REVIEWS, COMPARISONS, AND OBSERVATION REPORTS:
PART I:
Note: November 24, 1998
Most of the following charts my growth into higher power eyepieces. I tried to put my best observation reports into this one. Though it is full of speculation and commentary as well. Take it all with a grain of salt, and seek out a second opinion.
Some will find this group of reports to be very boring as I go through the details of my growing pains in trying to learn the ropes with a new scope, among other things. But, it does serve as a follow up to some of my past reviews for those who have asked.
I have been trying to find the equipment that I like the best. I foresee a time in which I might lose interest in comparisons, and will switch my time over to just plain observation or maybe even another hobby.
This one has some of my opinions in it. Opinions sometimes only have value to one person, the one with the opinion. If you don't have an opinion on some of these subjects, you can borrow mine until you find something better; but, be warned that if you search long enough, you will indeed find something better regarding many of these subjects. Time changes opinions. Some will enjoy watching my opinion change over the months. It's all in here. Watch me contradict myself over the months.
Always realize that with telescopes and eyepieces, you might have completely different results, as I have come to believe that is the nature of the beast -- nothing seems to change the performance of an eyepiece more than to change the scope in which it is being used. Seek a second opinion whenever it is important to you.
For myself, I have come to the belief that by trying to explain in writing what I am seeing, my skills of observation increase over time. Sometimes I see my writings as a way to say 'thank you' to all those who took the time to give me help and information. Also, by sharing some of my observations, people with more experience come forward from time to time, in a kind manner, and let me know where I am wrong or share with me another way of looking at the topic.
I had a few people write to me off and on asking me to do more reviews and such. I know some people are tired of hearing from me, so I found it surprising that some actually wanted to hear more. I guess after not hearing from me for over half a year, some were figuring that I had dropped out of astronomy. I respond to my email and try to keep a copy of my response. I decided to compile some my astronomy related replies and post them. For those who are tired of hearing from me, this is more of the same -- skip it. For those who have written to me and asked me to write more, this is for them.
Darwin
---
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998
Subject: Pet Theories
All these comparisons have limitations and should be taken with a grain of salt; your mileage may vary.
I have been noticing conflicting results from side by side eyepiece comparisons on sci.astro.amateur. An eyepiece is declared to be a winner, only to be declared a loser by the next participant in the thread.
I have a gut feeling that's been developing over the last year that eyepieces don't always perform consistently in side by sides.
I have a positive and firm believe that each eyepiece type performs in a superior manner on some tasks and the same eyepiece fails at different tasks. I have noticed that some eyepieces are better with certain scopes than with others as well. And, I have proven that many eyepieces perform differently during the day than they do at night.
A new theory: Can changes in seeing be enhancing and taking away an eyepiece's inherent strengths? For example, I have been noticing that the Pentax XL's perform rather poorly when the seeing is bad in comparison to some of my other eyepieces.
Can an eyepiece that theoretically performs horribly in poor seeing, such as the XL, find itself a winner against the same eyepieces when the seeing goes perfect?
Or for example, can Brandons be winners on nights of poor seeing against a Televue Plossl, but then losers when the seeing goes perfect?
Also, I am noticing a trend that different vintages of an eyepiece design results in either winning results or losing results in these side by sides. To add even more difficulty, there is no way to account for each person's individual taste as well, and I think that is coming into play.
I am getting a gut feeling that a winning eyepiece will not always perform as one, if for some reason it finds itself out of its element. Defining the elements is rather difficult, because there are so many variables.
Differing results in eyepiece tests from one user to the next can also be reconciled by my theory that different eyepieces perform differently in different scopes, and my other theory that different focal lengths in an eyepiece line can cause eyepieces in that line to perform differently.
Also, you can find a flaw in almost any eyepiece or scope if one looks long enough, and that's the problem with reviews at times. At some point good enough has to be good enough.
I believe scopes influence the performance of eyepieces. The 'best' eyepiece ever made, but put in the wrong scope, will not always win; and, some pretty mundane eyepieces lucky enough to be matched with the right scope will sometimes perform to the level of the top of the line stuff. Just a theory.
Darwin
---
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998
Subject: Konig eye relief
I noticed your questions regarding eye relief and the controversy regarding eye relief of the UO Konigs. My definition of eye relief is in terms of what it does for me, and not what the manufacturer measures and claims it to be.
The 16mm UO Konig was such that my eyelashes would brush against the barrel and/or lens whenever I blinked. On top of a Klee, the eye relief was such that my eyelashes would just barely miss brushing against the barrel. Out of all the eyepieces I sold, my gut feeling is that this is the one that I am going to regret having sold. I might end up picking up another one over time.
The 24mm UO Konig has 'adequate' eye relief by most standards. It still feels a little cramped at times; but, I don't remember ever having to clean off eyelash oils.
The 25mm MK-70 had inadequate eye relief for it's field of view and had edge problems; but, the inner comfortable 'usable field' was larger than the usable field of the 24mm UO Konig.
The 32mm UO Konigs and above are fine, and I don't remember having any eye relief problems from both of my 32mm UO Konigs and the 40mm 7/70 Konig.
The 12mm UO Konig was a little nasty. I felt like the slightest slip would result in eyeball goo all over the eyepiece. I don't regret selling this one, due to the insufficient eye relief. That's why the new U.S. made University Optics plossl interests me. I wonder if he was able to build in any eye relief. The guy at UO doesn't seem to put much stock into eye relief in comparison to some of the other manufacturers, and his advertising copy regarding the subject is overly optimistic; but, as we all know, eye relief is in the eye of the beholder.
The 6mm and 8mm UO Konigs were even shorter on eye relief than the 12mm Konig; I didn't keep the 6mm and 8mm very long. Too frustrating to use with so little eye relief. A wide field of view is worthless at times, if there is not sufficient enough eye relief to comfortably take advantage of the whole field of view.
