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

Astrotech 28mm UWA?

  • Please log in to reply
699 replies to this topic

#1 YeloSub

YeloSub

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 08 February 2022 - 01:31 AM

Saw these are in stock, have been tempted by one. I know it is probably the same as it's other incarnations. But maybe something different? Coatings? Baffling? You never know.

I have the ES82 30mm and have used a friend's APM 30mm UFF. I like both for different reasons and have always wanted to try one of the 82° 28mm versions. The ES is just so darn heavy. Which is not a big deal for the dob... but still.

Have almost bought the APM because it is definitely sharper to edge. But I like the 82° FOV. I don't wear glasses.

#2 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,527
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 08 February 2022 - 01:59 AM

Well it’s pretty much brand spanking new so I haven’t seen any details on it, other than it is expected to be optically the same as the other incarnations. Have to wait a bit for detailed reviews and shootouts to come along. Or be an early adopter and let us know what you think.

It should be somewhat lighter than the ES 30mm.

Scott

#3 RLK1

RLK1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,158
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 08 February 2022 - 11:41 AM

I'm curious about that eyepiece, too. I was wondering if it was a clone of some other 28mm ocular but it doesn't seem so. I do have a Meade UWA 2" 28mm eyepiece from yesteryear but it has a 68 degree AFOV. The latter is quite sharp and its given me some great views of the filamentous structure in the Veil but I wish it had a larger AFOV.



#4 vkhastro1

vkhastro1

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,580
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Vankleek Hill, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 February 2022 - 11:47 AM

Looks to be the identical to the TS Optics 28mm 82° eyepiece (version I own).

same as Meade 28mm PWA 82°

 

A new reincarnation of the original William Optics 28mm UWAN (“Nagler Killer”)

More tapered upper barrel - better ergonomics.

 

excellent optically !


  • 25585 likes this

#5 rexowner

rexowner

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,079
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2017
  • Loc: SF Bay Area, California

Posted 08 February 2022 - 12:27 PM

Looks to be the identical to the TS Optics 28mm 82° eyepiece (version I own).

same as Meade 28mm PWA 82°

 

A new reincarnation of the original William Optics 28mm UWAN (“Nagler Killer”)

More tapered upper barrel - better ergonomics.

 

excellent optically !

Agreed.  Looks like all that's different. from TS Optics is the rubber grip and the lettering.

 

TS says 975 grams.  My cheapo scale says it's closer to 600.  My scale could be wrong,

or 975 might be the packaged shipping weight.

Attached Thumbnails

  • UWA28mm.jpg

Edited by rexowner, 08 February 2022 - 12:30 PM.

  • SteveG likes this

#6 YeloSub

YeloSub

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2020

Posted 08 February 2022 - 01:52 PM

Agreed. Looks like all that's different. from TS Optics is the rubber grip and the lettering.

TS says 975 grams. My cheapo scale says it's closer to 600. My scale could be wrong,
or 975 might be the packaged shipping weight.

Looks like no undercut, but is that tapered?

#7 Echolight

Echolight

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,971
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 08 February 2022 - 02:25 PM

Agreed.  Looks like all that's different. from TS Optics is the rubber grip and the lettering.

 

TS says 975 grams.  My cheapo scale says it's closer to 600.  My scale could be wrong,

or 975 might be the packaged shipping weight.

600 would be super light for an 82 degree eyepiece that big. The Meade is supposed to be 799 grams, or something close to that.

 

Astronomics doesn’t list the weight. But it says 7 elements. If that is true, then it is different than the UWAN, Nirvana, PWA, etc., which like the 31T5, have 6.


Edited by Echolight, 08 February 2022 - 02:26 PM.

  • Procyon likes this

#8 rexowner

rexowner

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,079
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2017
  • Loc: SF Bay Area, California

Posted 08 February 2022 - 03:20 PM

Looks like no undercut, but is that tapered?

Yes it has a taper.



#9 rexowner

rexowner

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,079
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2017
  • Loc: SF Bay Area, California

Posted 08 February 2022 - 03:21 PM

600 would be super light for an 82 degree eyepiece that big. The Meade is supposed to be 799 grams, or something close to that.

 

Astronomics doesn’t list the weight. But it says 7 elements. If that is true, then it is different than the UWAN, Nirvana, PWA, etc., which like the 31T5, have 6.

My scale is probably way off.  It's an old cheap spring-based scale.



#10 vkhastro1

vkhastro1

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,580
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Vankleek Hill, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 February 2022 - 06:05 PM

Just weighted my TS 28mm 82 degree eyepiece = 666 grams.

My digital scale is accurate to +/- 1 gram.


  • george tatsis, Far Star, rexowner and 3 others like this

#11 Echolight

Echolight

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,971
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 08 February 2022 - 08:09 PM

Why in the world would the put 975 grams....



#12 rexowner

rexowner

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,079
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2017
  • Loc: SF Bay Area, California

Posted 08 February 2022 - 10:07 PM

Why in the world would the put 975 grams....

Just a guess... shipping weight including package.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#13 ihf

ihf

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2019
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 09 February 2022 - 12:41 AM

I am trying to make sense of this description.

 

"At 12mm, the eye relief is good, although eyeglass wearers will still see a somewhat vignetted image. This isn't as much a problem as you might think, as the 82° field of view is so wide that even non-eyeglass wearers have trouble seeing the whole field at once."


