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

BCO, but longer focal length. What's good?

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 lxr4345

lxr4345

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2020

Posted 27 October 2020 - 01:26 PM

I love my 18mm and 10mm BCOs, but I find myself wanting a similar visual experience in a longer focal length.  Alas, Baader does not make a longer ortho.  I know they make a 32mm plossl that's branded with the set, but I often hear that it's a dog.  So that said, what's out there in the ~25-32mm range that has similar optical performance to the BCOs? 

 

I've done some initial poking around and found:

24mm and 32mm Brandons

24mm and 30mm Takahashi LE - how do these compare to the Brandons?

25mm and 32mm Takahashi Abbe - tempting but the FOV appears to be narrower than all of the above

25mm KK Fujiyama Ortho - again, a bit narrower than I would like

28mm RKE - this appears to be a different category altogether but I'm intrigued by all the reports I've read.  "Floating image" effect notwithstanding, how does the optical quality compare to the above?

 

Any others that I missed?

 

My telescope is the Skywatcher 100ED f/9

 

Thanks for your help!

 


  • mfoose likes this

#2 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 48,212
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 27 October 2020 - 01:51 PM

How about a high quality 25mm Plössl, like the Tele Vue?

Same element count.  Same Group count.  As well corrected.

Eye relief around 17.5mm.

After all, this isn't for planets, it's for low power.


  • markb, oldphysics and lxr4345 like this

#3 sg6

sg6

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,270
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 27 October 2020 - 01:52 PM

Someone once asked Al Nagler why did he not produce an Ortho, his answer was Go buy the Plossls.

As Al's plossls are good then try a TV plossl.

 

The Tak Starbase Ortho's only go to 20mm it seems.

 

Suppose the other answer is forget these old eyepieces and get a nice up to date Delite or Delos. Might be time to leave that now old 1880 design behind and at least advance into the 1900's, even if into the 2000's seems too big a leap to make..



#4 lxr4345

lxr4345

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2020

Posted 27 October 2020 - 02:18 PM

Someone once asked Al Nagler why did he not produce an Ortho, his answer was Go buy the Plossls.

As Al's plossls are good then try a TV plossl.

 

The Tak Starbase Ortho's only go to 20mm it seems.

 

Suppose the other answer is forget these old eyepieces and get a nice up to date Delite or Delos. Might be time to leave that now old 1880 design behind and at least advance into the 1900's, even if into the 2000's seems too big a leap to make..

Nothing against Delites, but those only go up to ~18mm. Same with Delos, and those are out of my price range to boot.  Did you read my post or are you just bent on insulting me because I happen like the orthos I have?  I'm not stuck on orthos, it's just that after trying a few different EPs, I liked the BCOs best.

 

 

How about a high quality 25mm Plössl, like the Tele Vue?

Same element count.  Same Group count.  As well corrected.

Eye relief around 17.5mm.

After all, this isn't for planets, it's for low power.

Thanks for the recommendation.  I haven't thought about too much about plossls because there are an overwhelming number of options so I didn't really know where to start. That said, the main reason I haven't enthusiastically taken up TV plossls is because of the reports of warm or coffee tones.  Perhaps it's overstated, I will give it another look and maybe see if I can find a used one to try.  One of the things I like about the BCOs is the color rendition.  It strikes me as neutral/cool and I particularly like the way it renders contrast in the blue range (e.g. on the Pleiades or the color contrast in Albiero).
 


Edited by lxr4345, 27 October 2020 - 03:14 PM.

  • Astrojensen likes this

#5 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,439
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 27 October 2020 - 03:26 PM

Newer TV plossls have improved coatings. If you buy used you might want to pay attention to vintage.

I had 5mm and 18mm Tak LE and found them extremely sharp. Also had the BCO’s. I don’t remember ever comparing them but the LEs don’t give up anything to the BCOs.

That being said I also have been impressed with the TV plossls I have owned. Yes, the vintage ones do seem just a bit dimmer/warmer than modern eyepieces. But very sharp.

