REVIEWS, COMPARISONS, AND OBSERVATION REPORTS:
PART III:
Note how I contradict myself from night to night in the following reports. There's something to be learned from all the contradiction. Either I don't know what I am doing, or eyepieces can perform differently than expected from time to time. Take it all with a grain of salt, as your mileage may vary.
[Throughout this collection I put some January 1999 commentary into my older reports, in order to point out some things I want you to pay attention to. I set the comments off in brackets like the ones I am using around this paragraph.]
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998
Subject: 20mm University Optics Super Erfle
Wow! The jury may not be fully in, but my initial impressions were stunning. I think I like it better than the Konigs, on Jupiter and the moon. It is color free like the Konigs. The 16mm UO Konig ghosts just a bit at times; but, the 20mm Super Erfle seems to be absolutely ghost free.
Also, the colors in the 20mm UO Erfle seemed a touch brighter and more detailed on Jupiter than with the Konigs; maybe just imagination though.
Also, the 20mm Erfle is extremely easy to use. The eye relief is there, and there doesn't seem to be any annoying blackout. The eyepiece during usage just plain feels comfortable. That's in the Q6 for 114X. I have been looking for a comfortable 1.25" 20mm wider field eyepiece for nearly a decade now, and I have finally found one. Great stuff.
I don't think I'll have the hesitation to reach for the 20mm Erfle, like I sometimes hesitate with the 16mm Konig. And, being that the 80 refractor I purchased today doesn't take 2" eyepieces, I think the 20mm Erfle will be well used with that scope as well. The 16mm UO Konig is shy on eye relief, and I don't like cleaning eyelash oil off from eyepieces.
The seeing is horrific tonight; and, I am fighting clouds. But, the weatherman forecasted only 12 hours of sunlight for the next week, so I decided I had better try to get something in through the relatively large holes in the clouds tonight, as it is destined to only get worse.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998
Subject: 80mm f/11 Celestron Firstscope
80mm f/11.4 Celestron Firstscope:
Well, I got a chance to use it tonight. It seemed to star test up as expected, except on one side of the focus there was purple color to the defocused rings that wasn't there on the other side of focus. I don't know what that means exactly, as I don't ever really remember seeing color out of focus with other scopes. Otherwise, the rings were nice and concentric, and the rings inside and outside of focus appeared to be the same as best as I could tell through the visible turbulence. The jury is still out, but I did have some initial observations that have led me to believe that it is indeed as good as can be expected from an 80mm achromatic scope, for the most part.
The 80mm Celestron Firstscope has more chromatic aberration than the 80mm UO f/6.25 refractor, C90, or the 70mm Brass Ranger that I used to have. That was totally expected. The chromatic aberration of 80mm Celestron is the worst on Jupiter, plain horrific; but, to be honest I have not found an 80mm or 90mm instrument that has produced a totally pleasing image with Jupiter, anyway.
I'd have to spend $600 to $1500 to get an 80mm fluorite so that I can crank it up to 300X in order to get what I want on Jupiter out of an 80mm instrument -- just as well buy a 6 inch f/8 dob for that price. Actually, I saw more detail on Jupiter tonight with the 80mm Celestron than I remember ever getting out of the 80mm UO refractor, the Brass Ranger, or the 90mm C90 that I used to own; but, then my observation skills have greatly increased since the times when I last used those on Jupiter nearly a year and a half ago. My other 80mm to 90mm scopes were sold to acquire my bigger telescopes; I just currently have the 80mm Celestron f/11.4.
I also think the seeing was above average. [On subsequent nights, I got very poor results out of the 80mm Celestron, as the seeing was extremely poor on those nights. Those nights were never reported on.]
I just have learned not to view Jupiter with an 80mm scope for the most part, and tonight's observations were no exception towards changing my mind. Saturn actually looked more pleasing, though it was too small, and the seeing and/or magnification was not good enough to crisply show the Cassini division. The 6mm UO ortho was the best on Saturn, as the 5mm Tak LE was not as sharp, and the 4mm UO ortho was just too much power and prevented me from being able to track Saturn.
The chromatic aberration on Jupiter was enhanced with a 7.5mm Tak LE, and less annoying with the 6mm and 7mm UO orthos. [I believe this statement is later contradicted by me when the LE's actually come across with kind of a minus violet effect during one observing session. The jury is definitely out as to which I consider to be the better planetary eyepieces, the UO orthos or the Tak LE's. Notice the contradictions as the days and months go by.]
Now, on the moon, the 80mm refractor was perfectly acceptable, which is great, as that's the reason I bought the scope -- to have something that can be quickly set up during the full moon and/or on the nights when I am only wanting to view for an hour.
There was a little touch of yellow and/or purple around the edge of the moon in some of the higher power eyepieces, as would be expected, but it nowhere near reached the level of annoyance like it did with Jupiter. The 10.5mm and 14mm XL's were stunning with the 80mm Firstscope on the moon and appeared color free. A touch more color with the 16mm UO Konig.
I really liked the 20mm UO Super Erfle with the scope -- clear, sharp, and color free. I keep having wonderful success with the 20mm UO Super Erfle on the moon with any scope, and the eyepiece just plain feels comfortable. The 16mm UO Konig has inadequate eye relief, so I am sorely tempted to get and try a 16mm UO Super Erfle instead for lunar observation with my scopes. Finally, know that for the most part, except with the XL's, I had a 90 degree Televue mirror diagonal in there. The XL's are too big to use with a diagonal.
Anyway, for lunar observation, the 80mm Firstscope will probably be my weapon of choice. I also look forward to trying it during the day. Finally ... I think it might be a candidate for a solar filter so I can look at the sun, as I don't have solar capabilities with my other scopes.
Considering that the Brass Ranger cost around $500 used, the C90 cost around $350 used, and the 80mm UO refractor is valued around $300 or more, I think the $135 80mm Firstscope OTA is a pretty good deal overall. It's only real drawback in comparison to the others is that it is so dog gone long -- a bazooka. Twice as long as the other two refractors; but, it more closely looks like the scope that I was hoping Santa Claus would have brought me 25 years ago, but that I never got.
