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

Should I sell my Orthos for modern Wide Angles?

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 pweiler

pweiler

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2020
  • Loc: Chicago, IL, USA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 09:28 AM

Should I sell my Orthos for modern Wide Angles?

An ES 11mm 82’ out performed on Jupiter last night over 12.5mm to 9mm Orthos in my subjective opinion. (Tak, Hutech, Baader, Celestron).

I realize one object type and one evening of testing is not enough, but wondering if modern wide angles can replace Orthos? It doesn’t seem like more glass elements should beat a minimal element design?
  • stevew and Rollo like this

#2 sellsea

sellsea

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2018
  • Loc: South Bend, Indiana

Posted 18 October 2021 - 09:36 AM

Watch for certain eyepiece designs that reflect the bright planetary reflection from your eye back to the eyepiece eye lens and back into your eye.  It creates a haze around the planet.  This occurred with my 7 and 11mm Naglers, but not with my 7 and 10.5mm ortho's.  I have no experience with other wide angle brands or 100 degree designs.


  • iseegeorgesstar and pweiler like this

#3 Sandy Swede

Sandy Swede

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 840
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Delaware beaches

Posted 18 October 2021 - 10:01 AM

No.  Especially the Tak.  If you can find one (currently Out of Stock), try a 10mm Masuyama (85o AFOV).  I love this ep!  Too bad they don't make any with FLs less than the 10.


  • pweiler likes this

#4 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29,341
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 18 October 2021 - 10:09 AM

Orthos and wide angles can peacefully coexist......


  • jimandlaura26, SteveV, CeleNoptic and 11 others like this

#5 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,337
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 18 October 2021 - 10:20 AM

My first thought is how clean are your Orthos. The eye relief can be tight so they can get dirty with eyelash oil and such. This DOES impact performance.

Second thought is I would absolutely want a modern wide field around that focal length for DSO, unless my only scope was 11”+ SCT.

Third is choice of equipment/scope. To really see the benefit of minimum glass, you really want to use an Apo. Just two or three lenses and a diagonal, which need not even be a mirror. Compared to others that have more cooling and collimation issues, central obstruction, bounce the light off 2-3 mirrors, possibly pass the light through 1-2 lenses, possibly diffraction spikes. Think of it like the old manufacturing scenario of finding the bottleneck in production. You could fix one thing to make it more efficient but it might not actually increase productivity if that item isn’t on the critical path. With a coma corrected Dob or an ACF/Edge SCT, there are sooo many variables that come into play, and could limit planetary performance, besides the eyepiece. So I really try to make a point to use an Apo for evaluating planetary performance. Way fewer variables to control for. I have one minimal glass Tak eyepiece that really strut its stuff and outperformed a premium wide field in my Apo, but it was hard to see any benefit from it in my coma corrected Newt.

Scott
  • CeleNoptic, iKMN, Thomas_M44 and 1 other like this

#6 droid

droid

    rocketman

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2004
  • Loc: Conneaut, Ohio

Posted 18 October 2021 - 10:37 AM

do you enjoy using your orthos? if so keep them


  • BoldAxis1967 likes this

#7 deepwoods1

deepwoods1

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,245
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 18 October 2021 - 10:44 AM

I wouldn't. I find my 82* ghost on anything bright including Jupiter. The Moon is a joke along the terminator. The ghosting obscures details in the shadows. This being said, the 82* are nice eyepieces for most anything else and provide nice, wider views. They can certainly co-exist. This is going to come down to your comfort. Clear and steady skies.....


  • CeleNoptic likes this

#8 pweiler

pweiler

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2020
  • Loc: Chicago, IL, USA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 11:16 AM

Thanks,
Cleaning the Ortho’s is good advice. The past couple of months the Orthos have been used a number of times on the planets and the ES 11mm 82’ is very new and clean.

The scope is a 200mm CC f/12. I believe the scope is in good collimation - will check again. Also, curious if going no diagonal suggestion helps and/or removing the 2” light pollution filter from the diagonal makes a difference. Not sure if there is scientific reason why different eyepieces would interact differently with a LP filter or if an LP filter even helps with planetary viewing.

