Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

The place: LAAS observing/imaging site, Lockwood valley California.
The date: August 28, 2011.
The time: Classified.
Conditions: 2137 on the SQM, Transparency: good. Seeing:3/5.
Now for the report, where the rubber meets the road, when we get down to bedrock(or brass tacks)or, as we say at Lockwood valley, where the dust meets the lens.(Lockwood valley has premium quality Afghan grade moon dust that sticks to every surface and comes off in a year or two).
The contenders: ES 24mm 2" 82 AFOV, packing their latest optics package, the TAL 2" 24mm original version AFOV 86-90 (think Russian T34 tank)and the sweetie of the group: the petite 1.25" 24mm Televue Panoptic.
The objects: Veil/Crescent/Cocoon.
The scope: 16 F4.5 truss dob.
The outcome: Think of the ES 24mm 2" 82 as a panoptic on steroids. Just about anything the panoptic can do, the ES can do, only more. More field, more immersion, perhaps a bit more lateral color and a bit more astigmatism at the edge of a much bigger field of view. More of everything. The panoptic remains what it has always been: an excellent eyepiece. But it's the diminutive ocular in this group. It's relatively tiny 68 AFOV just doesn't pack the effortless thrust of the others firing on 2" cylinders. The TAL doesn't have the edge correction of the others although you can play with the paracorr and clean it up quite a bit and you do get more field of view but it takes quite a bit of cleaning to get it there.
My favorite: the ES. Note: for all you packaging freaks out there, be advised the packaging sucks and the eyepiece can pop out like a jack in the box.

First, before I begin, this review was prompted, in part, by a request on this forum from Mark Norby who had the audacity to post an initial thread inquiring about reviews of short focal length eyepieces. I know, I know, Mark's request had nothing to do with serial numbers, adapter parts for Huygenian eyepieces made in the 1800s, and the like that pertain to so many of our members but he did ask. I know you must be thinking what the fudge was he thinking when he asked for a review but HE DID ASK! Still, his request deserves prompt retribution, don't you think? So, Mark better deploy his Kevlar because this bogey's at his six and this means:
"IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER EYEPIECE REVIEW"!
First up, the Zhumell 5mm planetary eyepiece. I had very good seeing conditions in front of my home last night, probably 4 out of 5, and my thanks to the clear sky clock for getting it right. I carefully collimated my 16" f4.5 dob, star checked it and pitted my 9mm ES 100 against my 10 Ethos on deep sky objects before turning my attention to attention to Jupiter. I'll post, at my own risk, a separate thread on the 9mm vs the 10mm later but I did view Jupiter with both and while quite good I proceeded to pop in the Z 5 and what I saw was nothing less than "cool". One of Jupiter's moons was JUST emerging from the limb of the planet and I caught half of it with the Z 5 where I could not see it at all with either the 9mm or the 10mm because of the relative lack of magnification of the latter eyepieces. (I did barlow the 9mm and the 10mm and I could see the moon with the increased magnification). The Z 5mm is quite sharp and contrasty. I did not detect chromatic aberration/lateral color. I would estimate the AFOV at about 57 degrees with ample eye relief even for eye glass wearers and the latter would make this eyepiece a good choice over short eye relief eyepieces like an ortho or plossl. You do see a lot of flare when Jupiter is placed outside the field of view and it reminded me a bit of the original expanse 6mm eyepieces. However, it's not a problem with Jupiter in the field of view. I've seen a couple of reports stating there's a lightening around the peripheral view of the eyepiece but I did not detect it and I have seen this in other types of eyepieces in the past.
I didn't have another 5mm eyepiece to compare it to so I barlowed my 10mm Ethos and my Orion 10mm Japanese ultrascopic eyepiece. I can say that I enjoyed the views with all but one thing: the image in the Z 5 appears larger than either the 10mm Ethos and the 10mm ultrascopic with a 2x power. So it appears the focal length of the Z 5 may be a bit shorter than advertized.
To sum up:
Positives: Decent image, good eye relief/AFOV, low cost.
Negatives: Flare outside field, equivocal focal length.
Now, I'll give all of you awhile to recover from the horror of another eyepiece review so I can prepare my next one: the 9mm ES 100 vs the 10mm Ethos.

