21 replies to this topic

[moefuzz]

Seller has no clue what they're from or even what size they are.

Look to be 1.25 inch??

 

Can anyone identify these?

 

I've reached out to the person but she is not telescope 'literate'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EJN]

SR = Special Ramsden, H = Huygens

 

These would be narrow field, and only work reasonably well (maybe) with long f-ratios. Like > f/10.

 

From the photo, everything looks like it is made from plastic.

[moefuzz]

Yeah, I thought so. Probably came in an all in one telescope set for the least amount of money.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

No free lens for me

[moefuzz]

I consider EJN's answer to be correct and enough info that the lenses are not worth the fuel or time,

no not even if they were across the street.

 

case closed,

 

moe

[Jon Isaacs]

I consider EJN's answer to be correct and enough info that the lenses are not worth the fuel or time,

no not even if they were across the street.

 

case closed,

 

moe

Moe:

 

They appear to have bodies made from plastic and are very likely of quite poor quality.  If they are free, you might pick them up to save someone else from trying to use them.

 

Jon

[Astrojensen]

I know those. Run away. Terribly fast. They are that horrible. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[skysurfer]

I bet those are the old fashioned .965 (24.5mm) barrel eyepieces, of old 1970s stuff.

Avoid these.

[starcanoe]

If you decided to start doing some ATM eyepiece work those 1.25 barrels from the eyepieces might be handy. In particular a pair of old binocs that can no longer bi can be salvaged to use their eyepieces ...all they need is a 1.25 inch barrel to mount them in.

[moefuzz]

I bet those are the old fashioned .965 (24.5mm) barrel eyepieces, of old 1970s stuff.

Avoid these.

That's one of the first things I thought of when I saw the pics.

-I tried to assess the size of the barrels while wondering if the hardwood floor was 3 or 4 inches thus gybing me a perspective to analyze the size of the lenses.

 

A lot of other things also clued me in, the large set/grouping had that "everything included plus 600x power too!" feel about it.

Its morning here and the seller hasn't responded so I'm guessing that someone else has scooped up the lucky terdmine.

 

I have a ton of good to excellent lenses and 3 scopes (2 x 6" + 10 Meade)" so not really looking for additional lenses but if thet were both free and of good+ quality I would consider the 100 mile round trip.

 

Thanks to everybody who replied.

 

moe 

[Astrojensen]

I bet those are the old fashioned .965 (24.5mm) barrel eyepieces, of old 1970s stuff.

Avoid these.

No, not at all. This is, in fact, far worse. These are modern, all-plastic 1.25" stuff. The 0.965" eyepieces from the 1970'ies were Naglers and Ethos'es by comparison. I am not joking.

 

Here's an image through a 4mm plastic Huygenian through my 63/840mm Zeiss: 

 

 

 

And here's the same area, just a few minutes later, through a 4mm 0.965" Japanese ortho:

 

 

Exposure and everything through the two are exactly the same. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[csrlice12]

It takes a very special eyepiece to show the fuzzy lunar rainbows; most eyepieces can't do it.

[moefuzz]

No, not at all. This is, in fact, far worse. These are modern, all-plastic 1.25" stuff. The 0.965" eyepieces from the 1970'ies were Naglers and Ethos'es by comparison. I am not joking.

 

Here's an image through a 4mm plastic Huygenian through my 63/840mm Zeiss: 

 

 

 

And here's the same area, just a few minutes later, through a 4mm 0.965" Japanese ortho:

 

 

 

Exposure and everything through the two are exactly the same. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

Nice!

 

And I would agree, the lenses I got with my ~mid~ quality late 60's Tasco were .965 but still presented a decent if not shaky image. -I don't know how old the Tasco was when I got it but it was the typical 60's 'wooden box full of stuff'., not bad stuff but generally ok stuff.

 

In the summer of '74 I ended up trading my Garrad mag turntable for a 4.5 reflector

with a rather important sounding name -"Carl Wetzsler"

 

It was actually a pretty good scope (Taiwan made), came with the typical three 1.25 lenses + barlow and filters and I used it for about 10 years before finally giving it to my brother once I had hunted down a Meade DS-10 (blue)` and then that lead me to find a decent intermediate 6" Celestron.

