EVOLUTION OF A FRIENDSHIP
Dear Friends:
I wanted to try something different that I don't think anyone has tried before. Our astronomy hobby is a journey of discovery, an evolution. During our conversations, Joe has influenced me, and I have influenced Joe. I wanted to include a large enough sampling of Joe's writings so that you could get to know him, and mostly to show how over time and with experimentation some of his views have changed. Nothing is written in stone, and each observing session can have a significant enough of an impact to modify our perceptions and beliefs. The key factor is to always keep an open mind. I didn't include my responses to Joe's email, as I desire someone else's words to take center stage. The emphasis is on personal opinions, and not scientific proof. I will include a few words of commentary from time to time behind asterisks to show how Joe's words influenced me.
I think people new to the hobby will find the evolution of ideas to be useful, as it could potentially give them an idea of where they too might be headed. Experienced observers, if they read through the whole collection, will at times shake their head in recognition that they too have gone through similar changes in opinion.
Some have told me that they prefer to hear or read solid side by side comparisons instead of just opinions or personal preferences; this one is not for them. There are some solid side by sides that follow, but even they are set in a framework of opinions and personal preferences. I might not agree with all of Joe's opinions; but, regarding opinions, it is our personal opinions that cause us to buy and sell eyepieces. The focus of the following collection is mainly on eyepieces and astronomy. Many emails not on the topic of eyepieces and astronomy were deleted; the result makes it a little choppy at times, but if the reader is interested in the theme of eyepieces, then he or she should be able to work around the resulting format.
And, I thank Joe for the kind input.
Darwin Bagley
----------------------------------------------------------------
** First comment.
** I intend to start at the end, just briefly. Darwin.
---
FROM: Joe Donahue
TO: Darwin Bagley
---
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 98 11:33:54 EDT
Subject: Interesting...
Darwin,
Interesting. I must print out the long e-mail you sent me. What you are proposing to do sounds good. Whatever you would like to do with it is ok with me. I'll trust your judgment.
I'm selling the Zeiss 25mm Konig.
Joe
---
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 98 13:07:04 EDT
Darwin,
It is amazing how our ambitions and opinions are shaped and made to evolve by our interactions with others. Perhaps your writings could include how the Internet provided an environment in which we could meet and exchange ideas.
It's funny. I see how my own opinions changed as the weeks went by. Reading my old stuff is like looking into a mirror that reflects the past. I see the old me and I can see what influenced my decisions. In summary, your idea has merit and is good.
Thanks,
Joe
----------------------------------------------------------------
** Second Comment.
** Now to the beginning. Darwin
---
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 98 11:25:42 EDT
DARWIN,
E-MAIL ME BACK IF YOU'D LIKE A DIALOGUE ON ASTRONOMY. I HAVE A COUPLE SCOPES, AND ALSO DO ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY.
THANKS.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 98 17:10:22 EDT
DARWIN
I COLLECT/USE EYEPIECES. MY FAVORITE FOR HIGH POWER/PLANETARY OBSERVING ARE ZEISS ABBE LANTHANUM. ALSO IMPRESSIVE ARE TAKAHASHI ED 5MM AND 7.5MM. CURRENTLY, I OWN/USE 21 EYEPIECES.
THE NEXT TIME I WRITE I'LL GIVE YOU A RUNDOWN ON MY EYEPIECE COLLECTION. I ALSO HAVE TOO MANY EYEPIECES, BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY. I PICK OUT 4/5 OF THEM AND OBSERVE.
CLEAR SKIES,
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 98 12:41:19 EDT
DARWIN,
I GOT THE ZEISS EYEPIECES AS A SET FROM ASTROPHYSICS. THEY ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF PRODUCTION. ONLY 100 SETS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE USA. THE SET INCLUDES 4MM,6MM,10MM,16MM,25MM,34MM. I WILL BE BURIED WITH THEM.
YES, START WITH THE 7.5MM TAKAHASHI ED. THE EXTRA LOW DISPERSION GLASS MAKES IT A "WORLD CLASS" OCULAR. I WILL BE BURIED WITH THIS EYEPIECE.
I WILL NEVER BARLOW ANY EYEPIECE. I WANT THE LEAST NUMBER OF PIECES OF GLASS BETWEEN ME AND THE UNIVERSE. HOWEVER I DO OWN A KLEE BARLOW, AND AN ASTROPHYSICS 2.0" BARLOW. I USE THEM FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC AMPLIFICATION.
