Brent I have a 7mm Nagler and 9mm & 6mm Orthos that I use for planetary work. I also have a 4mm UO but I will tend to use a Barlow with the otheres before I go to the 4mm; it is just really hard for me to focus. I have not been aware of the internal reflections you speak of in the Nagler but on my next outing I will be more conscious of it and look for it. I will say that for what ever reasons that I may not be able to fully explain, I tend to go to and prefer my UOs when doing planets and double stars. They tend to give a very sharp image at the center where I need it and a wide angle is not necessarily needed. The 7mm Nagler is really good on the moon though. Jim Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Jim, It would be interesting to hear your opinions of the orthoscopics versus the more expensive, wide angle eyepieces. My experience has shown the newer designs have bothersome internal reflections when looking at planets, while the orthos don't. The orthos also seem to be a bit sharper at the higher magnifications. A good plossl will approach the preformance of a good ortho, but not quite equal it. The general eyepiece population orthos and plossls are probably about the same. What has your experience been? Brent __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!