I may not keep it forever, but for now, it will fill a hole in my weaponry; and, it will allow me to use some astronomy equipment, such as my handmade oak alt-az tripod, that I just had lying around unused. Everything has its place.
Darwin
---
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998
Subject: 5mm
I got a moment where the seeing cleaned up enough to be able to use a 5mm UO ortho with the 80mm refractor, and it gave a pretty nice image. The darker barges were there along with some of the larger ovals -- maybe the best image of Jupiter I have ever gotten out of an 80mm scope if one can ignore the purple halo around the planet.
I put in the 5mm LE, and it just didn't sharpen up like the 5mm UO ortho, swapping back and forth between the two. The UO orthos just provide sharper more detailed images than the comparable Takahashi LE's. But, during poorer seeing when it doesn't matter, the LE's make it a lot easier to track and keep the planet in the scope; the LE's and the UO orthos complement each other quite well in my opinion. [Notice again this paragraph of information, as I promise there are some potential contradictions coming.]
The 4mm UO ortho during that time just was too much and/or it was just too hard to track Jupiter. 5mm at 182X is going to prove to be the upper limit of the 80mm refractor with Jupiter and Saturn, unless I can get something with a wider field of view. Next time I might have to try barlowing a wide field on Jupiter; I was running out of time as I just have too many things to try and a cold slowing me down. Now the 4mm UO ortho worked stunningly with the 80mm and the moon for 227X, as the moon is more forgiving of magnification and much easier to track.
Darwin
---
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998
Subject: Pet Theory
One of my pet theories is that the eye won't be able to tell the difference between a UO ortho, Zeiss ortho, or any other quality ortho until a certain level of magnification is achieved. Todd Gross in his scopes couldn't tell the difference between his 12.5mm UO ortho and his 12mm Pentax SMC ortho for example. I understand that at some point up the magnification scale, the difference does become noticeable; and, I am trying to determine where that is, so I know where I should have stopped buying UO orthos and started buying something else instead. It's a journey of exploration.
It sounds like the UO ortho is doing its job at the 9mm range for you, and I have been happy with mine in the 9mm range, though under some circumstances the 9mm Intes actually will show more detail than the 9mm UO ortho. For the moon, the wider field of the 9mm UO ortho actually produces a more pleasing image than the 9mm Intes. But, under the gun trying to sense details, and the 9mm Intes does have the capability of beating out the UO ortho, especially in poor seeing, which is most every night. [I did sell the 9mm Intes, as 9mm to 12mm is the range I am at with my scopes when the seeing is bad and it doesn't matter all that much. I don't need a multiplicity of eyepieces in that power range for planetary work.]
Almost everyone, except eyepiece manufacturers, seems to think that the orthos are just plain better for planetary than any comparable plossl. I was barlowing 20mm and 26mm Meade Super Plossls into the planetary range, and I was not happy with the results -- that might have been the fault of the barlow, of course. But, also without the barlows, I think I liked the Konigs better on the moon than the Meade Plossls, at least in my telescopes.
The UO orthos are just plain nice. The only one so far that I have not been 100 percent happy with is the 4mm, and that may be due to the fact that the seeing is rarely up to that level of magnification in any of my scopes. Despite all the best theories, nothing can quite compensate for getting an eyepiece and sticking it into your own scope. I have very seldom come across an eyepiece that performed exactly the way that I expected it to perform; there's always a surprise in there somewhere. A superb eyepiece in one scope is sometimes not all that impressive in another scope.
I noticed that my 5mm UO ortho was just doing better on Jupiter with the C80 achromat than the 5mm Tak LE; though on another night, I noticed that the LE's seemed to do a better job of dealing with chromatic aberration, maybe I was seeing things. The LE's are nice with the 16 incher trying to break up M13 and resolve it even more. I also find that the 5mm LE on top of the 2X Ultima barlow is my substitute for a 2.5mm Vixen Lanthanum. I think the 5LE Ultima combo has less glass elements, and the combo has a wider field of view than a 2.5 Vixen. I can track manually with the 16 incher using the 5LE and Ultima combo.
By itself, the 5LE makes a better 'deep sky' eyepiece due to greater eye relief and wider field of view. For most deep sky, the 5LE is just superior to the orthos when one wants to move in close and actually see the whole field of view. For planets, where I don't need to see the whole field of view, I find the orthos are better than the LE's and do produce a better image.
Well, I think I have decided that as I can afford it, I will be getting the 3.8mm XP and the 5mm Pentax SMC ortho -- have the best for the highest powers of the eyepieces currently available on the market, so I am ready when I get a night of good seeing. Use the UO orthos to ride the seeing and test the seeing so as to tell if I can get to 5mm or 3.8mm, or if I need to just stay at the lower powers for the night.
With planetary eyepieces that are short on eye relief, I just recently learned to pull my head back a little and sacrifice some field of view. You know, for the last 10 years I always smashed my eye in there and oiled up the eyepiece. Of course, it's only been recently that I had scopes good enough to take the higher powers and actually see something useful at the higher powers; and, for 5 years a 4.8 Nagler was my high power eyepiece, and at times a 7mm XL or 10mm Widescan were my high power eyepieces.
Anyway, for planets, I learned that I don't need to see the whole field of view. It took getting a half a dozen planetary eyepieces before I finally learned the trick of backing off. Of course with wide field eyepieces as my high power eyepieces for nearly a decade, it is kind of natural to just move in so as to see the whole wide field of view; so, I probably shouldn't be too hard on myself.
Darwin
---
Date: 18 Oct 1998
Subject: Getting it out of my system.
The smoke from the fires had died away by 1:00 A.M.
I set up my 80mm f/11.4 1.25" focuser achromatic Celestron refractor. I started with the Pleiades, and could barely fit the whole group into a couple of cheapo 45mm eyepieces made out of surplus optics.
I wasted a bunch of time looking for a couple of other open clusters with no success. I can't find anything in my light polluted backyard.
I switched to Jupiter. The seeing was pretty good, but Jupiter was over a neighbor's house, and I was catching some turbulence as the waves would come and go. Every now and then it would race towards clarity and sharpness for split seconds as the seeing would temporarily improve.