EYEPIECE RUNDOWN:
ZEISS ORTHO SET. THE BEST EVER MADE. SHARP, FLAT TERRIFIC CONTRAST!
UNIVERSITY KONIG 12MM, 16MM. BOTH FANTASTIC, WILL NEVER SELL THEM.
APOGEE KONIG 14MM, SOLD. FLAIR, GHOSTING.
UNIVERSITY 20MM ERFLE. I LOVE THIS EYEPIECE. GET ONE. CALLED "SUPER ERFLE".
MEADE 4000 SUPER PLOSSL 26MM. I'M SELLING IT.
CELESTRON PLOSSL 25MM. I'M SELLING IT.
UNIVERSITY 2.0" 25MM KONIG. I'M KEEPING IT, ONE OF MY FAVORITES.
UNIVERSITY 2.0" 32MM KONIG. DITTO.
UNIVERSITY 2.0" 40MM KONIG. DITTO AGAIN.
OMCON 2.0" 35MM ERFLE. I'M SELLING, NOT TOO SHARP, LOTS OF COMA.
OMCON 2.0" 52MM ERFLE. I'M KEEPING, DECENT EYEPIECE.
BRANDON 2.0" 48MM. VERY SHARP, FLAT FIELD, PINPOINT STARS. KEEPER.
MEADE 2.0" 4000 56MM PLOSSL. I'M SELLING.
INTES BERTELE 18MM. I LIKE IT, KEEPER.
ZEISS KONIG 25MM BRIGHT, SHARP, FLAT. NARROW FOV, KEEPER, RARE.
4.8 NAGLER, SOLD. NO EYERELIEF, UNUSABLE FIELD.
75MM RINI PLOSSL. DIDN'T WORK OUT, SOLD.
2.5 VIXEN LANTHANUM. SOLD.
I USE ALL MY EYEPIECES. I TAKE 4/5 OF THEM OUT AT A TIME. SOMETIMES I GET 1 OR 2 EXTRA IF I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IMPROVING A VIEW.
MY QUALIFICATIONS FOR EYEPIECES:
1)NOT GENERIC
2)NOT MASS PRODUCED
3)HIGH QUALITY
4)CONTRAST, FLAT USABLE FIELD, MINIMUM NUMBER OF ELEMENTS, MfG2 COATED
OR MULTI COATED, NO PLASTIC BARRELS.
I DON'T USE SIMPLE DESIGNS. (RAMSDEN, KELLNER, MONOCENTRIC, HUYGENS, ETC.) THEY ARE UNDER CORRECTED, FOR THE MOST PART (2 AND 3 ELEMENTS.) I PERSONALLY PREFER LENSES USING 4 ELEMENTS. HOWEVER, I LIKE 5 ELEMENT ERFLES.
GOT TO GO.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 98 12:53:59 EDT
DARWIN,
I FORGOT THE TAKAHASHI ED LE EYEPIECES ON MY LIST. THE 7.5 IS A MUST HAVE ON ANY EXPERIENCED OBSERVER'S LIST.
JOE
---
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 98 14:56:50 EDT
DARWIN,
IF YOU WILL, PLEASE NAME THE BEST 12MM AND 16MM EYEPIECES REGARDLESS OF PRICE (NON ZEISS, HOWEVER). I AM THINKING OF UPGRADING MY UNIVERSITY 12MM AND 16MM KONIGS.
JOE DONAHUE.
************************************************************
* This message from Darwin to Joe brought on Joe's response.
From: Darwin Bagley
To: Joe_Donahue
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:22:55
Subject: Money no Object.
Joe:
Let's put his another way. If money were no object, I would have all the Naglers, all the Panoptics, all the Pentax XL's, and a collection of orthos like the Zeiss orthos or some such.
I like collecting whole sets. I have had the whole set of UO Konigs at one point, the whole set of EasyView eyepieces at another point, and almost had the whole set of Pentax XL's.
If I could only have one whole set of anything, it would be the Pentax XL's.
If I could only have one of everything from a single dealer, I would pick the Televue stuff and get all the Naglers and Panoptics and the Televue plossls.
If I were on a budget trying to maximize bang for buck, I'd be looking at University Optics.
Darwin
* Message from Darwin Ends.
************************************************************
---
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 98 18:32:51 EDT
DARWIN,
IF I COULD HAVE ONE SET OF EYEPIECES, IT WOULD BE ZEISS.
