31 replies to this topic

[firemachine69]

Am I crazy? I will say I have a plethora of various Plossls/MA's in my case, along with a cheap Barlow.

Curiously enough, the "super 25" I got with my 90/600mm Gskyer refractor is actually one of the sharpest eyepieces I own, handily beating out the Celestron 26mm lux/Meade 25mm MA, I just can't get over the plastic body.  The super 10, on the other hand...

I have various generic Plossls (6/9/10/12.5/17/32). The 9mm is an older Meade Super Plossl, and it's noticeably better than the generics.

I also have an ES 6.7mm 82deg., and while a nice chunk of glass, it's pushing both my refractor and 8" Cass beyond typical seeing conditions. Hence why I'm not sure if I'm just glossing nostalgic, but it seems like an Abbe Ortho would sure be nice in the mix. Keep in mind I had a fifteen year plus hiatus from the hobby, so all this new value glass is definitely welcome (as an aside, I paid around $120 for that 32mm plossl).

I was thinking a nice 9/10/12.5mm Ortho to round my group out was a nice plan. 

Edited by firemachine69, 26 June 2021 - 09:15 AM.

[Notdarkenough]

I've got an excellent brand new Baader Classic Ortho 6mm. Only $80

[Sandy Swede]

x2 on the Baader Classic Orthos.  I also have a couple of Tak Abbe Orthos and they are superb.  In addition, I have a couple of Parks Gold series and I would rate them a notch above the Baaders.  Also now have two Clave, but those are not only extravagant luxuries at roughly $250 each, but technically Plossls.  Also the sharpest I have, but only a tad above the Taks.  Don't overlook the (pseudo) Masuyama's.  Approx $100 each, but look for sales and you may find them for $80. I have not used one, but others will opine on these.  Everything cited above is offered in the context of planetary observing only.

 

I didn't directly answer you question; I plan to have enough budgeted to purchase another Clave (10mm) by September if someone will be kind enough to part with theirs.  If that doesn't pan out, then another TAO.

Edited by Sandy Swede, 26 June 2021 - 10:40 AM.

[jefffed]

There's a reason that ortho's are still being produced. They are super sharp. The draw back on them are a smallish FOV. Still it's nice to have a couple in the eyepiece case. 

[MisterDan]

If your Meade Super Plossl is "noticeably better" than a typical 10mm symmetrical, it may be difficult, in turn, to noticeably "beat it" with another similar-price/class Abbe or symmetrical.  You can certainly try, of course, and you would have no problems selling a nice Japan-made Super Plossl or a nice Abbe, in either case.

 

It's often easy to keep trying to "better" a particular eyepiece, when you're seeking ultimate fidelity and contrast.  Many of us have fallen down that rabbit hole on multiple occasions.    If you find your 9.7mm Meade repeatedly shrugs off contenders and keeps making you happy, then consider it a sign that you have a very good, "tough-to-beat" eyepiece. On the other hand, as your observing skills develop and improve, you may begin to notice that other aspects of eyepiece design and performance become more important to you, personally (i.e. wider fields, off-axis correction, eye relief, lateral color, transmission "tone" or color "temperature," etc.).  Trust your eyes and trust your skill.

 

For what it's worth, the sharpest/highest-contrast 10mm-class standard-field eyepiece I ever used was a particular 10mm Clave'.  Have I compared and evaluated all other available 10mm-class eyepieces, past and present?  Of course not.  Nobody has.  That's part of the "appeal" and part of the hunt, though:  to find that single, unanimously regarded, "best" eyepiece ever made (or best eyepiece design ever realized).  There are lots of other 10mm standard-field eyepieces out there, and their optical designs vary.  Some utilize negative field lenses or lens groups (e.g. "Smyth lens" designs), other non-Smyth designs incorporate three, four, five, or even more lens elements.  Don't get caught up in the "this-design-versus-that-design" argument.  The fact that a particular eyepiece is an Abbe orthoscopic does not guarantee its superiority over another.  Likewise, a 5-element symmetrical is not necessarily "better" than a 4-element counterpart.  There is a lot  of "room" for variance in design execution.  It's not easy to make a superior example of a particular eyepiece design, but it can be easy to make a poor example.  There is also plenty of room for variance in eyepiece/telescope design pairings and integration (but that's another complex topic for another time).

 

Best wishes and happy hunting.

Dan

Edited by MisterDan, 26 June 2021 - 12:18 PM.