Darwin
---
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998
Subject: Ultima Barlow
So far, I am very impressed with the 2X Ultima 1.25" barlow. The thing I liked about the Klee is that it has no stray reflections on the moon. The thing I liked about the Dakin is that the field of view produced was much wider.
The Ultima 2X barlow seems to do both. I couldn't detect reflections, and the field of view is wider and thus better on deep sky objects.
I received a 20mm Meade 4000 Plossl. I hadn't gotten a chance to use it until now. The 20mm Plossl combined with the 2X Ultima allowed me to separate the four components of the double double in my 10 inch f/4.5. Not bad. I couldn't do it with a 7mm Pentax XL. The seeing was horrific, and I have noticed that when the seeing is bad, the XL's have a hard time keeping up.
Anyway, I have tons more testing to do before I can determine clear winning combinations; but, so far the 2X Ultima looks like one that I want to have around for further 'extended rounds' of testing.
Darwin
---
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998
Subject: Dreaming of 20mm
I received a 20mm Nagler today. I don't think I have ever been so pleased with an eyepiece. It turned my Quantum 6 f/15 Maksutov into a deep sky telescope.
Viewing M22 (or maybe it was M28) with averted vision and the globular cluster broke into a 'million' stars and seemed resolved to the core. With the Lagoon Nebula, I could actually sense the nebulosity, without any light pollution filters. And, all this was accomplished looking over the top of the neighbor's house to the south with flood lights illuminating their back yard. Despite the light pollution problems from the neighbor's yard, I don't remember the Q6 ever performing so well with deep sky objects. These are objects that normally require averted vision through an 8X50 finder and precise knowledge of their position in order for me to even find them in the city glow. At 30mm or lower power through the Q6 from my backyard and most of these objects wash into the sky glow and become open clusters as in the case of the Lagoon, or become smears of light as in the case of the globular clusters.
When it was time, I turned the 20mm Nagler onto the moon and Jupiter. I was stunned when the whole moon wouldn't fit within the field of view, then I realized that the internal barlow of the Q6 was engaged. Removing the barlow, the moon did indeed fit within the FOV of the 20mm Nagler. Though you cannot take it in all at once, the fact that the whole moon fits within the 'picture frame' is quite stunning to say the least. I was pleased!
With the 20mm Nagler, I was getting a lot more detail out of Jupiter than I remember seeing last summer through the Q6 -- both with and without the internal barlow. Something had to be wrong. :-) I dropped in a 20mm Meade plossl and turned the scope onto the double double, and the four components proceeded to separate. It was then that I realized that I was dealing with above average seeing. I then engaged the internal barlow with the 20mm Meade to get even wider separation, and then I turned my 10 year old son loose, and he could clearly see the four components. He couldn't figure out what the big deal was all about. Years ago, it took me half an hour through a nice four inch f/15 refractor before I realized that there were four stars there; my son figured it out in 5 seconds through the Q6.
I went back to Jupiter and experimented with a bunch of different eyepieces. I could see heat waves. So despite the above average seeing of the atmosphere, the house and street to the east were putting off a lot of heat making it so I would only get split second detail here and there with the 10.5mm XL at 217X. I put in the 14 XL, and there I had it; despite the heat waves, I had basically continuous detail. It's small at only 163X, but it was the most Jovian detail I have ever gotten out of the Q6. The two main bands had shape with festoons and stuff; and, there were the 'multitudes' of bands above and below the two main bands -- I had never before seen more than the two main bands on Jupiter through the Q6, until tonight. I think I was also getting some of the larger ovals interacting with the major bands, as well. Not as nice as the view through the 9 inch Clark refractor last fall; but, it was at least a 'usable' image for once, through the Q6.
Putting back in the 20mm Nagler, both with and without the 1.75X internal barlow of the Q6, and the moon had the illusion of depth or relief. I really really like the 20mm Nagler combined with the Q6, and the 20mm Nagler doesn't have any spherical aberration of the exit pupil like the 14mm XL has. The 20mm Nagler provides some of the most, if not the most comfortable lunar viewing I have ever done with the Q6.
Even if the 20mm Nagler proves to be a 'dog' with the 16 inch scope I am getting, its performance with the Q6 truly makes it worth risking divorce in order to have it on hand. ;-) A supreme eyepiece with the Q6. And the mounting and stability of the Q6, make it a great scope to use with the extra weight of a 20mm Nagler. The eyepieces I am selling to raise the money for the 20mm Nagler won't be missed.
Darwin
---
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Subject: Sky Glow and Digital Setting Circles
Well a year or so ago I bought all the books on star hopping. But, they are worthless from my backyard as I can only see the first star on the list through the telrad, and then I am lost thereafter. Only a third of the Messier objects are findable, and none of the 'NGC only' objects -- from my backyard.
Last summer from my backyard, I spent two or three weeks off and on looking for the Whirlpool. After I finally found it, I realized that I was probably on top of it a half a dozen times during the weeks, but just unable to see it. For my backyard, a half of dozen other folks have got me convinced that I must have digital setting circles, unless I am to purchase a $200 finder from Lumicon. But, even in my 8X50 finder built into the Quantum, I have to use averted vision to catch stuff like the Lagoon Nebula and the Andromeda galaxy. There's no way on earth I would be able to use a regular finder or a telrad to find Stephan's Quintet in my back yard.
A two or three hour one way trip to the desert, and then I can star hop with the best of them, and then the digital setting circles probably wouldn't be as necessary. Most nights, though, I only have a couple of hours for viewing; and, I don't have four to six hours extra to dedicate to driving someplace. I now work in the evenings and by the time I would get to the desert, it would be time to turn around and come home.
You and others have pretty much gotten me convinced that digital setting circles are the single most important thing I can put my money into if I want to maximize my usage of the 16 incher. Funny, two months ago, and I had never even heard of digital setting circles; I didn't know they even existed.
