107 replies to this topic

[azure1961p]

I only list Mars because the severity of the test sits well there.  I've enjoyed UO HD Orthos, some Volcano Tops (but not much) and TV Plossls, TV barlowed or not with my long newt.  Then there's Brandon's already.  I was once going to seek some then the observer experiences seemed so steeped in critical exceptions to do with seeing, observer champagne ego and so much malarkey.  Is the Brandon that good? I mean come on already?  If it were wouldn't several manufacturers be fabricating these designs?  It's always addressed as some caviar class of oculars, and I love caviar, but isn't that really just a lot of garbage?  It's probably no better than any well made plossl or orthoscopic but perhaps material ownership, hype suggestion or something else is just inflating it into myth when it's really nothing better on Mars than a good plossl or Ortho?  And if Brandon's TRULY had some advantage, would China be knocking them out by now?

 

Not saying they are bad but, come on, tacks and nails, what's the deal.  

[Pat Rochford]

 And if Brandon's TRULY had some advantage, would China be knocking them out by now?

 

Not saying they are bad but, come on, tacks and nails, what's the deal.  

 

I don't own any so I can't speak one way or the other as to how they compare with similar premium eyepieces. 

 

However, I do know that they have survived an extremely long time on the market.  They obviously have something going for them. 

[helpwanted]

It’s easy to knock them if you haven’t tried one. You can get them pretty cheap on the used market, try one

[Sarkikos]

I don't like caviar, but I do like Brandons!   I have a complete set, except for the 4mm, which is no longer made and I'm not looking for. 

 

Brandons are special because they have superior polish and FC coatings.   The FC gives them a bit less light transmission than eyepieces with modern FMC but helps with planet and double star viewing by reducing high-angle scatter.  

 

I also like their small size and weight.   That can be like a little vacation after dealing with the likes of the 41 Pan, 31 Nagler and 21 Ethos.

 

I'd say the Brandons perform about at the level of the BGO's, maybe a bit better for planets and doubles because of the FC.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 September 2024 - 01:31 PM.

[slavicek]

I compared Brandons to ZAOs and top TAK ortho eyepieces and, besides different color tone, I cannot see any difference between those eyepieces (yet). But I plan to do lot more comparisons this planet season. Owner of Veronscope challenge me to do it!

I do not have any UO eyepieces. I do have TV Plossls but I do not consider them "orthoscopic enough". Maybe I should throw them in the mix too....

[Mike B]

 

…. by reducing high-angle scatter.

I’ve normally seen that referenced as “narrow-angle scatter”. IDK… am not an optician. 
 

Brandons are some variation on the 4-element symmetrical theme, yes? NOT Abbe’s.

[alnitak22]

I spent a month comparing a Brandon 8mm to a TV 8 Plossl in my 6” f/8 Newt and TV85. Close call but the Plossl did better on detail on Jupiter, my favorite object. I used them with and without Barlows. 

[Sarkikos]

I’ve normally seen that referenced as “narrow-angle scatter”. IDK… am not an optician. 
 

Brandons are some variation on the 4-element symmetrical theme, yes? NOT Abbe’s.

I've seen it described as "high-angle" and "narrow-angle."   I'm not an optician or an optical expert.  I try to choose my experts wisely.  But results in the field are what count.

 

Brandons have 4 elements in 2 groups:  2 in each group.  Abbe's have 4 elements in 2 groups:  3 in the field lens and 1 in the eye lens. 

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 September 2024 - 10:37 PM.

[RyanAstroMan]

My favorites for planets when using barlows or powermates.

28mm RKE
24mm Brandon
21mm TV plossl
25mm UO Volcano Top ortho
25mm fujiyama HD-OR

Then 10mm Delos and 7mm Delite.
Of all of them. Best views were with the RKE

[CeleNoptic]

Brandons are some variation on the 4-element symmetrical theme, yes? NOT Abbe’s.

 
Yes, from what I've learned they're a kind of modified Ploessls.
 
 

Brandons have 4 elements in 2 groups.  Abbe's have 3 elements in 2 groups.

 
What??? Abbe Orthoscopics are 3+1... not sure what Abbe you referring to 

[PKDfan]

My favorites for planets when using barlows or powermates.

28mm RKE
24mm Brandon
21mm TV plossl
25mm UO Volcano Top ortho
25mm fujiyama HD-OR

Then 10mm Delos and 7mm Delite.
Of all of them. Best views were with the RKE

Thats what I'm thinking too RyanAstroMan !!

I'm going for R.K.E. 21.5mm and one other, can't decide yet.

I'm going to try a 16mm Brandon as well; just to see if their reputation is deserved. I'm Sure it is.

The Brandon is like the Plössl type as CeleNoptic refered, its last element of its two cemented doublets is a unique glass type.

Its high Polish and lack of narrow angle scatter with only single layer coatings is the reason people like them so much i believe.

I hope i don't end up having a boatload of these specialized tools.



CS
Lance
Edit typo

Edited by PKDfan, 08 September 2024 - 08:40 PM.

[RyanAstroMan]

Thats what I'm thinking too RyanAstroMan !!

I'm going for R.K.E. 21.5mm and one other, can't decide yet.

I'm going to try a 16mm Brandon as well; just to see if their reputation is deserved. I'm Sure it is.

The Brandon is like the Plössl type as CeleNoptic refered, its last element of its two cemented doublets is a unique glass type.

Its high Polish and lack of narrow angle scatter with only single layer coatings is the reason people like them so much i believe.

I hope i don't end up having a boatload of these specialized tools.



CS
Lance
Edit typo

Been there, done just that. I ended up with a bunch of specialty eyepieces over the last few years, some modern and some vintage classics. I have the 16mm brandon and it is definitely good, just not quite enough eye relief for my liking as I view with glasses on. It is a very light eyepiece. The polish is lovely on those Brandon's. The 48mm is also a wonderful piece of glass.