Scott
  • lxr4345 likes this

#6 mfoose

mfoose

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Joined: 18 May 2013
  • Loc: Lancaster, PA

Posted 27 October 2020 - 03:31 PM

I love my 18mm and 10mm BCOs, but I find myself wanting a similar visual experience in a longer focal length.  Alas, Baader does not make a longer ortho.  I know they make a 32mm plossl that's branded with the set, but I often hear that it's a dog.  So that said, what's out there in the ~25-32mm range that has similar optical performance to the BCOs? 

 

I've done some initial poking around and found:

24mm and 32mm Brandons

24mm and 30mm Takahashi LE - how do these compare to the Brandons?

25mm and 32mm Takahashi Abbe - tempting but the FOV appears to be narrower than all of the above

25mm KK Fujiyama Ortho - again, a bit narrower than I would like

28mm RKE - this appears to be a different category altogether but I'm intrigued by all the reports I've read.  "Floating image" effect notwithstanding, how does the optical quality compare to the above?

 

Any others that I missed?

 

My telescope is the Skywatcher 100ED f/9

 

Thanks for your help!

Hey lxr4345,

 

I am in the same boat you are, well close to it. I have a 102mm f/9.8 Vixen achro that I am buying a dedicated eyepiece set for and I settled on the BCOs. Good price, reviews, small size, etc. Haven't bought them yet, but in the next few week or so and I have settled on the 28mm RKE as my low power EP. Like you described, some people love it and it has a cult following because of the "floating image" effect. I haven't owned one yet and the price is right so I figure, why not? If I don't like it I will probably grab a 25-35mm Plossl.

 

A good Plossl in the 25-32mm range is certainly a contender. If you're looking on the used market you could look for one of the Japanese made 5 element pseudo-Masuyama Plossls. There were several in the 25-35mm range and under various brand names:

 

Orion Ultrascopics

Celestron Ultima

Parks Gold Series
Omcon Ultima
Antares Elite
Baader Eudiascopic

Tuthill Plossl

Meade Series 4000 pre-1994 "Super Plossl" (were made by Kowa I believe)

 

I believe this is the same design as the Tak LE line that you reference above. I own a Tuthill 35mm Plossl. Unfortunately, the top lens element has a massive clamchip in it. It came to me like that with a C8 I bought years ago.
 


Edited by mfoose, 27 October 2020 - 03:32 PM.

  • lxr4345 likes this

#7 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,439
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 27 October 2020 - 03:39 PM

Yes same design as LEs. And the non-LE ones are very sharp also. Good suggestion.

The floating effect is really just a function of the very thin top barrel. If you like TVs with infinity screens or infinity pools, a 28 RKE might be for you.

Scott
  • Jon Isaacs and lxr4345 like this

#8 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,474
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 27 October 2020 - 05:15 PM

I love my 18mm and 10mm BCOs, but I find myself wanting a similar visual experience in a longer focal length.  Alas, Baader does not make a longer ortho.  I know they make a 32mm plossl that's branded with the set, but I often hear that it's a dog.

32mm Plössls tend to be uncomfortable to look through, and they combine lots of eye relief, no field stop, and they tend to be cheap. I own both the 32mm GSO and the 32mm BCO. You can just pick out a few more stars when looking at a cluster with the BCO. The focusable field stop reduces the apparent field of view, but also helps make eye placement far more comfortable. You can also remove the field stop, and the field of view becomes just as wide, and the eye placement just as uncomfortable as the other 32mms.

 

In other words, the 32mm BCO is just fine.


  • lxr4345 likes this

#9 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 48,212
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 27 October 2020 - 05:26 PM

32mm Plössls tend to be uncomfortable to look through, and they combine lots of eye relief, no field stop, and they tend to be cheap. I own both the 32mm GSO and the 32mm BCO. You can just pick out a few more stars when looking at a cluster with the BCO. The focusable field stop reduces the apparent field of view, but also helps make eye placement far more comfortable. You can also remove the field stop, and the field of view becomes just as wide, and the eye placement just as uncomfortable as the other 32mms.

 

In other words, the 32mm BCO is just fine.

