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

New Meade Eyepieces

  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#76 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 47,663
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 11 August 2020 - 12:59 AM

Steel?  Like Claves, stainless?  Surely not plain carbon steel?!

Stainless.



#77 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,234
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 11 August 2020 - 05:25 AM

Excellent point.  I think eyeglass wearers need to be more vocal about their needs.  Those of us who do not wear eyeglasses just cannot understand.  It is not fair that eyeglass wearers cannot enjoy all the eyepiece offerings like those of us who do not wear glasses can.  Might be a wake-up call to OEMs if an eyeglass wearer published an article on CN simply listing eyeglass-friendly focal lengths from each popular line, and those that are NOT (to drive the point home).

 

I predict, that perhaps a quarter century from now (if we are lucky), this field-use reality will finally find the ears of eyepiece designers.  For the most part, it seems the last thing eyepiece designers do, is actually use their eyepieces!  And by "use", I mean are real observers who observe weekly with their telescopes, not those who are only out at star parties to market or go out on their own only once or twice so they can pretend to be observers.  And by "designers" I mean not only those who design the optics, but also those who design the housing builds.

I totally agree. Effective eye relief however is most important, with exit pupil behaviour.

 

There are more than a few with eye lenses recessed deeply enough &/ or too-tall eyecups that make advertised figures misleading. In fact some eyepieces advertising shorter eye relief than others, have more effective eye relief due to less of the above aspects.


Edited by 25585, 11 August 2020 - 05:28 AM.


#78 obsession18

obsession18

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2016

Posted 13 August 2020 - 03:48 PM

Agena Astro has the new Meade EP's available for order.



#79 Canis Miner

Canis Miner

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Wexford, PA

Posted 24 August 2020 - 11:58 PM

Would the UFF design create an issue with Edge or ACF scopes where the optics are already corrected for a flat field?



#80 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 47,663
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 25 August 2020 - 09:39 AM

Would the UFF design create an issue with Edge or ACF scopes where the optics are already corrected for a flat field?

No.
  • oldphysics likes this

#81 Voyager 3

Voyager 3

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Near Bangalore, India

Posted 26 August 2020 - 08:07 AM

Don I have seen an eyepiece at TS optics named TS optics UFL .It's advertised as 2" 69° flat field eyepiece. They also seem to recommend their line upto about F/4. And main thing is it's tagged at 111.2€ (132$ approx ) compared to the APM UFF ( 199€ ) . But the TS version has 6 elements Vs 9 for APM . Is the TS a clone or a near clone of APM ? Also any reviews ?
Here's the link if anybody wants ...
https://www.teleskop...ent-Design.html
  • Ernesto.Nicola likes this

#82 Will_S

Will_S

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Santa Cruz, CA

Posted 26 August 2020 - 09:01 AM

Don I have seen an eyepiece at TS optics named TS optics UFL .It's advertised as 2" 69° flat field eyepiece. They also seem to recommend their line upto about F/4. And main thing is it's tagged at 111.2€ (132$ approx ) compared to the APM UFF ( 199€ ) . But the TS version has 6 elements Vs 9 for APM . Is the TS a clone or a near clone of APM ? Also any reviews ?
Here's the link if anybody wants ...
https://www.teleskop...ent-Design.html

This is based on the TMB Paragon, and similar (if not identical) eyepieces have been sold as the TS Paragon ED, Skywatcher Aero ED, and AstroTech Titan Type II. I own the TS Paragon version as well as a 30mm UFF. The UFF is much sharper toward the edge in my f/4.7 scope, but the Paragon is much lighter and pleasant enough in use.  One review of the 30mm, there are plenty more under the Paragon and Aero ED names: https://www.cloudyni...30mm/?p=7752587


Edited by Will_S, 26 August 2020 - 09:01 AM.


#83 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 47,663
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 26 August 2020 - 09:09 AM

Will has it right.

It's not another re-badged version of the APM.

 

One thing: it is physically impossible to have a 69° eyepiece without distortion, so they are exaggerating in their claims.


Edited by Starman1, 26 August 2020 - 09:11 AM.

  • oldphysics likes this

#84 Pezdragon

Pezdragon

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Bay Area, Ca.

Posted 26 August 2020 - 09:27 AM

Will has it right.

It's not another re-badged version of the APM.

 

One thing: it is physically impossible to have a 69° eyepiece without distortion, so they are exaggerating in their claims.

What if you let chromatic corrections, field curvature and astigmatism run wild? 



#85 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 87,207
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 26 August 2020 - 09:31 AM

Excellent point.  I think eyeglass wearers need to be more vocal about their needs.  Those of us who do not wear eyeglasses just cannot understand.  It is not fair that eyeglass wearers cannot enjoy all the eyepiece offerings like those of us who do not wear glasses can.  Might be a wake-up call to OEMs if an eyeglass wearer published an article on CN simply listing eyeglass-friendly focal lengths from each popular line, and those that are NOT (to drive the point home).

 

I predict, that perhaps a quarter century from now (if we are lucky), this field-use reality will finally find the ears of eyepiece designers.  For the most part, it seems the last thing eyepiece designers do, is actually use their eyepieces!  And by "use", I mean are real observers who observe weekly with their telescopes, not those who are only out at star parties to market or go out on their own only once or twice so they can pretend to be observers.  And by "designers" I mean not only those who design the optics, but also those who design the housing builds.

 

I think it's important the designers are amateur Astronomers. Whether they observe every week or not, I think it's important that they're experienced observers. 

