Hi Folks, If you haven't figured out already I'm a bit of a Cave fanatic and have found another mirror for sale (10" f/5...I could make binoculars :-) on Astromart for some lucky soul: http://www.astromart.com/viewad.asp?cid=147528 This one even comes with a Cave 2.14" Secondary. Have a look!
After re-reading a few articles in S&T about folded long F.L. refractors, I'm toying with the idea of making one. Apogee lists a 90x1000 objective for $85, but they are out of stock until March. I'm leaning toward this 90 mm lens because I have a lens cell that I think will work, but my understanding is that a longer F.L. would have less color.. The only other source of objectives I have found is Surplus Shed, but their website doesn't list anything within a couple of inches larger or smaller. Does anyone know of other sources for objectives between 80 and 100 mm? Has anybody built a folded refractor? What kind of quality can I expect from Apogee lenses? Bob Grant
Bob, try also ANTARES, out of Vancouver, IIRC. They have ads in the back of the magazines. They carry the Vixen line of objectives, in both "Research Grade" and "Commercial Grade". I have purchased 2 Vixen objectives, found them both to be excellent. I have also purchased many objectives from Apogee, but the quality has varied. I think they have multiple sources, which might explain the inconsistency. Some have been excellent, some only fair. Kind of a crapshoot. You are correct in assuming that, with doublets, the longer the focal ratio, the less apparent the spurious color is. Folded refractors are a great convenience. Use the highest-reflectivity mirrors available to mitigate throughput loss. Chuck --- Marilyn Smith <bob-marilyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
After re-reading a few articles in S&T about folded long F.L. refractors, I'm toying with the idea of making one. Apogee lists a 90x1000 objective for $85, but they are out of stock until March. I'm leaning toward this 90 mm lens because I have a lens cell that I think will work, but my understanding is that a longer F.L. would have less color.. The only other source of objectives I have found is Surplus Shed, but their website doesn't list anything within a couple of inches larger or smaller. Does anyone know of other sources for objectives between 80 and 100 mm? Has anybody built a folded refractor? What kind of quality can I expect from Apogee lenses?
Bob Grant
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Thanks for your reply, Chuck. I've requested a catalog from Antares. They don't seem to have a website. Bob Grant ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuckhards@yahoo.com> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Sources for Refractor Objectives
Bob, try also ANTARES, out of Vancouver, IIRC. They have ads in the back of the magazines. They carry the Vixen line of objectives, in both "Research Grade" and "Commercial Grade".
I have purchased 2 Vixen objectives, found them both to be excellent.
I have also purchased many objectives from Apogee, but the quality has varied. I think they have multiple sources, which might explain the inconsistency. Some have been excellent, some only fair. Kind of a crapshoot.
You are correct in assuming that, with doublets, the longer the focal ratio, the less apparent the spurious color is.
Folded refractors are a great convenience. Use the highest-reflectivity mirrors available to mitigate throughput loss.
Chuck
--- Marilyn Smith <bob-marilyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
After re-reading a few articles in S&T about folded long F.L. refractors, I'm toying with the idea of making one. Apogee lists a 90x1000 objective for $85, but they are out of stock until March. I'm leaning toward this 90 mm lens because I have a lens cell that I think will work, but my understanding is that a longer F.L. would have less color.. The only other source of objectives I have found is Surplus Shed, but their website doesn't list anything within a couple of inches larger or smaller. Does anyone know of other sources for objectives between 80 and 100 mm? Has anybody built a folded refractor? What kind of quality can I expect from Apogee lenses?
Bob Grant
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Bob, be sure to keep us posted on the project, I'd love to see a nice folded refractor. Have you decided on a configuration? C. --- Marilyn Smith <bob-marilyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Chuck. I've requested a catalog from Antares. They don't seem to have a website.
