107 replies to this topic

[bobhen]

I've owned UO orthos, TV Plossls, TV Delites and at one time an 8mm Brandon.

 

On the planets and the moon, I liked the Brandon best but the UO orthos were really good as well. As I got older, I needed more eye relief and sold everything and purchased the TV Delites. So, I never got to compared the Brandon to the Delites.

 

I've used the above with SCTs and apo refractors and with and without Barlows.

 

The Delites have a generous and flat field, are very sharp, are not too heavy and are just so comfortable to use. They have become my favorite eyepieces for solar system objects.

 

Bob

[peleuba]

The Delites have a generous and flat field, are very sharp, are not too heavy and are just so comfortable to use. They have become my favorite eyepieces for solar system objects.

 

This is timely.   I just returned from a 8 day observing trip that concluded last weekend with the 2024 Black Forest Star Party.  I did a lot of observing as the weather was uncharacteristically great for 6 of the 8 days.  I only took one scope - a Portaball-8 and one complete set of eyepieces - TeleVue Delites.  This was the first extensive use of the Delites over many many hours and many consecutive days of observing.   Sure, I've used them for quick looks with small (92mm) apertures mostly for planets and the Moon.  But never for long sessions over a number of days on many types of objects.

 

I absolutely loved them.  The more I used them, the better I liked'em.  I normally use a set of Nagler T6's as daily driver type of eyepiece.  On this trip I used Delites, exclusively.   My scope was tracking on its Tom O platform so I never had to manually track objects.  This allowed me to concentrate on the eyepiece and the view.    

Edited by peleuba, 10 September 2024 - 02:23 PM.

[alnitak22]

This is timely.   I just returned from a 8 day observing trip that concluded last weekend with the 2024 Black Forest Star Party.  I did a lot of observing as the weather was uncharacteristically great for 6 of the 8 days.  I only took one scope - a Portaball-8 and one complete set of eyepieces - TeleVue Delites.  This was the first extensive use of the Delites over many many hours and many consecutive days of observing.   Sure, I've used them for quick looks with small (92mm) apertures mostly for planets and the Moon.  But never for long sessions over a number of days on many types of objects.

 

I absolutely loved them.  The more I used them, the better I liked'em.  I normally use a set of Nagler T6's as daily driver type of eyepiece.  On this trip I used Delites, exclusively.   My scope was tracking on its Tom O platform so I never had to manually track objects.  This allowed me to concentrate on the eyepiece and the view.    

Portaball 8 is an awesome telescope! Sounds like a good time with the Delites.

[saemark30]

Portaball has an Zambutto mirror correct? Just goes to show that telescope & good seeing are more important  factors.

[j.gardavsky]

Re: Post #16

 

Some of the antique designs of the eyepieces with the minimum glass inside, are still manufactured by Zeiss and Leica for their research grade microscopy, and I have been using these eyepieces for observing the difficult galactic nebulae through my telescope:

 

Lenses sequence (field stop - 2 - 1)

Carl Zeiss W 25x/10 #45 50 46, f=10mm, AFOV 58°

Car Zeiss W-Pl 10x/23 #45 50 43, f=25mm, AFOV 50°

Carl Zeiss E-Pl 10x/20 #44 42 32 and 31, f=25mm, AFOV 45°

Leica HC Plan 10x/20 #507802, f=25mm, AFOV 45°

 

Lenses sequence (field stop - 1 - 2 - 1)

Carl Zeiss Pl 10x/25 #44 40 34, f=25mm, AFOV 58°

Leica L Plan 8x/25 #506806, f=31mm, AFOV 45°

 

Those listed above Carl Zeiss eyepieces have been originally designed by Carl Zeiss (West) in Göttingen for the STEMI stereo microscopes, and later developed for the Zeiss Axioskop and other research grade microscopes.

The Leica HC eyepieces have been developed for the Harmonic Concept (HC) research grade microscopes, and also with a higher level of the optical design complication (HC Plan S).

 

Best,

JG

[Sarkikos]

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. 

Lower glass count doesn't necessarily mean more light is getting through.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 10 September 2024 - 03:02 PM.

[turtle86]

Lower glass count doesn't necessarily mean more light is getting through.