I then switched to the Trapezium. I was sensing the 'F' element of the Trapezium, and I had a hard time believing it. It would come and go as the seeing would come and go, but was there most of the time. I stepped inside and looked it up in Burnham's to make sure that what I was seeing was indeed in the right position. It was. I then went back out and tried for the 'E' item next to the dimmer 'A' one. I could sense it at times too, but for some reason not as easily as the 'F' one. I didn't think it was possible to see the six elements of the Trapezium with a 3 inch instrument. But, after a bit of reading, Burnham's said that in good seeing its actually possible to see the six elements with less than 3 inches.
I noticed something interesting. I first sighted the fifth element with a 7.5mm Tak LE at 121X. I switched to the 5mm Tak LE for 182X, and could sense it a bit more easily; and I also caught the 6th element with the 5mm Tak LE. I then tried some of the UO orthos. For some reason, I could not sense the fifth and sixth elements with the UO orthos; I especially spent a bit more time with the 6mm UO ortho as it fit between the two successful LE's, but no luck. The LE's were outperforming the UO orthos on the Trapezium.
I also noticed when I went back to Jupiter, that the UO orthos were producing more chromatic aberration than the Tak LE's, and that the UO orthos had a lot more stray scatter going on than the LE's. I usually start sensing more scatter and color when dew is trying to take hold. Sure enough, the outer part of the scope was starting to dew up. [Maybe the seeing or cold air had something to do with it, or maybe I was getting enough experience that I was starting to notice things that I hadn't noticed before. Each time I step out under the stars with a telescope and a collection of eyepieces, I run the risk of discovering something new.]
I finished up with Saturn. I could sense the Cassini division on the ansae clearly with a 4mm UO ortho for 227X. There was also a nice selection of surface detail as well. The 5mm Tak LE also showed the Cassini division and the surface detail, but with less noticeable chromatic aberration.
I came to the conclusion tonight that the Tak LE's deal with the 80mm scope's chromatic aberration better than the UO orthos, as the 5mm and 7.5mm LE's showed a lot less purple color around Jupiter and Saturn than the comparable UO orthos did. [Could seeing or an equalized scope have something to do with it?] Also, for deep sky objects, the LE's are much more easy to work with and seemed to actually show more with this particular scope. That's contradictory to the results that I got from using some of the same eyepieces with my 16 incher on Jupiter.
Eyepieces never cease to amaze me at how easily they can perform contrary to my expectations. Tonight, my eyepieces didn't perform like I am used to them performing. Changing scopes and even changing nights can sometimes bring out different results from the same eyepieces, and thus my warning to take everything you read with a large grain of salt.
An interesting hour.
Darwin
---
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:07:50
Subject: Trapezium
Yes, I saw six stars with the 80mm f/11 achromat from my house using 5mm and 7.5mm Tak LE's and a Televue Mirror Diagonal. It was a very transparent night with good seeing, very frustrating that I had to wait until 1:00 A.M. until the fires all burned out, due to my allergies. I always figured to have seen the 6 stars in the Q6 by now, but it still has not happened.
The strange thing with the 80mm scope was that the one close in to the brightest 'C' star was the one that I was seeing the easiest. It stood right out. The other one, the one farther away from the dimmer 'A' star I couldn't see as easily, like it was buried in nebulosity. This was contrary to my prior experiences where I seemed to have a harder time sensing the one closest to the brightest 'C' star. The 80mm refractor does pinpoint up those stars nicely in comparison to my scopes with the greater aperture, and maybe that factors in as well.
I believe though, that it was the type of situation that if I wouldn't have known about the six stars of the Trapezium, I wouldn't have been able to see all six; but, the 'fifth one' was indeed drawing a lot of attention, so I might have seen it anyway if it would have been my first time.
F is usually harder for me to make out. E is usually the easy one for me.
And, that's what was so confusing for me. In my old 10 inch, the 'F' one was harder to make out due to the brightest 'C' one being so close by; and with 10 inch, I had a bit more easy time making out the 'E' one next to the 'A' -- just like most people are reporting. But, in the 80mm scope, the 'F' one near the brightest star stood out clearly for long periods of time; it was very obvious. And, contrary to past experience, the 'easy E' was very difficult to see -- the type of thing that if I didn't know it was there, I wouldn't have been able to see it, I think.
The 'easy E' was harder to see in the 80mm. Of course, I was surprised to be seeing them at all in 3 inches. At first, I thought I was seeing things, until I repeatedly kept sensing the 'F' component near the brightest element.
I am curious, if in smaller apertures the 'easy E' is actually harder than the 'F' for someone else besides me.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:53:01
Subject: Ganymede Egress
I hope you got a chance in your neighborhood to look at Ganymede tonight. I watched it egress off the limb using my 16 incher. It was really neat the last thirty minutes, as the moon Ganymede was right over a bright portion of the GRS (Great Red Spot). It made the moon look dark like a shadow and it stood right out. I think that is an extremely rare event to be able to see a moon in the usually non-contrasty parts of Jupiter.
I have a breeze outside and the seeing is the pits, but full aperture with the 7.5 LE at 248X was the ticket to give the most contrast and make Ganymede stand right out, as the seeing would come and go. I did notice Ganymede first in a 12.5mm LE. It was over way too quickly and Ganymede disappeared for a bit, and then it turned into a bright moon coming off the limb. It was a neat effect -- to watch Ganymede change from a dark looking shadow into nothing and then into a bright 'star' coming off into space.
The shadow of Ganymede is next to ingress.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Subject: Coma and fast aperture.
I got back outside after my last message to you and found the 6 inch aperture stop in the scope. So, my comparisons of the 20mm UO Super Erfle were off, and I had to do it all over again.
I removed the aperture stop and found the double cluster in my 16 inch f/4.6.
The full 16 inches exhibits much more coma. The 20mm Super Erfle gives out about half way from the center to the circumference -- about 25 percent of the way in from the circumference.
Stopped down to 6 inches had the eyepieces performing the way I remember them performing in my 10 inch scope, for coma. With a full 16 inches, it was a whole new ball game.