Both of which I still have although the circa ~1983  DS-10, with it's AC motor drive is a little inhibitive but that's where "push to" comes into play,  so it's all good.

 

The 4.5" Wetzsler came back to me in around the turn of the century when my Brother finally broke down and bought an 8" mak so I then re-gifted it to a good friend who had a very talented and smart young son living under bortle 2 skies.

It still had a nice mirror and was in clean condition.

 

Cheers,

moe of the north

 

.

Edited by moefuzz, 15 June 2025 - 10:45 AM.

[moefuzz]

No, not at all. This is, in fact, far worse. These are modern, all-plastic 1.25" stuff. The 0.965" eyepieces from the 1970'ies were Naglers and Ethos'es by comparison. I am not joking.

 

Here's an image through a 4mm plastic Huygenian through my 63/840mm Zeiss: 

 

 

 

 

And here's the same area, just a few minutes later, through a 4mm 0.965" Japanese ortho:

 

 

 

Exposure and everything through the two are exactly the same. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

 

Is the actual lens glass or is it plastic as well?

 

That doesn't look any better than my great grandkids clear plastic drinking 'glass' before it goes back into the dishwasher.
 

Edited by moefuzz, 15 June 2025 - 02:21 PM.

[Astrojensen]

Is the actual lens glass or is it plastic as well?

 

That doesn't look any better than my great grandkids clear plastic drinking 'glass' before it does back in the dishwasher.
 

Not sure at the moment, but given how horrible the image is, I'm guessing it's plastic. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[Don W]

Just a word of clarification. We call those eyepieces and Barlow. 

[Inkie]

I like Jon's community-mindedness and sense of ethics.  It should be every hobbyist's duty to rid the markets of such dreck. So, head hung in resignation, you trudge over, pick them up (offer one dollar) and head for the nearest open dumpster. 

[maniack]

As others have said these belong in the trash. They are far inferior to cheap Plossls or even Kellners.

[BKSo]

I like Jon's community-mindedness and sense of ethics. It should be every hobbyist's duty to rid the markets of such dreck. So, head hung in resignation, you trudge over, pick them up (offer one dollar) and head for the nearest open dumpster.

Nitpick: the gas for a drive to pickup those parts costs more than $1

[T1R2]

I like Jon's community-mindedness and sense of ethics.  It should be every hobbyist's duty to rid the markets of such dreck. So, head hung in resignation, you trudge over, pick them up (offer one dollar) and head for the nearest open dumpster. 

yeah, but people might find them, but they'll never find them if you use them to craft together canisters with caps on the ends, or to just turn them into other things you might need around you tackle box/ tool box. Those thumbscrews could be useful for someone needing some for a vintage finder scope or CG4 polar scope calibration adjusters, that's what I did with some of mine to calibrate the PS easier instead of trying to use those Allen wrenches one at a time with these you can turn two at the same time to move the reticle   

And those smooth chrome barrels are highly sought after, they might fit on some eps you want to replace the one's with safety cuts

Edited by T1R2, 16 June 2025 - 12:31 AM.

[luxo II]

Metal bits could be recycled.

Perhaps strip the lenses from one to make a Cheshire eyepiece.

 

The rest belongs in a dumpster.

Edited by luxo II, 16 June 2025 - 06:28 PM.

[moefuzz]

Nitpick: the gas for a drive to pickup those parts costs more than $1

 Up here gas is the equivalent of $8 per US Gallon     

so with the waste of 2 or 3 hour drive (in/out) and 3 or 4 gallons of gas, I naturally passed (no pun intended).

 

 

 
 

[Cpk133]

There are people out there that can’t afford to feed their kids.  Surely there’s a poor boy out there that would appreciate a look at the moon or seeing saturns ring for the first time through a 60mm and one of those plastic eyepieces.  As a child, I would have been thrilled to take those crappy eyepieces.  I used to use a plastic binocular to look at the moon.  The first time i saw my grandfathers real 10x50 binoculars I was shocked and wanted to take them home.  They’re perfect for a poor boy, not perfect for an old man  and they certainly don't need to go to a landfill.  When it comes to curiosity about astronomy, you either have it or you don’t.  Those are probably better than Galileo’s eyepiece.