  • Echolight likes this

#14 rexowner

rexowner

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,079
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2017
  • Loc: SF Bay Area, California

Posted 09 February 2022 - 01:12 AM

I am trying to make sense of this description.

 

"At 12mm, the eye relief is good, although eyeglass wearers will still see a somewhat vignetted image. This isn't as much a problem as you might think, as the 82° field of view is so wide that even non-eyeglass wearers have trouble seeing the whole field at once."

"This is an eyepiece that shows you a "lost in space" view of space for a true full-immersion observing experience. With its unconstricted view, your eye relaxes"



#15 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,527
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 09 February 2022 - 01:36 AM

The point is if you wear glasses you can’t get close enough to see the whole view at once. Typical for most ultrawide eyepieces.

Scott
  • spaceoddity likes this

#16 ihf

ihf

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2019
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 09 February 2022 - 01:41 AM

The point is if you wear glasses you can’t get close enough to see the whole view at once. Typical for most ultrawide eyepieces.

The way I read it is "that even non-eyeglass wearers have trouble seeing the whole field at once".

 

Is the emperor naked?


  • Bener likes this

#17 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,527
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 09 February 2022 - 03:49 AM

The way I read it is "that even non-eyeglass wearers have trouble seeing the whole field at once".

Is the emperor naked?

I think that’s very subjective. Personally I have one UWA that I notice that I am usually getting about 95%+ of the view without glasses. But that is purely based on my personal preference of how far to keep my eye from the glass to stay out of eyelash range. So yeah a lot of people will often stay back a little bit and not take in quite the entire view with 82 AFOV. Sometimes intentionally, if they don’t like seeing the field stop. But with 12mm ER one could certainly take in the whole view without glasses if they wanted to. So it is just personal preference with how one uses the eyepiece.

I actually remember reading a VERY similar description about LVWs years ago. No one is saying you can’t see the entire view of a 65 AFOV, long ER LVW without glasses. So some of this just comes across as marketing speak. Yes, with 82 AFOV, many aren’t taking in the entire view all the time. That doesn’t mean they can’t when they want to.

Edited by SeattleScott, 09 February 2022 - 03:58 AM.


#18 Echolight

Echolight

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,971
  • Joined: 01 May 2020
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 09 February 2022 - 01:48 PM

Just a guess... shipping weight including package.

Well of course. But for many looking to buy a widest field eyepiece, weight of the actual eyepiece might be a deciding factor.



#19 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 56,865
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 10 February 2022 - 01:56 AM

Here is one review of the optics:

https://astromart.co...m-my-experience

and another:

https://www.cloudyni...-my-experience/

and another:

https://www.cloudyni...eyepieces-r1388

and another:

https://www.yumpu.co...-william-optics


  • CollinofAlabama, CeleNoptic, ihf and 2 others like this

#20 Adam Long

Adam Long

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 392
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Sheffield, UK

Posted 11 February 2022 - 02:35 PM

Just weighted my TS 28mm 82 degree eyepiece = 666 grams.

My digital scale is accurate to +/- 1 gram.

Wish I'd known that a year ago, I spent a load extra on shipping and taxes importing the Meade, mostly because of the weight. Ah well, the ergonomics still look superior.


  • Echolight likes this

#21 tommm

tommm

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,292
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2015

Posted 15 February 2022 - 12:16 PM

So this is a 6 element ep? Likely not that great for f/3.6?



#22 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,527
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 15 February 2022 - 12:20 PM

So this is a 6 element ep? Likely not that great for f/3.6?

Well the 31 Nagler is six elements too.

That being said I think the general consensus for F3.6 would be Ethos or Delos over Nagler. The 21 Ethos will also have a better exit pupil at F3.6.

If you have a Paracorr that pushes the F ratio above 4, the 28mm could be fine.

Scott

#23 tommm

tommm

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,292
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2015

Posted 15 February 2022 - 12:43 PM

Well the 31 Nagler is six elements too.

That being said I think the general consensus for F3.6 would be Ethos or Delos over Nagler. The 21 Ethos will also have a better exit pupil at F3.6.

If you have a Paracorr that pushes the F ratio above 4, the 28mm could be fine.

Scott

Yes, I do use a P2. I neglected that.  I notice the description says 7 elements, same as the Nirvana version of this ep.  Some versions say 6, some say 7.   I wonder if they are somewhat different optical designs, or just a mistake?



#24 tommm

tommm

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,292
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2015

Posted 15 February 2022 - 12:58 PM

600 would be super light for an 82 degree eyepiece that big. The Meade is supposed to be 799 grams, or something close to that.

 

Astronomics doesn’t list the weight. But it says 7 elements. If that is true, then it is different than the UWAN, Nirvana, PWA, etc., which like the 31T5, have 6.

Nirvana is 7 elements, 12mm er,  Meade is 6 elements, 18mm er, according to the advertisements. Not sure if that is real or just mistakes.



#25 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,527
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 15 February 2022 - 01:38 PM

I think they are like Naglers where the shorter focal lengths are 7 and longer focal lengths are 6. That’s my guess anyway.
  • Jon Isaacs, CeleNoptic and spaceoddity 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