#9 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,337
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 18 October 2021 - 12:08 PM

I would not be comparing planetary contrast with a filter in place.

The LP filter probably acts similar to a blue filter, could help enhance banding on Jupiter, could help cut down the glare and ghosting that Deepwoods talks about. Certainly in some ways planetary viewing can be improved with filters so it is worth experimenting. But comparing an Ortho and an UWA for planetary contrast using a filter is a bit like drag racing a Ford Mustang against a Ford Fusion through a school zone with children present. The filter is going to limit the clarity of the target, making comparison of the two largely moot.

An 11mm UWA would be a useful DSO eyepiece with that scope for a number of targets so worth keeping for that reason alone. Also with that scope, you have cooling issues so you want to make sure it has a chance to acclimate before doing serious planetary observing. It also has diffraction spikes and a sizable CO making it less than optimal for planetary observing (not necessarily bad but not necessarily the scope to really get the most benefit out of a Tak Ortho). Honestly it wouldn’t surprise me if you see very little difference between the Orthos and the ES UWA with that scope. Even after cleaning the Orthos and removing the filter.

Scott

Edited by SeattleScott, 18 October 2021 - 12:16 PM.

  • CeleNoptic likes this

#10 Thomas_M44

Thomas_M44

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,035
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2020
  • Loc: Modesto, CA USA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 01:01 PM

You *could*, sell off all your orthos…. but don’t be surprised if/when you just end up buying some orthos again.


Edited by Thomas_M44, 18 October 2021 - 01:03 PM.

  • CeleNoptic, vtornado and j.gardavsky like this

#11 betacygni

betacygni

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2011

Posted 18 October 2021 - 01:30 PM

I like getting on this soap box lately, but I suggest keep the eyepieces you enjoy the most (subjectively, this is a hobby of course). Even if (and I think this is a big if with most peoples scopes, seeing conditions, and observing skills) you could see more in orthos, are they comfortable enough to have your eyeball sucked up to them for long periods of time? I have more fancy high end scopes then I need or deserve, but I always see more with comfortable eyepieces simply because I keep looking longer, which lets you see more by itself, and be at the eyepiece when seeing briefly improves. This is why I consider the ultimate eyepiece to actually be binoviewers. Now that’s not to say you might not find orthos comfortable, especially at longer focal lengths (I do), which can be win win with the right scope, or a barlow.

#12 RichA

RichA

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 18 October 2021 - 01:36 PM

Should I sell my Orthos for modern Wide Angles?

An ES 11mm 82’ out performed on Jupiter last night over 12.5mm to 9mm Orthos in my subjective opinion. (Tak, Hutech, Baader, Celestron).

I realize one object type and one evening of testing is not enough, but wondering if modern wide angles can replace Orthos? It doesn’t seem like more glass elements should beat a minimal element design?

Absolutely!  Not.



#13 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14,567
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 18 October 2021 - 01:43 PM

I've compared several of my ES82's to a number of orthos over the years. In all of my tests, the ES82's always did very, very well, coming out near the top. Only some of my Zeiss orthos were consistently a tiny, tiny bit sharper and had less glare, while the ES'es consistently performed as well as the classic UO volcano-top orthos. 

 

In other words, unless you get some real high-end orthos (Zeiss, Pentax, Nikon, Takahashi), you're not likely to see much of a difference at all. 

 

But I still use my orthos a lot, as they make for excellent binoviewer eyepieces for lunar-planetary observing, especially in my 6" f/8 ED. The narrow field is not much of an issue and the orthos seem to have extremely good control over the exit pupil, stray light within the bino, etc. Conventional wisdom also holds it, that wide-field eyepieces are wasted in a binoviewer, as our periferal vision has poor resolution, and we need to center the details we want to study. 

 

That, however, is a truth with some modifiers, as I recently found out. 