 

Mike

 

Sure seems to be the case based on your experience with that Brandon.  For bright planets, not a problem, but for faint objects maybe not the best choice.

[Jeff Morgan]

This is timely.   I just returned from a 8 day observing trip that concluded last weekend with the 2024 Black Forest Star Party.  I did a lot of observing as the weather was uncharacteristically great for 6 of the 8 days.  I only took one scope - a Portaball-8 and one complete set of eyepieces - TeleVue Delites.  This was the first extensive use of the Delites over many many hours and many consecutive days of observing.   Sure, I've used them for quick looks with small (92mm) apertures mostly for planets and the Moon.  But never for long sessions over a number of days on many types of objects.

 

I absolutely loved them.  The more I used them, the better I liked'em.  I normally use a set of Nagler T6's as daily driver type of eyepiece.  On this trip I used Delites, exclusively.   My scope was tracking on its Tom O platform so I never had to manually track objects.  This allowed me to concentrate on the eyepiece and the view.    

 

When they first came out, I was highly skeptical of the proposition - not quite a wide field and not quite a planetary.

 

Some years back SkyRanger loaned me three of his DeLites - absolutely brand new, he had not even had a chance to use them himself. I was able to work them pretty hard over a new moon period.

 

After using them, I was extremely impressed. They run neck-and-neck with my Leica Zoom, and they were definitely a notch above the Pentax XW which I had around for testing.

 

If I was rebuilding my collection from scratch (for some odd reason) I would still go for the Leica as the anchor of the collection. But the DeLite would be a strong #2 selection.

[jeffmac]

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. 

A number of people have preferred the Tele Vue 8mm Plossl on planets over other 8mm offerings. You are not alone.

Edited by jeffmac, 11 September 2024 - 12:40 PM.

[alnitak22]

A number of people have preferred the Tele Vue 8mm on planets over other 8mm offerings. You are not alone.

Absolutely. There’s a reason it scored so highly among the participants in that shootout that Daniel M. put together. 

[peleuba]

Portaball has an Zambutto mirror correct? Just goes to show that telescope & good seeing are more important  factors.

 

Yes - Zambuto.  Its my favorite scope.   I've been a friend of the firm (Mag1 Instruments) so-to-speak for ~20 years.  

 

Seeing was good, never excellent.  Its rarely excellent here in the NE.   And it was only good for a few hours after 2am Tuesday 9/3.  I viewed the planets mostly during this time.  Taking advantage of their placement, the seeing, and the tracking platform.  However, I logged more then 100 objects for the week and except for Jupiter and Saturn, all were DSO's and some were very faint and most in just average seeing.

 

I think you're right, the scope and the optics make the largest difference.  Seeing really matters if looking at the planets.  In fact, when doing DSO observing I prefer transparency over steadiness.   Here in the NE these are inversely related.   When the seeing is good, often the transparency is not; when the transparency is good, the atmosphere is often unsteady. 

 

The Delites are really sharp, neutrally toned, and quite comfortable with no eye fatigue and that really does matter on long observing sessions.   

Edited by peleuba, 11 September 2024 - 03:06 PM.

[Scott99]

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

You seemed to have formed some pretty strong opinions already.   What is anyone else going to tell you that would be useful? 

Edited by Scott99, 11 September 2024 - 04:35 PM.

[j.gardavsky]

Lower glass count doesn't necessarily mean more light is getting through.

 

Mike

 

Translated into the elementary logic:

 

Not necessarirly, 

but in lots of cases sufficiently enough to let more light through

the shorter glass path optics assemblies.

 

JG

[Starman1]

Light transmission means nothing on planets.

In fact, reducing the brightness reveals more details and color to my eye.

That is one of the reasons I use filters on planets, though not the only one.

What matters, other than Seeing, which is 95% of the battle, is lens polish to avoid scattered light.

Of course, a design that suppresses internal reflection is preferred (no Kellners, for instance), and an eyepiece design that is well baffled to prevent

internal reflections from spacers and barrel walls.

 

Of the hundreds of eyepieces I've owned, element count was only slightly related to improved lunar/planetary observing.

I've owned eyepieces that passed the planet/Moon test for sharpness and contrast that had element counts from 4 through 10.

The only thing about that is that the element count, for equal quality, relates fairly strongly with price.