[Terra Nova]

Look for the older ‘volcano top’ orthos made by Tani (either an etched circle T mark on the barrel or printed circle T on the top). The best ones were either branded Edmund or Edscorp, Celestron, or University Optics. They have blue MgF₂ coatings and are true Abbe Orthoscopics (triplet and singlet elements). They are excellent in a refractor, especiallly one ≥ F7 and excel in planetary, lunar, and double star observations. I prefer them far and above Plossls for making fine detail observations. They are ‘old-school’ favorites! They are much better than the Baader ‘classic orthos’, not to be confused with the excellent, very hard to find old Baader Genuine Ortho line. Also be careful of Vixen orthoscopic eyepieces, especially the flat-tops, they are really Plossls. Orthoscopic simply refers to strictly controlled field distortion orthogonally (in both directions, not strictly a particular lens design, so Plossls and Symmetricals can also be referred to as orthoscopic. Don’t be fooled! There is no substitute for the true Ernst Abbe design (triplet field lens, singlet eyelens) of Carl Zeiss Co.

Also, the Meade Research Grade orthos are excellent. The 7mm is a favorite of mine.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Terra Nova, 26 June 2021 - 12:43 PM.

[vtornado]

I had a pair of circle-t celestron orho's I let go of this week (5 and 6mm)

For Lunar the larger field of the televue plossl was preferred and it was just a hair sharper.

But just a hair.   It took lots of time and back and forth to see it.

The volcano top was easier to view, and was cool looking, I will miss them, but

I have to clean house.

[Terra Nova]

I had a pair of circle-t celestron orho's I let go of this week (5 and 6mm)

For Lunar the larger field of the televue plossl was preferred and it was just a hair sharper.

But just a hair.   It took lots of time and back and forth to see it.

The volcano top was easier to view, and was cool looking, I will miss them, but

I have to clean house.

I’ll never sell mine! The shortest TV Plossl is 8mm so you need to use a Barlow or Powermate to get to 4mm. With my Tak FC-76 I want minimal glass and excellent glass between me and that Fluorite.

[vtornado]

Maybe that is why you see more than I between the Abbes and Plossls Terra,  I am sitting behind an Orion ED80.

[teashea]

Orthos have their place.  For certain applications they are quite nice.  

 

[SandyHouTex]

Look for the older ‘volcano top’ orthos made by Tani (either an etched circle T mark on the barrel or printed circle T on the top). The best ones were either branded Edmund or Edscorp, Celestron, or University Optics. They have blue MgF₂ coatings and are true Abbe Orthoscopics (triplet and singlet elements). They are excellent in a refractor, especiallly one ≥ F7 and excel in planetary, lunar, and double star observations. I prefer them far and above Plossls for making fine detail observations. They are ‘old-school’ favorites! They are much better than the Baader ‘classic orthos’, not to be confused with the excellent, very hard to find old Baader Genuine Ortho line. Also be careful of Vixen orthoscopic eyepieces, especially the flat-tops, they are really Plossls. Orthoscopic simply refers to strictly controlled field distortion orthogonally (in both directions, not strictly a particular lens design, so Plossls and Symmetricals can also be referred to as orthoscopic. Don’t be fooled! There is no substitute for the true Ernst Abbe design (triplet field lens, singlet eyelens) of Carl Zeiss Co.

Also, the Meade Research Grade orthos are excellent. The 7mm is a favorite of mine.

Well said.

[SandyHouTex]

Orthos have their place.  For certain applications they are quite nice.  

 

205729624_10222456337651618_532704065925504_n.jpg

What are those other eyepieces behing the Fujiyamas?

[UrbanAstroLA]

I enjoy abbe orthoscopic and orthoscopic plossl designs.   They have simple, highly effective designs that facilitate high contrast and minimal glass.  The light weight reduces the risk of telescope swing-down when changing out eps.  There are a lot of wonderful performers in the 0.965" size format that tend to be overlooked.   

 

At the shorter focal lengths and smaller FOV, 1.25" format for an ortho isn't totally necessary, albeit there are a number of great 1.25" orthos out there.  In Japan, 0.965" format aka 24.5mm remained popular for decades after most of the US visual observing trends went to 1.25".   There are still many enthusiasts of 0.965" and some of the highest performing orthos ever produced were in this smaller size format.

 

Be careful when jumping down the ortho rabbit hole, you might become obsessed with how well they do!   

 

I've got Nikon, Pentax SMC, Vixen, Takahashi MC, Takahashi MC Abbe, and a few other types of orthos.   The cost to have the privilege of comparing them all wasn't cheap   but for an obsessive like myself, it's a lot of fun finding and trying these gems on familiar targets.

[Bill Weir]

What are those other eyepieces behing the Fujiyamas?

Look like TMB Planetaries to me.