Bob Grant
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Chuck- No, I haven't decided upon a configuration, nor have I decided whether it would be a practical first telescope project for me. A lot of my dreams never get past the incubation period. (One of my hobbies is machining. If I built all the gas, steam and Stirling engines for which I have collected blueprints and castings for, there wouldn't be room in my garage for the cars.) I see this project as a way to combine my interests of machining and astronomy, and to make a more portable scope. It only makes sense if it is within my ability and budget - I'm in the research stage. The configurations that have caught my interest are Pfannenschmidt's Folder Refractor (S&T March 2001), Carreira's Drumscope (S&T Oct 2002), and Schroder's Collapsible Refractor (forgotten title from Main Library). The intriguing thing about the Drumscope (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the 3 mirrors should allow the image to be reflected to an axis offset from but parallel to the axis of the objective. This could allow two of them to be placed back-to-back to make a long focal length refractor binoscope. On one hand, my wife's disinterest in astronomy (and no kids) would allow me to simplify construction by having a fixed interoccular distance. On the other hand, it will be hard enough to justify to her the cost for ONE more scope, and now it would be doubled. (I was foolish enough to buy a 20-year-old BMW motorcycle a while back - it cost me a facelift. I'm a poor negotiator.) Dreamingly, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuckhards@yahoo.com> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Sources for Refractor Objectives
Bob, be sure to keep us posted on the project, I'd love to see a nice folded refractor. Have you decided on a configuration?
C.
--- Marilyn Smith <bob-marilyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Chuck. I've requested a catalog from Antares. They don't seem to have a website.
Bob Grant
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
"If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." It is with great sadness that I announce the passing of Dr. H. Jess Brown, who taught me science and chemistry as a student at East High, back in the '70's. "Doc" Brown was one of those science teachers who knew how to make the subject interesting. His love of teaching and learning was always obvious to those who studied under him. I have no doubt that several of my high-school chums chose science careers due to Doc Brown's infectious enthusiasm for the subject, and effective teaching methods. His lifetime was one of service to his fellow man through science. Please take the time to read his obit, on-line at desnews.com. Ad Astra, my old teacher, my old friend. You have done well, and now it's time to rest. Chuck Hards __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
It's always good to have a positive influence in school. I've had a few teachers that had an impact on me. It's sad to see them pass away but we'll all be seeing them soon enough. Joe --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
"If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
It is with great sadness that I announce the passing of Dr. H. Jess Brown, who taught me science and chemistry as a student at East High, back in the '70's.
"Doc" Brown was one of those science teachers who knew how to make the subject interesting. His love of teaching and learning was always obvious to those who studied under him. I have no doubt that several of my high-school chums chose science careers due to Doc Brown's infectious enthusiasm for the subject, and effective teaching methods.
His lifetime was one of service to his fellow man through science. Please take the time to read his obit, on-line at desnews.com.
Ad Astra, my old teacher, my old friend. You have done well, and now it's time to rest.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
I noticed Saturday night that the banding on Saturn was made much more visible when I used a pale-blue filter; contrast was enhanced as well. The filter is so mild that a color shift was not noticed. The crepe ring's visibility was not reduced. A couple of Mars oppositions ago, I noticed a similar effect, with a somewhat denser blue filter. Even with the filter, Mars was so red to begin with, that the filtered view was almost "natural", with contrast much enhanced to boot. Anybody else using filters for planetary viewing? Chuck __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
I won't answer that question! Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
I noticed Saturday night that the banding on Saturn was made much more visible when I used a pale-blue filter; contrast was enhanced as well. The filter is so mild that a color shift was not noticed. The crepe ring's visibility was not reduced.
A couple of Mars oppositions ago, I noticed a similar effect, with a somewhat denser blue filter. Even with the filter, Mars was so red to begin with, that the filtered view was almost "natural", with contrast much enhanced to boot.
Anybody else using filters for planetary viewing?
Chuck
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
I should have qualified the question! Seriously, Brent, try the really light filters, the ones that barely have a tint. They do have a beneficial effect without tinting the entire scene. C. --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I won't answer that question! Brent
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Hey, Brent, when you fly or drive, do you wear sunglasses? Are they tinted yellow, green, or neutral? ;) Chuck __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
My issue with filters is not the color change. My issue is that they degrade the image. When I look at the planets, I am trying to see as much detail as possible. My experience is that the filters do not allow me to do this. I know others see an improvement, but I do not. In fact, the image contains less detail. What is there after the filter does its dirty work may or may not be more apparent. Your mileage can, and does, vary. (I wear brown tinted glasses when I wear dark glasses. They cut the blue light more than the red, and hence do not deplete the rhodopsin as much. Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Brent, when you fly or drive, do you wear sunglasses? Are they tinted yellow, green, or neutral?