I then decided to drop in the 16mm UO Konig for a comparison. It falls apart and succumbs to coma almost immediately. Only the central 10 to 20 percent is good, the rest is severe coma. Someone mentioned that Paracorr would be needed with some eyepieces and the 16 incher, and I now see why. The 16mm UO Konig needs it. The 20mm Erfle was good enough to get by without one. Too bad I don't have a Panoptic to drop in. I imagine it would fall apart around the outer 10 percent or so, if everything remains consistent trying to judge the coma differences between my 10 incher from memory and what I saw with the full 16 inches.
An off-axis aperture stop makes a great coma corrector.
Darwin
---
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 01:18:23
Subject: Ganymede
What you were seeing was Ganymede itself. The moon was directly over a bright part of the Great Red Spot, and it looked to be a shadow due to the contrast differences. I watched it and the GRS disappear into the limb. I then watched Ganymede Egress.
Due to the angles, the shadow of Ganymede didn't show up on the opposite of the globe until about 15 minutes later. From a chart I have:
Oct 21, 1998 Universal Times:
0:27 Ganymede Transit Ingress
The GRS transited during this time and we were seeing Ganymede
over the
GRS,
which looked like a shadow.
3:38 Ganymede Transit Egress
3:53 Ganymede Shadow Ingress
7:35 Europa Shadow Ingress
Ganymede's actual shadow was much darker and defined, and it was not on the GRS; the actual shadow came on the one side of the globe after the GRS and Ganymede had exited the other side.
You actually saw Ganymede itself over the GRS, as did I. A neat experience.
Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:08:51
Subject: 20mm
I got back to wide fields after Jupiter was getting into the murk to the west.
I put in the 20mm Nagler in the 16 incher. I then studied the effect of coma using some star fields around Casseopeia and Orion.
In 16 incher, the 20mm Nagler falls apart about 15 percent of the way in from the edge. Being that the field of view is so huge, it's hard to judge the position at which it starts to give out due to coma, but it does give out. Also, due to the huge field, the usable portion of the 20mm Nagler, the part that one can take in comfortably, appears to be totally free of coma. The 20mm Nagler gives the illusion of being totally free from coma during normal usage, and one has to go looking for it to know it is there.
The 20mm UO Super Erfle, does indeed have coma noticeable the in peripheral vision of the usable field, but it does relatively well.
I bought the 20mm UO Super Erfle to use in my scopes when I don't want to lug out the 20mm Nagler, and to use in the 1.25" focuser 80mm scope, and to have something simple but great on the moon. The 20mm UO Super Erfle in my opinion will be far superior on the moon and during the day than a Panoptic, due to the Panoptic's distortion and lateral color, but that's just opinion based upon what I have heard through the grapevine.
I am still 100 percent satisfied with the 20mm UO Super Erfle, as I am only going to use it deep sky in the 80mm refractor and possibly the Q6. And, I don't like turning a child loose on my scope with a $300 eyepiece in the scope -- kids like to play with knobs, things like set screws for example. The 20mm UO Super Erfle is good enough in the 16 inch scope so my daughter can have an easier go at tracking Jupiter or anything else; and, if the 20mm SE gets broke during my daughter's experimentation, I won't be out a lot dollarwise.
I like the 20mm UO SE, but, in my 16 inch scope the 20mm Nagler is better, especially for deep sky work -- the 20mm UO SE might be better on the moon in the 16 incher, but I haven't tried it yet.
Darwin
---
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998
Subject: Initial Impressions of some borrowed eyepieces.
The eyepieces arrived this afternoon!!
So, that's what a 7mm Pentax SMC ortho looks like. He looks rather harmless. That was kind of a neat little low profile adapter you included with it. I can't wait to try it out; of course we are overcast, and I have a deadline with work this afternoon and the office this evening that I have to go to. I'm just trying to figure out how I can find a half hour today to observe. ;-)
The 16mm UO Super Erfle was a surprise. Holding it up to the shop light and it didn't have a field stop screwed into the chrome barrel. The 20mm SE has a field stop screwed into the chrome barrel. Anyway, looking through the front of the eyepiece at a shop light, I can see the threads and the side of the barrel of the 16mm SE; whereas, I can't see the threads of the barrel of the 20mm SE due to the field stop in the barrel of the 20mm. I can't judge whether the 16mm SE has more eye relief than the 16mm UO Konig, just working off memory. I need to reserve that decision until I have more time. The field of the 16mm SE is either very huge, or the eyepiece is a little tight on eye relief, or both. Sometimes my initial impressions using the shop light change when I get the eyepiece in a scope.
The 20mm Meade RG looks a lot like the one that I used to have. You have an original box for it!! Amazing. Mine, that I had, was a little less scuffed up on the outside of the barrel and housing, but it looks to be the same animal, if memory serves. The last three years, I have learned to tolerate some eyepieces that have inadequate eye relief, especially if I only use them on the planets. It will interest me to see if my tastes or impressions regarding eye relief and the 20mm Meade have changed in the last three years. I'll probably regret having sold the 20mm Meade RG, but then what's new -- I tend to miss any eyepiece that I have sold.
More to follow as time allows -- I can't wait. Time to pull out my notepad.
Darwin
---
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 20:44:53
Subject: Comparisons -- 11/6/98
November 6, 1998
I was surprised to see clear skies upon exiting my place of work. I got home from work around 9:00 P.M. local Mountain standard time. I hurried and got out my 16 inch f/4.6 Truss Dob-Newt. The grass had frosted over, and the night before there had been snow on the ground, so it was cold.
A friend had loaned me a 7mm Pentax SMC ortho, a 16mm University Optics Super Erfle, and a 20mm Meade Research Grade Erfle. I was eager to compare them to my 7mm University Optics Ortho, my 16mm University Optics Konig, and my 20mm University Optics Super Erfle, respectively. And, that's what I did.