 

And my lifetime-best view of Jupiter was with 18 elements in the focuser at 456x in perfect seeing that allowed the 12.5" to resolve to its limits.

Perhaps the image was actually dimmed by passing through those inches of lenses, but, if so, it eliminated the overbrightness that prevents faint colors and details from being seen.

The image looked like a Damian Peach or Christopher Go image, only sharper.

 

If the goal is to find inexpensive eyepieces that deliver good images, there are Plössls, Abbe Orthos, and similar.

But if the seeing is imperfect, or the scope quite small, don't expect miracles.

The best planetary images are in perfect seeing in large scopes.

Eyepieces are a lesser concern.  In bad seeing, the best eyepieces perform poorly.  In superb seeing, lesser eyepieces perform great.

 

This discussion of low element count eyepieces has gone on for literally almost all my life, and I wonder why there is so little discussion about how to maximize image quality by improving seeing.

People look at planets with the scopes mounted on concrete, looking directly over a roof, or with a planet close to the horizon, sabotaging their chances at seeing a great image quality.

Planet observers should go looking for sites with great seeing more than they go looking for the ideal eyepiece.

 

Just a different perspective on planet observing.

Edited by Starman1, 23 March 2025 - 05:36 PM.

[Sarkikos]

Translated into the elementary logic:

 

Not necessarirly, 

but in lots of cases sufficiently enough to let more light through

the shorter glass path optics assemblies.

 

JG

From what I've seen, level of coatings has more to do with light throughput than lens/element count.  Compare no coatings to FC to FMC.   I've seen that simpler designs with no coatings or FC will have worse light throughput than more complex designs with FMC.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 23 March 2025 - 12:55 PM.

[Sarkikos]

Light transmission means nothing on planets.

In fact, reducing the brightness reveals more details and color to my eye.

That is one of the reasons I use filters on planets, though not the only one.

What matters, other than Seeing, which is 95% of the battle, is lens polish to avoid scattered light.

Of course, a design that suppresses internal reflection is preferred (no Kellners, for instance), and an eyepiece design that is well baffled to prevent

internal reflections from spacers and barrel walls.

 

Of the hundreds of eyepieces I've owned, element count was only slightly related to improved lunar/planetary observing.

I've owned eyepieces that passed the planet/Moon test for sharpness and contrast that had element counts from 4 through 10.

The only thing about that is that the element count, for equal quality, relates fairly strongly with price.

 

And my lifetime-best view of Jupiter was with 18 elements in the focuser at 456x in perfect seeing that allowed the 12.5" to resolve to its limits.

Perhaps the image was actually dimmed by passing through those inches of lenses, but, if so, it eliminated the overbrightness that sees faint colors and details from being seen.

The image looked like a Damian Peach or Christopher Go image, only sharper.

 

If the goal is to find inexpensive eyepieces that deliver good images, there are Plössls, Abbe Orthos, and similar.

But if the seeing is imperfect, or the scope quite small, don't expect miracles.

The best planetary images are in perfect seeing in large scopes.

Eyepieces are a lesser concern.  In bad seeing, the best eyepieces perform poorly.  In superb seeing, lesser eyepieces perform great.

 

This discussion of low element count eyepieces has gone on for literally almost all my life, and I wonder why there is so little discussion about how to maximize image quality by improving seeing.

People look at planets with the scopes mounted on concrete, looking directly over a roof, or with a planet close to the horizon, sabotaging their chances at seeing a great image quality.

Planet observers should go looking for sites with great seeing more than they go looking for the ideal eyepiece.

 

Just a different perspective on planet observing.

"Planet observers should go looking for sites with great seeing more than they go looking for the ideal eyepiece."

 

Good point.  Many observers travel for hours to observe deep sky objects at sites with less light pollution.  Do many - any? - travel for hours to observe planets at sites with better seeing?

 

It seems as if for planet viewing, observers just accept the bad seeing where they are.   True, you don't need a Bortle 1 site to view planets.  You can view them in the middle of a big city.  But how about a site with better seeing?  

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 23 March 2025 - 01:04 PM.

