14 replies to this topic

[MrsM75]

Ofcourse we all want to support the site by buy Astronomics products.

 

But I want to hear a honest review of the Celestron Luminos 82 deg vs AstroTech UWA 82 deg

 

Both (Luminos and AT UWA) has the 7mm, 10mm and 15mm, in 82 deg, and also same eye relief. Luminos has problem with edge brightness. I wonder if the AT UWA same too?

 

Thank you.

 

 

[MrsM75]

And No, Luminos does not have better eye relief. Take example Luminos 7mm is 12mm eye relief, well the AstroTech UWA 7mm is also 12mm eye relief.

[SeattleScott]

it is hard to compare these affordable eyepieces. First of all, they are inconsistent. Overall, sure, the AT UWA series is better because there are more good ones but that doesn’t mean Luminos doesn’t pull ahead at a particular focal length. Secondly, people who buy these eyepieces buy them for a reason. They are affordable. And do you know what people who buy affordable eyepieces don’t normally do? Buy four eyepieces of the same focal length and compare them over several nights to see which one is best. So it isn’t easy to find people who bought a Luminos and AT UWA and compared them. TV, Pentax, Nikon, no problem. Plenty of people will compare the top brands to see which comes out on top. But midtier, not so much. They just read reviews and pick one.

Finally, you say the some focal lengths line up, but that’s not necessarily the case. The 7 Luminos is more like 6.6mm and the 7 UWA is more like 7.7mm. So even if someone did compare them, it might not be that meaningful because of the significant difference in focal length.

So where does that leave you? Well, Ernest has tested some of each. The 7 Luminos tests a bit better than the 7 UWA at F4. Now if you are using a F10 SCT, good luck seeing the difference. But if you are using a F4.7 Dob, the Luminos should be a bit better at the edge. The 10 Luminos tests well also, almost as good as the 7 (6.6). No test results for the 10 UWA, but reviews suggest it is about equal to the 7 (7.7). The 15/16 is likely best avoided in both series if you have a fast scope. Then the 2” Luminos are the ones known for EOFB. So maybe go with the UWA series here. The 28 is quite respectable in a fast scope, if not Nagler good. The 21 is brand new and nothing is known about performance yet, if it is even available.

[RichA]

Side issue;  did Celestron's Axioms have the same edge brightness issue?

[Jon Isaacs]

it is hard to compare these affordable eyepieces. First of all, they are inconsistent. Overall, sure, the AT UWA series is better because there are more good ones but that doesn’t mean Luminos doesn’t pull ahead at a particular focal length. Secondly, people who buy these eyepieces buy them for a reason. They are affordable. And do you know what people who buy affordable eyepieces don’t normally do? Buy four eyepieces of the same focal length and compare them over several nights to see which one is best. So it isn’t easy to find people who bought a Luminos and AT UWA and compared them. TV, Pentax, Nikon, no problem. Plenty of people will compare the top brands to see which comes out on top. But midtier, not so much. They just read reviews and pick one.

 

 

I have a complete set of the UWAs but have only owned one Luminos, the 23mm.  It was an example of an eyepiece that suffered badly from Edge of Field Brightness.  What I can offer is a comparison to my set of type 5 and type 6 Naglers, the 31mm, 16mm, 13mm, 11mm, 9mm, 7mm, 5mm and 3.5mm.  The big difference here is that MrsM75's scopes are F/13-F/15 whereas my scopes are mostly quite fast around F/5 with the slowest being F/7.  

 

None of the UWAs are as sharp across the field as the Type 5 and Type 6 Naglers at F/5 but that is to be expected, few eyepieces are.  I think the stars are the 28mm, 10mm and 7mm = 8mm.  The 4mm is quite good as is the 13mm, the 16 mm shows noticeable off-axis aberrations.  Eye relief and the visual experience, their presentation, the UWAs are very Nagler like.  