 

I don't think anyone doubts Al Nagler is an experienced observer. And Scott Roberts. It didn't take Explore Scientific long to redesign the 68° and 82° lines to be more ergonomically usable, at least for the non-eyeglass wearer. Those bulbous twist up eyecups made eyepieces like the 28 mm UWAN and Meade SWAs unusable for me.

 

Jon


  • tony_spina likes this

#86 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 26,914
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 26 August 2020 - 09:37 AM

But Jon, in a pinch you can use the ES82 nonpurged eyepiece as an observing chair!


  • tony_spina, Jon Isaacs, oldphysics and 2 others like this

#87 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 47,663
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 26 August 2020 - 09:40 AM

What if you let chromatic corrections, field curvature and astigmatism run wild? 

Distortion increases with field angle due to the physics.

Here is a chart:

Attached Thumbnails

  • distortion curves.JPG


#88 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 47,663
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 26 August 2020 - 09:41 AM

And here is an explanation of the curves:

http://www.televue.c...page.asp?id=113



#89 Pezdragon

Pezdragon

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Bay Area, Ca.

Posted 26 August 2020 - 10:09 AM

Thanks Don, I had seen the graph before but just thought it might be possible to design a horribly corrected, orthoscopic wide field eyepiece...just for fun.



#90 obsession18

obsession18

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2016

Posted 26 August 2020 - 04:40 PM

Below (I hope) is an image of my new 28mm Meade next to my 35mm Panoptic, the Meade weighs 27.6oz compared to 25.2oz for the Panoptic, haven't been able to use it yet.

 

A10D8605 0FE1 41EE 8D82 10C4DF95742A 1 105 C

  • esd726, eros312, Procyon and 4 others like this

#91 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,234
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 26 August 2020 - 05:01 PM

Will has it right.

It's not another re-badged version of the APM.

 

One thing: it is physically impossible to have a 69° eyepiece without distortion, so they are exaggerating in their claims.

Any FL or just longer? See none in my Pentax 10mm XW. 



#92 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,234
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 26 August 2020 - 05:07 PM

I think it's important the designers are amateur Astronomers. Whether they observe every week or not, I think it's important that they're experienced observers. 

 

I don't think anyone doubts Al Nagler is an experienced observer. And Scott Roberts. It didn't take Explore Scientific long to redesign the 68° and 82° lines to be more ergonomically usable, at least for the non-eyeglass wearer. Those bulbous twist up eyecups made eyepieces like the 28 mm UWAN and Meade SWAs unusable for me.

 

Jon

Shame the ES eyepieces had to have recessed eye lenses. The bulbous Meades & Celestrons, have their lenses almost flush at the top.  



#93 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 47,663
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 26 August 2020 - 05:39 PM

Any FL or just longer? See none in my Pentax 10mm XW.

See my earlier posts in this thread about distortion.

Edited by Starman1, 26 August 2020 - 05:39 PM.


#94 Voyager 3

Voyager 3

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Near Bangalore, India

Posted 27 August 2020 - 07:54 AM

One thing: it is physically impossible to have a 69° eyepiece without distortion, so they are exaggerating in their claims.

They are recommending it to F/4 lol.gif   



#95 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 47,663
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 27 August 2020 - 11:27 AM

The eyepieces can have distortion and still be usable at f/4.

Fortunately, or no one would own an f/4 scope.



#96 Voyager 3

Voyager 3

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Near Bangalore, India

Posted 28 August 2020 - 07:00 AM

Why no one would own a F/4 scope ?

#97 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 47,663
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 28 August 2020 - 02:01 PM

Why no one would own a F/4 scope ?

I said that fortunately, eyepieces with distortion can be used at f/4 or no one would own an f/4 scope,

implying that since all eyepieces have distortion, if an f/4 scope couldn't use eyepieces with distortion, f/4 scopes couldn't be used visually and no one would own an f/4 scope.

That was in answer to your previous post where you said they are recommending it to f/4.

Since they are recommending it, and the eyepiece obviously has distortion, I made my off-the-cuff comment.

Sorry you misunderstood.



#98 Echolight

Echolight

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 20 September 2020 - 06:14 PM

Below (I hope) is an image of my new 28mm Meade next to my 35mm Panoptic, the Meade weighs 27.6oz compared to 25.2oz for the Panoptic, haven't been able to use it yet.

 

You ever try out that 28mm PWA?


  • esd726 likes this

#99 Blueox4

Blueox4

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 661
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Upstate New York

Posted 26 September 2020 - 08:34 AM

Anyone try one of these new Meade PWA’s yet and if so, how are they compared to the Legend; ie the 31t5? I know the 31T5 is better but can the 28mm Meade compete with it? If these are resurrected UWANS a how were they compared the the big Nagler? Curious about these new Meade eyepieces.  


  • esd726 and Echolight like this

#100 Echolight

Echolight

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 26 September 2020 - 02:11 PM

Anyone try one of these new Meade PWA’s yet and if so, how are they compared to the Legend; ie the 31t5? I know the 31T5 is better but can the 28mm Meade compete with it? If these are resurrected UWANS a how were they compared the the big Nagler? Curious about these new Meade eyepieces.  

I've read enough positive reviews on the Skywatcher Nirvana to think it would be worth giving the 28 PWA a try if I had a place for it in my lineup.

 

I'm considering it. But I don't really need it. The fact that it weighs a lot less than a 31 Nagler or ES82 30 makes it attractive for me. Plus the much lower price.


Edited by Echolight, 26 September 2020 - 02:14 PM.

  • esd726 and Blueox4 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