[Keith Rivich]

An observing friend has a set of Brandon's which I like to borrow when going after really faint DSO's. Many times the DSO is marginal to averted in my Ethos only to be direct vision in the Brandon's. I believe its a combination of the fewer elements and not having all the surrounding space cluttering the view. 

 

Call it what you like, they work!

[slavicek]

I agree with Don (post #39) that there's more to observing planets then what eyepieces one uses.

 

Location:

My worse location for observing planets is at dark site B2 in White mountains, NH

better location is in bright B7 Boston, MA 

best location in B4 forest, countrysite

 

Best time to observe: 

midnight to 3 AM

 

Do not get hanged up on the size of a telescope - at approximately the same magnification:

My best views of planets are thru 7" APO

good views are thru 4" APO

"worse" views are thru my 22" DOB - because sky in NE is never steady enough for that aperture. Planets are bright in that scope but I cannot see much details.

 

And my experience using eyepieces on planets:

High end simple planetary eyepieces are way sharper then high end wide field multi-elements, by a noticeable margin!

[j.gardavsky]

From what I've seen, level of coatings has more to do with light throughput than lens/element count.  Compare no coatings to FC to FMC.   I've seen that simpler designs with no coatings or FC will have worse light throughput than more complex designs with FMC.

 

Mike

This may happen, of course, and it possibly happens nowadays again and again.

 

My conclusion is derived from some comparisons between the older minimum glass Carl Zeiss West eyepieces (eventually just FC), against the modern FMC multi lens stacked eyepieces, and from the transmissivity measurements by Konrad Horn.

 

Thank you for your input,

JG

[vtornado]

I use plossl's, Ortho's, and RKE's for planetary observing.   The reason is they are relatively cheap, small and light.  I can fit a 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 all in a small box so I have the perfect magnification to fit the scope and the atmosphere.   High lens count eyepieces may be just as good, but at $200-$300 each I can't justify 8 eyepieces to cover the planetary/lunar focal length range.

 

Between the plossl, orthos and rke's details on Jupiter and Lunar were vanishingly small.  It could be the constant flux of seeing that was the difference rather than the eyepiece alone.  Most of my observations were done with a f/6 8 inch dob.  The differences may have been caused by the interactions between the eyepiece and the telescope, and my eye ball.  YMMV.

 

I have never tried a brandon.

[PKDfan]

Since this thread is about Mars and using less glass eyepieces i've got to say that the 6.5Morpheus along with a 2X Barlow, to get to a decent 270X planetary power in my 100ED, is a special view as the warm tint to this eyepiece really makes Mars markings come Alive.

Out of my three Morphii that one has the most obvious warmth and my gosh does it ever make Mars markings pop Hellas basin orange eye in particular. The moon also.


Something to think about if your deciding upon a Plössl or Brandon and you've got this eyepiece (and a Barlow) and are looking for an upgrade, you really don't need to, at least for Mars.

I'm getting a Brandon for other reasons and Mars isn't included in the plan nor did i bow down and get a 3.3TOE as the Barlowed Morph is an effective 3.35mm and is IMO an ideal Mars kit so see little to no need. I Barlow for shorter focal lengths.

IMO of course.


CSS
Lance

[RichA]

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.  

Brandons are true Plossls, unlike what passes for Plossls today, they have symmetrical doublets whereas a true Plossl doesn't.  I would take Brandons over run-of-the-mill orthos. But, if you have access to Zeiss or the old Pentax orthos, they may be better.  Downside?  Short focal length Plossls have short eye relief.

[Starman1]

Brandons are true Plossls, unlike what passes for Plossls today, they have symmetrical doublets whereas a true Plossl doesn't.  I would take Brandons over run-of-the-mill orthos. But, if you have access to Zeiss or the old Pentax orthos, they may be better.  Downside?  Short focal length Plossls have short eye relief.

Chester Brandon's 1942 design is more like a reverse Plössl, but it isn't a Plössl.

The two doublets are bi-convex, unlike Plössls and more like the early eyepieces simply called symmetricals.

Like the later Clavés (König design), there are 4 glass types used.

