Posts Made By: Peter Bilotta

I'm assuming that you mean the CR-150HD (the refractor) and not the C-150HD (the short tube Newtonian). The latter is a short tube Newtonian with a corrector/barlow lens built into the secondary mirror assembly.If you are speaking of the Newtonian, I must advise you to avoid it.

While a great idea on the surface, it is very poor in execution. I tried one of these and found images dimmer than a standard 6" and the sharpness very poor. It was absolutely useless for lunar and planetary observing because of the poor optical configuration, an opinion I have since seen confirmed by many other reviews.

Check out www.excelsis.com for many reviews of both the 102 and 150 refractors.

It all depends on the focal length of your telescope. For example, in an 8" f/10 SCT, these three eyepieces give you 161x, 182x and 206x respectively. These are 12-13% increases in magnification - increments so small that you will find it difficult to detect the difference between two adjacent eyepieces unless you are the keenest of observers.

Tele Vue generally recommends higher power eyepiece magnification increments of 1.4 (each successive power being about 40% greater than the last). Smaller increments just end up with eyepieces going unused because you don't notice much of a difference between them.

My advice is try all three. Pick the one you like best (probably the Tele Vue) and sell the other two. Use the extra money to pick up another Tele Vue in a complementary focal range.

If there are remnants of the adhesive remaining after removing the base, a very effective and safe remove is NON-ACETONE nail polish remover. I've used this on both Celestron an Meade scopes with a soft cotton ball and it removes any remaining foam tape and adhesive without damaging the paint finish.

Pete's Photo World has a number of locations. Be sure to call to see which carries their largest telescopic inventory.

In addition to Pete's Photo World, Eye 1 Eyewear (2648 Erie Avenue in Cincinnati in Hyde Park Square at the intersection of Erie and Edwards Roads) also carries a large inventory of scopes and accessories hidden behind a wall in their eyewear shop.

Don't forget to also visit the Cincinnati Observatory Center and see their spectacular old scopes - the first U.S. National Observatory. Here's their web site: http://www.cincinnatiobservatory.org/

I tend to prefer the Ultimas Jason. I find that they have a little better contrast and a darker background, particularly for planetary observing. They are also a little cheaper ($50-65)used on Astromart than are the Televues ($60-80).

I have found the Antares Ultra plossls to be the equal of the Celestron Ultimas in every way and have a couple that fill gaps in my collection (parfocal with Ultimas as well).

You will find both of these are highly rated for planetary observing in a great review of planetary eyepieces at http://www.cloudynights.com/eyepieces2/planetary.htm. You can't go wrong with either.

The standard apparent field of view for most plossl eyepieces is 50-52 degrees David. If you are interested in a wider field of view in an affordable eyepiece, I might recommend Orion's new Expanse eyepieces with a 66 degree FOV.

Reviews of these eyepieces have been quite favorable for the price (just $50 each). The whole set of four (20, 15, 9 and 6mm) is just $169 and would nicely compliment your existing 32mm plossl. Should you wish to upgrade to beter oculars later, you could resell them on Astromart.

Adorama also is offering these same eyepieces right now under their Pro-Optic name with a special buy-two-get-one-free deal.

I believe Joe O'Neil at O'Neil Optical offers a variety of very affordable drives for the old Vixen Polaris and Super Polaris mounts. Here's a link to the page on their web site. Scroll down and you will find the info after the scopes:

http://www.oneilphoto.on.ca/sw2.htm

To my knowledge (and from reading many AM posts on this subject), the Celestron Ultimas, Orion Ultrascopics, Antares Ultimas and Parks Gold series are all the same eyepieces manufactured in the same factory to the same specs. The only significant differences are cosmetic (focal length and the Celestrons add a rubber grip ring). Even the barlows are the same. Best of all, the Antares are the least expensive of the lot.

I've found performance identical in all and that they are parfocal among the different brands, so you can mix them to get the proper focal lengths for your needs. I have augmented my Ultima set with a 10mm Antares and it is one of my favorite eyepieces. The 25mm Antares makes a good substitute for the discontinued 24mm Ultima.

I've played with a wide variety of plossls and, in my experience, I have found these to be the finest available. They will beat any four element plossl in sharpness and contrast with the exception of the TV's, which they match in sharpness and beat a little in contrast.

A disclaimer - some folks like the TV's better (they are exceptional too), some folks like the Ultimas/Ultras better. Doesn't matter - you can't go wrong with either and you'll have the best possible general use eyepieces for a lifetime of use.

I would echo previous sentiments - a barlowed 15mm and your current 10mm will give you greater versatility. However . . .

If you do choose to go the separate eyepiece route, I highly recommend the 7.5mm Ultima. It is an exceptional planetary performer and one of my favorites. If you want to add the 5mm, skip the Ultima. It's eye relief is extremely tight and I have experienced ghosting on it. Instead, I would recommend the Orion and Antares 5mm versions that have the built-in barlow. A 5mm with 10mm eye relief, and the images are just as stunning as in the rest of the Ultima line.

Either way, invest a little more and you won't be sorry.

- Peter

Thank you Carlos. Your notes and incredible sketches are incredibly helpful. After an early morning at the eyepiece, I learn more about what I have seen from your posts than any map or Mars simulation program. I appreciate you making all of our observing more keen.