IF I COULD HAVE ONLY ONE EYEPIECE, IT WOULD BE A 20MM NAGLER.
IF I COULD HAVE ONLY TWO EYEPIECES, THEY WOULD BE A 20MM NAGLER, AND
A 48MM BRANDON.
IF I COULD HAVE ONLY THREE EYEPIECES,THEY WOULD INCLUDE A 7.5 TAKAHASHI LE, A 20MM NAGLER, AND A 48MM BRANDON.
I CHOSE:
5MM TAKAHASHI LE
7.5MM TAKAHASHI LE
ZEISS ORTHO SET 4,6,10,16,25,34MM
12MM U.O. KONIG
16MM U.O. KONIG
18MM INTES BERTELE
20MM U.O. ERFLE
25MM ZEISS KONIG
25MM U.O. MK70
26MM MEADE 4000 PLOSSL
32MM U.O.KONIG
40MM U.O. MK70
48MM BRANDON
52MM OMCON ERFLE 2.0"
56MM MEADE 4000 PLOSSL
GOT RID OF:
2.5 VIXEN
4.8 NAGLER
14MM APOGEE KONIG
35MM OMCON ERFLE
25MM CELESTRON PLOSSL
75MM RINI PLOSSL
JOE DONAHUE
** By this point in time, Joe had influenced me to start looking
** into the Takahashi LE eyepieces.
** The Zeiss orthos continue to be a desire, but their huge
** price combined with their no longer being manufactured have
** put them out of reach for me. Darwin
---
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 98 11:28:30 EDT
DARWIN,
TRUE, I DON'T OWN A 20M NAGLER, BUT IT'S ON MY "WISH LIST". ALL I'VE HEARD IS GOOD ABOUT IT. THE FACT OF ITS COST, AND ITS HIGH NUMBER OF ELEMENTS OF GLASS HAVE DELAYED ITS INTRODUCTION INTO MY COLLECTION. I WILL GET ONE SOME DAY.
I AM UNDECIDED ON THE 16MM UO SUPER ERFLE.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 98 12:47:03 EDT
DARWIN,
REASONS I DON'T HAVE A 20MM NAGLER:
1)COST
2)TOO MANY ELEMENTS BETWEEN ME AND THE SKY
3)COST
4)COST
5)IT WILL REPLACE SO MANY EYEPIECES IN MY COLLECTION THAT I
WON'T HAVE A COLLECTION ANYMORE
6)COST
7)COST
8)RELUCTANT TO FACE THE INEVITABLE.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 98 15:19:14 EDT
DARWIN,
DID YOU EVER GET THE ND6 AND ND9 FILTERS I TOLD YOU ABOUT? POCONO MOUNTAIN OPTICS HAS THEM @ $18.00 EACH.
HUGE IMPROVEMENT OVER VARIABLE POLARIZER SET.
JOE DONAHUE
---
AUGUST 1998:
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 98 12:19:37 EDT
DARWIN,
LAST EVENING, IT WAS CLEAR AT MY HOUSE AND I SET UP. HOWEVER, THE SEEING
WAS MARGINAL. WITH A 12MM KONIG, VEGA BOILED. TRANSPARENCY WAS FAIR. WITH
THE NAKED EYE IT LOOKED GREAT. I WANTED TO TEST SOME EYEPIECES. IN PARTICULAR,
THE 20 SUPER ERFLE, THE 18 INTES BERTELE, AND THE 25 ZEISS KONIG. I USED
M57, THE SMOKE RING NEBULA AS MY TEST OBJECT. WHAT I WAS AFTER WAS THE
TINY STAR AT THE SIDE OF THE RING. ALL THREE OCULARS GAVE ALMOST THE SAME
IMAGE SIZE, CONTRAST, AND BRIGHTNESS. THE BERTELE PROVIDED THE "HIGHEST
POWER". (YOU WON'T HEAR ME SPEAK OF EYE RELIEF BECAUSE I OBSERVE WEARING
CONTACTS). USING AVERTED VISION, I COULD SEE THIS STAR IN THE 25 ZEISS
KONIG. WITHOUT AVERTED VISION, I COULD SEE IT IN THE SUPER ERFLE, AND AT
TIMES IT WOULD SHOW UP DIRECTLY. THE BERTELE SHOWED THE STAR DIRECTLY,
ALL THE TIME, USING DIRECT VISION.
