As I have a wind outside and clouds coming in, I know that there won't be any astronomy tonight; so, I decided to test the eyepieces with my Quantum 6 f/15 Maksutov and use the mountains as the test subject.
My overall conclusion in case you are already tired of reading is that it is basically impossible to find a low power wide field eyepiece that is both comfortable to use and gives a pleasing image during the day with the Quantum 6 f/15 Maksutov. The details below will essentially backup this statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My initial goal was to try to compare the eyepieces I already have with the eyepieces that I have been thinking seriously about purchasing.
I compared the University Optics 32mm Wide Scan with the 2 inch University Optics Koenig II. The field of view is huge on the 32 Wide Scan in comparison with the 32 Koenig. The WideScan makes one feel like he is not really looking through a telescope, but actually looking at the mountain; with the Koenig you can tell you are looking into an eyepiece.
The 32 UO Konig is a sharp image clear across the field. Narrow field, but nice all the way across. The image is black until your pupil is in the right spot, and then the whole image comes into view and is sharp and clear.
In comparison, the 32 Wide Scan has a softer image to it. The 32WS also has purple, yellow, and green colors all around the circumference of the image -- color on the fringes. I found the color on the fringes to be quite annoying. I had never used a 32WS during the day in the Quantum 6, so the color on the fringes was a surprising annoyance; but, it brought back memories of the 10mm UO WideScan that I had years back which also seemed to have the same problem. I believe that color on the fringes is what they are calling 'lateral color aberration' in the book "Telescope Optics."
The 32 UO Wide Scan didn't seem to have the problem where parts of the image occasionally blink black or darken; it was there, faint spots of opaqueness or shadow, but seemed to had to be looked for. Not a complete blackout of parts of the view, just shadows. The initial impression of the 32 Wide Scan is "wow"; however, it is impossible to see the whole image anyway, with the eye basically wandering through the field picking items of interest.
The 32 UO Konig has no 'wow' effect with everything in sight; but, what is in sight is good stuff.
Which is better? It's like comparing apples and oranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I then compared the 32 UO WideScan with the 40mm Univerity Optics 7/70 on the Quantum 6 -- Q6. The 40mm 7/70 had more of that annoying blinking effect than the 32 WS. Sometimes the black spots during the blinking effect of the 7/70 would take on a huge kidney bean shape. If you could find the sweet spot, the image would be clear and bright across the field, and there was no color on the fringes with the UO 7/70. Good clear clean sharp image across the field once the sweet spot was found and the head held still.
Which is better? Impossible to declare a winner. The image was sharper and clearer and as bright in the 40 Koenig with no color problems. The annoying blackout effect was magnitudes less in the 32 Wide Scan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I then for fun dropped in a 55mm University Optics Plossl in the Q6. I basically hate this eyepiece in the Quantum 6. The image is always completely blacking out. I could never find a head position where the image was clear and sharp across the whole field; part of the field always seems to want to darken or black out. The images are always mushy, can't seem to find a best focus. Should be easy to find focus with such a low power eyepiece, but the views of best focus are just plain mushy in comparison with the UO 7/70. Also, the 2 inch central obstruction of the Q6 is constantly detectable in the 55UO Plossl. I think there was vignetting going on as well being that the Q6 2 inch holder has a field stop in it that seems to cut out or darken some of the outer edge of the field of the 55 Plossl.
The recommendation for 55mm has always been the 55mm Televue Plossl; though I have never tried one, I feel rather confident that it would prove to be better than the 55mm UO Plossl, at least in the Quantum 6. However, I have had two people (previous owners) complain that there is so much eye relief with the 55 Televue Plossl that it is impossible to find the view in the dark.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I then compared a 40mm Baader Planetarium erfle with the 40mm UO 7/70. I was rather impressed with the 40mm Baader Planetarium in comparison with the 7/70. The Baader had less of the annoying blackout of parts of the image. It's image was sharp and clear across the field and the sweet spot though somewhat hard to find was easier to find and hold than it was in the 40mm 7/70.
