area) Oklahoma

Posted Yesterday, 11:57 PM

Filling binoculars or eyepieces with gas does not make them waterproof. The seals necessary to keep water out make it waterproof and also provide the means to keep dry gasses in. The fill gas is extremely dry (near zero dissolved water) so there is no water vapor present to condense on the internals of the optic. This has been used in rifle scopes for more than 50 years.

You could theoretically build a waterproof eyepiece or binocular (e.g. With seals but without dry gas) but any moisture within the optic could condense at low temperatures. If you go to the trouble to seal the optic (to make it warerproof) then it makes perfect sense to purge the (naturally moist) air trapped within with dry gas and also prevent fogging.

Edited by Don Taylor, Today, 12:04 AM.



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