Thanks,
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: 2 Aug 1998
Subject: Barlowing
I barlow to keep the eyelash oil off my eyepieces. The low power eyepieces usually have enough eye relief to keep my eyes at a safe distance.
I only tend to barlow on the moon. So very many eyepieces barlow well on the moon, that I didn't feel I was missing anything by not having dedicated planetary eyepieces.
I was doing a lot of barlowing last night on Jupiter.
The reality is that I started with simple scopes, simple tastes, and I was making most of my stuff and making THE most of my stuff. Ten years later I realized that I had about 6 or 7 different 26mm eyepieces. In the meantime, in March 1997, I started looking into high power eyepieces when I got the Quantum 6. Before that, I didn't need high power, as there was nothing I had that I could put high power into and track easily; and, the scopes I had weren't up it anyway. I always had a 4.8 Nagler that came in handy at times with rich field refractors on the moon. Jupiter was off limits except for the two main bands and the moons themselves -- shadow transits were off limits.
Then the Quantum 6 changed it all. I had an instrument that could take 250X if the seeing would allow. I soon tired of the 4.8 Nagler and got myself a 5.2 XL and a 7mm XL. Over the last year, I have figured out that for Jupiter, the XL is not the weapon of choice from personal experience -- leading to my current quandary. I need 5mm to 7mm, with the sharpness I saw in the 8mm Brandon, but with the eye relief I am able to achieve by barlowing or can get out of the XLs. The Brandon was nice, but it poked me in the eye one too many times.
I found the 16mm UO Konig to not have enough eye relief straight through and I usually had to clean off the eyelash oil from time to time; but, I also noticed, that on top of the Klee (and I also assume on top of my 2X Ulitma) that the eye relief lengthened enough that my eyelashes just barely missed the glass. I sold it because of the eyelash oil; but, 'FOR THE PRICE' I have not found anything superior. Anyway, over time I have come to regret selling the 16mm UO Konig.
Darwin
---
Date: 2 Aug 1998
Subject: Jupiter
6:00 UT to 7:20 UT August 2, 1998, that's 0:00 to 1:20 Mountain daylight savings time Aug 2, 1998, I saw what looked like two ovals in the larger darker cloud band of Jupiter through the Q6 (Quantum 6 Maksutov). I couldn't get magnification and seeing good enough to determine if I was looking at two huge ovals or if it was a rendition of the GRS that didn't look familiar.
I have spent the last two months of my free time selling equipment in order to raise the money needed to buy a 16 inch f/4.6 truss dob-newt reflector. So, I have been out of circulation for awhile.
Darwin
---
Date: 2 Aug 1998 03:29:35 Mountain Daylight savings time.
Subject: Finally
The double double splitting cleanly with every eyepiece through the Q6. Double cluster seems to break up into a myriad of pinpoint stars.
More detail on Jupiter than I have ever seen through the Q6. I am getting ovals in the main bands as well as finer detail in the shapes of the bands. The Cassini division clear and sharp in Saturn. Many firsts. Nowhere near the detail as seen through the 9 inch Clark refractor, but maybe the best I have ever seen through a 6 inch instrument.
The 32mm Konig, 30mm Ultima, and 24mm Konig on top of both the Klee with the 1.75X internal barlow also engaged (double barlowed) are showing the ovals in Jupiter for an effective 5mm to 7mm range. I also alternate the 2X Ultima in there double barlowed as well with the same results. The 7mm Pentax XL in comparison to the double barlowed views is soft and more washed out -- can't make out the ovals.
I tried a bunch of everything. Surprisingly the best, sharpest, most ovals, and most detail comes from the 9mm Intes monocentric by itself in the Q6. The ghost is ever present symmetrical with the axis; but, I find the ghost is easily ignored as I am so impressed with the sharpness and the detail presented. With the 9mm Intes the Cassini division was no longer 'imagined' -- it was clearly and sharply seen, no question.
The 9mm Intes is best in quality, the barlowed and double barlowed views are second, and the Pentax XL is third for planetary detail. Looks like the Intes monocentric is the best planetary eyepiece that I currently have.
I was actually thinking about selling the 9mm Intes as I was finding the ghost to be rather annoying on the moon last time I tried it. After tonight, I'm not going to part with it, at least not until I can get me some LE's and orthos to compare it with. The Intes has a narrow field of view that sometimes can be difficult to work with. I am beginning to think that the Pentax XL's have been limiting the planetary performance of the Quantum 6 for the last year.
I waited a year and a half to get views like this out of the Q6 -- maybe I have seen what it can finally do. Now I will have a benchmark against which to judge the 16 inch scope when it arrives.
Darwin
---
Date: 2 Aug 1998
Subject: Follow up
Later in the morning, around 4:00 A.M., I found another winning combination. On Jupiter, the 20mm Meade Super Plossl on top of the 2X Ultima barlow (10mm effective focal length) was producing detail similar to the 9mm Intes by itself.
The double double is my standard bench test to determine the quality of seeing. If seeing is poor, I can't split the four components with the Q6. Tonight, I had the cleanest split that I have ever remembered the Q6 producing.
Darwin
---
Date: 2 Aug 1998
Subject: Speculation
I mentioned my good experience with the 20mm Meade plossl 2X Ultima'ed in comparison to the 9mm Intes. Made me begin to wonder at 5:00 A.M. if the eyepiece was not as important as the 228X to 254X magnification range. In hind sight, it makes me wish I would have caught on sooner so I could have pulled out the 10.5mm Pentax XL for a comparison as well -- that would have let me know if it was the eyepieces that were the winning factor or the 235X magnification range. I have seldom been able to get the Q6 past 150X on Jupiter due to poor seeing.
In the 7mm range, I now also wonder if I would have been able to make out more detail if I would have experimented using some different filters that I have on hand.