Which is better? I think I would rather have the 40mm Baader Planetarium erfle for daytime use than the 7/70. These eyepieces are rather comparable in their usage.
The owner of the Baader has complained that the metal eyeguard tends to grind and scratch glasses due to insufficient eye relief.
I for some reason always prefer to view without my glasses. I have found most eyepieces not to be generous enough with eye relief to be usable with glasses, unless the user has gotten used to not seeing the whole field of view. I, for one, like seeing a sharply defined field stop; so, I tend to view without my glasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I then tried a $1000 30mm Leitz in the Q6. (I at first thought that this was a 40mm eyepiece until I was corrected by a friend. The barrel of the eyepiece says F30/88* Leitz. The F30 being 30mm.) I was quite unimpressed with this eyepiece for the most part considering its price, which says that I should be impressed. The 88 degree field gives the obvious 'wow' effect being that you are no longer looking through a telescope, but are actually looking at the mountain. However, the whole circumference is done in purple -- color on the fringes. Rather annoying when the eye picks out a tree or patch of snow to look at on the edge of field.
Occasionally, parts of the field of view would darken, not a complete blackout as in the UO 7/70, but the frequency of the darkening seemed to be the same in both eyepieces. The sweet spot is rather hard to find and hold in both eyepieces, and the huge field of the 30 Leitz makes it rather difficult to determine where the center and the sweet spot really is. The darkening of the Leitz is more in line with the 32 WS -- more of an opaqueness in spots than a complete and total blackening of parts of the image.
The Leitz is huge. About three or 3.5 inches in diameter with a 2 inch base. It would not fit in my cheapo eyepiece cases. Also, I must admit a touch of hesitation while handling this eyepiece being that it is a $1000 eyepiece -- too much worship involved for this country bumkin.
Which is better? The Leitz is out of my price range, and I was not impressed with it enough to want it for daytime use. For the 'wow' effect the 32 WideScan did just as good a job; and, being that the 32WS goes for around $200 used, I wouldn't have near the heart attack if I were to drop the WideScan.
The Leitz and WideScan have similar and less blackout effect than the 7/70. The 40 7/70 has blackout, but no color on the fringes. The 7/70 is sharper, the field stop is there to be seen; the Leitz and WideScan give the 'wow' effect or the effect that one is no longer looking through a telescope. Trade offs.
With the Leitz there are frequent times during the daytime usage where you can see parts of the image threatening to blacken out -- opaqueness or shadows rather like that seen in the 32 WideScan. I'd call them floating wraiths that seem to go away when one tries to look right at them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I tried one of those 38mm Rini Modified Plossls in the Q6. This eyepiece was quite impressive for its low price. Didn't notice color on fringes. Some blackout effect and the sweet spot is rather hard to find; but, the image was quite good. However, there is a lot of light loss in this eyepiece. The 38 Rini in comparison with the 40mm 7/70, and the 7/70 seems to be a noticable magnitude brighter. I assume the Rini does not have the same quality of coatings on the glass.
Maybe this comparison is a case where one gets what he pays for, at least where brightness of the image is concerned. Actually, a less bright image is sometimes appreciated when looking at sunlit snow capped mountains; the loss of brightness could become a serious factor, though, while viewing objects at night.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I compared the 2inch barrel 32mm UO Konig with the 1.25 inch barrel 32mm UO Konig. Someone asked me months back if the two inch barrel would make a significant difference to justify going out and buying the 2 inch eyepiece when one already has the 1.25 inch eyepiece in the box. I told him that I figured it would not make that much of a difference. I guess I will have to eat my words. I was wrong. The 1.25 32 UO Konig always had a tunnel effect in the Q6. With the 2 inch barrel the tunnel or claustrophobic feeling goes away. The 2 inch Koenig is still narrow; but the narrowness is not annoying like it is with the 1.25 barrel.