Baader's Q-Series 32mm is a 45° eyepiece.  It comes with an eyeguard extender to reposition the rubber eyeguard for easier use.

 

You're wrong about most 32mm Plössls, though.  Most do have field stops--they are just very thin and almost the same I.D. as the filter threads.

In most 32mm Plössls, they look like one thread is a bit taller than the others.

If they didn't have field stops, the edges of the eyepieces would appear vague and out of focus, and, whereas I've seen that in some eyepieces, I haven't seen that in 32mm Plössls

from TeleVue, Celestron, Meade, GSO, or AstroTech.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#10 Thomas_M44

Thomas_M44

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 407
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2020
  • Loc: Modesto, CA USA

Posted 27 October 2020 - 10:38 PM

I love my 18mm and 10mm BCOs, but I find myself wanting a similar visual experience in a longer focal length.  Alas, Baader does not make a longer ortho.  I know they make a 32mm plossl that's branded with the set, but I often hear that it's a dog.  So that said, what's out there in the ~25-32mm range that has similar optical performance to the BCOs? 

 

I've done some initial poking around and found:

24mm and 32mm Brandons

24mm and 30mm Takahashi LE - how do these compare to the Brandons?

25mm and 32mm Takahashi Abbe - tempting but the FOV appears to be narrower than all of the above

25mm KK Fujiyama Ortho - again, a bit narrower than I would like

28mm RKE - this appears to be a different category altogether but I'm intrigued by all the reports I've read.  "Floating image" effect notwithstanding, how does the optical quality compare to the above?

 

Any others that I missed?

 

My telescope is the Skywatcher 100ED f/9

 

Thanks for your help!

The 25mm KK Fujiyama is a very sweet eyepiece. Exquisite correction and sharpness, generous eye-relief, very easy to view with.  It's one of the favorites in my collection. I recommend it wholeheartedly.

 

I have the 28mm RKE, and it's a quality,  unique eyepiece --but very different presentation and behavior than an Abbe Ortho.

 

I'd say try the KK Fuji 25mm. It would be nicely congruent with your 18mm and 10mm BCO's.


  • lxr4345 likes this

#11 Tropobob

Tropobob

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 419
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Cairns Australia

Posted 27 October 2020 - 11:23 PM

I love my 18mm and 10mm BCOs, but I find myself wanting a similar visual experience in a longer focal length.  Alas, Baader does not make a longer ortho.  I know they make a 32mm plossl that's branded with the set, but I often hear that it's a dog.  So that said, what's out there in the ~25-32mm range that has similar optical performance to the BCOs? 

 

I've done some initial poking around and found:

24mm and 32mm Brandons

24mm and 30mm Takahashi LE - how do these compare to the Brandons?

25mm and 32mm Takahashi Abbe - tempting but the FOV appears to be narrower than all of the above

25mm KK Fujiyama Ortho - again, a bit narrower than I would like

28mm RKE - this appears to be a different category altogether but I'm intrigued by all the reports I've read.  "Floating image" effect notwithstanding, how does the optical quality compare to the above?

 

Any others that I missed?

 

My telescope is the Skywatcher 100ED f/9

 

Thanks for your help!

 

I have owned this Vixen for many years and find it to be very good with my refractors.  It would give 30x, as well as being light and relatively inexpensive.

I also owed a Tak 30mm LE, but sold it off, as I could not optically see that it was any better than the Vixen. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • N54.jpg

  • eros312 and lxr4345 like this

#12 Franta

Franta

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Czech Republic

Posted 28 October 2020 - 06:22 AM

I also like my 18mm BCO and orthos in general. The 18mm BCO is a comfortable eyepiece with very high contrast. I have also 32mm Baader Classic Ploessl, and I like it as well. It has comparable contrast to the 18mm BCO. I do not understand why some people rate the eyepiece as a "dog". My experience is completely the other way round.