;)
Chuck
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Hey Bob, I've tried to find their website as well with no luck. Do you happen to have a phone number that I could call to request a catalog? Dave Bennett On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 06:50 PM, Marilyn Smith wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Chuck. I've requested a catalog from Antares. They don't seem to have a website.
Bob Grant
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuckhards@yahoo.com> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Sources for Refractor Objectives
Bob, try also ANTARES, out of Vancouver, IIRC. They have ads in the back of the magazines. They carry the Vixen line of objectives, in both "Research Grade" and "Commercial Grade".
I have purchased 2 Vixen objectives, found them both to be excellent.
I have also purchased many objectives from Apogee, but the quality has varied. I think they have multiple sources, which might explain the inconsistency. Some have been excellent, some only fair. Kind of a crapshoot.
You are correct in assuming that, with doublets, the longer the focal ratio, the less apparent the spurious color is.
Folded refractors are a great convenience. Use the highest-reflectivity mirrors available to mitigate throughput loss.
Chuck
--- Marilyn Smith <bob-marilyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
After re-reading a few articles in S&T about folded long F.L. refractors, I'm toying with the idea of making one. Apogee lists a 90x1000 objective for $85, but they are out of stock until March. I'm leaning toward this 90 mm lens because I have a lens cell that I think will work, but my understanding is that a longer F.L. would have less color.. The only other source of objectives I have found is Surplus Shed, but their website doesn't list anything within a couple of inches larger or smaller. Does anyone know of other sources for objectives between 80 and 100 mm? Has anybody built a folded refractor? What kind of quality can I expect from Apogee lenses?
Bob Grant
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
You guys are correct, they do not have a Website. C. --- David Bennett <dlbennett@mac.com> wrote:
Hey Bob,
I've tried to find their website as well with no luck. Do you happen to have a phone number that I could call to request a catalog?
Dave Bennett
On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 06:50 PM, Marilyn Smith wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Chuck. I've requested a catalog from Antares. They don't seem to have a website.
Bob Grant
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Blame my deteriorating memory. What I called Antares is actually Sky Instruments. Fax: 800-648-4188 Ph. 604-270-2813 Antares is the name of their eyepiece line. Sorry, I haven't bought from them in several years. They don't have a Website under the Sky name, either. Chuck __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Here's a website you might find useful: http://harlequinastronomics.com/main.html Looks like they might have what you are looking for. Rich --- David Bennett <dlbennett@mac.com> wrote:
Hey Bob,
I've tried to find their website as well with no luck. Do you happen to have a phone number that I could call to request a catalog?
Dave Bennett
On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 06:50 PM, Marilyn Smith wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Chuck. I've requested a catalog from Antares. They don't seem to have a website.
Bob Grant
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuckhards@yahoo.com> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Sources for Refractor Objectives
Bob, try also ANTARES, out of Vancouver, IIRC. They have ads in the back of the magazines. They carry the Vixen line of objectives, in both "Research Grade" and "Commercial Grade".
I have purchased 2 Vixen objectives, found them both to be excellent.
I have also purchased many objectives from Apogee, but the quality has varied. I think they have multiple sources, which might explain the inconsistency. Some have been excellent, some only fair. Kind of a crapshoot.
You are correct in assuming that, with doublets, the longer the focal ratio, the less apparent the spurious color is.
Folded refractors are a great convenience. Use the highest-reflectivity mirrors available to mitigate throughput loss.
Chuck
--- Marilyn Smith <bob-marilyn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
After re-reading a few articles in S&T about folded long F.L. refractors, I'm toying with the idea of making one. Apogee lists a 90x1000 objective for $85, but they are out of stock until March. I'm leaning toward this 90 mm lens because I have a lens cell that I think will work, but my understanding is that a longer F.L. would have less color.. The only other source of objectives I have found is Surplus Shed, but their website doesn't list anything within a couple of inches larger or smaller. Does anyone know of other sources for objectives between 80 and 100 mm? Has anybody built a folded refractor? What kind of quality can I expect from Apogee lenses?