I don't think I will be able to find the person that I gave the wrong advise to months back, in order to repent; but, at least I had the presence of mind to let him know that I had never tried a 2 incher, so to take my guess with a grain of salt. I guessed wrong. Two inch barrel does make a difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now for my usual set of disclaimers. First of all, these are wide field low power eyepieces that I am using. The central obstruction is detectable in some of the eyepieces. In my humble, opinion the Q6 Maksutov is not the best scope for daytime wide field use; I used the Q6 for my initial tests because the person who loaned me the eyepieces also has a Q6. I have a gut feeling that some of these eyepieces are going to do significantly better when I try them out in my 80mm UO rich field refractor; but, then some folks don't consider my 80mm UO refractor to be a 'real' telescope.
Also, I tend to think that some of these eyepieces are going to shine or come into their own if I can get them onto objects at night or if I can get them into my 10 inch f/4.5. I didn't like the 32 Wide Scan in my 10 incher due to coma; there was no single position that put all the stars in focus -- I am hoping the 30mm Leitz will do better at pinpointing the stars at night. Have yet to see.
After all this, I am rather desirous to try a 35 Panoptic; but, I have heard that the 35 Panoptic has severe distortion during the day; I have heard that a straight ruler is not straight through the Panoptic during the day. But, the Panoptic is supposed to be the best at night when it comes to pinpointing the stars in a star field.
So, my final conclusion is that there probably is not a perfect wide field eyepiece for daytime use, at least where the Quantum 6 is concerned. Each one seems to trade off features in order to achieve other features. The narrower the field of view the sharper the images become but at the expense of a more claustrophobic feeling.
Take it for what it is worth -- my 2 cents worth.
Darwin Bagley
---------------------------------------------------------------
January 14, 1998
Battle of the Heavy Weights
Daytime with an 80mm f/6.25 University Optics Rich Field
Refractor
My supposition was confirmed. For daytime, wide field, low power
viewing, the 80mm UO refractor is much more superior than the
Quantum 6 Maksutov. In the 80mm refractor, the wide fields
performed noticably different than they did with the Quantum 6.
Finally, I might could recommend a couple of eyepieces.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I first tried the 32 UO Wide Scan in the 80mm UO Refractor. A very pleasing view. I could almost see the field stop in one view. The color on the fringes basically disappears or becomes a non-issue. With a little concentrated effort those wraiths can become one large kidney bean. However, there seems to be enough leeway to prevent blackout in any form; there is much more of a sweet spot to be had. Kidney beaning is not a normal occurence once the sweet spot is found; kidney beaning has to be forced to happen by moving the eye too close to the eyepiece.
There seems to be a hint of a circular or circumferential dimming in brightness; but, that same hint is there with all the other eyepieces in the 30mm to 40mm range, as well. I might be safe in attributing the circumferential dimming to a slight trace of vignetting.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I then tried the 30 Leitz in the 80mm refractor. Again, color on the fringes was no longer an issue.
Yuck. Any dust on the eyepiece lenses is immediately visible in the field of view -- this eyepiece would have to be perfectly clean to give a pleasing view with the UO 80mm refractor.
Much more serious blackout, circumferential dimming, shadows in the field, and kidney beaning than with the UO Wide Scan. Moving the eye closer and closer to the eyepiece the field of view goes from worthless to almost tolerable. But, just as the field of view finally starts to get wide enough to be worthwhile, then huge chunks of the field start blacking out.
The wraiths are no longer wraiths; but have much more substance with a circular shape. Not a pleasing view at all.
The 32 Wide Scan at $200 is far superior to the $1000 30 Leitz in my 80mm UO refractor. The Wide Scan blows away the Leitz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Then tried the 55 UO Plossl. This eyepiece was better than I had remembered with the 80mm UO refractor. Basically a good perfect view, if rather narrow. The sweet spot, though, is somewhat hard to find and hold. Too close to the eyepiece or too far away and the edge of field starts closing in like a tunnel closing in; in other words, too close or too far gives tunnel vision with this eyepiece in the refractor. No problems with kidney beaning detected. Nice clear sharp view.