IT MAY SIMPLY BE A CASE OF "HIGHER POWER=HIGHER CONTRAST". BUT THESE OCULARS ARE FAIRLY CLOSE AS FAR AS FOCAL LENGTH IS CONCERNED. THE 25MM ZEISS KONIG HAS THE NARROWEST FOV OF ANY OF MY EYEPIECES. ONLY 40/45 DEGREES. I THOUGHT THIS NARROW FIELD WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF STRAY LIGHT IN THE FIELD, BUT I GUESS THERE ARE FACTORS I CAN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND OR QUANTIFY.
IN THE CASE OF MY ZEISS ORTHO SET, THE HIGHER THE POWER, THE GREATER THE RESOLUTION, UNTIL YOU REACH THE LIMITS OF ATMOSPHERIC SEEING. THAT'S WHY IT'S NICE TO HAVE COMPLETE SETS OF OCULARS. YOU CAN PICK AN OBJECT, FOCUS, START WITH THE LOWEST POWER, CHANGE OCULARS ONE AT A TIME ADVANCING TO THE HIGHEST POWER TO GIVE THE BEST VIEW.
WRITE SOON!
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 98 15:05:06 EDT
DARWIN,
I REALLY LIKE MY INTES BERTELE.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 98 16:15:20 EDT
Subject: RELIEF
DARWIN,
THE 12MM AND 16MM KONIGS SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE RELIEF. THE TAKAHASHI 7.5 HAS A LITTLE MORE. ALL THE ZEISS ORTHOS ARE GENEROUS. ALL MY 2.0" OCULARS ARE VERY COMFORTABLE.
NOW I THINK I KNOW WHY YOU USE BARLOWS: IT'S TO MAINTAIN RELIEF WITH COMFORTABLE LENSES. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
TALK TO YOU SOON!
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 98 12:01:35 EDT
DARWIN,
THE TRAPEZIUM IS MY WINTER GAUGE FOR SEEING. THE "DOUBLE-DOUBLE" IS THE BEST SUMMER GAUGE FOR SEEING.
IT'S GOOD TO MEET A PERSON LIKE YOU. NOW I KNOW I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE ADDICTED TO EYEPIECES.
LAST EVENING I GOT OUT MY SCOPE. WHAT A PLEASURE TO BEHOLD. THE MOON WAS UP, BUT IT WAS BEHIND SOME TREES AND I COULDN'T SEE IT. I'M GLAD THAT THE LIGHT POLLUTION I WAS SEEING WAS NATURAL. I TRIED M57, BUT IT WAS WASHED OUT (AS FAR AS THE LITTLE STAR IN QUESTION). FROM PHILADELPHIA I HAVE SEEN THE STAR INSIDE THE RING ON RARE OCCASIONS. (I MEAN REALLY RARE). I CONSIDER MYSELF AN EXPERT IN DEALING WITH POOR SEEING. LIGHT POLLUTION FILTERS DON'T WORK. ALL THEY ARE GOOD FOR IS IMPROVING NEBULAS. ALSO PLANETARIES.
OH! I USED THE 18MM BERTELE ON VEGA AND NOTICED SOME ON AXIS INTERNAL REFLECTIONS. IT'S A GREAT EYEPIECE FOR FAINT OBJECTS, THOUGH. I HAVE LOTS OF TESTING TO DO ON IT YET. I'LL LET YOU KNOW. I STILL LOVE THIS EYEPIECE. ONLY COST $43.00 NEW.
BERTELE WAS A RUSSIAN OPTICAL ENGINEER. I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM. I'M TOLD THIS EYEPIECE HAS 4 ELEMENTS. ONE OF THESE ELEMENTS IS VERY, VERY THICK. I SUPPOSE THIS ACCOUNTS FOR THE REFLECTIONS ON VEGA.
THIS OCULAR SPLITS THE "DOUBLE-DOUBLE" EASILY. IT IS AN ASTRONOMICAL "BEST BUY".
I THINK I SAW THE STAR NEXT TO THE RING NEBULA BECAUSE OF "HIGHER POWER-HIGHER RESOLUTION". THE EXTRA CONTRAST SEEN IN THE SHORTER FOCAL LENGTH EYEPIECE WAS THE KEY. IT'S UNFAIR TO JUDGE DIFFERENT EYEPIECE DESIGNS IN DIFFERENT FOCAL LENGTHS AT THE SAME TIME. (IT'S JUST LOTS OF FUN!!!).
