Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Yup, it's that time again.
While your eyepiece forum moderator, Floyd Blue, is probably up at this very moment (7:05 PM PST) preparing to image his brains out at Lockwood Valley, I'll be preparing to test the lenses out of a Celestron Omni 9mm plossl eyepiece. YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO KNOW how well a brand spanking new eyepiece that costs less than thirty bucks shipped will do. Inquiring minds like Jon Isaacs want to know. And he will!
My 16" f4.5 dob is undergoing phasar coolant right now. Stay tuned...

Along with the wind.
But you know what that means: another eyepiece review! I'll see if I can get a review in on Sunday, weather permitting. The moon is what it is but I may try anyway. I've got the omni 32mm in the mix so I'll put out a couple of reviews if I can.
I can tell you the 14mm looks very nicely finished. Even the eyepiece cap appears well done with the elevated ES logo on it. The thing screams quality. At 1 lb 14 oz, it's no light weight but my 16" f4.5 astrosystems truss dob will have no problem with it. I hope the 14.5 mm eye relief spec is accurate but just eyeballing it in daylight makes it seem a whole lot less. I'll just have to test it in the scope. I'm skeptical of the claims that it doesn't show any coma in an 18" f4.5 dob as per other reviewers and that's without a paracorr. If it does, it just MIGHT meet Floyd Blue specs. I'll also put it up against an original series meade 82mm japanese unit and a 14mm speers waler. I know some around here in the wild bunch don't like it's reported copy cat heritage but if we can put that aside for awhile, any other comments would be appreciated.

Floyd and Friends:
It's time to get down to bedrock, where the rubber meets the road and face up to brass tacks on the facts.
IT IS TIME FOR ANOTHER EYEPIECE REVIEW!
First up, the Celestron 32mm OMNI Plossl, from the box:
Manufactured in Taiwan with an AFOV of 50 degrees.
Four element symmetrical design.
Two step anodize process to prevent reflection from top surfaces.
Blackened lens edges to minimize internal reflection and maximize contrast.
Fully multi-coated--every air-to-glass optical surface has a multi-layer coating group for the highest light transmission.
Discussion:
At f4.5 in my 16" truss dob, this eyepiece did as well as expected which means it was at least a competent performer in that it exceeded the capabilities of similar generic plossls but fell short of my gold standard, that of my older Japanese-made 32mm Televue. The latter had better edge correction relative to coma and astigmatism than the omni or just about any other 32mm 1.25" you care to mention.
It should be noted that those of you that are getting up there in years will likely have pupils that will not dilate enough to accommodate the exit pupil of a 32mm eyepiece and this may reduce the effective aperture of your scope. Additionally, as your pupil dilates to expand to its maximum diameter, your own inherent ocular aberrations, such as astigmatism, manifest more significantly in the perceived image at the eyepiece. That said, the Omni does reasonably well with no internal reflections either on Saturn or Arcturus. I didn't see any evidence of flare or glare either. The eyepiece does do better with a paracorr in place and you will be happier with the image as a result. I had a lot of fun using it to view M81, M82 and M51 from the driveway in front of my home. I like the bright images it provided and I could use my Orion broadband filter to enhance the contrast on the images. In contrast to my other 32mm generic plossl, I did not experience blackouts with the Omni. I suspect a pair would be a reasonable low power, low cost option for a binoviewer although I haven't tested it as such. Although the AFOV is stated as 50 degrees, it seems larger, probably due to the lower magnification it provides. I'll sum it up by stating I think I got my $30.00 bucks worth out of it and I enjoyed using it.
Now, for the main event, the battle of the titans: the 14mm ES 100 AFOV versus the Japanese version of the Meade 14mm 82mm AFOV.
First of all, let me state that at f4.5 you are going to see coma with either eyepiece and it should not come as a surprise. It's there and it's inherent in the fast mirror you are using. It virtually disappears in either eyepiece with a paracorr in place. I'm not going to get into a fight with other reviewers on the latter but this business of stating there's no coma in the 14ES 100 and the use of a paracorr either way making no difference in the image is a total crock.
Ok, here we go: I like the ES 14mm 100 eyepiece but I do find faults with it. You can't use the rubber eye guard in the extended upright position and still see the entire field of view. Perhaps that's why Televue uses a narrow "wet noodle" eye guard on its 10mm Ethos that I found a bit "cheap" but now I think it's more along the lines of functionality. With the eye guard down, the eye relief is just adequate but you CAN take in the entire field of view without craning your neck around. The field of view is awesome! It puts a whole new meaning in an expansive, spacewalk effect, easily dissing the daylights out of the meade 14mm 82 AFOV unit. It truly seems like you are looking out of a spaceship.
Performance: aberrations are well controlled. There's no significant lateral color, astigmatism, blackouts or reflections. Compared to the meade, however, there is a paradox that I haven't quite figured out yet. The core of M82 appeared to "pop" out more in the meade 14 while appearing more diffuse in the ES14. I switched the eyepieces back and forth several times and came to the same conclusion. However, the ES 14 100 beat the daylights out of the meade on Saturn relative to contrast and saturation of the appearance of the belts. Saturn appeared a whole lot better in the ES than the meade and the latter has a reputation as a very sharp eyepiece. I'll check this out again under darker skies and I'm going to ask Floyd Blue for his opinion as well. I do think the ES100 is a heck of a deal in the 100 degree world.
I'll report back on the ES and the meade after viewing the same objects again under darker sky conditions.
Next up for review: battle of the broadbands: Orion Vs Zhummel filters on M81, M82 and M51. You can't afford to let this one pass you by!
PS: If anyone has any ideas regarding the image differences on Saturn and M82 in the meade versus the ES100, feel free to pontificate...