My first night that I actually saw enough that I was thinking that there might be something there to draw -- I am so inexperienced with good seeing that I am still experimenting, so I don't have time to jump in and do a drawing yet. If I get my equipment, eyepieces and scopes, figured out, that might change.
I am sorry, but I like seeing surface detail on Saturn. The Q6 just does not have enough aperture to see surface detail, in detail. The surface of Saturn has always looked better through the 10 inch scope, and the rings seem more vibrant as well.
Last night through the Q6, Saturn looked starved in comparison to Jupiter. I had some clear sharp views; but, I am truly eager to full aperture the 16 incher on Saturn and bump the power up to between 300X and 400X. If I get a cool, after-the-storms, night like last night again with the 16 incher, I definitely want to go for it.
I found myself missing the 16mm UO Konig last night. Would have loved to have been able to put it onto the 2X Ultima. I haven't found anything in the 16mm range as good on the moon as the 16mm UO Konig. I regret selling it.
Darwin
---
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998
Subject: Thanks!!
On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 Todd Gross writes:
"I have determined exactly what you were looking at on Jupiter
on 8/2.
It
was (likely) the GRS and it's adjacent large white oval. The
GRS appears
to
match the oval when it is on it's way out, which is just what it
was
doing
when you were observing, given fair seeing. Todd"
Thanks for the confirmation and the extra information. At that time, the scope probably hadn't reached equilibrium, and Jupiter was still in the murk; but, I think the seeing was pretty good. I couldn't make out enough detail to determine if it was the GRS or something else. It was going off the limb and from all I could see it looked like I had two large white ovals. The only thing making me think I had the GRS was that the main red band at the point of the ovals was almost pencil thin in comparison to the wideness of the band across the rest of the planet. An hour or two later, the view improved noticeably, but the objects were gone. The improvement of the view of Jupiter was a surprise (an hour or so later 2:30 A.M. to 3:00 local time) which drove me to test the scope on the double double. Either the seeing had improved, or the scope had equalized and Jupiter had come out of the murk. The quality of the view of Jupiter maintained until about 4:30 A.M. local, or so, when Jupiter found itself over the top of my neighbor's roof to the south.
Darwin
---
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:41:55
Subject: Growing Pains at 16 inch f/4.6
Well, I have gotten out the 'new' 16 incher, and I am giving it a try.
The first object was the Lagoon Nebula. Very underwhelming. Pollution filters didn't help either. Nothing one can do when the moon is a hand's distance away from the Lagoon, except try a week or so later. The stars were there but not much nebulosity.
It took half an hour to find all the stuff I needed. I have a stepping stool that doubles as a chair and also as a toolkit. I gathered the collimation tools, boards, and other stuff into it. I can sit on it for the horizon, and stand on it for the zenith.
The laser collimator has no battery, and in the past I found it easier to use in twilight. I tried using the Cheshire to collimate. I tried to center up everything I was seeing. I had a star that showed the secondary and spiders way off center; but, then defocussed Jupiter had the secondary dead center. Gonna take awhile to figure out what I am doing.
The Ring Nebula at the zenith was a pain. It took 10 minutes to find with the moon shining in my face, and that scope is very hard to move at the zenith. I ended up grabbing the truss tubes, left hand left trusses, right hand right trusses and basically jerked it to where I wanted it. Is there a better way to do it? I felt like at times I was going to bend the trusses.
The Ring was OK. Not like what I remembered in a 16 inch at a dark site, but OK. The UHC filter on the 20mm Nagler helped some.
Alcor and Mizar were very impressive. ;-) I dropped it onto Jupiter. I have never seen so many heat waves in my life -- just coming over the neighbors house to the east. I went and found the aperture stop. Dropped it down to 4 inches, the small hole, and put it on the moon. Not bad. Brighter than I liked, maybe I need a 2 inch hole. The moon was the best object so far. The moon sure has been doing a good job of advertising. I went back to Jupiter with 4" aperture, and I could see the bands, and more than two, with a 20mm Nagler. Not bad considering it was definitely in the murk.
I decided to give it a break so that the mirror could cool down, and Jupiter could rise. I am also hoping to find the double cluster, if we can get Casseopeia higher in the air. I am going to have to find my binoculars, as I can't see anything in order to be able to center the telrad on it.
Slow going, but I hope to acclimate.
Darwin
---
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998
Subject: Too time consuming -- full moon.
I appreciate your recommendation to seek out planetary nebulae and globular clusters during the full moon with the 16 incher. It's kind of hard for me to do so.
It took me nearly 10 to 15 minutes to get the 16 incher onto the Ring Nebula, and I knew exactly where the ring was because I could at times see the two guide stars at the zenith with averted vision. I couldn't get the scope to move at the zenith. I had to get down and move the scope at the base only to find out that I was way off when I got back up to the telrad. The tires on the wheelbarrow handles kept getting stuck in the grass. My yard has a small slope, and I got to figuring that it might be best in the future to remove the wheelbarrow handles.
There's only two globular clusters I have gotten any good at finding. One in Sagittarius that was under the moon, and M13. During the full moon in the past it has taken as long as an hour to find M13, and sometimes I can't find it. I didn't want to try M13 last night because of my past problems with finding it in the sky glow. I was trying to go with objects that I theoretically had memorized their positions. After finding the double cluster, I realized that I was triangulating off the wrong star. The triangle required a third star that I found out was not visible to the naked eye last night. When I did find the double cluster, I was pleased. It did indeed seem fully resolved. It sometimes doesn't resolve out completely in the smaller instruments I was stuck to using in the past.
I have a hard and fast rule, never do deep sky during full moon -- stick with the moon and planets and a couple of major double stars. You say, globulars and planetaries. I can't find them in the full moon. Gee, with Salt Lake sky glow I sometimes can't find them during new moon.