Bob Grant
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
I wonder if the shipping from Singapore is more than from Canada, eh? C. --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here's a website you might find useful:
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Whoa! A hundred and ten bucks for a Japanese Ortho! Did you hit the lottery, Rich? ;) Ouch! Now, where's that eyepiece-making article by that curmudgeon from Utah? ;) C. --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here's a website you might find useful:
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
$110 in Singapore Dollars = about $63.50 USD I'd still opt for the curmudgeon! dlb On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 11:32 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Whoa! A hundred and ten bucks for a Japanese Ortho! Did you hit the lottery, Rich? ;)
Ouch!
Now, where's that eyepiece-making article by that curmudgeon from Utah? ;)
C.
--- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here's a website you might find useful:
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Are the prices in Singapore Dollars, Dave? $63.50 isn't bad for a Japanese Ortho., if the shipping isn't too bad on top of it. C. --- David Bennett <dlbennett@mac.com> wrote:
$110 in Singapore Dollars = about $63.50 USD
I'd still opt for the curmudgeon!
dlb
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Yes, they are all in SGD, Singapore Dollars and s/h is included unless noted otherwise..see the 'Fine Print' tab. On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 11:49 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Are the prices in Singapore Dollars, Dave? $63.50 isn't bad for a Japanese Ortho., if the shipping isn't too bad on top of it.
C.
--- David Bennett <dlbennett@mac.com> wrote:
$110 in Singapore Dollars = about $63.50 USD
I'd still opt for the curmudgeon!
dlb
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Hi all, Sometime before the Mars opposition in August I want to pick up a decent higher power eyepiece; I'm thinking the choice is between an Ortho and a Ploessl, probably in the 6-8 mm range. Any of you out there have strong feelings/recommendations on this? I would like to keep it under $100. How much difference is there between TeleVue (which has an 8mm) and say the new "premium" (NOT the Sirius) ploessls that Orion is selling, besides price? Is a Takahashi priced at $190 (7.5mm) really that much better than those $65 antares models where contrast and eye relief are concerned? Any difference between the Orthos Celestron sells and what University Optics sells? All opinions welcome. TIA, Rich __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Rich The book you were just talking about, "The Backyard Astronomers Guid", Alan Dyer likes the Orion Lantnanum which you can get for under $100 if you don't get if from Orion. Dickenson on the othere hand likes th Pintax (more expensive). They both, of course, love the Naglers. I really like the book too. I am new to astronomy and the book covers a wide range of subject and give really good advice to beginners as well as good foundational knowledge. It has a beautiful picture of M31 on the front and evidently Dickensen is quite an accomplished Astrophotographer; lots of cool photos. Jim Gibson --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
I just thought I'd butt in and mention that I liked that book also. I just can't find it and am not sure which edition it was, but the title was something to the effect of backyard astronomy. One good thing I remember is that you should start off with a good set of binoculars to see if you'll stick with it. Lots of people buy a big telescope to find they can't go star gazing because of one thing or another and it ends up being a large, expensive closet decoration. I read mention of a star party this weekend to view Saturn. All I have is a pair of Mead 8x25 or something like that. I bought them for hiking and camping, but then thought, hey, Mead makes astronomy telescopes - maybe it will work for some stuff like the moon and maybe some planets or something. In any case, I intend to check out some animals or something once the warm weather hits. Hey, I gotta use them for something. There's no beaches. ;) Joe Jim Gibson <xajax99@yahoo.com> wrote: Rich The book you were just talking about, "The Backyard Astronomers Guid", Alan Dyer likes the Orion Lantnanum which you can get for under $100 if you don't get if from Orion. Dickenson on the othere hand likes th Pintax (more expensive). They both, of course, love the Naglers. I really like the book too. I am new to astronomy and the book covers a wide range of subject and give really good advice to beginners as well as good foundational knowledge. It has a beautiful picture of M31 on the front and evidently Dickensen is quite an accomplished Astrophotographer; lots of cool photos. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Hi Rich: --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sometime before the Mars opposition in August I want to pick up a decent higher power eyepiece; I'm thinking the choice is between an Ortho and a Ploessl, probably in the 6-8 mm range. Any of you out there have strong feelings/recommendations on this? I would like to keep it under $100.
