Posts Made By: William Rose

July 25, 2006 04:58 AM Forum: Eyepieces

The EP test is looking up!

Posted By William Rose

What are you looking for Floyd?
I do have a few eyepieces and think I can probably trust you. wink

Sorry I've been out of touch for a bit. Are you looking for Wide Angle for DSO use primarily?

Clear Skies, Bill

Jim Steenhoek said:

Who knows - maybe someone else would step up and offer to loan you some additional eps of similar focal lengths to make the comparison even broader!?

You never know - any takers out there?

You can trust Floyd... I do. grin

August 24, 2006 12:30 AM Forum: Equipment Talk

Looking for the Best Big Binos

Posted By William Rose

The 45degree binos look interesting but before I part with $1500 I want to ask others if such a big investment is worth it.

IMHO Yes.
Whatever you decide, a 45 degree telebinocular is much more comfortable to use than a straight through design. You will find you use the 45 degree telebinoculars more often and longer.
As an aside, if you can acquire telebinoculars that have interchangeable oculars, I think you'll be happier.
Clear Skies, Bill

September 12, 2006 05:13 AM Forum: Eyepieces

Best way to achieve 800-1000X

Posted By William Rose

I generally agree with Philip and Floyd but will throw my 2 cents in anyway. wink
I have a TeleVue 2-4mm Zoom, Zeiss & Clave Barlows, TV Powermates, AP Barcon, and many eyepieces.
I've done limited trials with these in an 18" f/9 Ritchey-Chretien Telescope and a 15.5" f/4.8 Newtonian.
As Floyd indicates, for the "Best way to achieve 800-1000X" I would recommend you go with the Zeiss Abbe Barlow and a ZAO A-4.
If that's too pricey I'd go with an early 80's Clave Barlow and a CZJ 4-O. (A Tak 2.8mm Hi Point might also work with these Barlows but not as well as the Zeiss. Besides you already have an extra telenegative lens in the Tak to begin with.) None of these will provide the eye relief you want though.
Personally, for critical observing, I'm not as pleased with most of the currently manufactured Barlows. Maybe Floyd can suggest a Barlow he likes but IMHO a 'fair' Barlow combined with a Radian would not provide high quality viewing at 1000X.
If for some reason you want the wider FOV and ease of use, the TV 2-4 Zoom will work but not as well as a Barlowed EP. The TV Zoom does have the advantage of providing the 10mm eye relief you wanted (more than double most Barlowed 3 or 4mm Orthoscopic). If you need to wear glasses while viewing, then you're back to the Barlowed Radian or similar which should provide the necessary eye relief.
Clear Skies, Bill

September 13, 2006 04:04 PM Forum: Eyepieces

Zeiss Abbe orthos 1,25"

Posted By William Rose

Hi Henrik,
Yes.
The ZAO definitely has advantages over the TMB Supermonos (and Tak's) as far as quality of image when used with a quality scope on nights with very good or better conditions.
If you have a few weeks to wait, I believe Floyd may be able to give you a direct comparison report.
Generally I have found the ZAO has better transmission and edge clarity than the TMB (IMHO). Other advantages are more subtle and only become apparent when using high end scopes on nights with great conditions. Some of the differences are not always observed by folks new to high end eyepieces who only try them for a few minutes. As with observing, it sometimes takes some learning/training to notice the difference.

Clear Skies, Bill

Henrik said:

Does anybody have any experience with this EP (lower FL) for planetary viewing, compared to TMB Supermonos. I have SM, UO and TAK LE used with an 5" APO. Does the Zeiss Abbe add any gain compared to the SM's, beside from the greater FOV.

Henrik

September 21, 2006 12:22 AM Forum: Eyepieces

TMB 40mm Paragon

Posted By William Rose

Thanks Bill,
Appreciate the report. It definitely sounds like the Paragon is worth a try. Anybody you know have a 41mm Pan you can do a comparison with?
I'm a little like James B. regarding the 36mm OG Seibert. Mine is pretty flat in my 12.5" f/5 Starmaster. Certainly not as bad as yours sounds. Did you buy yours new from Harry?
Either way it definitely sounds like I should give the TMB a try.
Thanks again!
Clear Skies, Bill

William Paolini said:

Well, I finally got a chance to do some real observing with my new TMB Paragon.

WoW. Performs wonderfully! Easily equals the light throughput of the Siebert 36mm Observatory and beats it hands down in edge performance in my 10" f4.7 Dob. There is a very minute amount of pincushion, but you really have to look for it in daytime observing, and only at the extreme edge. Central 75-80% afov is sharp, then at 20-25% from edge some barely detectable CA happens but only on Mag 1 to 1.5 stars. Also at 20-25% from edge start getting some field curvature that becomes noticable or moderate at last 10% (but on a re-focus even the last 10% to the edge the star stayed sharp).

Absolutely no blackout/kidney beaning and zero secondary shadow and no ghosts of any kind on Mag 1 stars.

Field stop tac sharp and very good contrast. Advertized as 69deg AFOV and looks every bit of it. AFOV of Nagler looked larger or course but only by 10-15 deg max. Interestingly, the Siebert AFOV did not look as big and advertised as 70deg afov but appeared smaller, perhaps perhaps 8-10 deg less in comparison to Paragon. Could easily get 4 widths of the Perseus Double Cluster in my TFOV, so that should be 2+ degrees as predicted.