Can anybody say, "Sky Commander digital setting circles?" When you told me about digital setting circles a couple of months ago, and I finally figured out what they were, can you see why I suddenly got excited? No more hour or two trying to find M13. With Sky Commander or some such I should be able to 'planetary and globular' during the full moon with the 16 inch. After last night the Sky Commander is definitely top on my list of things to save for.
What have I been using for a finder, and what did I use last night?
With the scopes I had, I used the 40mm 7/70 or the 85mm Plossl, aimed the 80mm refractor or some such in the general direction, and the used averted vision if necessary to find the object. Never had a finder on the 80mm refractor, and it was my most used scope until I got the Quantum 6. The Q6 has an 8X50 finder, and I have found that the messier objects are visible using averted vision in the 8X50 finder. My problem with the Q6 is getting the scope in the general position in the first place.
With the 16 inch I was using my hand as a finder -- to block the moon. And, then I would have to wait about 30 seconds until my eye adjusted enough so I could catch the two stars around the Ring Nebula. Then when I moved to the telrad, the moon would flash me again right in the face, and I would be blinded again and have to start all over.
The telrad was in the perfect position to catch the moon in my peripheral vision every time. The moon would peek right over the top or side of the spider assembly. The ring was the wrong object at the time. I only went after it cause I thought it would be easy to find. I found the Lagoon in 15 seconds. And, I found Andromeda galaxy in about 5 minutes after I got myself a chart.
Yes, the moon gives and gave me serious grief. Now, I did use the telrad to find the moon and find Jupiter and Saturn in the 16 inch. I found them as fast as I could put the telrad on them.
With the moon and the telrad, I do the little trick where I don't look at the moon directly through the telrad. Looking at the moon through the telrad drowns out the red bulls eye. I look inside the telrad from the side or top of the telrad directly at the red bulls eye and move the reflection of the moon in the glass onto the bulls eye. The reflection of the moon in the glass is a lot less dim than the direct bulls eye. It helps to roughly position the moon the normal way first to get it in the general location then switch so the moon is the reflection and not the bulls eye, for the final adjustment. The moon has to be reflecting off the glass someplace in order to center it on the bulls eye easily.
One thing that was interesting to me was how frequently the 20mm Nagler went into the 16 incher and how long it seemed to stay in there. That eyepiece was a good move for that scope.
Darwin
---
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Subject: A mistake
16 inch scope:
I can see now that it was a mistake to sell the 5.2XL. I had a 7mm XL on M13 for what my wife and I considered to be the best view. I really think I could have gone with a 5.2mm XL and possibly resolved even more.
I am one of those 'magnification' hounds that they have been talking about on sci.astro.amateur. I prefer to run right at the limit. Stopped down to 4", and I am not having a single problem with the 7mm XL on Jupiter. The seeing comes and goes, but there are moments of 5 to 10 seconds where everything is crystal sharp. I put the 7mm on top of the 2X Ultima. Too much power and washed out the bands. But, when I put the 10.5mm XL on the 2X Ultima there would be two to three second intervals where it would spring to clarity through the 4" aperture stop, as the seeing would come and go. Full aperture, it would almost come together with the 7mm XL.
I don't need a 7.5mm Tak LE, I am beyond that, unbelievably. I need a 5mm Tak LE, 5.2mm XL, a 5mm Ortho, or a 4.8mm Nagler. The 16 inch scope stopped down to 4" is performing better on Jupiter than the Quantum 6 ever has. The only thing I have ever looked through that has done better on Jupiter than the 16 inch is a 9" Clark refractor. The 16 inch is an amazing scope.
I really should set up the Quantum side by side with 16"; but, I got home from work, and I didn't even pull out the 16 inch until 11:00 P.M or so. Now that it's 1:00 A.M. the night would be over before the Q6 could equalize properly.
I am now wondering if I should indeed get a 5mm Pentax Ortho or a 5mm Tak LE; I wonder which one would be better.
On M13 with the 7mm XL, the field was getting rather narrow. That kind of argues the need for a 4.8mm Nagler.
I use the 32mm UO Konig in 2" barrel to find things in the 16 incher. I am really not running into any need for a 27mm Panoptic. Once I find things with the 32mm UO Konig, I jump right up to the 20mm Nagler or into the 14, 10.5 and 7mm XL's. I feel like it would be a better investment to explore a variety of different ways of getting myself into the 5mm range. At 32mm the 16 inch really pinpoints the stars, the nasty coma that some of the Konigs are known for is really not much of a problem in the 16 incher at the 32mm range.
Anyway, can you tell I am having fun?
Darwin
---
Date: 23 Aug 1998
Subject: Barlows
I still have the Klee, I also got a 2X Ultima Celestron barlow after Todd Gross told me that I had to. I really like the 2X Ultima barlow; it too is great and short enough that the moon doesn't reflect off its walls. It has the wider apparent field of the Dakin, and the planetary satisfaction of the Klee. Being 2X it matches well with the nearly 3X of the Klee. They both are keepers, and what I finally settled on.
[Note at a later date: I have heard of some people comment that they can get better results from time to time from custom made barlows using specialized lenses. I do periodically look into custom made barlows. The 2 inch barrel one I have won't come to focus with most of my eyepieces; so, there are potential drawbacks to custom made barlows, as well as some of the potential benefits.]
Darwin
---
Date: 23 Aug 1998
Subject: What next?
The 16 incher stopped down to 4" and stopped down to 6.4" performs better on Jupiter than the Quantum 6. I found myself the last couple of weeks in the market for some 4mm to 9mm planetary eyepieces. For the money, everyone is suggesting I get a collection of UO orthos. For the best, everyone is suggesting I get the Zeiss or Pentax SMC orthos. I have been looking at the Pentax SMC Orthos, as they are still available; whereas, the Zeiss were a limited run. In the end, due to the fact that I like eye relief, I have decided to start out by getting the 5mm and 7.5mm Takahashi LE's.