A well-made Plossl is capable of excellent performance, with a wider field than an Ortho. The diffraction-limited area will probably be smaller than an Ortho, however.
How much difference is there between TeleVue (which has an 8mm) and say the new "premium" (NOT the Sirius) ploessls that Orion is selling, besides price? Is a Takahashi priced at $190 (7.5mm) really that much better than those $65 antares models where contrast and eye relief are concerned?
IMO, Televue makes the best Plossl. I haven't used Takahashi. I have compared the TV Plossls side-by-side with Orion and Celestron Plossls. TV consistently supported the highest magnifications (Barlowed).
Any difference between the Orthos Celestron sells and what University Optics sells?
20 years ago, they were all made by the same Japanese factory. A variation on the Bear/Obie/Galileo thing. I'm not sure where the current crop of OEM Orthos is coming from, but I suspect China. Anybody? I have heard that TV eyepieces are made by Unitron but have not verified this. Here's a guideline for Ortho vs. high-quality Plossl: Are you going to be tracking, or Dobbing? If tracking, go Ortho, since you won't need the wider-field of the Plossl. If hand-guiding, a wider field makes things a bit easier. C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Hi Rich, I'll throw my $.02 into the fray. I have found hat the best eyepieces are the orthos for high power. A good ortho will outperform a plossl 95% of the time. A bad ortho will not fare as well. I have also used the 4.8mm Nagler on my 10" along with a 2.4X Barlow. I didn't like the spurious reflections I got both with and without the Barlow. I believe this comes from the Nagler's numerous elements. Brent --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Sometime before the Mars opposition in August I want to pick up a decent higher power eyepiece; I'm thinking the choice is between an Ortho and a Ploessl, probably in the 6-8 mm range. Any of you out there have strong feelings/recommendations on this? I would like to keep it under $100.
How much difference is there between TeleVue (which has an 8mm) and say the new "premium" (NOT the Sirius) ploessls that Orion is selling, besides price? Is a Takahashi priced at $190 (7.5mm) really that much better than those $65 antares models where contrast and eye relief are concerned?
Any difference between the Orthos Celestron sells and what University Optics sells?
All opinions welcome. TIA, Rich
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have found hat the best eyepieces are the orthos for high power. A good ortho will outperform a plossl 95% of the time.
A bad ortho will not fare as well.
Absolutely on-track, Brent.
I have also used the 4.8mm Nagler on my 10" along with a 2.4X Barlow. I didn't like the spurious reflections I got both with and without the Barlow. I believe this comes from the Nagler's numerous elements.
Here, I would think that the Nagler is out of the running on sharpness alone. The ortho has better resolution. But honestly, Brent, the TV Plossls are the sharpest I've looked through, at least for the focal lengths used. Have you checked them out? As for Orthos, I prefer the good-old UO Orthos, my favorite is the 9mm. What about those TV "tack-sharp" eyepieces. "Radians", IIRC; are they as sharp as advertised? Chuck __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
I haven't looked through the radians, nor the TeleVue Plossls. How do they compare to the Clave Plossls? Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have found hat the best eyepieces are the orthos for high power. A good ortho will outperform a plossl 95% of the time.
A bad ortho will not fare as well.
Absolutely on-track, Brent.
I have also used the 4.8mm Nagler on my 10" along with a 2.4X Barlow. I didn't like the spurious reflections I got both with and without the Barlow. I believe this comes from the Nagler's numerous elements.
Here, I would think that the Nagler is out of the running on sharpness alone. The ortho has better resolution. But honestly, Brent, the TV Plossls are the sharpest I've looked through, at least for the focal lengths used. Have you checked them out? As for Orthos, I prefer the good-old UO Orthos, my favorite is the 9mm. What about those TV "tack-sharp" eyepieces. "Radians", IIRC; are they as sharp as advertised?