 

Once, I had the possibility to observe with 8mm, 11mm and 15mm TV Ploessls the same night as with 9mm and 12.5mm BGOs, and I much preferred the BGOs. I had the feeling that the BGOs have higher contrast and sharpness, and that they are easier to look through because of their longer eye relief. The BGOs clearly excelled on deep-sky, I cannot speak for planets, which I do not observe. Since then, I prefer orthos to Ploessls. Please note that I observe with a 250mm F4.7 dobsonian, so my equipment is quite different from yours.

 

It is a pity that Baader does not currently offer orthos in more focal lengths. I would recommend orthos from different manufacturers, for example 25mm university optics ortho, or Takahasi Abbes 25mm and 32mm.


  • Peter Besenbruch and lxr4345 like this

#13 BKSo

BKSo

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 393
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2015

Posted 28 October 2020 - 08:38 AM

25mm is the prime focal length for microscope eyepieces. Something like a Leica HC Plan 10x/20 or Olympus GSWH10x/22 or Nikon 10x/21 or Zeiss Pl, E-Pl, S-Pl.


  • MrJones, j.gardavsky and lxr4345 like this

#14 cst4

cst4

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2018

Posted 28 October 2020 - 10:36 AM

The 25mm Fujiyama is a good one if you want to stick with orthos.  A quality 25mm or 26mm plossl is not much different though and you would probably be satisfied.  I really like the 30mm 5 element plossl (Ultima/Parks Gold/Ultrascopic) which come up used from time to time... that would be my pic due to focal length spacing and price.   I've never tried the Vixen 30mm NPL mentioned above but it is probably just as good, and I'm sure the Tak LE is great as well.  The 28mm RKE is a neat eyepiece with nice views, but it's largely just a novelty item... won't feel the same as your orthos.  


  • Thomas_M44 and lxr4345 like this

#15 lxr4345

lxr4345

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2020

Posted 28 October 2020 - 12:26 PM

Hey lxr4345,

 

I am in the same boat you are, well close to it. I have a 102mm f/9.8 Vixen achro that I am buying a dedicated eyepiece set for and I settled on the BCOs. Good price, reviews, small size, etc. Haven't bought them yet, but in the next few week or so and I have settled on the 28mm RKE as my low power EP. Like you described, some people love it and it has a cult following because of the "floating image" effect. I haven't owned one yet and the price is right so I figure, why not? If I don't like it I will probably grab a 25-35mm Plossl.

 

A good Plossl in the 25-32mm range is certainly a contender. If you're looking on the used market you could look for one of the Japanese made 5 element pseudo-Masuyama Plossls. There were several in the 25-35mm range and under various brand names:

 

Orion Ultrascopics

Celestron Ultima

Parks Gold Series
Omcon Ultima
Antares Elite
Baader Eudiascopic

Tuthill Plossl

Meade Series 4000 pre-1994 "Super Plossl" (were made by Kowa I believe)

 

I believe this is the same design as the Tak LE line that you reference above. I own a Tuthill 35mm Plossl. Unfortunately, the top lens element has a massive clamchip in it. It came to me like that with a C8 I bought years ago.
 

Thanks for this list!  I'd seen it elsewhere but wasn't able to find it again easily so it's very handy to have here.  These are definitely on the list to investigate, especially for the price.  Do you (or anyone) happen to know what FLs they were offered in?

 


 

I have owned this Vixen for many years and find it to be very good with my refractors.  It would give 30x, as well as being light and relatively inexpensive.

I also owed a Tak 30mm LE, but sold it off, as I could not optically see that it was any better than the Vixen. 

Thanks!  Going to add this to the list as well...

 

 

The 25mm Fujiyama is a good one if you want to stick with orthos.  A quality 25mm or 26mm plossl is not much different though and you would probably be satisfied.  I really like the 30mm 5 element plossl (Ultima/Parks Gold/Ultrascopic) which come up used from time to time... that would be my pic due to focal length spacing and price.   I've never tried the Vixen 30mm NPL mentioned above but it is probably just as good, and I'm sure the Tak LE is great as well.  The 28mm RKE is a neat eyepiece with nice views, but it's largely just a novelty item... won't feel the same as your orthos.  