 

At F/13, they will all be sharp across the field so one has to look at other factors, scatter, ghosting, presentation.  The biggest issue for me with the UWAs is the gap between the 7mm = 8mm and the 4mm.  I filled that with a 2x Barlow and the 13mm and the 10mm providing 6.5mm and 5.5mm.  

 

Jon

[SeattleScott]

Side issue; did Celestron's Axioms have the same edge brightness issue?

No, my understanding is Axioms are equivalent to ES 82.

[Phillip Creed]

Side issue;  did Celestron's Axioms have the same edge brightness issue?

They didn't.  They're basically clones of the (discontinued) Meade 5000 UWAs and Explore Scientific 82s.  Even the "23mm" Axiom LX was, in actuality, 24mm once you did an exit pupil test.

The Astro-Tech 82° UWAs look like optical clones of the old William Optics UWANs.  All are good, but the 28mm is really nice.

Clear Skies,

Phil

[MrsM75]

I know it made in China, but does anyone know who make the Astrotech UWA 82 deg series?

 

I am very tempted to buy one. I returned all my X-Cel due to I not like the "Flat view" of the X-Cel, so I got some money back I can buy this AT UWA one.

Edited by MrsM75, 06 May 2025 - 03:43 PM.

[Martinbruce]

I’ve had Luminous ep’s and AT UWA’s. I did not like the twist up hard eyecup of the Luminous compared to the rubber eyecups of the AT’s. The Luminous were just uncomfortable to look through. Optics are important but comfort is necessary too. 

[MrsM75]

I have a complete set of the UWAs but have only owned one Luminos, the 23mm.  It was an example of an eyepiece that suffered badly from Edge of Field Brightness.  What I can offer is a comparison to my set of type 5 and type 6 Naglers, the 31mm, 16mm, 13mm, 11mm, 9mm, 7mm, 5mm and 3.5mm.  The big difference here is that MrsM75's scopes are F/13-F/15 whereas my scopes are mostly quite fast around F/5 with the slowest being F/7.  

 

None of the UWAs are as sharp across the field as the Type 5 and Type 6 Naglers at F/5 but that is to be expected, few eyepieces are.  I think the stars are the 28mm, 10mm and 7mm = 8mm.  The 4mm is quite good as is the 13mm, the 16 mm shows noticeable off-axis aberrations.  Eye relief and the visual experience, their presentation, the UWAs are very Nagler like.  

 

At F/13, they will all be sharp across the field so one has to look at other factors, scatter, ghosting, presentation.  The biggest issue for me with the UWAs is the gap between the 7mm = 8mm and the 4mm.  I filled that with a 2x Barlow and the 13mm and the 10mm providing 6.5mm and 5.5mm.  

 

Jon

 

Awesome review, thank you Sir.

 

Sir, to you which magnification  in the AstroTech UWA 82 deg series that is the best. I think of get a 7mm to use for planetary in my Mak.I think at f/14 and f/15, it should be okay.

 

oh does it have blackout Sir?

[Jon Isaacs]

Awesome review, thank you Sir.

 

Sir, to you which magnification  in the AstroTech UWA 82 deg series that is the best. I think of get a 7mm to use for planetary in my Mak.I think at f/14 and f/15, it should be okay.

 

oh does it have blackout Sir?

 

The 7mm = 8 mm or the 10mm.  

 

I am not the one to ask about blackouts.  For whatever reasons, I seem relatively immune to blackouts.  Some have observed/suggested that blackouts are often due to positioning your eye in front of the exit pupil, that can certainly do it.

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 07 May 2025 - 03:54 AM.