 

I was able to find a second, mint condition, 11mm ES82 for a very reasonable price, and I immediately bought it, with the idea in mind, that I wanted to try it out for lunar observing in my binoviewer. I have tried it twice now, in my Zeiss binoviewer in my 6" f/8 APM ED, where they give 109x. The first time I tried it in the 6", I had excellent seeing and the view was just etched sharp. I couldn't take my eyes away from it. 

 

Sure, the periferal view wasn't sharp, but I wasn't aware of that, as I spent the time looking closer to the center of the field, and the periferal vision still did its thing, by giving me the "spacewalk experience" - and let me tell you, it REALLY works, when you binoview it! It felt very, very natural and relaxing. The experience was completely different to binoviewing with the orthos! I'm not joking! 

 

A closer inspection of the edge of the field revealed that it was actually more or less as sharp as the center of the field, and that it was my own peripheral vision that wasn't able to take advantage of it, just as we aren't able to read text at the opposite ends of a newspaper at the same time, but have to shift our gaze to each end, to see it clearly. 

 

So, will I sell my orthos? No, not anytime soon, at least. They are excellent eyepieces and they do come in handy, when you need something small and lightweight. It may also take quite a while, before I can double up on my ES82 collection, though I'll probably soon get at least an extra 8.8mm and maybe a 6.7mm, or a 14mm. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark


  • Jon Isaacs, george tatsis, areyoukiddingme and 4 others like this

#14 lylver

lylver

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2017
  • Loc: France

Posted 18 October 2021 - 02:01 PM

Should I sell my Orthos for modern Wide Angles?

An ES 11mm 82’ out performed on Jupiter last night over 12.5mm to 9mm Orthos in my subjective opinion. (Tak, Hutech, Baader, Celestron).

I realize one object type and one evening of testing is not enough, but wondering if modern wide angles can replace Orthos? It doesn’t seem like more glass elements should beat a minimal element design?

You gave no information about your scope.
 



#15 vtornado

vtornado

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,545
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2016
  • Loc: 42N 88W

Posted 18 October 2021 - 02:47 PM

If you own the dob pictured in your icon, then maybe.   Even if it were a draw or slight loss, comfort and increased drift time might be worth the sacrifice.

 

It takes deep pockets to build a stable of 82 degree eyepieces.

 

My orto's were circle-t's.  I have replaced them with BCO's Televue Plossl, RKE,  and Paradigm Dual Eds

for the wider field (ha ha 40 vs 50)  performance differences was very hard to discern.

 

Also beware of the color temp.  My RKE seems neutral, and and televue seems warmer.

This can sway your opinion.  I Don't know if the ES has the same warmer temp than your otrhos.

Why don't you try on Saturn and Luna too.


Edited by vtornado, 18 October 2021 - 02:50 PM.

  • SteveV likes this

#16 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,337
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 18 October 2021 - 02:53 PM

You gave no information about your scope.

He followed up saying it was an 8” classical Cassegrain.

#17 pweiler

pweiler

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2020
  • Loc: Chicago, IL, USA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 03:27 PM

You gave no information about your scope.


CC8 d=200mm, fl=2400mm (f/12), TV 2” diagonal, Hutech LDPS-? LP filter would have to find the model#)

#18 JoshUrban

JoshUrban

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2019
  • Loc: Indian Head, MD

Posted 18 October 2021 - 05:00 PM

Yes, definitely sell them.  To me.  I'll trade ya a 12mm T4 Nagler.  ;)  (I am joking - I like the idea of two sets, personally.  I love orthos AND widefields.)  


  • deepwoods1 and Rick-T137 like this

#19 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,574
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 18 October 2021 - 05:05 PM

Should I sell my Orthos for modern Wide Angles?
 

Yes.



#20 iseegeorgesstar

iseegeorgesstar

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 231
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2020
  • Loc: New York

Posted 18 October 2021 - 05:19 PM

No.  Especially the Tak.  If you can find one (currently Out of Stock), try a 10mm Masuyama (85o AFOV).  I love this ep!  Too bad they don't make any with FLs less than the 10.

They're in stock in Japan. And cheaper too though you have to pay shipping.