[Sarkikos]

 
Yes, from what I've learned they're a kind of modified Ploessls.
 
 

 
What??? Abbe Orthoscopics are 3+1... not sure what Abbe you referring to 

Yes, you are correct, sir.  Abbe orthos have 3 elements in the field lens, 1 in the eye lens.  I must have been thinking of the Kellners that are sold as orthoscopic. 

 

I've corrected my original post.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 08 September 2024 - 10:38 PM.

[Jeff Morgan]

Brandons are one of the few eyepieces I regret selling. 

 

I did own a UO Ortho for a few years, 12.5mm. It was good, and a great budget choice. But the 12 Brandon spent a lot more time in the focuser.

 

Try grabbing one off the used market to see if you like it.

[MRP]

Had a night of almost perfect seeing last week. Rare around here.

I used a Brandon 6mm with a 1.5x Magic Dakin Barlow on Saturn, then later on with Jupiter. This was with my 8” f/6.1 dob that has a really great Ed Stevens mirror. A bit north of 300x. Contrast and planetary details were fantastic. Spotted Enceladus that at the time was very close to Saturn’s rings. That moon is a threshold object for me and I was able to hold on to it about 90% of the time with the Brandon/MDB combo. Switched to a 4mm Delite. Held Enceladus about 20 - 30% of the time.

I would give the edge to the Brandon simply because of less apparent scatter and a somewhat cleaner view. Both eyepieces were very very sharp.
Having said that I would also say that a great night of seeing helps out immensely, much more so than eyepiece choice. 

[desertlens]

Let's face it. These 'antique' designs, ie. Plössl. Abbe, Brandon, are still around for good reason. Users see something that appeals to them. It's as simple as that. The views they provide are best described as 'more similar than different'. I won't get into splitting hairs but I lean toward the Brandons followed by the Abbes.

[Deep13]

I use a Denk II binoviewer in a 5" f/12 refractor. In the 15ish size, I use pairs of 15 TV Ploëssls, 15 Edmund RKE, 18 Fuji Ortho, and 16 Bandon. On Mars and Jupiter, I tend to use either the TV for warm bias or Brandon for least scatter. The differences are not significant, but for me, it's enough to have a pair of Brandons.

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

The difference between excellent and good eyepieces on planetary becomes evident under excellent seeing and proper collimation.
Other than that, you may not perceive any difference.

[Sarkikos]

Let's face it. These 'antique' designs, ie. Plössl. Abbe, Brandon, are still around for good reason. Users see something that appeals to them. It's as simple as that. The views they provide are best described as 'more similar than different'. I won't get into splitting hairs but I lean toward the Brandons followed by the Abbes.

I agree that the main reason why these older designs are still being used is their optical performance.  But there could be other reasons as well.  

 

- Smaller size and lighter weight compared to some really large and heavy eyepieces with modern designs.

 

- Nostalgia

 

- Preference for eyepieces from American companies:  Tele Vue Plossls and Brandons.

 

- Traditional favoritism for some designs, such as the Abbe orthoscopic or the Brandons.

 

I'm not saying that these are contributing reasons in every case.  But they can and do enter into the mix.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 09 September 2024 - 07:46 AM.

[azure1961p]

Thanks for a lot of opinions. With regard to Brandon and their unique coating(s) , is there a downside to the high angle incident advantage?  How would FMC perform differently? Thanks in advance,

 

Pete

[Sarkikos]

Thanks for a lot of opinions. With regard to Brandon and their unique coating(s) , is there a downside to the high angle incident advantage?  How would FMC perform differently? Thanks in advance,

 

Pete

FC will tend to have lower light transmission than FMC.   FC eyepieces would not be my first choice for deep sky, though some observers have liked the effect of FC on DSO.  IIRC, BillP liked FC eyepieces for some deep sky objects.

 

Years ago, when I was comparing different eyepieces with an H-Beta filter on the Horsehead, a Brandon showed the dimmest image with the least visible structure.  

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 10 September 2024 - 09:53 AM.

[turtle86]

I spent a month comparing a Brandon 8mm to a TV 8 Plossl in my 6” f/8 Newt and TV85. Close call but the Plossl did better on detail on Jupiter, my favorite object. I used them with and without Barlows. 

 

You've piqued my curiosity. I just might need to get a TV 8mm Plossl now.

[turtle86]

FC will tend to have lower light transmission than FMC.   FC eyepieces would not be my first choice for deep sky, though some observers have liked the effect of FC on DSO.  IIRC, BillP liked FC eyepieces for some deep sky objects.

 

Years ago, when I was comparing different eyepieces with an H-Beta filter on the Horsehead, a Brandon showed the dimmest image with the least visible structure.  

 

Mike

 

Interesting data point.  I've actually seen Brandons recommended for faint fuzzies due to their relatively low glass count, but it sounds like the type of coatings matter more. 

[alnitak22]

You've piqued my curiosity. I just might need to get a TV 8mm Plossl now.

It’ll never leave my stable! Since getting my 6” Mak a couple of years ago, it gets even more use than before. The 225x it yields in the Mak shows absolutely stunning lunar/planetary detail. And the short eye relief doesn’t bother me. 

[saemark30]

With a 10" F6 Newtonian all Japanese orthos have worked well on Mars for me. The features are quite distinct during a good opposition.

 

On Jupiter the Brandon 8mm shows the same features as the Tele Vue 8mm PL, with more contrast but more monochrome to me. The TV 8mm PL does show more blue than the older 7.4mm PL to me.

 

My best views of Jupiter were with a 1980's Clave 8mm plossl.