I started with Jupiter. Io was on the limb and very visible. The 7mm orthos were the ones to go into the scope first. I learned that the 7mm Pentax SMC has more eye relief and a wider field of view than the 7mm UO ortho. It became readily apparent that the 7mm SMC was a more comfortable eyepiece to use. I was trying to detect any difference in the image. As far as I could tell the quality of the image at 265X with both eyepieces was the same. I stopped down the 16 incher to 6.4 inches and tried again. I couldn't tell any difference between the images. They both seemed to have equal sharpness and clarity, and both seemed to show the same amount of detail as the seeing would come and go.
I thought for a split second that the 7mm SMC showed Io on the limb with just a bit more contrast, but maybe that was wishful thinking. Actually, I sensed a touch of 'out of focus' chromatic aberration with the 7mm SMC ortho that I couldn't sense with the 7mm UO ortho. I was switching back and forth rather quickly. I actually sensed Io's shadow in the limb with the 7mm UO ortho before I sensed it with the 7mm Pentax SMC; but, then it was there to be seen with the Pentax SMC as well, once I knew it was there. At 7mm, in that scope, I couldn't sense any real difference between the quality of the optics between the two eyepieces.
I then tried the 20mm Meade RG Erfle and the 20mm UO Super Erfle on Jupiter. I couldn't sense any difference, except that the 20mm Meade RG has a wider field of view. I then switched to the moon with the 20mm eyepieces. On the moon in the murk, the 20mm Meade RG seemed a little more yellow and washed out than the 20mm UO Super Erfle. I then tried the 16mm UO Super Erfle and the 16mm UO Konig on the moon in the murk with some horrible seeing. It was almost impossible to tell any difference between the two 16mm eyepieces.
There was a touch more 'out of focus' color on the limb of the moon with the 16mm UO Konig; a case where if the eyepiece drifts out of focus or is slightly out of focus, chromatic aberration starts to show up -- could be used as a focusing aid, though. The 16mm SE seemed to have great color correction. The wide field of the 16mm UO Konig in the murk was a bit more pleasing, as I like a wider field for lunar observation.
I then decided it was time to find the double cluster. I did. I started out with the 20mm eyepieces. The 20mm SE had more contrast and less coma than the 20mm Meade RG, in the 16mm f/4.6 scope on the double cluster. But, the coma differences are minor when one considers that the 20mm RG has a much wider field of view. The wider field makes the coma more noticeable in the 20mm Meade.
I found that it was a complete toss-up between the 20mm eyepieces on star fields. The 20mm Meade RG was nice for panning due to its wide field, but the wide field introduced more coma into the results. For a tie breaker, the 20mm UO SE is smaller and fits much more easily into my eyepiece case. The 20mm Meade RG is a longer eyepiece. The amount of secondary and other blackout problems was the same in both eyepieces, not enough to be a bother and only noticeable if one went looking for it.
The eye relief is basically the same with my eyelashes tending to just barely brush the housing of both eyepieces from time to time; but, the edge in eye relief has to be given to the 20mm Meade RG Erfle, due to the fact of the Meade's wider field of view. The Meade needed more eye relief in order to see the larger field of view, and apparently it has it, or is designed such that I could barely begin to see the whole field about the time that my eyelashes started to connect with the housing.
I used to own a 20mm Meade RG a few years back. This one was more comfortable to use than I remember my old one being. Either it performs differently in the new 16 incher than my other one did in the old scopes, or I have progressed and I am not as bothered by short eye relief as much as I used to be.
I tried the 16mm eyepieces on the double cluster. The 16mm UO Konig has a wider field of view than the 16mm UO SE. The Konig has a lot more coma than the Super Erfle. The quality of the 'usable' field of view was the same in both eyepieces as far as I could tell.
The eye relief of the 16mm eyepieces was essentially the same in order to see the same amount of the same size field of view. The 16mm SE has more recessed lenses, and thus maybe a bit more eye relief in the technical measurement terms that some like to use. In normal usage where my eyelashes were just beginning to brush against the outer housing, I could see the whole field of view of the 16mm UO Super Erfle; whereas, I couldn't see the whole field of view of the 16mm University Optics Konig unless I were to put my eyelashes onto the glass.
I couldn't sense any contrast differences between the 16mm eyepieces just looking at the darkness of the sky in each eyepiece. I found the 16mm SE better when I was wanting to see an edge to the image. The Konig was better for panning and giving the limitless expanse feel. In the 'usable' field of view of both eyepieces, the point where my eyelashes are just starting to brush against the housing, I felt that the coma was the same in both eyepieces. But, the Konig suffered severely due to its wider field of view.
I then went in for some eats. When I came back out at 11:30 P.M, I took a look at Jupiter with the 7mm orthos. Io's shadow was making some progress, and the image looked nice; but, it was the same quality of image in both eyepieces, both full aperture and stopped down to 6.4 inches.
I decided to crank up the power. I brought out my 2X Ultima Barlow. I really like the 2X Ultima barlow. It doesn't seem to have any stray reflections and it really does seem to magnify 2X as best as I can tell. The 2X Ultima and the Klee are the two barlows that I have settled upon.
Anyway, I took off the aperture stop and centered the scope on Saturn. I love Saturn with aperture. The more aperture, the better it seems to look to me. Anyway, with the full 16 inches, I then tried the 7mm orthos with no barlow on Saturn. One can imagine that the 7mm Pentax SMC is doing better, but I couldn't really sense any difference. Comfort is where the 7mm SMC wins over the 7mm UO ortho in my 16 inch scope.
I then put in the 2X Ultima barlow for 530X, full 16 inch aperture on Saturn with the 7mm orthos. Again, I quickly noticed that the 7mm SMC Pentax was more comfortable to use on the Ultima barlow than the 7mm UO ortho was. The telrad and outside of the scope had frosted over hours before. For some strange reason, the 7mm UO ortho tended to fog over easier than the 7mm SMC.
Anyway, the 7mm SMC on the barlow showed the Cassini division a touch easier than the 7mm UO on the barlow. Saturn's moons at times seemed a touch brighter through the Pentax SMC on the barlow than the UO ortho. The Crepe ring was definitely easier to see using the 7mm SMC Pentax on the 2X Ultima barlow in comparison to the UO combination. In summary, the 7mm SMC Pentax ortho barlowed better than the 7mm UO ortho.