Chuck
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Brent, the last time I looked through a Clave', there was no such thing as TeleVue, and I wouldn't trust my memory at this point to draw a comparison. The Clave's were tack-sharp, however. C. --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I haven't looked through the radians, nor the TeleVue Plossls. How do they compare to the Clave Plossls?
Brent
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have found hat the best eyepieces are the orthos for high
power.
A
good ortho will outperform a plossl 95% of the time.
A bad ortho will not fare as well.
Absolutely on-track, Brent.
I have also used the 4.8mm Nagler on my 10" along with a 2.4X Barlow. I didn't like the spurious reflections I got both with and without the Barlow. I believe this comes from the Nagler's numerous elements.
Here, I would think that the Nagler is out of the running on sharpness alone. The ortho has better resolution. But honestly, Brent, the TV Plossls
are
the sharpest I've looked through, at least for the focal lengths used. Have you checked them out? As for Orthos, I prefer the good-old UO Orthos, my favorite is the 9mm. What about those TV "tack-sharp" eyepieces. "Radians", IIRC; are they as sharp as advertised?
Chuck
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Siegfried would be the one to ask about the Clave's as he has a few I believe. I'm not sure if it was the Clave eyepiece or Siegfried's new Mini-Clark (TEC-200) itself but the combination gave some incredibly sharp Lunar views at one of the last Harmon's star parties. No planets were out at the time and we were under the glow of the city and parking lot lights so I can't comment on contrast and the like. dlb On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 08:57 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Brent, the last time I looked through a Clave', there was no such thing as TeleVue, and I wouldn't trust my memory at this point to draw a comparison. The Clave's were tack-sharp, however.
C.
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I haven't looked through the radians, nor the TeleVue Plossls. How do they compare to the Clave Plossls?
Brent
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have found hat the best eyepieces are the orthos for high
power.
A
good ortho will outperform a plossl 95% of the time.
A bad ortho will not fare as well.
Absolutely on-track, Brent.
I have also used the 4.8mm Nagler on my 10" along with a 2.4X Barlow. I didn't like the spurious reflections I got both with and without the Barlow. I believe this comes from the Nagler's numerous elements.
Here, I would think that the Nagler is out of the running on sharpness alone. The ortho has better resolution. But honestly, Brent, the TV Plossls
are
the sharpest I've looked through, at least for the focal lengths used. Have you checked them out? As for Orthos, I prefer the good-old UO Orthos, my favorite is the 9mm. What about those TV "tack-sharp" eyepieces. "Radians", IIRC; are they as sharp as advertised?
Chuck
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Rich- You wrote: "All opinions welcome." If you REALLY mean that, check out these websites. http://www.cloudynights.com/eyepiece.htm http://www.scopereviews.com/ http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/section.php?sectionid=22 http://www.weatherman.com/ Have fun! Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Tenney" <retenney@yahoo.com> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:49 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Eyepiece questions
Hi all,
Sometime before the Mars opposition in August I want to pick up a decent higher power eyepiece; I'm thinking the choice is between an Ortho and a Ploessl, probably in the 6-8 mm range. Any of you out there have strong feelings/recommendations on this? I would like to keep it under $100.
How much difference is there between TeleVue (which has an 8mm) and say the new "premium" (NOT the Sirius) ploessls that Orion is selling, besides price? Is a Takahashi priced at $190 (7.5mm) really that much better than those $65 antares models where contrast and eye relief are concerned?
Any difference between the Orthos Celestron sells and what University Optics sells?