Tonight's match: Orion Broadband sky glow filter vs Zhumell Broadband filter.
First, the observing conditions. From my moderately light-polluted front yard (milky way visible overhead), my cul-de-sac has the typical annoyances associated with suburban viewing. These include extraneous lights and cars passing around the circle, thereby replicating typical observing conditions found at Mt. Pinos.
Tonight, seeing conditions ranged at around three out of five with somewhat breezy periods throughout the session. I swapped my ES 14mm equipped with a 2" Zhumell sky glow filter with my Meade 14mm eyepiece equipped with an Orion 1.25" sky glow filter. The objects I observed were M81, M82, and M51 comprising my major galaxy targets for the evening. I also observed the owl nebula M97. Here are my findings: The Zhumell filter attenuated the least amount of light, approximating the view through an eyepiece without a filter. It did, however, provide a subtle amount of contrast between the objects being observed and the background sky. It does bring out a very subtle amount of detail both on the galaxies and on the nebula being observed in a moderately light-polluted sky. However, it cannot compete with the Orion sky glow. Although the latter attenuates more light reaching the eyepiece, the views of galaxies and nebula particularly M97 were usually significantly improved compared to the Zhumell. However, the galaxy views were only mildly but still noticeably improved in the light polluted sky.
I would suggest the following to get the most out of the filters: First, you need to observe objects in and around or close to the zenith versus the horizon. Second, you need to be prepared to take extreme measures to block ambient light around the eyepiece. Cupping your hands around the eyepiece is at least essential when using a light pollution filter and an observer's hood would even be better. Third, spend some time viewing the image, shifting back and forth between the filtered and unfiltered views. Then you'll begin to see a subtle difference between the background sky and the object. Use as much aperture as possible. I was running 16" and I would suspect something less like eight to ten would not be as impressive with the filtered versus unfiltered views.
I would say I was most impressed viewing the owl with the Orion sky glow filter as it approximated the view of the nebula as seen in a dark sky. The effect was much better than with the Zhumell filter. I could see more spiral structure with either filter on M51 with both eyepieces. So the filter does help but I still feel the edge went to the Orion sky glow, even with the galaxies being the targets. I would also suggest that you review the articles on filters on CN, as they contain a wealth of information. Although sky conditions may be poor over the weekend, I may try to go to Lockwood Valley or Pinos and try the filters over darker skies. I read one report that suggested the Orion sky glow was better than the Lumicon sky glow and that's saying a lot because Lumicon makes excellent filters. I'll see if I can report back after viewing in a dark sky location to determine if there are differences with the filters in the latter condition.