It was approaching midnight. I then decided to try the wide fields on the Orion Nebula. I started with the 20mm eyepieces. One needs to realize that I had a lot of moon glow and city glow to deal with; but, I still was able to get enough information to make a good judgement.
The 20mm UO SE showed more of the nebulosity of the Orion Nebula than the 20mm Meade. A greater expanse of the nebulosity could be seen with the 20mm SE, due to better contrast. The stars were more pinpoint in the 20mm UO SE. I could see the fifth star of the Trapezium much more easily with the 20mm Super Erfle, thanks to the more pinpoint stars. The 20mm Super Erfle was more contrasty and showed more detail to the nebulosity than the 20mm Meade RG Erfle. I could sense the nebulosity of the smaller neighbor to the north M43 with the 20mm UO SE; but, I couldn't sense M43 nebulosity with the Meade RG Erfle.
I decided that I would rather have the University Optics 20mm Super Erfle than a 20mm Meade Research Grade Erfle for use with my 16 inch scope. I personally spend a lot of time looking at the Orion Nebula and the Trapezium. I consider the Orion Nebula to be my best test for judging contrast; and, the Trapezium is one of my best tests for sensing light scatter in an eyepiece, and testing an eyepiece's sharpness of image, as well as being a good test of seeing conditions.
I tried the 16mm eyepieces on the Orion Nebula. The 16mm SE showed the nebulosity just a bit easier and more sharply than the 16mm UO Konig. It was very close though. The six stars of the Trapezium just plain stood out and were easier to see with the 16mm UO SE. The 16mm SE had just a bit more contrast than the Konig, and the SE gave sharper pinpoints to the stars. In my 10 inch scope, I didn't remember severe coma problems with the 16mm UO Konig; but, being that the 16mm UO Super Erfle is supposedly corrected to work better in faster telescopes, I was indeed noticing coma in the 16mm UO Konig especially in comparison to the 16mm SE. I have the opportunity to buy the 16mm UO Super Erfle. It's probably time to pass the 16mm UO Konig on to someone else who has a slower scope with less coma, and who will appreciate its wider field of view.
I then switched to the moon that was getting up there. The images were much nicer now that it was out of the murk. I went full aperture. The 16mm UO SE was pure perfection on the moon. The effects of coma totally ruined the moon through the 16mm UO Konig -- not pleasing at all. I came away with the distinct impression that the 16mm University Optics Super Erfle is a better eyepiece for my 16 incher than the 16mm UO Konig.
I put the 20mm eyepieces into the scope with the moon as the target. The wider field of the 20mm Meade RG allowed me to get the whole moon into the field of view -- nice. The 20mm UO SE just barely misses fitting in the whole moon. The effects of coma were more noticeable with the Meade, but they were there as well in the 20mm SE on the moon. The color correction and purity of the image was good in both eyepieces.
The clouds were overtaking me from the west. The Orion Nebula was clouded over and the moon was next. Time to put the scope away.
Darwin
---
On November 20, 1998, daytime, in the afternoon, I tried some eyepiece comparisons with my 80mm f/11.4 refractor.
It's funny how one forgets some basic facts. I had forgotten how disappointing looking over the top of a large city at the mountains can be, given all the atmospheric turbulence that rises from a city.
I started with 16mm eyepieces, but that was just too much power, as the image really wasn't all that pleasing. No way to determine which eyepiece was the best image-wise, as neither was satisfactory for the task.
So, I focused up on a ruler that was across the yard. The 16mm UO Konig gave me 15.8125 inches from one edge of the field to the other edge. The 16mm UO Super Erfle gave me 13.75 inches across the field. 13.75 divided by 15.8125 gives ".8695". If the UO Konig is accurately rated at 65 degree afov, then the 16mm UO Super erfle is 56.5 degrees afov -- 65 times ".8695", assuming of course that both eyepieces are right at 16mm of focal length. The UO Super Erfle has a measurably smaller field of view in comparison to the Konig.
That was somewhat surprising, as in practical usage, they seemed to have the same usable field of view at night. But, if one realizes that the 16mm UO Super Erfle has more eye relief than the 16mm Konig, then it becomes clear why the 16mm UO Konig doesn't seem to have such a huge field of view during normal usage.
I was told that the owner of University Optics rates the 16mm UO Super Erfle at approximately 58 degrees afov. If such is the case, then the 16mm UO Konig is actually 66.7 degrees apparent field of view -- 58 divided by ".8695". I have heard some people claim the 16mm UO Konig to actually have a wider field of view than it's nominally rated 65 degrees.
The 16mm UO Konig was the clear winner. I have decided to sell the 16mm UO Konig, though, because my 16 inch scope has a bigger coma problem than any scope I have ever had. With the huge field of the 16mm UO Konig, the coma is much more noticeable at night than the coma is with the narrow field of the 16mm UO Super Erfle. Hence, the 16mm UO SE is actually better suited to the 16 inch scope; and, at 16mm, the 16 inch scope is the only scope I am using for the most part, though the small size of these are nice for the 80mm refractor, especially considering that the 80mm scope only takes 1.25" eyepieces. I also have a 14mm Pentax XL which tends to go into the bigger scopes more often.
Back to daytime looking at the mountains. 7mm was just way too much power, but I was able to do 7mm on a ruler. The 7mm Pentax SMC ortho showed me 4.5 inches in the ruler. The 7mm UO Konig showed me 4.25 inches. 4.25 divided by 4.5 gives ".9444" If the 7mm Pentax Ortho is correctly rated at 45 degree afov, then the 7mm UO ortho has a 42.5 degree afov -- 45 times ".9444". That's surprising to me. The 7mm Pentax Ortho seems to have a noticeably larger field of view in actual usage. But, then if one realizes that the 7mm Pentax has greater eye relief and that a person can thus more easily see a larger portion of the field of view of the Pentax during normal usage, then it is possible to explain the perceived differences in the field of view.
For what it is worth, during the daytime on the mountain when trying to focus up, the 7mm UO ortho gave a more comfortable initial feel than the 7mm Pentax Ortho.