Thanks for the info.  Based on your comment and some others above, I think I'll pass on the RKE unless one happens to land in my lap bugeyes.gif

 

 

Since the topic of pseudo-masuyamas has come up, does anyone have an opinion about the currently available 32mm wide-field Masuyama?  It seems to be in the spirit of a lot of EPs that are listed here, just with a wider field.  I know the outside edges aren't well corrected, but at f/9 I don't think that will be too big of an issue.  This EP particularly intrigues me because I had previously decided to get a 30mm APM UFF for a wide-field view along with a slightly shorter 'ortho-like' EP to fill the gap between that and my 18mm BCO (hence my inquiry here).  HOWEVER, if the 32mm Masuyama behaves like an ortho or one of the aforementioned pseudo-masuyamas, then maybe I can just get the one EP instead.  Am I making sense?  The cherry on top is that the 32mm Masu is a lot wider than the 30mm APM, and even if the outer field is messier, it still has a wider usable field. 

 

@Thomas_M44, in my wanderings around CN researching the new Masuyamas, I saw you post that you had the whole set and like them very much.  Do you still have the same opinion?  Have you found something you like better?  How do they compare to the Fujiyama you mentioned in this thread?

 

 

 

Thank you everyone for your comments!  Definitely helpful, even if they make the decision-making more complicated.  In a perfect world my bank account would be infinite and I'd be able to get a full set of everything to compare.  But alas, it is not, and the next best thing is the collective knowledge here.

Cheers, Laura
 


  • mfoose likes this

#16 mfoose

mfoose

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Joined: 18 May 2013
  • Loc: Lancaster, PA

Posted 28 October 2020 - 01:18 PM

Thanks for this list!  I'd seen it elsewhere but wasn't able to find it again easily so it's very handy to have here.  These are definitely on the list to investigate, especially for the price.  Do you (or anyone) happen to know what FLs they were offered in?

Here's what I could find with a quick google search and classifieds search. This is just in the 25mm-35mm range. I may have a missed a few:

 

Orion Ultrascopics - 25mm, 30mm, 35mm

Celestron Ultima - 24mm (rare), 30mm, 35mm

Parks Gold Series - 25mm, 30mm, 35mm
Omcon Ultima - 25mm
Antares Elite - 25mm
Baader Eudiascopic - 25mm, 30mm, 35mm

Tuthill Plossl - 25mm, 35mm

Meade Series 4000 pre-1994 "Super Plossl" (were made by Kowa I believe) - 26mm, 32mm


  • lxr4345 likes this

#17 j.gardavsky

j.gardavsky

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,932
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 28 October 2020 - 01:28 PM

25mm is the prime focal length for microscope eyepieces. Something like a Leica HC Plan 10x/20 or Olympus GSWH10x/22 or Nikon 10x/21 or Zeiss Pl, E-Pl, S-Pl.

... and they don't break the bank,

 

https://www.ebay.de/itm/333692450356

https://www.ebay.de/itm/283628465787

https://www.ebay.de/itm/264639596551

 

even if you buy them from the laboratory equipment vendors, like above.

 

Best,

JG


  • daniel_h, Thomas_M44 and lxr4345 like this

#18 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 88,188
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 28 October 2020 - 03:44 PM

I am not a big fan of orthos because of their narrow field of view.  But in theory at least I still own a set of orthos and I find the 25mm Meade Series 2 to be a very special eyepiece.  It's just got that something.

 

Jon


  • oldphysics likes this

#19 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,477
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 28 October 2020 - 04:42 PM

I am not a big fan of orthos because of their narrow field of view.  

 

Jon

Generally speaking, neither am I, but for planetary observing with a binoviewer, they really come into their own and in that role, I really enjoy them. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark



#20 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,310
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 28 October 2020 - 05:37 PM

About 5 years ago I compared:

 

32mm TV plossl

32mm Baader classic plossl

32mm GSO plossl

32mm Brandon

35mm Ultrascopic

 

The 35mm Ultrascopic and 32mm Brandon were the two I liked the best.  I found the 32mm TV Plossl and 32mm GSO plossl difficult to use without blackouts.  No issues with the other three on that regard.  I thought the 32mm Baader was very bland.   I still have the 32mm Brandon


  • mfoose, j.gardavsky and Thomas_M44 like this

#21 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Mercury-Atlas

  • ***--
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2006
  • Loc: SW England

Posted 28 October 2020 - 05:39 PM

I have owned this Vixen for many years and find it to be very good with my refractors.  It would give 30x, as well as being light and relatively inexpensive.