Here's a CN thread on the subject and one responder with a C14 in the stable states "they complement each other". Looks like observers really like their 31mm Nagler.
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4445797/Main/4445797

Last night, Thursday May 5, was a night of very good seeing and I could run with a 4mm eyepiece on Saturn with my 16" f4.5 dob. I would rate the seeing 4/5 overall so I decided to do a 9mm shootout: Baader ortho vs Omni plossl. The baader won the duel, hands down. The contrast, image saturation of the clouds/bands and throughput was significantly better in the Baader than in the omni plossl. The more I use the baader, the more impressed I am with it. I could see one tiny pinpoint moon near the bottom of Saturn(er, ah make that the top) at around 11:00pm but I couldn't detect it with the Omni and that surprised me because the omni has very good light throughput. I previously had very good results on Jupiter with the baader ortho and now I find similar results on Saturn.

My feeling is you inspect a piece before you sell it and disclose any defects. If the buyer could detect a defect so can the seller. You don't have to wait for some sort of excuse from the seller. He needs to ride side saddle on this and make it right...

I finally had the opportunity to test the ES14mm 100 AFOV versus the meade 14mm UWA 80 AFOV under dark sky condition at Mt Pinos on Tuesday evening, June 21.
First, a word about seeing conditions at Pinos. They were excellent last night, among the best I've seen up there. It was a pity the moon rose above the tree line at about 12:30 but up until then, I enjoyed dark skies without the usual presence of the light domes from Los Angeles to the south and Bakersfield to the north. Prior to night fall, there were clouds above the mountain, and these were not forecast by various weather sites I consult; nor were these present on the clear sky clock. I think this was a case of the mountain generating its own weather.(Maybe Floyd can comment on the latter phenomenon.) I noticed a heavy inversion layer over Santa Clarita on my way home in the morning and I suspect a cloud bank settled in under the Pinos area that helped keep it dark. I had 21.55 on the sky quality meter at 11:15pm. M81 looked like a somewhat smaller version of m31 in the eyepiece and m82 seemed to explode in the eyepiece. Up until moonrise, it was a great night.
It was also colder than I expected for this time of year, especially when we've warmed recently in the past few days. I always come prepared for Pinos and I found myself gearing up early last night as if I were observing in colder months. Finally, the outhouses have been removed so bring your own portapotty or use a tree.
Now down to cases, most observers use wide angle eyepieces to observe DSOs and the like. I put the ES 14 up against a Japanese-made version of the meade 14mm uwa. First target: the Sombrero galaxy in Virgo. I like to see a sharply defined dark lane that helps define this galaxy. I felt the meade eyepiece bested the ES on this particular challenge. Score one for the meade. Next, the ringtail galaxy in Corvus. Corvus doesn't ride high in our skies so observing DSOs in this constellation can be challenging. I felt both eyepieces put up similar views. Rate this one as a tie. Next, onto the Siamese twins. I felt the ES 100 did a better job in defining and displaying the twins, with the meade close behind it. Score this one for the ES14. M51 needs no introduction and it looked great last night. Definitely better, hands down, in the ES. It really light it up and defined it much better than the meade. I did prefer the view through my 10mm ethos but then you need to factor in the additional magnification. In either eyepiece, however, the views were splendid. Next, onto the whale and the hockey stick. While both eyepieces performed well, I'd give the edge to the ES.
So, the meade scored an initial victory on m104 but fell behind on other objects. I liked the immersive view of the ES100 as compared to the meade which felt "downsized" in comparison. They're both good eyepieces but I'd give the edge to the ES14mm 100...

