144 replies to this topic

[deSitter]

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. 

 

I will never buy new eyepiece sets unless there is a natural disaster. My only purchases will be 24.5mm classic eyepieces and maybe an Erfle, Galoc, or classic Ortho in 1.25" format. I have all the eyepieces I need in all formats, and they are all good to excellent performers. Everything else is candy.

 

-drl

[Starman1]

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.

Interior surfaces of the 5 element with no rubber eyecup had no coatings or coatings that reflected a lot and clear in color, i.e. no coatings.

Verified by dismantling 2 of them.

There were internal surfaces in the S4000 UWAs that were uncoated also.  Verified by dismantling the 14mm.

First versions, no rubber eyecups.

Edited by Starman1, 23 April 2025 - 02:48 PM.

[mikeDnight]

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.

 I had a similar experience with a 25mm almost ten years ago. Since then I collected them from 35mm down to 3.8mm and love them all. However, the 3.8 and 5mm use an internal barlow I believe, which makes them comfortable to use for high power views. The ones I use most though are a pair of 35mm's, 25mm's & 18mm's in my binoviewer in conjunction with a 2X barlow on the nose of the viewer giving approx 4X amplification. Truly superb for Lunar & planetary observing in my 4" and 5" refractors.  I don't have the 15mm but believe a pair of 15mm's in my binoviewer would be awesome. Personally I prefer the Parks, Ultima's, Ultrascopic's & Eudiascopic's to the Tak LE's, especially the 30mm LE with its awful edge correction and deeply set eye lens.

[Princess Leah]

 

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.

 

The problem is most online reviews are a poor judge regarding on-axis sharpness.

 

The Baader Morpheus is a good example. I like my Morpheus in the longer focal lengths for low mag/sharp edges.

However these eyepieces are not particularly sharp on-axis. Much less sharp than a ES62/68 or Celestron LX Xcel or Celestron Omni Plossl. I would say my ES82 are also a little sharper than the Morpheus.

The Morpheus does have great transmission, however the warm Lanthanum tint is annoying at high magnification.

[saemark30]

Interior surfaces of the 5 element with no rubber eyecup had no coatings or coatings that reflected a lot and clear in color, i.e. no coatings.

Verified by dismantling 2 of them.

There were internal surfaces in the S4000 UWAs that were uncoated also.  Verified by dismantling the 14mm.

First versions, no rubber eyecups.

Shocking I'll avoid buying those old S4000 ones. I compared the old 14 UWA to a N13 T6 and the Nagler was clearly brighter and whiter.

[Starman1]

The problem is most online reviews are a poor judge regarding on-axis sharpness.

 

The Baader Morpheus is a good example. I like my Morpheus in the longer focal lengths for low mag/sharp edges.

However, these eyepieces are not particularly sharp on-axis. Much less sharp than a ES62/68 or Celestron LX Xcel or Celestron Omni Plossl. I would say my ES82 are also a little sharper than the Morpheus.

The Morpheus does have great transmission; however, the warm Lanthanum tint is annoying at high magnification.

Like every line of eyepieces, some are sharper than others.  The ES 68° series is an example: the 16mm and 20mm are sharper than the others.

I find the 14mm, 12.5mm, and 4.5mm Morpheus sharper on axis than the other focal lengths, despite Ernest's tests.

In Ernest's tests, they all had a spot size of 5' or smaller on axis, which the optics books all call "perfect" because the eye sees that as perfect.

Only the edges slid a little.

 

You mention a warm Lanthanum oxide tint?  I find the presentation of blues to be remarkable, especially on the 4.5mm (4.8mm).

The only sharp ES82s I used were the 6.7mm and 4.7mm.  The others...meh.

The Celestron X-Cel LX vary from focal length to focal length.

Few eyepieces are consistent along the entire range.

 

I also wonder, from time to time, about variation from eyepiece to eyepiece playing a part in evaluation.

[deSitter]

Interior surfaces of the 5 element with no rubber eyecup had no coatings or coatings that reflected a lot and clear in color, i.e. no coatings.

Verified by dismantling 2 of them.

There were internal surfaces in the S4000 UWAs that were uncoated also.  Verified by dismantling the 14mm.

First versions, no rubber eyecups.

 

Mine are from circa 2000 and I've had 4 or 5 of them apart for cleaning - all surfaces dark green coated. I've never noticed problems with relfections and ghosting that originated in the eyepiece.