For purists, 1mm of difference in focal length makes a direct comparison a mute point. However, there has been a relatively high amount in curiosity among amateurs in regards to 9mm ES vs the Ethos 10mm, at least on other sites. So to answer the question, I attempted a comparison of the two last night under conditions of good transparency and very good to excellent seeing in suburban light pollution in front of my home. I'm thankfully able to see the milky way overhead and with the aid of an O111 filter, I can see the Veil nebula reasonably well with my longer focal length eyepieces in my 16" f4.5 dob.
I was able to pull in a planetary nebula in Cygnus last night with a magnitude of 12.3 without a filter. NGC 6894 is fairly large at 45" x 40" and I have to say it appeared a bit better in the 9mm ES than in the 10mm Ethos. This may simply be a matter of the increased magnification darkening the sky a bit more in the ES than in the Ethos but the view was better in the 9mm than in the 10. Score one for the ES. Next, I compared the view of the fetus nebula(ngc 7008) with and without a filter and came to the conclusion I could see a bit more subtle mottling in the Ethos than in the ES. This may be due to the apparent brightening of the image due to a decrease in magnification. Nevertheless, score one for the Ethos. Next, I observed a fairly bright galaxy in Pegasus, NGC 7331. At magnitude 9.5 and with a size of 10.5' x 3.7", this nearly edge on galaxy was easy in both eyepieces without discernible differences so I'd rate this one a tie.
With Jupiter rising higher in the sky, I took advantage of the good seeing conditions to put these eyepieces through their paces. Before I begin the discussion, it should be noted there was a lot of activity on Jupiter during the nearly three hours of observation on Saturday night. The large oval nearly colorless spot was easily visible even in my longer focal length 24mm ES eyepiece. A smaller red spot appeared in one of the belts and multiple bands were easily discernible. The first thing you notice when you swap the ES and Ethos eyepieces on Jupiter is the greater amount of glow or scatter about the planet in the ES than in the Ethos. The views of the details on the planet were essentially similar but the glow around Jupiter was a bit of a distraction. Score another point for the Ethos as it appears the coatings on the Ethos may be superior. My impression is the color saturation of the belts, bands and spots is the same in either eyepiece but the surrounding glow around the planet was more suppressed in the Ethos. I also felt the Ethos barlowed better than the ES but this could have been due to increasing magnification and not some other factor.
Both eyepieces did quite well in flatness of the field and with a paracorr in place, I could not detect coma. Other optical aberrations such as lateral color and astigmatism are well controlled in either eyepiece. I was pleased with the overall comfort level with respect to eye relief in the ES. I was able to take in most of the field of view without having to peel my eyeball off the lens. I feel the ES 9mm 100 is a well executed 2" design. OTH, the Ethos can function both as a 1.25 eyepiece and as a 2" ocular. I found the latter to be helpful when using the Ethos in older scopes with a 1.25" focuser and when using my Orion 1.25" broadband filter to suppress the light pollution in my area.
Cost is another factor and one in which the ES 9mm wins hands down. This is a fine ocular and at current sale prices, a very real deal.
If I had to choose one, I'd go with the Ethos as the uncompromising choice. The ES is hot on its heels and gives up very little to the Ethos. You will likely be pleased with either eyepiece. If you want that little bit of extra black around Jupiter, you'll get it with the Ethos but even so there's still some glow as the light bounces off multiple lens surfaces before reaching your eye. It's certainly not all black and white...

Under dark sky conditions as well as in suburban light pollution, broadband filters cam improve the quality of the view in the eyepiece. Astrotech sells a 1.25" broadband filter for around $50, currently on sale for a bit less, while the Orion 1.25 filter goes for around $75.00.
Under dark sky conditions as well as under suburban light pollution, I came to four conclusions while viewing various objects in my 16" f4.5 dob with a 10mm ethos and a paracorr in place together with a freshly coated(enhanced)primary:
1. The AT filter generally provides a view producing more nebulosity than does the Orion filter. This was most noticeable on M27 under dark sky conditions and less so under moderate light pollution on the little dumbbell.
2. The Orion filter generally provides a sharper image, producing a clearer star dot and a sharper core on most objects.
3. The AT filter may have a bit of an edge in viewing brighter galaxies as this appeared to be the case in viewing a few of the brighter members of Pegasus and Perseus under moderate light pollution.
4. The AT filter produces a slightly brighter view under conditions of moderate light pollution but not necessarily a sharper one than the Orion model.
I like using either filter and I don't have a favorite between the two models. I'll continue to use both filters, switching between one and the other, as I view various objects. I find it interesting to view the subtle differences between the two filters.
I also had intended to report on the Orion O111 2" filter but sadly the filter threads were not compatible with my filter slide, meade and explore scientific eyepieces. I have an Orion 2" ultrablock that threads without difficulty but the 0111 is a no-go. Other amateurs have reportedly noticed the same thing. It's too bad since the Orion 0111 had an individual transmission report with high values. Darn filter threads!