I found out that with the 80mm f/11.4 refractor, that a 20mm eyepiece is the highest power, or entry level, for viewing the mountains. The 20mm eyepieces gave a pleasing image of the mountains for the most part, a lot of heat waves though. The 20mm Research Grade Erfle was more pleasing due to the larger field of view. The 20mm UO Super Erfle gave a relatively crisp image, but rather narrow.
Note I did some moving of the tripod to get at the mountains, so the comparisons of measurements have no basis in similarity between the 16mm, 7mm, and 20mm eyepieces. Don't use the above figures to compare the 16mm eyepieces with the 7mm eyepieces, for example -- I didn't. When comparing the same focal length, though, such as the 20mm eyepieces, the tripod did stay in the exact same position.
The 20mm Meade RG produced 20.75 inches across the field. The UO Super Erfle measured up at 17.125 inches. That means that the 20mm UO Super Erfle has ".8253" percent of the field of the 20mm Meade RG.
The 20mm UO Super erfle was rated by the person at University Optics to have approximately a 55 degree apparent field of view. If such is the case, then the 20mm RG Meade has a 66.64 degree afov -- 55 divided by ".8253" If the 20mm Meade Research Grade Erfle is accurately rated at a 70 degree afov, then the 20mm UO Super Erfle has a 57.77 degree afov -- 70 times ".8253". Again, these computations all assume that the 20mm focal length of the Meade RG is the same as the 20mm of the UO SE. If the focal length is the same and the eyepieces are indeed producing the same magnification, then the relationships or ratios between the apparent field of view and the true, real, or actual field of view will also be the same.
Either way you look at it the Meade RG has a much larger field of view.
I then tried the 1.25" 24mm UO Konig and the 30mm 1.25" Celestron Ultima on the mountains. That's much better. The 30mm Ultima was the best because it had the lowest power. For low power wide field viewing of the mountains, a low power eyepiece is much better, as you might guess.
And there you have it, for what it is worth.
Darwin
P.S. Someone wrote to me, "I measured 68 degrees on the 20mm Meade RG Erfle."
---
TRENDS -- OVER THE WEEKS AND MONTHS AND YEARS:
My reviews have been described by some as 'long and boring'. I have noticed a trend over the years that most people in the astronomy hobby prefer short one paragraph summaries on any subject. The short one paragraph reviews are generally the most influential. After all, there is a very good chance that 99 percent of you have not even read this far, and thus these words will never be seen. That's the disadvantage of a long and boring review -- most will never know what they are missing. I'll take a second and try to describe some of the advantages of a thorough review, but that will require yet another paragraph.
If one were to study my words carefully, he or she will see that I am contradicting myself a lot. I left the contradictions in, even though they make me look like I don't know what I am talking about. Only after months of watching the contradictions take place do I begin to see some patterns emerging. That's one of the disadvantages of a short one paragraph, one time report -- the contradictions are never explored, the trends are never perceived, and the errors are never corrected.
I have seen fights or contradictions on the internet NEWSGROUP sci.astro.amateur from time to time. Some will declare one eyepiece to be the winner and a few weeks later another will declare another eyepiece to be the winner. One would logically say that they can't both be right. I would submit the opinion that, in the narrow field of telescope eyepieces, they can indeed both be right. I'll try to explain.
Notice in previous sections and in subsequent sections of this long four part collection how the UO orthos are winning one week and the Tak LE's are winning the next week. Notice how the 7mm Pentax SMC ortho wins at certain times and loses to the 7mm UO ortho at other times. Most one paragraph reviews I have read have just simply declared the 7mm Pentax SMC ortho the winner, and the report is done; but, they have completely missed the situations where the 7mm UO ortho was the winner -- that would require a second paragraph or weeks and months of study in order to determine the times when the UO ortho actually wins.
Over the months, I am starting to notice a trend. I have been noticing that the 5 element eyepieces such as the Takahashi LE's and the University Optics Super Erfles have the capability of gathering the light of a star into a smaller pinpoint -- they are superior to the 4 element orthos and Konigs in that regard. Thus the 5 element eyepieces like the Tak LE's and the University Optics Super Erfles that I have will actually do a better job of splitting double stars, or will on average show me the fifth and sixth elements of the Trapezium easier than the 4 element orthos or Konigs. I can see the fainter stars easier with the 5 element eyepieces -- there does not seem to be as much light scatter.
Extended objects like open clusters, nebula, and globular clusters look better in the 5 element eyepieces, on average. The 5 element eyepieces are more corrected throughout the whole field of view for coma and other aberrations, so that extended objects just look better. The 5 element eyepieces also have a larger field of view and better eye relief on average, which sometimes helps and sometimes hurts. Some of you are familiar with the 1.25" 24mm UO Konig. In the University Optics catalog he says, "The 24mm uses an extra field corrector lense." In other words, the 24mm UO Konig is actually a 5 element eyepiece with an extra element in there to help it do better with extended low power targets.
You may have noticed or will notice that I have sometimes described the Takahashi LE's as having kind of a minus violet effect. I believe that some of that might could be attributed to the 5th element. Due potentially to extra correction, the light isn't scattered as much, and thus the chromatic aberration doesn't come into play as easily. But, you will also notice that at times I declare the 4 element orthos as the winners for chromatic aberration. Some would say that both opinions can't be right; however, I say that there just might be the possibility that they are indeed both correct. But, I also must admit that I do have doubts as to whether I have found the root cause of the discrepancy or not.
I have noticed that on axis as a general rule, especially with Jupiter and Saturn, the orthos are superior to the Takahashi LE's. On average, I tend to see more detail and get better resolution out of the orthos than the LE's, though some nights there are exceptions. There may also be the possibility that with the planet on axis, the orthos do better at correcting chromatic aberration than the Tak LE's do with the planet off axis -- though I haven't had time to explore this theory; after all, this is a process that has required months for me to start to notice the trends. It can't be done in one night, nor one review, nor in one telescope.