Let's face it, all amateurs(all bona fide amateurs) buy 31mm Naglers for one thing and one thing only: to view the veil(in darn near its entirety and don't give me the "I bought it as a finder eyepiece" BS). They get off on it, plus it looks great in the eyepiece. They want to see it ETCHED across the field of view, topped off by a cranking O111. It's kind of like the refractor guys and the double cluster. If it's up, they're looking at it, constantly. Beyond that, a big honk'in 31mm nagler looks awesome popping out of your focuser at twilight and they appear to be standard issue at Mt Pinos at dusk, daylight or at anytime you can actually see them.
Now for the competition: the ES 30mm 82 degree AFOV N2 version. This is the latest second generation design from Explore Scientific that was stolen?,(er ah make that inspired)(or more technically or politically correct:"reverse engineered") from the 31mm Nagler? I don't know. YOU can speculate on its origins but they do appear to be very similar in appearances and both COULD be mistaken for hand grenades in the dark. Anyhow, I just bought one, new for $237.00 shipped, (promotional code applied, of course). So how will it do in a fast scope like my 16" f4.5 truss dob? Inquiring minds like Jon Isaacs(call sign: "inquirer") want to know.
But alas, the weather forecast for Mt Pinos and vicinity this Saturday/Sunday calls for thunderstorms, (figures)...
To be continued...

I was at Mt Pinos on Wed evening (8-3-11) in order to see first light through my new ES 30mm ocular.
Before I begin the review, a couple of mundane issues need to be discussed. First, I had already advised you that the outhouses had been removed from the parking lot pf Mt Pinos. I further advised you to bring your own portapotty or find a suitable tree with your name on it. Did you listen to me? Well, judging by what I saw and smelled, you(and you know who you are)decided to use, in mass, the rear end of the Nordic base ranger building at the end of the parking lot. Do you think the rangers are going to appreciate seeing and smelling the essence of your presence?
Remember, only you can prevent human forest fire poopy...
Now, for the observing conditions: Excellent transparency and good seeing throughout the evening. The 20% crescent moon set at about 10:15pm and, as such, did not pose much of a hindrance to deep sky observing. One other individual who was present at the weekend observing event came over and described the zoo-like setting on last Saturday evening. He wasn't an amateur but he is a low-light level nature photographer and he seemed quite adept at lens capabilities in dark conditions. At any rate, I showed him the summer DSOs in my 16" f4.5 dob.
His first comment on observing the veil in my ES 30mm was how remarkably sharp the image was to the edge of the field. And that was without the paracorr in place. Yes there is a little bit of coma around the edges but virtually all major eyepiece aberrations are very well controlled on this eyepiece. I was primarily concerned about astigmatism with a 30mm eyepiece and a large exit pupil which brings into play astigmatism from an observer's own eyeball but I didn't detect any. A paracorr sharpened the edges a bit more and tightened the star images as well but the eyepiece holds its own quite well. If the maker was shooting for nagler-like performance with this eyepiece, its pretty much there.
I actually preferred the image of the veil thorough my meade 28mm swa 2" eyepiece in combination with a paracorr. I felt it was more defined and brighter than the image in the ES30mm, probably because of the increased magnification and reduced exit pupil. Remember that a large exit pupil from a 30mm or larger ocular in a fast scope can actually decrease the effective aperture of your scope because your eye can't dilate enough to accommodate it.
I observed the crescent nebula through the ES30mm and it gave me one of the best views I have ever seen of this object. It was truly outstanding and much better than the comparable view through an 30mm BW Optic 80 degree 2" ocular.
While the eyecup is comfortable and effective, it also limits the AFOV so you'll want to drop it down when observing from a dark sky location. Eye relief is good with minimal blackout. The eyepiece is a bit heavy, weighing in at around two pounds but I had no problems with balance issues with it and a pracorr combo in my astrosystems dob.
So, to sum up, I didn't detect any significant distortion, contrast or color issues with this eyepiece. I do like it but I think it probably cuts down the effective aperture of my scope, as my eye apparently can't quite dilate enough to accommodate its large 6.7mm exit pupil and I believe this may have accounted for the veil appearing brighter in my meade 28mm eyepiece/paracorr combination.
Bottom line, it's a keeper...