 

To quote Vlad Sacek:

The Brandon eyepiece is, according to Chris Lord, reversed Clave Plossl. The similarity is there, in both, lens arrangement and output. Exact prescription is not known, only that it uses four different glasses (this arrangement uses SF1/PSK3-SK5/SF10, from left to right). There is no effect from making the field lens significantly thicker, other than a small (10-15%) reduction in the astigmatism/field curvature. Residual coma is probably what makes these two designs less suitable for fast focal ratios than designs without it (as the diffraction images show, coma transforms roundish astigmatic image into a triangular shape with a bright, curved base).

 

https://www.telescop...ce_raytrace.htm

go down the page to 40-55° eyepieces, #6.

[Sarkikos]

An observing friend has a set of Brandon's which I like to borrow when going after really faint DSO's. Many times the DSO is marginal to averted in my Ethos only to be direct vision in the Brandon's. I believe its a combination of the fewer elements and not having all the surrounding space cluttering the view. 

 

Call it what you like, they work!

I've seen this point brought up before, that somehow a wider field can affect how the observer sees an object at center of field.  I've never experienced this myself.  I think if it does occur, it is fundamentally driven by the psychology of the individual observer, rather than the performance of the optics.  

 

Will Brandons go deeper than an Ethos?  I haven't compared them directly, so I couldn't say for sure myself.  But I do know that some other low-element eyepieces do go deeper than Brandons.  I think the level of coatings is the major driver.  The Brandons are FC and the others were FMC.  

 

Would Abbe Orthos or other low-element eyepieces with FMC go even deeper than Brandons when compared to Ethos?  I think that's probable.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 24 March 2025 - 10:14 AM.

[Starman1]

A little math:

full multi coating on an air-to-glass surface transmits ~99.5% of the light and reflects about 0.5%.

So, the transmission of FMC coatings in eyepieces of:

1 group (monocentric?)--99.0%

2 groups (Plössls, orthos, Kellners, Ramsden, Huygens, Brandon)--98.0%

3 groups (Masuyama, Erfle, etc.)--97.0%

4 groups (many widefields)--96.1%

5 groups (many widefields)--95.1%

6 groups (some hyperwides, some complex designs)--94.2%

7 groups (a few exotic designs)--93.2%

 

There is also a loss of about 1% per inch of glass, so some of the large complex designs may lose another 2-3%.

But, with some exceptions, and there are a few, almost every modern FMC eyepiece falls in the 90-98% transmission range.

There are some transmission figures that indicate sophisticated coatings with >99.5% transmission, but for purposes of this post, I'll ignore those.

 

So, what is the visible difference in terms of light transmission?  about 8% max.

Note that 0.1 magnitude is a 9.6% difference, so the difference in transmission is smaller than 0.1 magnitude among all FMC eyepieces.

 

How does that stack up?

Well,

1. nightly variations in sky darkness and transparency range, but almost always exceed 0.2 magnitudes or more.
2. if we are talking about the visibility of DSOs, the difference of 0.1 magnitude is right at the limit of human vision, where we are likely talking about the difference between visible 20% of the time with averted vision and maybe 10% of the time with averted vision.  We are definitely not talking about the difference between visible with direct vision and invisible to direct vision, a difference that would be significantly larger than 0.1 magnitude.
3. A difference of 0.1 magnitude can barely be seen in a controlled lab experiment, and use of a telescope in the field is hardly a controlled lab environment.

Yet, we all have seen that some eyepieces go deeper than some others and reveal fainter features in DSOs.

Can we attribute that to light transmission in the eyepiece?

 

Perhaps partially.  But other factors enter into the picture as well:

--sharpness of focus.  A smaller spot size in the design might increase the per square arc-second light intensity.

--control of scattered light in the eyepiece.  We see contrast, so reducing scattered light can improve contrast and make fainter things more visible.

--control of scattered light outside the eyepiece--in the scope, the environment.  We all see more in the eyepiece when all peripheral light is blocked.  The tops of some eyepieces do a better job at that than others.

--lens polish.  Reducing scattered light at the lens surface, making coatings more effective.

--control of scattered light in the scope.  One of the advantages to refractors, though reflectors can be optimized for this as well, but don't seem to be very often.

 

So when all the factors are added up, the difference from one eyepiece to another in terms of how faint it sees can be noticeable.

Light transmission, though, is only a minor part of that.  Contrast is the major factor, and there is likely a % of that related to the psychology of use of a particular eyepiece.