144 replies to this topic

[Princess Leah]

I thought the Celestron Omni as good as the Televue Plossl.

I thought my 14mm ES 62 (five element) sharper still.

Its now clear that this GS Park is sharper than the ES 14mm.

[Princess Leah]

How does the Celestron XCel-LX compare to parks?

I would say the Parks is better quality. However I only have the Xcel/Meade in 25/18/9/6mm

[Princess Leah]

Some notation on eye relief etc.

 

https://takahashi-eu...es/le-eyepieces

[Refractor6]

   If you like the 15mm keep a eye out for others in the line on the used market is my advice.  The 30, 25, 20, 18, 12.5, 7.5 and 5mm are all dandies too.

 

Parks GS, Celestron Ultima, Orion Ultrascopic. Antares Elite all equals to variations of the same ep from back then made in Japan so it helps widen what's available on the used market to pick from.

[Kefka1138]

The Ultima Series and it's brethren and amazing eyepieces!

 

While I haven't had the opportunity to view through the 15mm, I adore my 35mm Parks and other focal lengths in my kit. Just picked up a 10mm Orion Ultrascopic that I'm excited to check out this weekend. Eventually, I'll catch them all. 

Edited by Kefka1138, 22 April 2025 - 02:44 PM.

[Princess Leah]

   If you like the 15mm keep a eye out for others in the line on the used market is my advice.  The 30, 25, 20, 18, 12.5, 7.5 and 5mm are all dandies too.

 

Parks GS, Celestron Ultima, Orion Ultrascopic. Antares Elite all equals to variations of the same ep from back then made in Japan so it helps widen what's available on the used market to pick from.

Great info - thanks.

[Ronny Floyd]

I have the 30MM Orion Ultrascopic and absolutely love it!

[SeattleScott]

The ER can vary below 10mm. The Celestron Ultimas don’t have the built-in barlow to improve ER that the Parks Gold and Orion Ultrascopic have. I don’t know about the other series.

[Refractor6]

   The Antares Elite 5mm has the built in barlow  {as tall as my Antares Elite 20mm} but my Celestron Ultima 5mm does not at its much shorter height same as the 7.5 from the same series.

[Mike B]

The ER can vary below 10mm. The Celestron Ultimas don’t have the built-in barlow to improve ER that the Parks Gold and Orion Ultrascopic have. I don’t know about the other series.

The only built-in Barlow’s in these I’m aware of are the Parks “GS7” pair, 3.8 & 5mm, being 7.5 & 10mm’s without the additional 2-element amplifier. Hence the “7” designation in their label = 7-elements. I think Orion’s Ultrascopic line had similar, where the Celestron Ultima line had no 3.8mm, and their 5mm is a pinhole EP- sharp as a razor, just tight on ER…

 

Newer, swankier EP lines are fueled by the apetite for wider AFoV & longer ER… both very formidably marketable commodities! I’ve certainly been one to partake of that Koolaid. That stated, after many decades of sticking my eye into the magic glass, I’ve come full circle, arriving at the same conclusion Leah has! …. that these “dated” 5-el EP designs are delightfully sharp, AND transparent, showing great contrast & sharpness! A lot to like here. Plus, beneath about 9-10mm FL my eye’s astig no longer factors, and even at 12-15mm, it’s a minimal bother.

[deSitter]

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

 

Are the Ultimas sold today (Ultima Edge and Ultima Duo) the same design?

 

-drl

[Peter Besenbruch]

Are the Ultimas sold today (Ultima Edge and Ultima Duo) the same design?

The Ultima Duo are basically uglified Baader Hyperions. The Ultima Edge is Celestron's version of the Ultra Flat Field eyepiece line.

[deSitter]

The Ultima Duo are basically uglified Baader Hyperions. The Ultima Edge is Celestron's version of the Ultra Flat Field eyepiece line.

 

You mean the ones sold by APM? Those are nice looking, seem well made.

 

-drl

[Peter Besenbruch]

Ye

 

You mean the ones sold by APM? Those are nice looking, seem well made.

Yes, the Ultima Edge series is decent. I have used the 10mm, 15mm and 30mm. Each has a somewhat different design. The 30 has 9 elements. That drops to 5 in the 10mm. The 15 had 8. They are sharp, well corrected, and slightly lacking in contrast. The 30mm is quite heavy.
 

[Princess Leah]

You mean the ones sold by APM? Those are nice looking, seem well made.

 

-drl

I don't think you will like these. I understand you have a critical eye for detail.

I retained the 30m UFF (APM) for wide views which it excels at.

 

However the others were not as sharp/clear as my ES 68s. or my Meade HD60 /Celestron X-Cel.

 

The 30mm is very comfortable, however I found eye placement in the others a little awkward - a bit pokey!

Also the 18mm is actually 19-19.5mm.

 

Had I been a complete beginner I would have been very happy with them, especially as the Svbony clones go second hand for as cheap as £30. 

Edited by Princess Leah, 23 April 2025 - 05:04 AM.

[Princess Leah]

I've been waiting for the learning curve to cool in this pursuit for a few years now. However every day is still a school day.

