Posts Made By: Larry Seguin

Well, Richard, I stayed out long enough to keep swapping eyepieces until I ran out of eyepieces to swap. Ama-a-a-azing! It was just one of those rare nights when you keep pouring on the power, and the image keeps taking it. May we all be blessed with at least one of those nights, and preferably many of them!
Larry

Hi Chuck,
I recenly had the opportunity to compare two of the 2" filters side by side in a 12.5" f/6 scope on a night of very good transparency. Doing A/B on a Lumicon O-III and an Orion O-III, I found the Veil nebula to be slighly brighter through the Orion filter, but I could see somewhat more detail through the Lumicon-more "braiding" in the Veil,etc. The differences were slight, to be sure, but perceptible. If I had to buy one of these filters, based on my observations that night, I would spring the extra cash and get the Lumicon.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Hi Alfred,
I have independently discovered a broad rule of thumb that many have discovered before me, and that is this: you get what you pay for. There are no really good, really cheap eyepieces out there that provide wide fields of view, long eyerelief, and sharp performance. That doesn't mean that the bargain eyepieces don't have their place, they do! IF your scope is not very demanding of the eyepiece (read: slow focal ratio), or IF you're not bothered overly by less than great edge performance, then these eyepieces may well have a place in your case. If you're using a fast focal ratio scope, and are bothered by less than great edge performance, then kick up the dough, you're ready to go, with the expensive premium eyepiece.
I've also been discovering the same thing concerning filters. The more expensive ones do seem to perform better than the less expensive ones, but whether your eye will be satisfied with the less expensive model, only YOU can tell. Ya just have to buy and try in most cases. That's what makes astronomy something of a journey, and not just a destination, it takes time to find all these things out for yourself!
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Hi Bob!
The O-III filter has a narrower band-pass than the Ultrablock, so the background appears darker, thereby making the nebula appear larger and brighter. The O-III also filters out more of the starlight as well, thereby reducing the visibility of the Trapezium. Interesting...but I generally prefer the O-III on most nebulas, but with the Orion Nebula I find I prefer the Ultrablock. Each to his own, I guess...
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Hey Floyd,
Glad you finally got a chance to try out your bino's! I'm happy for you that you're pleased with them! I couldn't agree with you more concerning their performance on nebulas...I find the level of detail they reveal to be astonishing, and yes, I think I enjoy M-42 more without filters on bino's than with filters. I'm really looking forward to trying them on the summer nebulas to see if this holds true there as well. Enjoying high power views of the planets without the aggravation of floaters visible in a single eye is a big plus. too! What do you think about globulars? So far I prefer mono-viewing for globulars and open clusters. I think that a single eyepiece will reveal fainter stars better and help resolve the globulars. Does this reflect your experience as well?
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Hi Jim,
Just my own personal experience, but...
this last year I've had STUNNING views of mars and Saturn (good quality telescopes/good quality eyepieces) with both celestron's 2X Ultima barlow, and U.O.'s 2.8X Klee barlow. Neither one is very expensive-$60 or so used-but both of them perform very well for me. Hope that is helpful for you!
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Hi Matt,
I've had one of these filters for about a year now, and I have been able to A/B it with a Lumicon O-III. The good news is that, for a very reasonable price, you can have a very reasonable filter. I've tried the Orion on various nebula in summer and winter skies and have been very happy with it's performance...BUT, there was a difference between the Orion and the Lumicon. Images through the Orion tended to be brighter, but when we tried them on the Veil Nebula, there was clearly more detail to be seen through the Lumicon. More of the braiding was visible, and finer wispy detail. Not that the Orion was bad, I'd used it for some months and been very happy, but in a side-by-side, the Lumicon showed more. If budget is a consideration I'd say the Orion would satisfy most users very capably. If you want top of the line, kick up the dough for the Lumicon.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Lotta votes for the 20 mm T-5 here. I can't really speak to that one as I've not had the pleasure of trying it, but I DO have the 17 mm T-4, and I don't EVER plan on selling it. Much better eye relief than the T-6's, along with a bigger eye lens, marvelously flat field in my f/6 scope, and a very nice field in my f/4.7...great contrast, too. A real keeper!
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

No ideas, just a confirmation of what you've seen, Matt. One of my filters is a 1.25" Lumicon UHC, and it too has no lettering on the side of the filter. The box it came in is marked "premium" in hand written letters, and it does appear to pass a brighter image than another 1.25" Lumicon UHC that I have. Take a look at your box and see if any thing similar appears there.
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico

Just a word of caution concerning T-scopes. The fast responses to MY emails slowed WAY down once payment had been made. Then it became difficult to get him to respond at all. I am now in the twentieth month of waiting for my order to be completed, after it was originally promised in six. Caveat emptor!
Larry Seguin
Taos, New Mexico