GOT TO GO! TALK TO YOU SOON!
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 98 11:34:30 EDT
DARWIN,
DIGITAL SETTING CIRCLES ARE A MUST FOR US LIVING IN LIGHT POLLUTION. NOW I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THEM. (THAT IS, "WON'T" LIVE WITHOUT THEM). AS A KID I GOT FROSTBITE TRYING TO LOCATE CELESTIAL OBJECTS. I AM REALLY SPOILED NOW. BUT, SOME NIGHTS I GET TO STUDY TWENTY OBJECTS IN ONLY TWO OR THREE HOURS. JUST KEY IN THE NUMBERS AND GO. THINK ABOUT THIS.... IT'S A MODERN WORLD: WOULD YOU WALK TO FLORIDA? NO! IN A MODERN WORLD WE FLY! WOULD YOU KEEP YOUR FOOD IN A BLOCK OF ICE? NO! YOU USE A REFRIGERATOR IN A MODERN WORLD. WOULD YOU POINT YOUR TELESCOPE AIMLESSLY AROUND THE SKY? NO! YOU WOULD POINT IT USING DIGITAL SETTING CIRCLES! OOPS, I'M RAMBLING AGAIN.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 98 10:49:48 EDT
DARWIN,
SINCE JUPITER IS A MORNING OBJECT, I'LL PASS ON IT UNTIL IT MATCHES MY SCHEDULE. JUPITER IS AN OBJECT IN A CLASS OF ITS OWN. ALWAYS CHANGING. ALWAYS DIFFERENT. ALWAYS INTERESTING.
TRUE EASIER IS EASIER. BUT I FIND HAULING OUT THE BIG STUFF, ASSEMBLING IT, SETTING IT UP, ALIGNING IT, IS WORTH ALL THE EFFORT. IT'S THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET TO INSPECT THE UNIVERSE. AFTER I'VE TAKEN IT ALL DOWN I FEEL SO GOOD.
ONE OF MY AMBITIONS IS TO BUILD AN OBSERVATORY. I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL EVER DO IT, BUT I LIKE TO DREAM. IT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN SOMEDAY. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO MONEY. YOU KNOW HOW IT GOES.
GOTTA' GO
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 98 17:10:41 EDT
DARWIN,
I WORKED UNTIL 8:00PM LAST EVENING, AND WHEN I GOT HOME THERE WAS A PARCEL WAITING FOR ME. SO NOW I'M A PROUD OWNER OF A 16.4MM DOCTER OCULAR. (I DON'T FEEL ANY DIFFERENT, THOUGH).
FIRST THING I DID WAS TO HOLD IT UP TO A LIGHT AND LOOK AT ITS FIELD OF VIEW. I COMPARED IT TO MY U.O.16MM KONIG. THE KONIG SEEMS TO BE SLIGHTLY LARGER. THE DOCTER HAS A LARGER EYE LENS, THOUGH. THE DOCTER SEEMS TO HAVE MORE RELIEF. TO SEE THE ENTIRE FOV IN THE KONIG, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO TOUCH THE EYEPIECE. HOWEVER, VIEWING THRU THE U.O. AT A COMFORTABLE DISTANCE PROVIDES THE SAME FIELD OF VIEW AS THE DOCTER.
THIS EYEPIECE WAS A BINOCULAR EYEPIECE. IT STILL HAS THE PARAFOCALIZING DEVICE ON IT. IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED WITH A STEPPED 1.25/2.0" BARREL. IT LOOKS VERY GERMAN, AND ISN'T MARKED WITH A NAME OR BRAND.
I'LL LET YOU KNOW HOW IT PERFORMS IN A TELESCOPE AS SOON AS I GET A CHANCE TO USE IT.
GOTTA' GO!
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 11:18:54 EDT
DARWIN,
WHEN I WAS SIXTEEN YEARS OLD, I PURCHASED AN EDMUND 6" F/8 NEWT MOUNTED ON A GERMAN MOUNT. MY PARENTS (BOTH ARE VASTLY EDUCATED), WERE VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT THIS PURCHASE, AND WERE CONCERNED MY LIFE WAS TAKING A TURN FOR THE WORST. THEY THOUGHT THAT ASTRONOMERS WERE JUST DREAMERS, DRIFTING THRU LIFE FROM NIGHT TO NIGHT MESMERIZED BY THE SKY..ETC..ETC.