Darwin
---
Date: 23 Aug 1998
Subject: Observation Report
16 inch scope on August 22, 1998, 9:00 P.M. Local Mountain Standard Time:
I started out with the Whirlpool Galaxy -- I know, galaxies are off limits from my light polluted back yard. But, I wanted to see if I could find it. I found it in twilight with the 16 incher. Actually, as the sky got darker a couple hours later, it looked no better than it did in twilight. It wasn't impressive in city sky glow, but with my past scopes it took me two weeks to find it from my backyard. I found it with the 16 incher in about 10 minutes. Increasing magnification did nothing to help.
Polaris. There's a rather dim star nearby in the 32mm eyepiece. I assume that's the companion to the star.
M13 was fantastic once again. My wife, who isn't into astronomy, is even impressed with that one. The 7mm XL provides the best view -- better than 10.5XL on the 2X Ultima barlow.
The Lagoon and Trifid were nice in OIII filters and 20mm Nagler. A lot of shape to the nebulosity. Kind of sad, Sagittarius is due south at dark. Means the summer is over.
The Ring was probably the best with the OIII and 20mm Nagler, though it was also doable filterless in the 7mm and 10.5mm XL's. The Veil Nebula was hard to pull out of the sky glow despite the pollution filters. 20mm Nagler was best on the Veil, but still rather unimpressive. It was there, but nowhere near as impressive as at a dark site.
I love Albireo. It is stellar with a full 16 inch of aperture.
My most pleasant surprise of the night was the Dumbell Nebula. I usually never bother with it cause at 10 inches and sky glow, it is yuck. But, Dumbell, 16 inches, and light pollution filter, 32mm or 20mm eyepieces, and it is quite impressive -- I think.
I am also finding the Milky Way to be fantastic with the 16 inch scope. The 32mm UO Konig is far and away superior to the 20mm Nagler and 40mm 7/70 for wandering the Milky Way with 16 inch. The 40mm 7/70 has way too much coma, severe distortion throughout almost the whole field in the 16 incher. The 85mm Rini Plossl is better than the 7/70 in the 16 incher as the plossl doesn't suffer from coma, at least not noticeably. The 32mm UO Konig in 2" barrel is also practically coma free, and it has double the number of stars in the field as the 40mm 7/70.
I tend to use the 2" barrel 32mm UO Konig the most with the 16 incher, and when I find an extended object then I sometimes switch to the 20mm Nagler. Though with globular clusters and planetaries, I might sometimes bump up the magnification even further into the 14mm, 10.5mm, or 7mm XL's. With the 16 incher on the Milky Way from my backyard, I can almost see as many stars as I could see with the 10 incher at a dark site.
Saturn and Jupiter had some interesting play with Jup's moons, but the seeing was the pits at any aperture. Then around 1:45 A.M. I tried again. 14mm XL, full aperture, and boom, the GRS stood out like a sore thumb. I backed 16" off to 6" aperture and a 7mm XL, and the GRS is still there plain as day. I really need a 5mm eyepiece. After the 200 hours I put into the Quantum 6 on Jupiter with no real luck straining to see any detail, I am finding the 16 incher to be a little too easy to get good views of Jupiter.
The planetary performance of the 16 incher is what I am finding to be most impressive. And, I can use the XL's as planetary eyepieces to good effect. Makes me wish I hadn't sold the 5.2 XL; but, I needed the money. Makes me wonder what it will be like to use Tak LE's or even some orthoscopics on Jupiter sometime down the road.
2:20 A.M. and the wind was back with a vengeance. Jupiter looked like water was running over it. Wind was blowing through the bottom of the OTA and blowing off the aperture stop. I figured it was time to quit, as my eyes were quickly filling full of gook.
Darwin
---
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998
Subject: THE AIR HERE HAS BEEN CHICKEN SOUP
Last night, clear, ever so slight breeze, all the neighbors had their lights off; but I could only see the main stars, the rest I had to use averted vision to see, except I could see the constellation of Hercules straight on. There was some kind of dust or moisture in the air. Using averted vision I could read the labels on my eyepieces using just the ambient sky glow from the city -- talk about a cloudless washed out sky. It took me around 1/2 hour or longer to find the dumbell nebula in the Quantum 6 -- no exaggeration either. Because of the periodic breeze, I set up the Quantum 6 early on. Went from 9:00 P.M. or so, until 3:20 A.M.
Reading the labels on my eyepieces using the sky glow reflecting off the moisture in the air. Averted vision naked eye to get anything but the first and second magnitude stars.
The best instrument last might was my pair of 7X50 Nikon binoculars. After frustration not being able to find the dumbell, I laid down in the wet grass with the 7X50 binocs and tried to see if I could sense the dumbell with them. As I understand it, the dumbell is the only planetary detectable direct with binoculars. Anyway, during the process, I really fell in love, yet again, with the star fields of the Milky Way through the binoculars -- a glorious sight, and the best I had during the six hours last night.
Made an aperture stop for the Quantum 6 tonight. I also got the Q6 to focus on Jupiter successfully using the 7mm Pentax XL -- a first. The best was probably 7mm XL, Q6 full aperture, and a yellow filter #15 on that 7XL. It looked very close to some of the stuff I have been seeing through the 16 incher.
I got a 15 minute span around 2:30 when I was able to nearly focus perfectly on Jupiter with the Q6 at 7mm, 326X. The little moons still had a bit of fuzz. The 15 Yellow filter erases poor seeing. With the yellow filter the moons rounded up perfectly at 7mm and there were some large ovals and definite wispy shape to the bands through the filter. The 10.5 and 14 XL's with the 2.5 inch aperture stop were also at times showing some of the same detail. The jury is still out, as I was very tired at the time. Couldn't see air running like water, so I had above average seeing at the time.
