Image of the day

Captured by
Terry Wood

Jupiter (clearer) Nov 5th 2023 w/Mewlon 180c

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

The best 6mm eyepiece comparison to date

Started by Martin Willes, 03/09/2009 02:29PM
Posted 03/09/2009 02:29PM Opening Post
I came across this eyepiece article last night after spending a few hours comparing some of the same eyepieces this author wrote about. I’ve been doing this comparison for a few weeks and have many hours of observing through a variety of instruments from a 4” f/5 refractor, 5” f/8 refractor and 12.5” classic Cassegrain. I don’t have experience with some of the eyepieces Paolini wrote about but his experience with the eyepieces I have are right on the money so I have to assume he’s very accurate describing his observations with others. I’m posting this article here as a lesson on how to do a very thorough unbiased eyepiece review. Some have written here that eyepieces have subtle differences because they read that in a book and I never found that to be the case in real life. Here’s a interesting review by a real life observer using his 40 years of experience observing with modern eyepieces.
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1935

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few." Shunryu Suzuki[COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR]
Posted 03/09/2009 02:48PM #1
Thanks for the post. Very informative.
Posted 03/09/2009 03:55PM #2
It certainly is an extensive review. Personally, I find that Mr. Paolini's photographs do a remarkably good job of illustrating the kinds and levels of difference that one can see at the eyepiece on a very good night (in the Northeast).


Martin Willes said:

I came across this eyepiece article last night after spending a few hours comparing some of the same eyepieces this author wrote about. I’ve been doing this comparison for a few weeks and have many hours of observing through a variety of instruments from a 4” f/5 refractor, 5” f/8 refractor and 12.5” classic Cassegrain. I don’t have experience with some of the eyepieces Paolini wrote about but his experience with the eyepieces I have are right on the money so I have to assume he’s very accurate describing his observations with others. I’m posting this article here as a lesson on how to do a very thorough unbiased eyepiece review. Some have written here that eyepieces have subtle differences because they read that in a book and I never found that to be the case in real life. Here’s a interesting review by a real life observer using his 40 years of experience observing with modern eyepieces.
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1935
Posted 03/09/2009 04:01PM | Edited 03/09/2009 04:48PM #3
Some have written here that eyepieces have subtle differences because they read that in a book and I never found that to be the case in real life.

I don't know who has written here that eyepieces have subtle differences simply because they have read that in a book.

I have written that the differences in eyepieces are subtle, particularly when compared to the differences in telescopes. However it is based on experience of owning many eyepieces and having used them in many telescopes. What Jupiter shows me in a 4 inch refractor and what it shows me in a 12.5 inch Newtonian is quite different, the relatively subtle differences between eyepieces cannot hope to make up for it.

Jon Isaacs

Posted 03/09/2009 04:59PM #4
Each person will likely come up with their own ratings after using the same EPs. Personal preference and things like eye relief and FOV will effect this choice as much as any other factor I feel.
The truth is difficult at best to put a finger on as these tests are so subjective. I too have done side by side test of high end EPs ( including those used and more) and my results varied a bit from this. That does not mean that my test results were more valid, but rather my taste in EPs perhaps was different? smile
None the less, I liked his format and feel that his results were interesting and well documented.

[SIZE="Large"][/SIZE][COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR] Floyd Blue grin
Amateur Imager
Posted 03/09/2009 05:32PM #5
Scott,

Hello. That storm complex only being visible in some EPs was IMO not due to seeing. I went back and forth many times between the EPs and at every switch to the ZAOs and the Supermonos it would be visible, and all other EPs not (as well as more extensive banding). I spent a lot of time on that particular observation...actually the entire evening/morning was devoted to it and I would observe for long periods, as well as do rapid changes with the EP in the slot for no more than 30 seconds to further confirm it was the EP. And for periods would just pick two EPs and do rapid back and forths for 10 minutes also to confirm. So this was really the EP showing these differences for this observation.

What Jon says is also quite true and perhaps I did not make it clear enough although I thought I did state it in the comparison, in the 4" scope there was little difference between any of the EPs on Saturn, in the 10" that was not the case. So aperture matters. The ZAO-II in the 4" could not outperform any of the EPs in the 10".

As far as how much observing...several months solid taking the scope out as soon as I got home from work and observing til about 11pm or so, then waking back up at 3am and observing til 6am , and weekends basically just staying out straight til about 4am. While there were many EPs to compare, I kept it simple each evening and usually devoted them all to one object and usually evaluating no more than 2 or 3 attributes relative to that object. This approach made it easy to handle the large number of EPs. Otherwise it would have been much too difficult and confusing IMO.

If you are a planetary purist and you have a larger than 4" scope, then IMO the ZAOs and Supermonos and Pentax SMCs are well worth their cost as on evenings of good seeing, there are nice additional details to be seen and a good bit more dimensionality to the object as well. On average seeing nights, pretty much the same excepting for the extra dimensionailty which was always there thru the best in class EPs. I now added some of these EPs to my inventory...well worth it for me after seeing for myself.