I have noticed other trends. First, nothing changes the performance of an eyepiece like changing the scope it is being used in. Next, if you study some of this you will see some eyepieces winning when they are expected to lose. I have noticed that some eyepieces do better in poor seeing, and some eyepieces like the Tak LE's can at times be superior when the seeing is good or approaching perfection. Some eyepieces barlow better than others. Somewhere in here I think I mentioned the fact that the 9mm Intes didn't barlow up as well as the 9mm UO ortho, for example.
Some eyepieces are more comfortable to use or are easier to acquire the image with. I noticed in direct side by side comparisons that the 7mm UO ortho had a more comfortable 'feel' than the 7mm Pentax SMC -- I don't know what it was, but at times I felt that the image was easier to acquire in the 7mm UO ortho. In a variety of situations, the 7mm UO ortho had less chromatic aberration and less scatter than the 7mm Pentax SMC.
But, such is not always the case, as the greater eye relief of the 7mm Pentax SMC made it easier to deal with, from time to time; and the chromatic aberrations of the Pentax just weren't there to be found at times.
I am also beginning to wonder if some eyepieces handle dew, and frost, and cold better than other eyepieces. Strange huh? That might explain why on one night I was getting better color correction out of the orthos; whereas, on another night the 5 elements were the weapons of choice. As a whole, though, over the months I am noticing a trend that the 5 element eyepieces have better color correction and less light scatter, under a wider variety of circumstances. The 5 element eyepieces also seem to have better off axis sharpness, though not on all objects. How's that for confusion?
The other night with the 5mm UO ortho and 5mm Pentax SMC ortho, the image of the moon looked like it had soap bubbles all over it. At first I thought the 5mm Pentax ortho was broke, until I got the same effect with the 5mm UO ortho; and, then I noticed that I had much less of a problem with my left eye with both of the eyepieces. I have had the effect from time to time and I have seen others describe it in the public forums. I was thinking that it might be allergies, though it might be something else for all I know. It happens to me once in awhile -- got to make sure I take my vitamins. I have begun to notice the trend over the years, that on some nights my eyes are just plain 'messed up'.
Over the months, I have noticed another trend. While viewing the moon, there was always a black spot in focus in the four o'clock position while using 4mm to 7mm eyepieces. At first, I thought it was dust in the eyepiece; but, changing eyepieces removed that assumption, as all the high power eyepieces had the same problem, and rotating the eyepieces did not move the object. The higher the power, the more noticeable it got; the orthos are particularly bad. One week, I spent time trying to get the dust off the lens of the 80mm refractor; but, then I noticed the same thing was happening with the Quantum 6 and the high power orthos. After a bit of confusion over a period of weeks, I realized that my left eye didn't have the problem -- no black spot with high power orthos on the moon with my left eye.
I got the same black spot on the moon with my 16 inch scope, with the right eye -- my right eye is dominant. Recently, my wife suggested that I might have a cataract in my right eye; and, I am now only beginning to see it after a whole decade of telescoping, because I am now using 4mm to 7mm orthos that I never used nor tried before on the moon. I don't get the black spot effect with my lower power eyepieces. My wife has a cataract in one eye that she has had to deal with since birth, and she sees a black spot with that eye with all of my eyepieces, deep sky and otherwise. Physical differences in human beings can sometimes account for differences in eyepiece performance, and over time you might notice some trends of your own. The last I checked, we are all getting older.
I have also noticed since I got the 16 inch f/4.6 telescope that with some eyepieces the coma is unbearable. I have noticed that with others, the coma is easily ignored or not seen. Of course, as magnification goes up or the field of view narrows, coma is sometimes less of an issue. Though, even at higher powers, I sometimes think that the 5 element eyepieces have a better time of it than the simpler 4 element ones do. Again, these are trends that I am only just starting to notice.
I have noticed over the period of weeks, that some nights I prefer the LE's and other nights I prefer the orthos. Sometimes the only thing I can perceive to have changed is that it is a different night. I sometimes wonder if our moods, preferences, level of health or vitamins can also have an influence on which eyepiece we choose to be the winner. Sometimes changing the object being viewed is all it takes to make one loser into the winner. The position of the object in the sky, horizon or zenith, can also make a difference as to how an eyepiece will perform. I do believe that at times other people's opinions can influence us as well; after all, none of us like to come across as being strange, abnormal, or different -- we just go along with what someone else has told us to be true, and don't give it a further thought.
If you want a one paragraph summary, here goes. Sometimes the orthos win and sometimes the Takahashi LE's win. Sometimes the 4 element Konigs win, and sometimes the 5 to 10 element eyepieces win. If you study it long enough, you will be able to find situations in which the UO orthos beat the Pentax orthos. Though on average the Pentax orthos will be the winners overall, they won't win in every case. With eyepieces, there seem to be no hard and fast rules, just generalities and trends.
I can write [and have written somewhere above] a one paragraph review in which I can prove that the 7mm UO ortho is superior to the 7mm Pentax SMC ortho. But, if I start writing a second or third paragraph, I will eventually get around to some of the points that prove that the 7mm Pentax SMC ortho is superior to the 7mm UO ortho. Overall, over a period of weeks in a variety of different scopes, I couldn't come up with an absolute winner, for the most part. Though, if you read enough of my material or if you get a variety of different opinions from a bunch of different people, there's a good chance that you will see a trend start to emerge.
I didn't put a date on this particular report as the information contained herein is supposed to be timeless, supposed to transcend all trends. ;-) Actually, I feel that with enough work and time and study, somebody would be able to prove each and everyone of my opinions to be incorrect, in some form or another.
If I were to have written a one paragraph review and declared the orthos the winner months ago, I would never have been around long enough to see the trends in which the 4 element orthos and Konigs actually lose the battle. I believe that is the advantage to a long and boring review. It will also help you to see why one person will say one thing and the next person to come along will contradict him. We are each blind men holding onto a different piece of the elephant. It's a matter of perspective and experience. I cannot dogmatically declare any one single person as being absolutely right -- in any matter that comes up. Some will describe the LE's and orthos as snakes, and others will describe them firm and strong as tree trunks. Each person is right, and each person is wrong; depends on how you look at it.
Darwin Bagley
---