Fit and finish excellent, light but still heavy enough to feel solid and well built.

This is a real keeper and quite a bargain price at $250 new. Based on the performance of this, will definitely want to get the 16mm and 24mm when they come out.

-Bill

September 26, 2006 02:55 PM Forum: Eyepieces

Exit Pupil Comfort Level

Posted By William Rose

At 56 I'm like Randy. I notice them at .7 or .8 but they don't become really annoying until about .4. The binoviewer approach does work.
Also, as someone recently stated in another thread, floaters tend to settle to the bottom of your eye if you keep your head still and don't make quick movements. I find that if I sit down and keep my head as close to upright as possible for a little bit, the floaters tend to settle toward the bottom of my field of vision. As long as I don't move my head quickly or look straight down, they tend to stay in the lower 1/3 or more of my field of vision. It helps keep them out of my primary field of vision.
Clear Skies, Bill


Alan French said:

As we move up in magnification and down in exit pupil, floaters in our eye become more and more annoying. For lunar and planetary viewing, I find my "comfort" levels ends at around 1.0 to 0.8 mm. If the exit pupil is much smaller than 0.8 mm, the floaters are just too bothersome.

What do you find?

Clear skies, Alan

October 2, 2006 06:17 AM Forum: Eyepieces

5mm EP Review by William Paolini

Posted By William Rose

It is an excellent article and shows how the new form can be used to great advantage.
Well done Bill! Thank you for the form and terrific example.

Clear Skies, Bill

October 13, 2006 04:42 PM Forum: Eyepieces

More Power, Scotty, in my 102 FL!

Posted By William Rose

Hi Gordon,
If you really like the Tak Ortho's, the 2.8mm and 4mm Tak Ortho's have a built in Barlow lens. These are actually what were called the Tak Hi-Point. The Barlow lens was built in to help extend the eye relief. You might see if you can locate one and try it. If memory serves, the Tak Hi-Points have a slightly longer eye relief than the 5mm Tak Ortho but not by much.
IMHO you're probably going to be happier with a good quality Barlow that can be used with various eyepieces.
Hope you find something that works well for you.

Clear Skies, Bill

Gordon Gower said:

I just bought a used Vixen 102 FL refractor with a 920mm focal length. My first light impressions are that the optics are superb and color free on the moon and even Vega. I will mostly use the scope for backyard lunar and planetary and for public star parties. My first impressions are that this scope will support some very high mag on the moon, which is one of my interests. My shortest FL eyepiece is an excellent Tak 5mm, but I think I may want just a little more power. My problem is that I must wear my glasses and long eye relief is a necessity. I love the Tak 5, but the ER is just too short. I also have an excellent Pentax XL7, but I want more power.

My question is how to get more power--the equivalent of a 3-4mm eyepiece without sacrificing ER. A couple of short FL Radians would do the trick, but how about a PowerMate 5X with some of my longer FL TV plossels? What would the group suggest might be the best scenario, while preserving ER and not breaking the bank?

Thanks,

Gordon Gower
Tucson

October 25, 2006 05:40 PM Forum: Eyepieces

Seeking Enlightenment...

Posted By William Rose

I like Jim's assessment. Concise and to the point. Well done.
There are some older used eyepieces out there that may fit your budget and needs. Two come to mind which are the older TeleVue Wide Fields and the 'Wide Scan'.
The TV Wide Fields are the predecessor to the Nagler and work well. I see them on AstroMart at reasonable prices around $100.00+ in excellent condition. The Wide Scan is often referred to as the "Poor Man's Nagler". Personally I prefer the University Optics Wide Scans. I've haven't spent much time with the others like Unitron, but in a few brief comparisons they're close to the Univ. optics and more readily available. Seems like I see a lot of 13mm show up on AMart. (If you find a good Univ. Optics 8mm Wide Scan, I'll buy it or trade you for a 7mm TV Nagler. I need to complete my set.)
Good luck, hope you find something you're happy with.

Clear Skies, Bill

October 29, 2006 10:25 PM Forum: Eyepieces

Beginning of the Orthos tests

Posted By William Rose

Floyd Blue said:

[snip]
We were using the crater Thebit for comparison as it was next to the terminator and had good contrast and depth as well as some small sharp features.
One of the interesting observations was unexpected however. Both the wife and I found the Pentax XL 10.5 EP showed as much contrast and detail as any of the Orthos, even the Zeiss. Also, it was a little easier to spot some of the very small features and craters with it. There was a quite small light feature on the end of a rill that showed very well in the XL, but did not show as well in the other EPs. :S Not sure what to make of that! shocked I did not expect the XL to compete that well with the high end Orthos, but it did and even perhaps excelled slightly. Very unexpected.
I will be doing some others comparisons soon. Last night was using 10mm range EPs only. Seeing was good but not great and there was a little high haze. But, the conditions were the same for all comparisons, so I think they are still valid.


Floyd,
If you'll remember, in one of posts not so long ago, I said the Pentax 10.5mm XL was one of my favorites for Lunar observation.
FWIW, I have Univ. Optics orthos (old, new, & HD) and the XL beats them hands down in my 12.5" Starmaster and NP-127.

Clear Skies, Bill