 

-drl

[Starman1]

Mine are from circa 2000 and I've had 4 or 5 of them apart for cleaning - all surfaces dark green coated. I've never noticed problems with relfections and ghosting that originated in the eyepiece.

 

-drl

A running change then.  Good to know.

You are talking S4000 eyepieces?  They were discontinued when Meade moved to Taiwan in 1995.

Doesn't mean there couldn't have been some in stock, though.

There was a long gap before the JOC S5000s showed up.

I started at Scope City in 2005, and the S5000s arrived in 2008.

[Mike W]

So my Meade 8.8 4000 had no coatings on the inner lenses, I don't remember any odd reflections? Of course I was using a Paul Rini 30mm Erfle too! (You got seasick panning with that E/P)

[Princess Leah]

Like every line of eyepieces, some are sharper than others.  The ES 68° series is an example: the 16mm and 20mm are sharper than the others.

I find the 14mm, 12.5mm, and 4.5mm Morpheus sharper on axis than the other focal lengths, despite Ernest's tests.

In Ernest's tests, they all had a spot size of 5' or smaller on axis, which the optics books all call "perfect" because the eye sees that as perfect.

Only the edges slid a little.

 

You mention a warm Lanthanum oxide tint?  I find the presentation of blues to be remarkable, especially on the 4.5mm (4.8mm).

The only sharp ES82s I used were the 6.7mm and 4.7mm.  The others...meh.

The Celestron X-Cel LX vary from focal length to focal length.

Few eyepieces are consistent along the entire range.

 

I also wonder, from time to time, about variation from eyepiece to eyepiece playing a part in evaluation.

All of the X-Cel LX (perhaps except for 2.3mm and 5mm ) are very sharp on-axis.

All of the 1.25 inch ES82 are sharp on-axis.

The ES 82 14mm (with the messy edges) is sharper than the 14mm Morpheus on-axis.

The ES 62 14mm is considerably sharper than both.

 

I'm starting to wonder if we bother to look for on-axis sharpness anymore.

 

I agree the high transmission of the Morpheus reveal colours well, even blues. However I don't regard these as the best eyepieces for lunar/planets.

Edited by Princess Leah, 23 April 2025 - 04:57 PM.

[deSitter]

All of the X-Cel LX are very sharp on-axis.

All of the 1.25 inch ES82 are sharp on-axis.

The ES 82 14mm (with the messy edges) is sharper than the 14mm Morpheus on-axis.

The ES 62 14mm is considerably sharper than both.

 

I'm starting to wonder if we bother to look for on-axis sharpness anymore.

 

I agree the high transmission of the Morpheus reveal colours well, even blues. However I don't regard these as the best eyepieces for lunar/planets.

 

There is no qyestion that 8 to 11 element eyepieces on-axis are inferior to simpler designs. There is no free lunch. The huge fields of view involve mangling the optical path so much that loss of central performance is inevitable. It is maybe less important for star fields and DSOs but you can easily see it on planets, particularly Jupiter with its low contrast features and delicate swirls.

 

-drl

[Refractor6]

There is no qyestion that 8 to 11 element eyepieces on-axis are inferior to simpler designs. There is no free lunch. The huge fields of view involve mangling the optical path so much that loss of central performance is inevitable. It is maybe less important for star fields and DSOs but you can easily see it on planets, particularly Jupiter with its low contrast features and delicate swirls.

 

-drl

  For that very reason I'm keeping my relics from the past......

[Starman1]

All of the X-Cel LX (perhaps except for 2.3mm and 5mm ) are very sharp on-axis.

All of the 1.25 inch ES82 are sharp on-axis.

The ES 82 14mm (with the messy edges) is sharper than the 14mm Morpheus on-axis.

The ES 62 14mm is considerably sharper than both.

 

I'm starting to wonder if we bother to look for on-axis sharpness anymore.

 

I agree the high transmission of the Morpheus reveal colours well, even blues. However I don't regard these as the best eyepieces for lunar/planets.

If it's sharp enough on axis you can see stars in the center of M5 or M3 or M2 as the tiniest of little points, what more could you want?

I will tell you: the same image quality from edge to edge in an ultrawide or hyperwide field in an f/4-f/5 scope.

If sharper on axis means less sharp half-way to the edge, count me out.  Been there, done that.

Example: the 14mm ES 82° was not good from 50% of the way to the edge to the edge.  Disqualified.