Either my skills are getting better, or Jupiter is just in a more favorable position this year. I would probably bet on the former. I have changed over the last year. A year ago I would sit there for three hours straight observing Jupiter, and give up in frustration when I wasn't seeing anything. Now I drop in every half hour or so, onto Jupiter. If the seeing is good, I stay a little longer; otherwise, I move on to something else and come back a half hour later. I have been routinely having good luck with the seeing around 2:00 A.M. It seems to settle into acceptable levels for around 15 minutes or so before the next round of breezes.
I was quite pleased with the results on Jupiter last night with the Q6 for those 15 minutes or so. Before that, I could see the air running like water across the surface at 14mm or so, and I just moved on to something else.
Darwin
---
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998
Subject: observing runs....
On Mon, 24 Aug 98 Joe Donahue writes:
>Darwin,
>You do LONG observation runs!
>My runs go for 2, maybe 3 hours tops.
Yes, I go for 6 hours or so, unless the wind or clouds come in. Some objects take me a half an hour to find if the conditions aren't right -- once I set my heart on an object, I usually don't give up. I spent two weeks off and on looking for the Whirlpool Galaxy last year.
I figure digital setting circles are probably going to be the most significant addition to my arsenal.
The dumbell I found last night was nowhere near as impressive in the Quantum 6 as it was in the 16 incher. The nebulae filters would make it disappear altogether in the Q6; whereas, the OIII made the dumbell stand out like a sore thumb in the 16 incher.
With the 16 incher, I am almost getting from my backyard what I had to drive out to the desert with the 10 incher to get, except on galaxies. Galaxies were indeed better in the 10 incher from a desert dark sky location.
Darwin
---
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:27:18
Subject: I think I am done.
Wow. I think I am done for the night. I started with a clear and cloudless night, with absolutely no wind. I wandered around in Sagittarius for a moment, then went inside to give the scope a chance to equalize.
I went out after letting the 16 inch scope cool down an hour. No wind. But, the clouds were materializing out of thin air. A decade ago someone told me that on a windless night when the clouds are materializing out of thin air, get the scope on the planets.
Boy was he right! Perfection of Jupiter at 14mm and 10.5mm, with the 4" aperture stop and the XL's.
I jumped right up to my new 5mm Tak LE. A little dim, so I pulled off the aperture stop for the full 16 inches and wow! I had to deal with wispy earthly clouds coming across the view from time to time, but it was amazing. It focused up at 373X. I was sensing festoons coming off the bands along with some red oval type things on the bands. A ton of detail. Even the smaller bands had shape. Too much to be able to take it all in, and the image would improve and degrade in kind of a periodic fashion, as our earth's clouds would pass in front of the image of Jupiter. But overall, the earthly clouds passing through the image seemed to be the only thing affecting the seeing. I was spell bound, and probably let a little too much time pass.
When I got ahold of myself, I couldn't resist. I got out the 2X Ultima barlow and put the 5mm Tak LE on top of it. The earthly clouds were overtaking me. But, at 746X, I was able to average out the fuzz enough to get some round moons. Then I moved to Jupiter. It was focused in and I was getting detail, but I could definitely see the earthly clouds moving across the image. Still pretty amazing though; I was getting some high magnification detail and ovals in the bands of Jupiter. I was actually seeing something useful. I got ten to fifteen seconds of full aperture at 746X on Jupiter before the clouds did me in for good.
There was definitely enough there that I think I would have been able to do a drawing, if only I could have had more than a few minutes to work with. Some people buy a book to teach them how to analyze all the detail they are seeing on the planets. Gee, I just might now be one of those persons, who could get usage out of such a book.
I find that the 5mm Tak LE agrees with me. The eye relief is adequate enough for my needs, and I think the eyepiece appears to be a good performer as well. Earlier in the evening, I had the 5mm LE on M22 in Sagittarius, a globular cluster, with some pretty good results despite the fact that the scope hadn't cooled down.
Man, where do I go from here? I guess I'll have to go out and put the scope away before it starts raining.
Darwin
---
COMMENTARY:
Periodically the subject comes up as to what makes for a good eyepiece or telescope review. Being that I like to take notes at the eyepiece as an effort to increase my observing skills, this subject does interest me. I am not very good at telescope testing, as I am just not into collecting telescopes. But, I do have things that I like to try to accomplish whenever I am testing eyepieces. Being that I am asked my opinion on this subject from time to time, I think a little commentary on the subject might interest some.
To get a complete picture, one must test an eyepiece in as many scopes as possible before forming an opinion. If you can test an eyepiece at f/15, f/10, and f/5, that will indeed bring out differences in the performance of an eyepiece. I also like to take it a step further and test the eyepieces during the daytime and at night, as I have proved to my satisfaction that many eyepieces perform differently during the day than they do at night. I also feel that to be complete an eyepiece has to be tested terrestrially, on the moon, and in a 'deep sky' situation; and, others would add the planets Jupiter and Saturn as well. I also find that testing an eyepiece at different apertures can bring out some strengths and weaknesses of an eyepiece.
For someone like me who enjoys comparing eyepieces, I have discovered that it was a mistake to sell my 80mm f/6.25 University Optics refractor that was designed to take 2" eyepieces. A rich field refractor adds another dimension to eyepiece testing.
From time to time during a review, the reader has to be warned about some of the potential weaknesses of the test, and the reader needs to be made aware that they are reading only one opinion on the subject, and that the opinion may be in error. I have been saying for a year now that nothing does more to change the performance of an eyepiece than to change the scope it is being used in. There is a very good possibility that you will get completely different results by using my eyepieces in your telescope.
Over a period of time you will find things that you like. The reader needs to be aware that you may be biased on a subject, in other words you may have found something that you really like and it may be clouding your objectivity. When writing a review, you need to emphasize over and over again that yours is only one opinion, and encourage them to seek a second opinion.