It's been important to me to buy mostly second hand/used.

Otherwise I would have likely convinced myself what I had bought was right on the money!

Or I would have made a lot of expensive mistakes.

Buying used has allowed me to keep an open mind!

[russell23]

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).

The Brandon is made 100% in the USA ...that is lenses, barrels, annodizing, assembly. That is why it costs more.

[Starman1]

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 enhancing these.

 

-drl

Uh, ask any retailer--they do NOT sell at high margins.  Often, the margins on small inexpensive eyepieces are a lot higher.

Like what you like.  To me, the 100° eyepieces were a revolution in eyepieces.  I immediately liked them and, were it not for a need for glasses, I would still use only 100° eyepieces.

I agree about contrast and detail and the best 100° eyepieces have just that.  Just look at the reviews of image sharpness and field correction.

There is no perfect eyepiece, and I have found flaws in every eyepiece at every price.

 

These Ohi Optics eyepieces from the '80s/'90s came in over 10 different brand names.  Theye were sharp, but lacked the superior coatings of today.

In that era, I had Clavé Plössls, Tele Vue Plössls, Ohi Optics 5 element eyepieces (Celestron, Parks, Orion, Antares, Baader, et.al), and 5 element Meade S4000 smoothies.

In my f/5-f/10 scopes of the era, the Meades were the best (made by Kowa in Japan)--sharpest in the outer field, no vignetting, sharpest on axis, and the most accessible eye relief (thought the 21mm Tele Vue smoothie was the sharpest of all).

I had seen opposite reviews, which means different reviewers and different scopes resulted in different results.

If the current MOP 53° eyepieces are no sharper at the edge than the Ohi Optics 5 element eyepieces from the '80s-'90s, they wouldn't be tempting at all.  Perhaps for the scope user with a tracking scope and ignoring the edge.

Edited by Starman1, 23 April 2025 - 10:26 AM.

[saemark30]

I have the TV 21mm plossl. Why is it so sharp and constrasty?

Are the old Meade S4000 that much better than the old or new TV plossls? I am mainly interested in planetary performance.

[SeattleScott]

I have the TV 21mm plossl. Why is it so sharp and constrasty?
Are the old Meade S4000 that much better than the old or new TV plossls? I am mainly interested in planetary performance.

The 21 TVP is a particularly good one, although you need something like a C11 or 7” Mak to use it on planets.

In general, I would look for Made in Japan optics, with minimal glass. I don’t know that the old Japanese Meade Plossls are better than TV Plossls. But probably in the same class.

[Starman1]

I have the TV 21mm plossl. Why is it so sharp and constrasty?
Are the old Meade S4000 that much better than the old or new TV plossls? I am mainly interested in planetary performance.

To be honest, I did not see differences on axis.
The Claves were not sharp at the edge, the Tele Vues vignetted the edge and I could see it. The Ohi Optics 5 elements were a bit too variable in quality of image across the line, and I loved the Meade 4000 smoothies from Kowa in Japan.
By today's standards, they would have low transmission--I took one apart to get a piece of debris, and the interior surfaces were uncoated!.
It didn't keep them from being good eyepieces, though perhaps not the best for the Moon. It did teach me that not all advertising is true. The Meade UWAs were advertised as 84°, but delivered more like 78°. If you see FMC on a cheap eyepiece, you should remain skeptical.

[saemark30]

Did the Meade S4000 super plossls have uncoated surfaces?

I noted the S4000 2x barlow(air spaced triplet) did not impress me regarding contrast or brightness.

[deSitter]

Did the Meade S4000 super plossls have uncoated surfaces?

I noted the S4000 2x barlow(air spaced triplet) did not impress me regarding contrast or brightness.

 

No, multi-coated all surfaces.

 

Many Barlows suffer from internal reflections, easily cured with flock paper cylinders.

 

I have a Meade #140 triplet Barlow and it is a fine unit.

 

-drl

[deSitter]

I have the TV 21mm plossl. Why is it so sharp and constrasty?

Are the old Meade S4000 that much better than the old or new TV plossls? I am mainly interested in planetary performance.

 

I am very happy with my 4k Plossls. They are extremely sharp on-axis and have jet black razor sharp field stops, all of them. No lateral color to speak of.

 

-drl

[Refractor6]

   Honestly I never looked through any of the latest in 100 degree widefield eps on the market and have been happy with what I collected from 1998 to 2005 in regards to the various Celestron Ultima and Antares Elite eps I still use mentioned in this thread. Both my EQ mounts have dual axis clock drives for my various refractors I observe with so the narrower FOV they provide is not a issue for me. Still to this day I don't wear my glasses when I observe so no issues with eye relief either right down to the 5mm.  I also like the fact they're all light from the 30mm to the 5mm so need need to shift the OTA position in the rings going from light to heavy eyepieces in this case.

 

 They will remain my favorites for closer observations of lunar, planetary and double stars and the smaller deep sky objects I go after like the great view I had of NGC2903 last night in my 5" refractor....if they work no need to change for something else... .