[CollinofAlabama]

I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Isaac's observation.  The AT UWA 7mm, 10mm and 28mm are top notch eyepieces.  They may not be quite as good as the somewhat corresponding Televue options (the 7mm, 9mm, 11mm T6's or the 30mm T5), but they are surprisingly close.  Of course, they cost a fraction of any of the Televue options.  I would say that the other options, the 4mm, maybe the 13mm (depends on the F/ratio of scope you have) and the 16mm (also depends on the F/ratio of your scope) are not as universally good as the 7, 10 and 28mm models.  But I recommend the first three I mentioned to anyone.  Also, as Jon noted, the 7mm is definitely not 7mm, but somewhere near 8mm.  Maybe 7.5mm, maybe 7.7mm, maybe 8mm?  Not sure its exact focal length, but it's north of 7mm, for sure.  Having compared the AT UWA 7mm directly to the TV 7mm T6, the AstroTech's magnification is less.

[PJBilotta]

Years ago, I briefly had the 14, 10 and 7 Luminos. They were nice budget 82s, and I actually liked the eyecups so many others dislike. However, the EOFB was quite annoying, and I replaced with similar AT UWAs. Better contrast, sharper, and better corrected all around. I didn't keep them long as I moved on to Pentaxes, but I do clearly recall the UWAs being markedly better.

Edited by PJBilotta, 17 May 2025 - 03:09 PM.

[JMP]

Just today I compared five eyepieces, a Bresser 35mm 70, a Panoptic 35, an AT 28 UWA, an Axiom LX 23mm and a Nagler 20mm type 2. I was using a C8 with a Celestron 2" diagonal and using a target that was 200 feet away with a printed grid pattern.

 

The Bresser 35 was only sharp in the middle third of the field while the Paanoptic 35  was sharp over 70-80 percent of the field,

The AT 28 UWA did pretty well, not quite as sharp as the Panoptic, but a distracting level of "ring of fire" in the daylight view. The Axiom 23 which preceded the Luminos 23 also had an obvious "ring of fire". I need to test these two again at night, but the ring of fire was distracting in both. Finally I compared the Nagler 20mm type 2, it was sharp most of the way to the edge with no ring of fire.

 

I should qualify these notes with the fact that my cataract surgery last year left something to be desired. I have a condition called Fuch's Dystrophy so my eyes aren't as sharp as they used to be. I picked up these eyepieces mostly used over the last couple years. This was the first time I compared them.

 

I like the Luminos 10mm, it's excellent. The Luminos 15 and 23 are so-so by comparison. The Axiom LX 23 has some good reviews but the old type 2 Nagler blew it away.

 

Second hand eyepieces can be a good value. Second hand panoptics can be a good way to go. The AT eyepieces do look like a good value as well.

[Jon Isaacs]

I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Isaac's observation.  The AT UWA 7mm, 10mm and 28mm are top notch eyepieces.  They may not be quite as good as the somewhat corresponding Televue options (the 7mm, 9mm, 11mm T6's or the 30mm T5), but they are surprisingly close.  Of course, they cost a fraction of any of the Televue options.  I would say that the other options, the 4mm, maybe the 13mm (depends on the F/ratio of scope you have) and the 16mm (also depends on the F/ratio of your scope) are not as universally good as the 7, 10 and 28mm models.  But I recommend the first three I mentioned to anyone.  Also, as Jon noted, the 7mm is definitely not 7mm, but somewhere near 8mm.  Maybe 7.5mm, maybe 7.7mm, maybe 8mm?  Not sure its exact focal length, but it's north of 7mm, for sure.  Having compared the AT UWA 7mm directly to the TV 7mm T6, the AstroTech's magnification is less.

 

 

I loaned out my set of UWAs (minus the 28mm) to a CN member on the east coast.  Reading this thread, I think I need to get them back. 

 

I like them and I enjoy them.  For me, the biggest difficulty is the gap between the 8 mm and the 4mm.  I solve that with a 2x Barlow, the 13 mm becomes a 6.5mm and the 10mm becomes a 5 mm so I have 16mm, 13mm, 10mm, 8mm, 6.5mm, 5mm and 4mm.  I like that spacing. 

 

I enjoy the 16mm despite it's shortcomings.  I think it is easier to overlook it's faults and enjoy what it can do when there is a 16mm Type 5 Nagler waiting in wings.

 

Jon