 

https://www.kyoei-os...ma-masu-10.html



#21 Brent Campbell

Brent Campbell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,029
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Olympia, WA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 06:45 PM

I actually did that because my explore scientific 11mm, 8.8mm, and 6.7 mm were so good on Jupiter.  I recently compared my explore scientific to Televue Radians of similar focal length (just bought a collection of Radians) and particularly my explore 6.7 held up pretty good. In fact some of the Radians were resold.  

 

Now would I do it again?   Well I gave up a Circle T 18mm Ortho that I would love to have back, and I would love to have 12.5 mm Circle T Ortho as well (never had one but would like to try one).  Most of my UO Orthos were a 5mm, 6mm, and a 7mm UO Othos.   I also had a generic 25mm ortho.  In fact that 18mm Circle T Ortho was "special" - very clear.   If your selling one I am buying!  

 

As for the explore 82s ghosting.  There  is a well known fix where you make a "donught" of flocking material and apply it to the first "bulkhead" inside the eyepiece. that fixes this. (This was a well known problem with the first versions of the 8.8 and 6.7 mm Explore 82s).  

 

 

The orthos were excellent no question.  The point is the 82 FOV was much more useful especially when trying to locate objects.

 

Now would I do it again?  I would like to acquire another 18mm ortho, a 12.5 mm ortho, and a 6mm ortho.  Here's the deal Orthos don't take up much space in an eyepiece case so I would keep any that you though highly of.  



#22 Tank

Tank

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,314
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 06:55 PM

Found simple glass always wins
Maybe seeing got a bit better with the 11es82 in the focuser
Seeing changes quickly all the time
Also the 9mm might have been too high mag that night and the 12.5 to little and the 11 just right
Should compare exact FLs to come to a conclusion

Edited by Tank, 18 October 2021 - 06:55 PM.


#23 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 96,053
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 07:25 PM

Found simple glass always wins
Maybe seeing got a bit better with the 11es82 in the focuser
Seeing changes quickly all the time
Also the 9mm might have been too high mag that night and the 12.5 to little and the 11 just right
Should compare exact FLs to come to a conclusion

 

It hasn't worked that way for me. 

 

Around here the seeing is very often very steady.  I normally use a set of T-6 Naglers for planetary. On several occasions when the seeing has been on the very good to excellent side, I have swapped the Naglers for similar focal length Orthos, the Naglers always seemed a bit sharper, a bit more contrasty. 

 

I think this is consistent with what Thomas Jensen wrote as my Orthos except possibly a 7mm Meade RG were not top of the line and in my experience, the type 6 Naglers are tangibly sharper and more contrasty than the ES 82s.   Technically, I still own a set of Ortho's but they have been on long term loan for more than 7 years

 

The downside of wide field eyepiece is the cost.  

 

Jon


  • Miranda2525 likes this

#24 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,118
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 18 October 2021 - 07:27 PM

Should I sell my Orthos for modern Wide Angles?

An ES 11mm 82’ out performed on Jupiter last night over 12.5mm to 9mm Orthos in my subjective opinion. (Tak, Hutech, Baader, Celestron).

I realize one object type and one evening of testing is not enough, but wondering if modern wide angles can replace Orthos? It doesn’t seem like more glass elements should beat a minimal element design?

It depends if you like wide 82 AFOV view which most do.  Now deciding on selling orthos or not:

1.  Will you miss them for planetary detail?

2.  How much do you ecpect to get for them (and is the $ worth more to you than the option to use)?



#25 pweiler

pweiler

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2020
  • Loc: Chicago, IL, USA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 09:45 PM

Following the suggestion above during tonight’s viewing (10/18/2021) did not use the TV 2” dialectic diagonal (which is a good diagonal over others previously tested) and all eyepieces produced a slightly brighter and sharper view of Jupiter and moons than with the diagonal. The ES 11mm 82’ (x218) and ES 14 mm 82’ (x171) were best, the Tak 9mm was close, but at x267 and the smaller exit pupil, it may have been too much for the conditions or my eyes.


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