-Bill
Posted 03/09/2009 05:44PM #6
I agree it would be very difficult to keep track of all those eyepieces but the author seems to be very comfortable multi tasking all of his observations. I couldn’t do it and can only focus on two or three eyepieces. I see the difference in eyepieces spread even further when I use my 160 as well. When I move to the 12.5” cassegrain seeing comes into play. I don’t live by the ocean but at 7000 feet above sea level the transparency is excellent and throw in good seeing and dark skies the experience is satisfying. My experience last night did mirror Paolini’s illustrations of the moon. I compared SPL’s to Tak LE’s and the difference was subtle. A slight edge for contrast and sharpness went to the SPL’s. I used a Baader V bino and had each eyepiece side by side so comparisons could be made in less than a second. I thought seeing was average until I popped in a ZAO II. The image was sharp as a tack and the surface of the moon looked 3D with all the different colors in maria clearly visible. The colors in the maria were washed together in the SPL and Tak but were there if you searched for it. Regolith was bright white in the ZAO’s and seemed to rise from the surface and appeared more tan colored in the other oculars. The differences were in no way subtle and may not be what you see at your location with your instruments. When I lived in the Midwest the difference in eyepieces was in fact subtle due to elevation and seeing. I think Paolini document well what he saw with his equipment and I’ve had a very similar experience with my equiptment. Martin

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few." Shunryu Suzuki[COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR]
Posted 03/09/2009 09:16PM #7
That was a good read and probably as good as any eyeball report is going to get, much better than my own records of these things.

My only comment is that I sold my Supermono 10 because of the tiny fov. People call these planetary eyepieces but another function is to bring in faint objects such as Pal 14. In my 14" SCT the Supermono 10 yields less than 5 arc minutes.

As it turns out, the way that you find marginal dso objects is partly by comparing the field of view where you suspect it is with the sky background. One might also jiggle the scope etc. to verify that there is indeed "something there." The problem with a tiny fov is that you don't get enough sky to give enough background to make a comparison.

In my personal comparisons between the supermono 10 and the XW10 and the RKE 8s and 12s (there are no RKE 10s) I never "got anything additional" on planets. This was mainly because over the course of over a year I never had good seeing conjoined with an available planet.

This tells me something about planetary eyepieces. The conditions in which they might make a difference are few and far between in my part of the world.

I also like being able to see Jupiter's moons and Saturn in a field of stars is its own beauty: I like having space around the planet. So it's the XWs for me as a rule.

The other thing is that at the back end of a c14 these little tiny eyepieces are a real pain in the forehead. You keep bumping the rear casting.

I've also done my mini-evaluations in an FS128 and a Vixen 102mm ED, and similarly concluded that the Supermono wasn't justifying its space in the box.

But I'm glad they're out there for them that wants 'em.

regards
Greg N

"Scope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no scope." --Freewheelin' Franklin
Posted 03/10/2009 11:16PM | Edited 03/11/2009 06:36AM #8
That is an interesting comparison for the number of EP's tested, but he left out the Siebert Star Splitter, which is one of the best planetary eyepieces out there, and quite possibly the best planetary eyepiece for the money. Anybody interested in an EP in the 6mm range might do well to read what follows from my personal experience.

I have a 6.4mm Star Splitter. It works GREAT in any of my scopes from an f/4 Newtonian to an f/15 Mak-Cass. It is very light, it has consistent eye relief across the range (like the Radian series, but not quite as much eye relief, which is actually a good thing for high mag views), it has a consistent eye lens across the range (and it's as big as a 12.5mm Ultima eye lens), it holds a heater strap very well and transfers the heat better (unlike my TMB 9mm), it is tack sharp to the edge of field, from 2.9mm to 7.9mm the Star Splitters come in 0.5mm focal length increments. Nobody else does that to my knowledge, and that may be important in fast focal ratio scopes, and there is also 8.9mm and a 9.9mm 3-element variant without the front diverging doublet cell. Those are awesome on long focal ratio scopes.

I know that Harry Siebert has a very small production compared to most of those other EP's being reviewed, but I think the few of us who have bought one or more of his Star Splitters have been seriously impressed with the high mag images they throw up. They retired my shortest Celestron Ultimas + Ultima 3-element barlow combination for high mag viewing in most of my scopes (the 4.4mm and 6.4mm Star Splitters are only usable in my f/15 150mm Mak-Cass under the best seeing conditions due to the insane mags they produce in that scope....nothing to do with the image quality they can achieve).

FWIW, if you have a 12.5mm Ultima, then that size eye lens and eye relief are about the same as the Siebert Star Splitters. If a person likes squinting through some of those 6mm EP's with peephole eye lens, then more power to them. I'll keep my Star Splitters. To have tested so many EP's without including the Star Splitters, especially considering their increasing reputation among owners, seems a bit odd to me.

Harry does not usualy anodize his EP's black and they are not polished to a mirror smooth finish, so that may scare off some potential buyers. I will say this about their build quality: none of my six Star Splitters have ever developed a loose, rattling element or had parts loosen up, unlike some of my more expensive and better known EP's. About 50% of my other EP's have had some kind of loosening issue at some time.

I would also say that my overall reaction to the Star Splitters relative to similar focal length EP's has not been subtle as well.

Anybody into binoviewing should consider the Star Splitters as they are so lightweight and because two of them will weigh about what a Radian does....and you will get change back from what a single Radian would cost you in most cases. A Burgess TMB looks more like a Radian, but as a TMB owner I can tell you that the Star Splitter performs more like a Radian. If you had a 12.5mm Ultima that worked well at f/4 and weighed a lot less, then you would have about the same as a Star Splitter, but at a longer focal length. The main drawback to the Star Splitter series is their lack of longer focal lengths, but their main strength is they are very comfortable EP's in short focal lengths where other EP's run into trouble whether it be weight, cost, short eye relief or peephole eye lenses....or a combination of those drawbacks.

I have a few other Siebert EP's, but the Star Splitters are my favorites compared to other brands. Maybe the fact that you order your Star Splitters and have to wait a few weeks for them to arrive also turns some people off, but the guy who built it will also fix it for you, much like Tele-Vue does. You also have a trial period to send it back and get a full refund if you don't like it. Since they are so light, I suspect a fall has less chance of doing any serious damage anyway.

Phil
Posted 03/12/2009 02:14PM #9
I think Bill should quit his day job (assuming it has nothing to do with reviewing eyepieces)! It was a most awsome EP review!