 

Out of every hour observing, I spend maybe 5 seconds on the Moon and planets.  I prefer a star cluster to look like a star cluster across the field, though I will forgive a bit of lower quality image in the last 2-4° of the field.

Lunar/planetary specialists prefer different eyepieces.  That's fine--there are plenty to go around.

[Procyon]

The 15mm Orion Ultrascopic (Same as Parks Gold) did have great reviews back in the day. All between 10-35mm did actually. The others under 10mm, not so much.

 

https://excelsis.com...5mm-22-194.html

[Princess Leah]

If it's sharp enough on axis you can see stars in the center of M5 or M3 or M2 as the tiniest of little points, what more could you want?

I will tell you: the same image quality from edge to edge in an ultrawide or hyperwide field in an f/4-f/5 scope.

If sharper on axis means less sharp half-way to the edge, count me out.  Been there, done that.

Example: the 14mm ES 82° was not good from 50% of the way to the edge to the edge.  Disqualified.

 

Out of every hour observing, I spend maybe 5 seconds on the Moon and planets.  I prefer a star cluster to look like a star cluster across the field, though I will forgive a bit of lower quality image in the last 2-4° of the field.

Lunar/planetary specialists prefer different eyepieces.  That's fine--there are plenty to go around.

I suppose it depends on the speed of your scopes.

Did you try your ES14mm in your refractor? For me 75% of the field is sharp with this eyepiece at F6. You might remember I started a thread on this eyepiece wondering if there is sample variation. It's an eyepiece that divides opinion - however it is one of my favourites. My feeling is like refractors there is a lot of sample variation with eyepieces.

 

I understand what you say about the importance of edge performance for the kind of viewing you do. It's actually the kind of viewing I prefer and is the reason I retain eyepieces like my Baader Morpheus 17mm.

 

However like yourself I'm in the city so much of my viewing has to be planets/lunar and I also use my refractors to look at still objects during the day. I enjoy looking at nature closely, such as flowers/trees etc things that don't move! It is for this kind of observing that eyepieces such as the Parks are very enjoyable/useful. I suppose in some sense this kind of viewing is more akin to looking through a microscope.

 

I think it would be helpful if this distinction was made more clear on CN. Then my expectations and others for eyepieces like the Morpheus wouldn't be so high. Personally I think such eyepieces are overpriced.

 

I understand the retailer isn't making the profit, but perhaps the original supplier (Baader for instance) is? I'm not sure if the Morpheus is made in Germany or China? I'm happy to pay more for EU made products.

 

A lot of these expensive eyepieces have a great build quality that doesn't quite match their optical promise. The Baader basic T2 diagonal is similar in this regard - looks great - but the cheaper Celestron prism is better optically. Another example is Opticron binoculars. Few people outside the UK/Ireland seem to realise that Opticron make the sharpest sports optics available (on-axis!). Granted their binoculars often have a narrower FOV then others, but I prefer this if it helps with on-axis performance.

[SeattleScott]

Morpheus are made in China.

[Starman1]

I suppose it depends on the speed of your scopes.

Did you try your ES14mm in your refractor? For me 75% of the field is sharp with this eyepiece at F6. You might remember I started a thread on this eyepiece wondering if there is sample variation. It's an eyepiece that divides opinion - however it is one of my favourites. My feeling is like refractors there is a lot of sample variation with eyepieces.

 

I understand what you say about the importance of edge performance for the kind of viewing you do. It's actually the kind of viewing I prefer and is the reason I retain eyepieces like my Baader Morpheus 17mm.

 

However like yourself I'm in the city so much of my viewing has to be planets/lunar and I also use my refractors to look at still objects during the day. I enjoy looking at nature closely, such as flowers/trees etc things that don't move! It is for this kind of observing that eyepieces such as the Parks are very enjoyable/useful. I suppose in some sense this kind of viewing is more akin to looking through a microscope.

 

I think it would be helpful if this distinction was made more clear on CN. Then my expectations and others for eyepieces like the Morpheus wouldn't be so high. Personally I think such eyepieces are overpriced.

 

I understand the retailer isn't making the profit, but perhaps the original supplier (Baader for instance) is? I'm not sure if the Morpheus is made in Germany or China? I'm happy to pay more for EU made products.

 

A lot of these expensive eyepieces have a great build quality that doesn't quite match their optical promise. The Baader basic T2 diagonal is similar in this regard - looks great - but the cheaper Celestron prism is better optically. Another example is Opticron binoculars. Few people outside the UK/Ireland seem to realise that Opticron make the sharpest sports optics available (on-axis!). Granted their binoculars often have a narrower FOV then others, but I prefer this if it helps with on-axis performance.

