144 replies to this topic

[Princess Leah]

I've just been humbled by this eyepiece. It's sharper than my other eyepieces - including Baader Morpheus. It's a joy to use.

 

Is this to be expected? I believe it's not a true Plossl - instead equivalent to old Takahashi LE.

 

Can you get a wider view with more eye relief with this clarity? 

Do you have to pay top end - Delos for instance?

 

This eyepiece has made my other EPs seem a little shabby.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[csrlice12]

This is the 5 lens masuyama design.  Yes, they are excellent eyepieces.

[deSitter]

I've just been humbled by this eyepiece. It's sharper than my other eyepieces - including Baader Morpheus. It's a joy to use.

 

Is this to be expected? I believe it's not a true Plossl - instead equivalent to old Takahashi LE.

 

Can you get a wider view with more eye relief with this clarity? 

Do you have to pay top end - Delos for instance?

 

This eyepiece has made my other EPs seem a little shabby.

 

This is my general experience - after 5 or so elements in search of wider fields, it gets to be too much glass and too much loss of fine definition, no matter how well designed and made the eyepiece. 

 

I wonder what G.S-5 means?

 

Meade sold Series 3000 "Super Plossls" with 5 elements and a Masuyama design that are said to be outstanding. Maybe it was early "smooth side" Series 4000 - I don't remember. The later series 4000 "super Plossls" were just symmetrical Plossls of an innovative design, and they are excellent as well.

 

I think generally speaking the Masuyama is an improvement over the 5-element Erfle.

 

-drl

Edited by deSitter, 22 April 2025 - 10:08 AM.

[deSitter]

This is the 5 lens masuyama design.  Yes, they are excellent eyepieces.

 

Parks had a reputation for excellent optics and quality control. It does not suprise me that the eyepieces they sourced from Japan were also excellent.

 

-drl

[csrlice12]

GS is Gold Series.

[Jon Isaacs]

The Parks Gold Series was basically the same as the Celestron Ultimas. 

 

Jon

[quilty]

very much the Goldline 15? What does 5 mean, 5 elements?

Edited by quilty, 22 April 2025 - 10:59 AM.

[CrazyPanda]

I wonder what G.S-5 means?

 

"Gold Series 5 element"

 

There was also a GS-7 - Gold Series 7 element.

Edited by CrazyPanda, 22 April 2025 - 10:58 AM.

[Princess Leah]

This is my general experience - after 5 or so elements in search of wider fields, it gets to be too much glass and too much loss of fine definition, no matter how well designed and made the eyepiece. 

 

 

-drl

Interesting reply. Instinctively I feel the same way. Intuitively I feel something small is going to be sharper, than something bulky.

However I have heard the Delos and Delete are as sharp/clear?

 

Why was this design abandoned? Is there anything contemporary that is comparable?

Eye relief is a problem as you reduce the focal length.

Edited by Princess Leah, 22 April 2025 - 11:03 AM.

[CrazyPanda]

Why was this design abandoned? Is there anything contemporary that is comparable?

 

The new run of 5 element Masuyamas - the MOP 53s.

 

* https://agenaastro.c...yama_46_53.html

* https://www.firstlig...-eyepieces.html

 

I don't know if they're exactly the same as the old Ultimas/GS/LE eyepieces, but they would be comparable in design.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not too impressed by the 35mm MOP. Less sharp than a 35 Panoptic.

 

I also have the 30mm and 7.5mm MOPs but have no real basis for comparison for those eyepieces.

Edited by CrazyPanda, 22 April 2025 - 11:13 AM.

[Princess Leah]

Thanks Crazy Panda. I think the small eye relief would be a problem at shorter focal lengths for me...

[deSitter]

Interesting reply. Instinctively I feel the same way. Intuitively I feel something small is going to be sharper, than something bulky.

However I have heard the Delos and Delete are as sharp/clear?

 

Why was this design abandoned? Is there anything contemporary that is comparable?

Eye relief is a problem as you reduce the focal length.

 

Super- and ultra-wide propaganda - those things sell at extremely high margins. After spending that much money on one eyepiece, human nature recoils from an objective assessment.