First of all, do any of my filters meet the following Floyd Blue specs: Class ONE Bortle skies under filter-induced eclipse conditions during Gary Cooper's high noon?
Nope! Now that we got that out of the way, here we go:
Under conditions of moderate light pollution in a suburban setting (milky way visible overhead), I set up my 16" f4.5 dob with paracorr/filter slide in place and put three 0111 filters through their paces. The contestants: 1. Celestron 0111 which reportedly is a re-badged Baader 0111. 2. Orion 0111 (I found it would actually thread quite nicely into the bottom of my paracorr and my 30mm ES eyepiece, as well as a few others!)3. Generic 0111 filter(likely GSO or equivalent).
The familiar targets: Veil, crescent, M57.
Before we get to the outcome, let me add a comment to my previous review of the broadband filters: I found that my astrotech broadband filter allowed me to view NGC 891, the needle galaxy in Andromeda, whereas my Orion broadband would not detect it, and I could barely see it at all without the filter in place. Score another one for the AT broadband filter! I found the AT filter was quite useful in detecting more galaxies: NGC 7814, 7332, 7339 and 7331 in the constellation of Pegasus. NGC 1023 in Perseus was also easily pulled in out of the skyglow.
I see one dealer has run out of the AT broadband while another still has stock on hand. I can't wait to try this filter out under dark sky conditions.
Now to the 0111 filter comparo.
The Orion filter is the least aggressive of the 0111 filters in the group. It dims the overall star background the least. However, it enhanced the view of the veil and the crescent the least as well. In other words, you get a brighter overall eyepiece field but the contrast and the image of the nebulosity of the latter targets were not as good as the other filters. HOWEVER, the view of M57 was the best in the Orion filter and the individual specs of the tested filter was consistent with that of a premium filter. I suspect the view of the crescent and the veil would improve significantly with the Orion filter under dark sky conditions. If you do most of your observing under light polluted conditions and you have sufficient aperture, get the most aggressive 0111 filter: the Celestron(high likelihood it's a baader). It really brings out the detail in the cresecent and the veil under moderate light pollution, but less so on the ring nebula where the Orion excelled. Both the Celestron and Orion models were 2" filters while the generic 0111 filter was a 1.25". The latter was fairly descent on the aforementioned objects and I would characterize it as being in between the Orion and the Celestron 0111 filters in aggressiveness in killing the stars and enhancing the nebulosity.
So, those are my results for three 0111 filters(really four if you count the Celestron as representing a baader as well)>
Your mileage may vary...

I ran another check of my 0111 filters under somewhat better conditions without the 3/4 full moon riding high in the sky. Under moderate light pollution with the milky way visible overhead and the seeing varying between 3/5 and 4/5, I found, as expected, that all of the filters did better than in the initial test. The Celestron(baader)filter still gave the best views of the Veil with my 24mm and 30mm ES eyepieces. However, the Orion and Zhumell filters improved the view of these objects as well but not as dramatically so as the Celestron filter. I also felt the Celestron filter gave the most detailed view of M27 in my 10mm Ethos eyepiece but the Orion and Zhumell filters did quite well on this object. The real surprise came as I utilized my ES 14mm 100 AFOV eyepiece on the crescent nebula. In the latter case, the Zhumell filter actually outperformed both the Orion and Celestron filters. I'm not quite sure why but with this particular object in this particular eyepiece, the image was better with the Zhumell filter and the difference wasn't subtle, either. If anybody has any ideas as to why this might be the case, chime in.
My new Lumicon 0111 filter arrived along with a storm front so I'll have to wait for a break in the weather to try it on the aforementioned objects before they disappear from the winter skies. Lumicon doesn't supply a graphic representation of filter performance but, as typical with Lumicon filters, it does provide hand written performance specs. The numbers on my 2" Lumicon 0111 filter are: 496nm 0111 line: 92.6% transmission and for the 501nm 0111 line: 93.7% transmission. I may have an opportunity to test the filter against the others on Monday, if the skies are clear. I also hope to test them under dark sky conditions after Thanksgiving if the weather is decent.