The 55 UO Plossl definitely needs an unobstructed telescope in order to function properly. If there is no central obstruction and a richer field scope, this is actually quite a good eyepiece.
I hated it in the Quantum 6, though.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I then tried my 85mm Rini Modified Plossl in the refractor. I really liked this eyepiece in the refractor. The field of view seems rather wide for some reason. It's functionality was essentially the same as the 55mm UO Plossl; just read above to know how it functioned. The only difference is that the 85 Rini seemed to have a wider field or show more of the mountain with the same clarity of the 55 UO Plossl. I never tried the 85 Rini in the Quantum 6 because the Q6's central obstruction during the daytime would make the 85 Rini worthless.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I then tried the 40mm UO 7/70 in the refractor. The 7/70 is just not the best eyepiece during the day. If you get too close massive kidney beaning. If you get too far away it starts closing in like a tunnel from the edge of field. With the 80mm UO refractor, there was no sweet spot to be found. The sweetest spot had serious dimming of the image all around the circumference, and the sweetest spot was already bringing on the kidney bean.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I had hopes for the 32 UO 2 inch barrel Koenig. However, with this 80mm refractor it seemed to have many of the same problems that the 40mm 7/70 had. There is a sweet spot, though; it was hard to find and hold, but it was there after much work. Too close to the eyepiece and parts of the field blackout or possible kidney beaning. Too far away and the eyepiece closes in like a collapsing tunnel. I was hoping that it would perform better with its narrower field of view. Rather disappointing given my hopes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
40mm Baader Planetarium Erfle. For some reason, this eyepiece just gave much more comfortable views especially after viewing with the Koenigs. The kidney bean is much harder to bring on. It does not tunnel closed when pulling away; instead, the whole field tries to stay there while moving your eye away.
Whereas, you have to fight to get the image in the Koenigs, with the Baader erfle you basically have to fight in order to get the image to blacken. There was some dimming around the edges, possibly due to vignetting; but, dimming was not as severe or noticable as it was in the Koenigs.
For daytime use, I am quite impressed with this eyepiece. Still had problems, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I tried the 38mm Rini in the refractor. Dim views, plus whole bunches of the field are wanting to dim out even more. If the sweet spot could be found and held, the view was very satisfying, though. Quite hard to find and hold the sweet spot.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions? Changing scopes can significantly alter the performance of eyepieces. Bigger, more expensive scopes, are not always better. For daytime viewing, I sincerely believe that the smaller unobstructed spotting scopes are far superior to anything that is larger and/or obstructed from what I saw today.
I noticed no heat waves with the 80mm UO refractor. First, the 80mm does not have a long cool down; second, I viewed in the morning with the 80mm. It was afternoon with the Quantum 6. There still would have been waves from cool down with the Q6 in the morning, though.
With the 80mm UO refractor, the winners are the 55 UO Plossl and the 85 Rini for clearness, sharpness, and no real blackout aberrations. However, these eyepieces really had no magnification going on, to speak of.
Of the eyepieces that magnified noticably, I would have to tilt my hat to the 32mm University Optics Wide Scan as being the best eyepiece of the bunch.
I would have to say that the $1000 30mm Leitz was the worst of the bunch; the 30 Leitz had all of the annoying features of every eyepiece and then some; and, it had them in significant abundance with the 80mm UO refractor.
------------------------------------------------------------
The number one lesson to learn from this review? Take eyepiece reviews with a grain of salt. One man will swear by an eyepiece and the next man will hate the same eyepiece. Why? They each have different scopes. The moral of the story -- changing scopes can and does change the performance of an eyepiece.
Darwin Bagley