My scopes of the time were f/10 and f/7 when I used the 14mm ES 82°.

For terrestrial work, I agree that 50-60° seems fine, though some 70° eyepieces work well.

Morpheus eyepieces are made in China, most likely by Barsta.

My city observing is mostly Moon, where the 6mm and 3.7mm Ethos get used a lot.

[deSitter]

 

However like yourself I'm in the city so much of my viewing has to be planets/lunar and I also use my refractors to look at still objects during the day. I enjoy looking at nature closely, such as flowers/trees etc things that don't move! It is for this kind of observing that eyepieces such as the Parks are very enjoyable/useful. I suppose in some sense this kind of viewing is more akin to looking through a microscope.

 

 

That's absolutely right on! Microscopes need comfortable eye position for concentrated study - so they use simple eyepieces - mine are Huygens and Kellners. The design is not even noted on the barrel. The issue of field of view barely arises - the important factors are sharpness in the middle and ease of placement of the eye.

 

I just received a couple of 1.25" -> 23mm sleeves so I can use microscope eyepieces in my binoviewer. Looking forward to trying that!

 

-drl

[Mike B]

 

I suppose in some sense this kind of viewing is more akin to looking through a microscope.

That's absolutely right on! Microscopes need comfortable eye position for concentrated study - so they use simple eyepieces - mine are Huygens and Kellners. The design is not even noted on the barrel. The issue of field of view barely arises - the important factors are sharpness in the middle and ease of placement of the eye.

 

I just received a couple of 1.25" -> 23mm sleeves so I can use microscope eyepieces in my binoviewer. Looking forward to trying that!

 

-drl

It sure is! A fine insight- one which neatly segues into a whole nuther branch of thot on EPs, the “micro’s”. I won’t even get into the details- but search CN for inspirational threads on such micro makes as “Zeiss”, “Leica”, “Olympus”, “Gerd Neumann”, “Nikon”. 50-ish degree fields of sharpness & clarity born for microscopes going to medical research, university labs, & industry!

[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.

Worth bearing in mind that these eyepieces were Japan-made with expensive glass. The last time I found some new examples for sale (Celestron-badged) in a Spanish store a few years ago, they were priced at over €200 each. They are premium eyepieces - and I suspect the reason they’re not produced today is because they were expensive to manufacture.

[Refractor6]

Worth bearing in mind that these eyepieces were Japan-made with expensive glass. The last time I found some new examples for sale (Celestron-badged) in a Spanish store a few years ago, they were priced at over €200 each. They are premium eyepieces - and I suspect the reason they’re not produced today is because they were expensive to manufacture.

 The various variants on the market we've discussed weren't cheap back in the day in the early 2000's. I know this from my own personal collection and were considered the preferred high end choice for lunar/ planetary details with fellow observers as I remember.

[saemark30]

My favovite pseudo Masuyama eyepiece were the 20mm followed by the 15mm.

As far as I can tell the new Masuyama MOP eyepieces are the same design with the latest coatings and fairly priced.

[Princess Leah]

I would hope it would be now be possible to get approx 60 degrees and equivalent sharpness. A Televue Delite perhaps?

 

The ES 16/68 is perhaps the sharpest EP I have above 50/52 degrees FOV. Perhaps the penalty for on-axis accuracy is low eye-relief!

Suprisingly I am becoming more and more comfortable with less eye relief.

- it is almost becoming a preference when using one eye.

[Highburymark]

I would hope it would be now be possible to get approx 60 degrees and equivalent sharpness. A Televue Delite perhaps?

The ES 16/68 is perhaps the sharpest EP I have above 50/52 degrees FOV. Perhaps the penalty for on-axis accuracy is low eye-relief!
Suprisingly I am becoming more and more comfortable with less eye relief.
- it is almost becoming a preference when using one eye.

Yes - definitely the Delite is a better edge-corrected modern equivalent.

[Highburymark]

My favovite pseudo Masuyama eyepiece were the 20mm followed by the 15mm.
As far as I can tell the new Masuyama MOP eyepieces are the same design with the latest coatings and fairly priced.

Good point - the MOPs are fairly priced given the pedigree of the eyepiece. I am curious about them, but would only be doubling up other eyepiece pairs if I bought any. I’m even more curious to discover if they really improve on the pseuds.