 

Bill

[dpastern]

There's a reason that ortho's are still being produced. They are super sharp. The draw back on them are a smallish FOV. Still it's nice to have a couple in the eyepiece case. 

and their very small eye relief.

 

OP, have you considered Fujiyama orthos?

[firemachine69]

and their very small eye relief.

 

OP, have you considered Fujiyama orthos?

 

 

I am. 

 

They would nicely complement my soon to be had AT102edL... 

[jeffmac]

Look like TMB Planetaries to me.
 
Bill

Or one of the clones, like BST Planetaries.

[Thomas_M44]

I have all the KK Fujiyama orthos from 25mm to 6mm, but find I generally only ever use the 25mm and 18mm, either alone or with my 2.5X and 5X Powermates for higher magnifications. This approach gives me generous eye-relief, and doesn’t seem to perceivably degrade the  known Abbe ortho performance virtues.

 

I love the super-clean high-contrast views and very nice exit-pupil behavior of these ortho eyepieces. I find they are perhaps the most comfortable and relaxing eyepieces to view with in comparison to all of the other eyepiece types I have in my collection.

Edited by Thomas_M44, 01 July 2021 - 08:17 PM.

[WillR]

I just picked up an EDSCORP 18mm Ortho at NEAF, so I think I did well. The barrel has Japan with a T in a circle etched on it. Volcano top. It's solid and heavy for it's size. My first orthscopic eyepiece.

Edited by WillR, 05 April 2025 - 10:25 PM.

[scotsman328i]

Am I crazy? I will say I have a plethora of various Plossls/MA's in my case, along with a cheap Barlow.

Curiously enough, the "super 25" I got with my 90/600mm Gskyer refractor is actually one of the sharpest eyepieces I own, handily beating out the Celestron 26mm lux/Meade 25mm MA, I just can't get over the plastic body.  The super 10, on the other hand...

I have various generic Plossls (6/9/10/12.5/17/32). The 9mm is an older Meade Super Plossl, and it's noticeably better than the generics.

I also have an ES 6.7mm 82deg., and while a nice chunk of glass, it's pushing both my refractor and 8" Cass beyond typical seeing conditions. Hence why I'm not sure if I'm just glossing nostalgic, but it seems like an Abbe Ortho would sure be nice in the mix. Keep in mind I had a fifteen year plus hiatus from the hobby, so all this new value glass is definitely welcome (as an aside, I paid around $120 for that 32mm plossl).

I was thinking a nice 9/10/12.5mm Ortho to round my group out was a nice plan. 

Orthos always have been in a class of their own. Even with all the optical technology over the years and where it stands today, there is a big reason folks still love them and swear by them. The views, even though tighter FOV, are insanely sharp, full of contrast and able to resolve crazy detail on objects. They are still one of the best choices for planetary and lunar observing. 

[scotsman328i]

I just picked up an EDSCORP 18mm Ortho at NEAF, so I think I did well. The barrel has Japan with a T in a circle etched on it. Volcano top. It's solid and heavy for it's size. My first orthscopic eyepiece.

I used to have the University Optics 25, 18 and 12.5 Circle-T years and years ago. I sold them off slowly piece by piece to purchase newer eyepieces with more modern glass and coatings. Now here I am, all these years later, still cursing the day I let them go. Here I am with a Televue 3x Barlow and 2x Powermate…and to think about those three Orthos I let go? It’s a crying shame…oh the fun I could have with them now through my Televue 102. I have the Baader Orthos that came with the Q-Turret and they are very good, but the views I had with those old UO Circle-Ts was legendary. They are truly in a class of their own. I always keep my eye peeled in classifieds for them, but either I just missed the ad and someone snagged it fast, or they are just not being let go of. 

[saemark30]

What's wrong with the Baader Classic Orthos? They use modern coatings and glass.

Why are circle-T orthos better?

The Japanese manufacturers have discontinued their orthos.

[scotsman328i]

What's wrong with the Baader Classic Orthos? They use modern coatings and glass.

Why are circle-T orthos better?

The Japanese manufacturers have discontinued their orthos.

Nothing. They’re very good. However the University Optics Circle-T Japan’s were a hair sharper and resolved brighter images to me. 

[scotsman328i]

Nothing. They’re very good. However the University Optics Circle-T Japan’s were a hair sharper and resolved brighter images to me. 

Oh, I actually do have the Baader Classic Orthos myself. They came with my Q-Turret package. They’re very good and I use them frequently in the moon and planets. You get used to the narrow field of view with them as a pay off for sharp, bright and contrasty views that resolve details really well. Certainly not bad mouthing them. They’re great, it’s just that the UOs I used to have were a tad better. I do miss them.

[saemark30]

Where your UO Circle-T multicoated?