All opinions welcome. TIA, Rich
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Rich, Check out this website http://www.siebertoptics.com/ I bought two eyepieces from here a little over a year ago and I love 'em! I bought the 7mm wide angle and the 10mm wide angle. The designs are a little different than what you're used to, they don't have threads for filters but you can friction fit them in just fine. I've compared them to my 12.5mm UO ortho and the 10mm beats it by far, better eye relief, FOV and sharpness. The 7mm sometimes seems to give a little too much magnification for my scope though (10" SCT) If you want to read some user reviews on it go to http://www.excelsis.com click on eyepieces and look for the listings for Harry Seibert eyepieces, he's got quite a range of focal lengths and styles. My other personal favorite is the Meade 18mm super wide with a barlow, sharp, contrasty, and a good FOV. I'd be more than willing to let you "test drive" the Seiberts if you'd like, just let me know. I'm at sumoetx@yahoo.com Howard --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Sometime before the Mars opposition in August I want to pick up a decent higher power eyepiece; I'm thinking the choice is between an Ortho and a Ploessl, probably in the 6-8 mm range. Any of you out there have strong feelings/recommendations on this? I would like to keep it under $100.
How much difference is there between TeleVue (which has an 8mm) and say the new "premium" (NOT the Sirius) ploessls that Orion is selling, besides price? Is a Takahashi priced at $190 (7.5mm) really that much better than those $65 antares models where contrast and eye relief are concerned?
Any difference between the Orthos Celestron sells and what University Optics sells?
All opinions welcome. TIA, Rich
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Hi all, just a little correction to my previous post, I just checked Seiberts website and it looks like all eyepieces are threaded for filters now!!! looks like I'm going to be buying some more, prices haven't changed either, still $50 for these little gems. Howard --- Howard Jackman <sumoetx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rich, Check out this website http://www.siebertoptics.com/ I bought two eyepieces from here a little over a year ago and I love 'em! I bought the 7mm wide angle and the 10mm wide angle. The designs are a little different than what you're used to, they don't have threads for filters but you can friction fit them in just fine. I've compared them to my 12.5mm UO ortho and the 10mm beats it by far, better eye relief, FOV and sharpness. The 7mm sometimes seems to give a little too much magnification for my scope though (10" SCT) If you want to read some user reviews on it go to http://www.excelsis.com click on eyepieces and look for the listings for Harry Seibert eyepieces, he's got quite a range of focal lengths and styles. My other personal favorite is the Meade 18mm super wide with a barlow, sharp, contrasty, and a good FOV.
I'd be more than willing to let you "test drive" the Seiberts if you'd like, just let me know. I'm at sumoetx@yahoo.com
Howard
--- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Sometime before the Mars opposition in August I want to pick up a decent higher power eyepiece; I'm thinking the choice is between an Ortho and a Ploessl, probably in the 6-8 mm range. Any of you out there have strong feelings/recommendations on this? I would like to keep it under $100.
How much difference is there between TeleVue (which has an 8mm) and say the new "premium" (NOT the Sirius) ploessls that Orion is selling, besides price? Is a Takahashi priced at $190 (7.5mm) really that much better than those $65 antares models where contrast and eye relief are concerned?
Any difference between the Orthos Celestron sells and what University Optics sells?
All opinions welcome. TIA, Rich
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
FOR SALE: "Bear" brand, 15x70 binoculars, same as Oberwerk, Galileo, etc. MgFl2 coated on all air-to-glass surfaces. Tight, well-made, no focusing slop on this pair. Perfectly collimated. "Wide-field", large diameter eye lenses, long eye-relief (no need to remove your glasses to use them) fold-down rubber eyeguards, rubber "armor" on the entire unit. This is the same binocular that sold for $70-$100 in the mail-order catalogs recently, I'm letting this one go for $60. Check OK if I know you, cash if I don't. Lovingly used only a few times, still in perfect condition. Comes with soft nylon case, objective & eyepiece dust covers. If I have a spare neck-strap lying around, I'll toss it in. Can use any make L-bracket to adapt to a tripod or parallelogram mount. We had a couple pair of these at Binopalooza last year, and were knocking-down the Messier objects with them with no problem. Great views. Don't worry, folks, I'll still have 2 pair of '70's when this one's gone, but I have to sell these as part of my 12-step program. ;) Email me off-list at chuckhards@yahoo.com, or call me in the evening at (801)969-5647. Thanks Chuck __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
The 15x70mm binos have been SOLD. Thanks to all who enquired! Chuck __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
participants (8)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
David Bennett -
Howard Jackman -
Jim Gibson -
Joseph Barney -
Marilyn Smith -
Richard Tenney