It helps to have some experience before writing an eyepiece review. If you are like me and have no experience, then before posting a review, it might be useful for you to present your review to friends and people you trust so they can check for errors and offer suggestions on your behalf. But, then at times you may want to say what you want to say, and having somebody else's influence might not be what you want at the time.
Off and on, I like to give little tips that the reader can use for himself, whenever I happen to discover something new that I hadn't thought about before.
Some people prefer a more technical review, and others are more interested in just hearing about what I am seeing. Some like a short one paragraph review, and some like hearing about all the details. Some just want to be told what to buy, and others would rather be told why to buy. That's the advantage to having different people write reviews, and that's the advantage of your seeking a second opinion. Each person has a different writing style, and each reader has different things that he or she is looking to discover from a review. If you come across something that you think should have been done better, I would encourage you to write it down and share it with the rest of us.
If you are like me, you need to be prepared to be proven wrong from one perspective or another, from time to time. The hobby is infinite, and there always seems to be another way to look at the same situation.
For myself, I feel it is best to describe what I am seeing, that's usually the thing I want to know about when I check my notes months later. General comments like, this is the best eyepiece or this is a lousy eyepiece are okay for the first sentence of the paragraph, but then I feel I have an obligation or a need to explain why I think so. It makes the information much more useful to me when I reread it six months later.
I believe that, if at all possible, each eyepiece being compared has to be there in the flesh. Doing eyepiece reviews from memory is not fair to the one not there to defend itself. You will see times when I and others violate this recommendation; but, for myself, I always try to mention whenever I am doing a comparison from memory. I also find that comparisons between two eyepieces do more for me to be able to see the strengths and weaknesses of an eyepiece, than if I were to just test a single eyepiece on its own against itself.
Again, opinions and experiences vary widely, so it is always best for the reviewer and reader alike to take everything with a grain of salt and to seek out a second opinion whenever possible. When receiving input from dozens of people, it is very hard to determine whom or what to believe, as one quickly learns that each person has a different opinion or a different take on any situation. The only solution is to mentally allow each person the right to his opinion, and to do the best you can. If I lack experience on a subject, I try to average out the information I receive from dozens of people, looking for trends or for a consensus to emerge from the data.
Someone told me that each eyepiece line has gems and lemons. Just because someone likes a Radian doesn't necessarily mean that all Radians are perfect. Likewise, just because I don't like a certain eyepiece, it doesn't mean that you will automatically have the same results with the same eyepiece, nor would you have the same results with that whole line of eyepieces.
I also believe that the reader of a review has certain responsibilities as well.
The reader should never accept the writings of one person as Gospel. The reviewers are human and subject to errors and biases. Always, always, get a second opinion. If you rely on the opinion of one person to make your decision, it is your fault for doing so, and not the fault of the reviewer if something goes wrong.
The reader needs to be aware that in actual usage some of the differences in eyepieces, that we discover and comment about, are actually very small or of no importance; some of the stuff we discover really isn't all that useful. In other words, there's really no need for you to sell your Pentax ortho just because I have noticed from time to time that the UO orthos have less problem with chromatic aberration. In fact, at times the 'slight out of focus' chromatic aberration is actually useful as a tool to help me know if the eyepiece is in focus or not. In the end, some of the perceived 'weaknesses' of an eyepiece can actually be useful, and sometimes the differences are really not all that important. One of my goals or one of the things I am attempting to do when I write a public report is to help people see that there is more than one way of looking at almost any subject that comes up, especially with eyepieces and telescopes.
It's interesting to note how people will pull one phrase or sentence out of a review and base their decision on that. That's partially why I tend to ramble forever in my reviews -- so there won't be one phrase that they can select to base their opinion on, if they haven't tried the eyepiece on their own. ;-) But, you know what? They still do it anyway, pick one phrase and go for it. Yes, we all have to jump in at some point and just go for it; as nothing can quite compensate for putting an eyepiece into your own scope. And, I do like it when I am able to help somebody out. But, I also like it when the reader will base his or her decision upon input from a variety of different sources. The reporter gives you things to think about, but the reader needs to realize that the reporter is not necessarily the 'final say' on the subject.
The reader should realize that time changes things. At times I joke that I disagree with some of the things that I wrote a year ago. They are always inventing a better mouse trap -- or are they? It's a journey of discovery, and should be seen as such. That's the opinion of this armchair eyepiece philospher.
If you can't tell, I have a lot of fun fussing with eyepieces, trifling in the minutia. There's many different ways of looking at this subject.
A good eyepiece review or telescope review is time consuming to write. If the reader didn't pay money for the review, then the reader should make an effort not to beat up on the reviewer. If the reader is dissatisfied with a free review, instead of complaining about the reviewer, the reader should in all fairness write and publish a review of his own. The best way to correct someone is to do a test of your own and to publish an opposing point of view on the subject. Of course, I also find it helpful when someone contacts me in private and lets me know where I got it wrong or what I can do to improve the quality of my reporting. Everything can be improved upon; and, everybody will have a different way of doing so. Sometimes good enough (or not good enough) has to be 'good enough', unless you are willing to step forward and provide the world with something better. I hope to read one of your eyepiece reviews one of these days.
Anyway, those are some suggestions, and I imagine you could add a dozen more of your own. And, as always, you will notice that sometimes I follow these rules, and sometimes I do less than a successful job at it. I find that over time I forget some things, and I do find it useful at times to look back at my notes and refresh my memory once in awhile. Taking notes to improve my observing skills and to refresh my memory is probably the main reason I do this stuff; but, sharing the information with someone else sometimes has its benefits as well. And, reading notes made over a period of months, I can sometimes see trends emerge from the information that I wouldn't be able to catch onto otherwise. It's a never ending process of study, and sometimes requires patience to see results.
Darwin Bagley
---