 

it is interesting that microscope world is much more practical about eyepieces and objectives. You don't have devotees of 100-degree fields of view. Everything is about contrast and detail, and sophisticated methods for enhanching these.

 

-drl

[CrazyPanda]

Super- and ultra-wide propaganda - those things sell at extremely high margins

 

No they don't.

 

The high price of the TPLs (which are simple 4 element symmetricals) and the 53 degree Masuyama MOPs actually indicate those are much higher margin.

 

• 25mm Tak TPL is $200. That's a LOT of money for a Plossl.
• A 24mm Brandon is $280.

 

My old 25mm Meade Series 3000 Plossl (smoothie Japan) is sharper than the 25mm Tak TPL and didn't cost nearly as much.

 

If there's any propaganda here, it's the "minimum glass" crowd swearing by dramatic performance gains that have kept the price of premium minimum glass eyepieces disproportionately high (new or used).

Edited by CrazyPanda, 22 April 2025 - 11:29 AM.

[Princess Leah]

After spending that much money on one eyepiece, human nature recoils from an objective assessment.

 

 

 

-drl

Plenty of this everywhere these days.

 

If 14mm eye-relief could be maintained at shorter focal lengths, I'd happily give up the extra FOV.

[deSitter]

Plenty of this everywhere these days.

 

If 14mm eye-relief could be maintained at shorter focal lengths, I'd happily give up the extra FOV.

 

Such eyepieces exist - I have the Meade HD60 series - they are 6-element 60 degree FOV long eye relief eyepieces in f/ls from 25mm to 4.5mm. They are great for DSOs but I always use my Orthos and Plossls for the planets. A 6.3mm Plossl or 6mm Ortho is getting very tight, but that can be mastered. At high powers the exit pupil is so small that astigmatism in the eye is side-stepped so to speak, and refractive errors can be focused away with the telescope, so no glasses needed.

 

The best long eye relief eyepieces IMO are the Televue Radians, but I don't think they are made these days. They are scarce on the used market as well, because they are keepers.

 

Another strategy is a good 3-element Barlow in combination with an Ortho. The Barlow will increase the eye relief, so you get the comfort of an Ortho combined with long eye relief. This is basically what all long eye relief eyepieces do - they have a built-in Barlow as it were and an internal field stop.

 

-drl

[Princess Leah]

I also have the Meade HD60s/Celestron Xcel LX. That's about the best I've comfortably looked through, along with Starguiders ED60s at high magnification.

 

However the Parks seems a step up.

 

I will definitely keep an eye out for a used Radian/Delite.

[deSitter]

No they don't.

 

The high price of the TPLs (which are simple 4 element symmetricals) and the 53 degree Masuyama MOPs actually indicate those are much higher margin.

 

• 25mm Tak TPL is $200. That's a LOT of money for a Plossl.
• A 24mm Brandon is $280.

 

My old 25mm Meade Series 3000 Plossl (smoothie Japan) is sharper than the 25mm Tak TPL and didn't cost nearly as much.

 

If there's any propaganda here, it's the "minimum glass" crowd swearing by dramatic performance gains that have kept the price of premium minimum glass eyepieces disproportionately high (new or used).

 

Well that is an interesting perspective.

 

-drl

[Dobs O Fun]

I also have the Meade HD60s/Celestron Xcel LX. That's about the best I've comfortably looked through, along with Starguiders ED60s at high magnification.

However the Parks seems a step up.

I will definitely keep an eye out for a used Radian/Delite.

How does the Celestron XCel-LX compare to parks?

[Refractor6]

  I have the Celestron Ultima and Antares Elite branded Japanese made versions made in the early 2000's....very nice eps...

[SeattleScott]

Thanks Crazy Panda. I think the small eye relief would be a problem at shorter focal lengths for me...

The short focal lengths had a built-in barlow, so at 5mm you got about 10mm ER, and at 3.8mm about 7mm ER. Better than a Plossl, but obviously snug by modern standards. Still, the 3.8 Ultrascopic (Orion brand) bested my Meade 8.8 UWA+2.25x Baader Q Barlow, which should yield 3.9mm effective focal length. The Meade was obviously wider with more eye relief, but the Ultrascopic was clearly sharper. Now is that because of the Meade eyepiece, or the mediocre quality Q Barlow? Who knows?