I also owed a Tak 30mm LE, but sold it off, as I could not optically see that it was any better than the Vixen. 

I found just the same with these two eyepieces. The Vixen NPL 30 exceeded expectations but the Tak LE 30 was rather ordinary for something with that brand name on it.

 

A TV 32mm plossl with the TV eye guard extender fitted is a nice eyepiece but without the extender eye placement can be frustrating.


Edited by John Huntley, 28 October 2020 - 05:40 PM.

  • Tropobob likes this

#22 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 88,188
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 28 October 2020 - 05:50 PM

Any others that I missed?

 

 

One you missed:

 

The 31 mm Nagler. It's only slightly larger than a 32 mm Plossl. 

 

31mm Nagler and 32mm Plossl.jpg
 
Again I must apologize for my weak attempt at humor..
 
Jon

  • John Huntley, Traveler, eros312 and 3 others like this

#23 Thomas_M44

Thomas_M44

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 407
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2020
  • Loc: Modesto, CA USA

Posted 28 October 2020 - 09:44 PM

Thanks for this list!  I'd seen it elsewhere but wasn't able to find it again easily so it's very handy to have here.  These are definitely on the list to investigate, especially for the price.  Do you (or anyone) happen to know what FLs they were offered in?

 


 

Thanks!  Going to add this to the list as well...

 

 

Thanks for the info.  Based on your comment and some others above, I think I'll pass on the RKE unless one happens to land in my lap bugeyes.gif

 

 

Since the topic of pseudo-masuyamas has come up, does anyone have an opinion about the currently available 32mm wide-field Masuyama?  It seems to be in the spirit of a lot of EPs that are listed here, just with a wider field.  I know the outside edges aren't well corrected, but at f/9 I don't think that will be too big of an issue.  This EP particularly intrigues me because I had previously decided to get a 30mm APM UFF for a wide-field view along with a slightly shorter 'ortho-like' EP to fill the gap between that and my 18mm BCO (hence my inquiry here).  HOWEVER, if the 32mm Masuyama behaves like an ortho or one of the aforementioned pseudo-masuyamas, then maybe I can just get the one EP instead.  Am I making sense?  The cherry on top is that the 32mm Masu is a lot wider than the 30mm APM, and even if the outer field is messier, it still has a wider usable field. 

 

@Thomas_M44, in my wanderings around CN researching the new Masuyamas, I saw you post that you had the whole set and like them very much.  Do you still have the same opinion?  Have you found something you like better?  How do they compare to the Fujiyama you mentioned in this thread?

 

 

 

Thank you everyone for your comments!  Definitely helpful, even if they make the decision-making more complicated.  In a perfect world my bank account would be infinite and I'd be able to get a full set of everything to compare.  But alas, it is not, and the next best thing is the collective knowledge here.

Cheers, Laura
 

The 32mm, 85-degree Masuyama is a real gem.

 

Ironically, I have as yet very little time on it, due to the fact most of my (circumstantially limited) viewing time since purchasing the Masuyama set has been focused upon the moon and planets.

 

With the Masuyamas you get a very vivid on-axis view with sharpness comparable to a good Abbe ortho, but with more lush/rich color presentation.  The very outer field has some noticeable aberration at f/7, but this does not unduly effect the overall pleasantness of the view.

 

With your f/9 scope, the outer field should be markedly better corrected than the view with my f/7. You could take good advantage of the 2-inch Masuyamas.

 

Personally, I think the 32mm and the 26mm are the real gems in the series, with 20mm and 16mm eye-relief respectively. the 20mm is a bit more modest in eye-relief 12.5mm, and so not quick as comfortable as the 26mm and 32mm.