First, let me say that under adverse conditions including a 3/4 moon, moderate light pollution, and having a cold front just move through, the night was just awesome! I always assumed it's pointless to attempt to observe under a moonlit sky but I see that's not the case. If you've got the proper filters, there's still a lot that can be seen. It's almost the same feeling I sense some imagers have when they image under a full moon with the proper filters and still get amazing results.
I did have good seeing conditions on Saturday night so I put my newly acquired Zhumell filter kit up against my Orion UHC, 0111 and Celestron 0111 filters. The Zhumell kit stacks up as follows: the UHC works well and compares favorably with the Orion UHC filter and that's a good thing as the Orion ultrablock filter has a solid reputation as a quality filter. The Zhumell 0111 is the weakest of the 0111 filters I've tested but it still allows you to view the veil and the crescent and the ring and M27 and the fetus nebula under the conditions described above. The veil was washed out compared to the Orion and Celestron 0111 filters. However, the view of the crescent nebula was more favorable and it was difficult to determine if the Orion 0111 gave a better view or not. While I'd give the clear edge to the Celestron(baader)filter on the veil, the views of M27 were close and much less dramatically different than on the veil. I'd give the edge to the Orion 0111 on the ring and on the fetus nebula(NGC7008)but the Zhumell 0111 wasn't far behind. I felt the Celestron 0111 overly darkened the field of the image of the ring and the fetus nebula.
I do have to state once more that I was delighted to see the aforementioned objects as well as I did, considering the overall conditions being far less than optimum except for the relatively good seeing(varying between a 3/5 and a 4/5).
So how did the rest of the Zhumell filter kit do? In general, it performed as expected. The urban sky glow filter is seemingly useless but I need to test it under less demanding circumstances. As noted above, the UHC filter is very good, and I'd rate the 0111 filter as acceptable in performance and it would likely do even better under darker skies. The two filter polarizing filter system works very well and I actually enjoyed viewing the moon without the feeling of my eye being zapped out of my head! It also does fairly well on Jupiter but it clearly does what it should do on the moon and it's far better than those moon filters you get with some scopes.
Overall, for about $107.00 with a coupon code, you get a lot with the Zhumell 2" filter kit. It's not perfect, but it does have a lot of bang for the buck...

It's reportedly the same eyepiece. Here's a thread about it:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4769791/Main/4763601

Rob,
Don't know what you might call a quick list, but I'd probably go with the 2" ES 30mm 82AFOV, 2" ES 24mm 82AFOV, 2" ES 14MM 100AFOV and the 2" 9mm 100AFOV and do it before the prices go up...

After several months of El Nina inspired high atmospheric turbulence, I finally got one night's worth of decent seeing in front of my own home. The clock predicted good seeing on Friday evening for Templin Highway and it was spot-on. And much better than either Lockwood Valley or Mt Pinos.
Since I'm within the 10 mile radius of the Templin Highway site, I rolled out the 16" dob and waited for cool-down and Mars.
First, even with Jupiter lower in the horizon, the seeing was decent and enough to view it comfortably with a 10mm ethos eyepiece. Then, the obligatory views of m42 and the E and F stars in the trapezium appearing as tiny needle-points. I also caught a nice view of Hubble's variable nebula and a washed-out view of Thor's Helmut with an 0111 filter. M82 and M81 weren't bad, considering the moderate suburban light pollution.
Finally, Mars! You could clearly see the maria and the polar cap. I used an old 0111 filter that leaks red like a sieve and it makes one heck of a Mars filter. I barlowed the 10mm Ethos with a 2X GSO 2", and compared it to my 5mm Zhumell eyepiece. Verdict: the 10mm Ethos and the GSO 2X barlow won with a bit better contrast. The Zhumell wasn't bad but it was outgunned by the Ethos/barlow combo. Next up: I barlowed my 9mm Baader ortho with the GSO 2X unit and it gave me the best overall views of Mars. A bit more mag from the latter helped a bit more!
Nice to finally get a decent night of good seeing...