 

Likewise, I felt a Tak 18LE was a touch sharper than my 17LVW. But kept the LVW because of AFOV, edge correction in fast scopes, and glasses compatibility.

 

Here's the rub. I recently sold off a 30mm Ultima after getting a Meade Series 5000 24mm SWA. The Ultima is a sharp, clear eyepiece. But for a low power eyepiece, used for finding targets or fitting extended objects in the view, the greater "majesty factor" of the SWA trumped the Ultima. Maybe the Ultima is 5-10% sharper, but the Meade provides a view 25% more magnified. Which makes extended objects appear more impressive, and makes it easier to identify compact DSO's with the additional magnification. Now the 5-10% sharper is speculative; the focal lengths are different enough that meaningful comparisons can't really be made. But I can say whatever contrast advantage the Ultima had, it wasn't enough to offset the magnification advantage of the Meade (at least for my son and I). And the Meade had a little better edge correction, although both do pretty well there.

 

So it really depends on the purpose and the target. For compact DSO where you don't need a large FOV, and assuming you have already located the target so you don't need a large FOV or extra magnification to find it, and if you have a tracking mount (or are operating at low enough magnification that manual tracking with 50 AFOV isn't an issue), and you aren't using a fast scope, these eyepieces are great, as long as the focal length doesn't get so short that ER suffers. And if you wear glasses, only the longest focal lengths will have enough ER, and those are going to be for low power, where you typically want more magnification and AFOV, and good ER since you are using the entire FOV.

 

So the eyepieces have their place. But it is also understandable why most eyepieces have more complex designs. I think the sweet spot with these would be around 10-20mm focal length with a tracking scope, for looking at compact DSO, for people who don't wear glasses. Could play well with a manual scope as well as long as the magnification was moderate, and F ratio doesn't drop below about F6.

[Highburymark]

I've just been humbled by this eyepiece. It's sharper than my other eyepieces - including Baader Morpheus. It's a joy to use.

Is this to be expected? I believe it's not a true Plossl - instead equivalent to old Takahashi LE.

Can you get a wider view with more eye relief with this clarity?
Do you have to pay top end - Delos for instance?

This eyepiece has made my other EPs seem a little shabby.

They are excellent. You’ll find many CN threads debating the advantages of the pseudo-Masuyamas. About on a par with TV Plossls (with small differences perhaps in correction for faster scopes and transmission), but same ball park. On axis, I rate Delites and Delos as equals to these two - but then you are paying for wider correction.
Any of these four ranges will give you about as satisfying a view of the night sky as your telescope will allow. Beyond that, there are marginal improvements in detail to be sought from expensive specialist eyepieces under excellent seeing conditions. But my (limited admittedly) experience of the ‘pseudos’ suggests there haven’t been any major leaps forward in eyepiece technology since they were produced.

[John Huntley]

I've owned a number of those over the years in Celestron Ultima, Antares Elite and Orion Ultrascopic brandings and found them as good if not a touch better than Tele Vue plossls.

 

I currently have a Parks GS 2x barlow 3 element barlow which is also a sharp performer. I believe that one is the same as the Celestron Ultima 2x barlow. I got that pre-owned for £10 - bargain !!!

 

If I had not caught the wide field bug I'd probably be quite happy using a set of those.

[Refractor6]

   Have the Antares version of the 3 element barlow actually 2 from back in the day...another fine piece of optics from years ago.

 

 As far as the eps go I use them for planetary, lunar, tight doubles and small deep sky objects without wearing my glasses so no issues taking in the views even down to the 5mm..

[starfinder123123]

I have Antares Elite Plossl, also pseudo Masuyama like yours, and it is very sharp. I sold the 15mm SVbony Redline after I tried it.

[Highburymark]

They are excellent. You’ll find many CN threads debating the advantages of the pseudo-Masuyamas…….
…….,,But my (limited admittedly) experience of the ‘pseudos’ suggests there haven’t been any major leaps forward in eyepiece technology since they were produced.

I’ve been hoping for a few detailed comparisons between the old pseudos and the new MOPs, which might put this statement to the test, but haven’t seen anything.