 

The 15mm and 10mm 1.25" models have only 10mm and 6mm eye-relief respectively, and so this could be uncomfortable for some users. I simply have yet to put in much viewing time with these.

 

If I had to do it over again, I might have only purchased the 2-inch 32mm, 26mm and 20mm models, and passed on the 1.25-inch 15mm and 10mm units. I have developed eye-relief comfort issues, and so generally prefer to stay well above 10mm of eye-relief.

 

I feel very comfortable recommending the 32mm and 26mm to you, given your f/9 scope. I can't imagine you would not enjoy either one (unless perhaps you need to wear glasses while viewing).

 

If I had to keep one, it would be the 32mm. It's truly something special.

 

Here's a helpful CN overview by William Paolini of the 32mm Masyuama in comparison to the Pentax 30 XW:

 

https://www.cloudyni...l=32mm masuyama


Edited by Thomas_M44, 28 October 2020 - 09:49 PM.

  • kroum and lxr4345 like this

#24 lxr4345

lxr4345

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2020

Posted 29 October 2020 - 04:28 PM

The 32mm, 85-degree Masuyama is a real gem.

 

Ironically, I have as yet very little time on it, due to the fact most of my (circumstantially limited) viewing time since purchasing the Masuyama set has been focused upon the moon and planets.

 

With the Masuyamas you get a very vivid on-axis view with sharpness comparable to a good Abbe ortho, but with more lush/rich color presentation.  The very outer field has some noticeable aberration at f/7, but this does not unduly effect the overall pleasantness of the view.

 

With your f/9 scope, the outer field should be markedly better corrected than the view with my f/7. You could take good advantage of the 2-inch Masuyamas.

 

Personally, I think the 32mm and the 26mm are the real gems in the series, with 20mm and 16mm eye-relief respectively. the 20mm is a bit more modest in eye-relief 12.5mm, and so not quick as comfortable as the 26mm and 32mm.

 

The 15mm and 10mm 1.25" models have only 10mm and 6mm eye-relief respectively, and so this could be uncomfortable for some users. I simply have yet to put in much viewing time with these.

 

If I had to do it over again, I might have only purchased the 2-inch 32mm, 26mm and 20mm models, and passed on the 1.25-inch 15mm and 10mm units. I have developed eye-relief comfort issues, and so generally prefer to stay well above 10mm of eye-relief.

 

I feel very comfortable recommending the 32mm and 26mm to you, given your f/9 scope. I can't imagine you would not enjoy either one (unless perhaps you need to wear glasses while viewing).

 

If I had to keep one, it would be the 32mm. It's truly something special.

 

Here's a helpful CN overview by William Paolini of the 32mm Masyuama in comparison to the Pentax 30 XW:

 

https://www.cloudyni...l=32mm masuyama

Wow, that's a resounding endorsement.  It sounds like it's exactly what I'm looking for, I'll give it a try.

 

I have half a mind to get the 10mm as well to compare it to the BCO 10mm, and maybe even a 10mm pseudo masuyama.  Maybe one day when I have money burning a hole in my pocket.

 

Just out of curiosity, what are you using for FLs below 20mm?
 



#25 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,474
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 29 October 2020 - 07:29 PM

Baader's Q-Series 32mm is a 45° eyepiece.  It comes with an eyeguard extender to reposition the rubber eyeguard for easier use.

I have found that's not needed. The Baader is either a 45° or a 50° eyepiece. It's much more comfortable with eye placement at 45.

 

 

You're wrong about most 32mm Plössls, though.  Most do have field stops--they are just very thin and almost the same I.D. as the filter threads.

And I find I can look past them and see the end of the eyepiece barrel. The field stop also don't establish a clean edge, as my eye focuses much farther down the barrel. When I look in a GSO 32mm, I see a focused end of barrel.

 

You carry the Baader. Time to tout its good qualities. Since 32mm emphasizes the differences in people's eyes more, the focusable field stop is a Godsend. The coatings are quite good. The light control is right up there (did I mention that's a product of the field stop?). ;)




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