IN JANUARY 1977, JUPITER WAS AT ZENITH, AND AS A BONUS, WAS POSITIONED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS EARTH, MAKING IT "THE CLOSEST" IT WOULD BE TO EARTH IN DECADES. THE SEEING WAS PURE. I CENTERED JUPITER IN AN EDMUND 6MM ORTHOSCOPIC, AND SUMMONED MY PARENTS.
WELL, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT I'LL NEVER FORGET. WHEN MY PARENTS LOOKED THRU THE TELESCOPE, THEY GASPED! THEY WERE STUNNED. THEY COULDN'T BELIEVE THEIR EYES. THEY WERE BREATHLESS. MY FATHER SAID, "JOE, THIS IS THE BEST THING YOU HAVE EVER DONE." MY PARENTS SAW ME IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT FROM THAT DAY ON. THEY VIEWED ME AS "ENLIGHTENED". THEY GAVE ME THEIR BLESSINGS AS AN ASTRONOMER. I WAS THE TALK OF THE DINNER TABLE. I HAD EARNED CREDIBILITY.
SINCE THAT DAY, MY PARENTS HAVE ALWAYS ASKED IF THEY CAN COME OVER AND TAKE A LOOK THRU THE TELESCOPE. AND THE RESULTS ARE ALWAYS THE SAME. THEY ARE LEFT SPEECHLESS, BREATHLESS, AMAZED, THANKFUL, STUNNED. AS AN EXPERIENCED ASTRONOMER, SO AM I, EVERY TIME.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 98 14:08:52 EDT
DARWIN,
REGARDING PLANETARY EYEPIECES, ORTHOS ARE BEST. HOWEVER, ANY FULLY CORRECTED (4 ELEMENT) OCULAR CONTAINING AT LEAST ONE ELEMENT OF ED OR LANTHANUM GLASS, IS ALWAYS YOUR BEST CHOICE.
ZEISS ORTHOS HAVE 4 LANTHANUM ELEMENTS.
PENTAX OCULARS USE AN ED ELEMENT.
RULE OF THUMB: 4 ELEMENTS, AT LEAST ONE SPECIAL GLASS, SHORT FOCAL LENGTH, NARROW FIELD.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 98 17:30:55 EDT
DARWIN,
THE "BEST" PLANETARY EYEPIECE IN MY HUMBLE OPINION IS A ZEISS ABBE LANTHANUM. 4MM FOR PERFECT SEEING, 6MM FOR GOOD SEEING, 10MM FOR EVERY DAY. EXTREME CONTRAST. NOT A TRACE OF GHOSTING, HAZE, FLAIR. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTION. NOTHING ELSE EVEN COMES CLOSE.
NEXT IN LINE (BUT I DON'T OWN ANY) ARE PENTAX 0.965" ORTHOS.
GARY HAND AT "HANDS ON OPTICS" SAYS THE FINEST ORTHO HE'S EVER USED IS A UNIVERSITY OPTICS RESEARCH GRADE ORTHO. (NO LONGER MADE, FROM 1960'S). HE SOLD HIS ACCIDENTLY.
I ALSO SWEAR BY TAKAHASHI ED 1.25 OCULARS.
REMEMBER, 4 ELEMENTS, ED OR LANTHANUM, NARROW FIELD. PERIOD.
JOE DONAHUE
---
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 98 15:41:53 EDT
DARWIN,
IT'S FUNNY HOW ONE DAY YOU CAN LOVE AN EYEPIECE, AND TWO WEEKS LATER YOU HATE IT WONDERING WHAT YOU WERE THINKING TWO WEEKS AGO! I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH THAT PROBLEM.
IT'S USUALLY CAUSED BY THE 'SEEING'.
GENERALLY, I LIKE ALL OF MY EYEPIECES. SORT OF LIKE HOW A SHEPHERD KEEPS ALL OF HIS SHEEP.
JOE
---
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 13:54:50 EDT
DARWIN,
I WANTED TO ASK YOU IF MY TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF YELLING? IF IT IS I WILL TRY TYPING 'MORE QUIETLY'. I'M NOT COMPUTER LITERATE AND THIS IS THE EASIEST WAY TO TYPE.
OH, BY THE WAY, I HAVE NOT BEEN NOT PLEASED WITH THE OMCON 52MM ERFLE REGARDING CONTRAST. I DISASSEMBLED IT AND BLACKENED THE EDGES OF THE ELEMENTS. I USED FLAT BLACK ENAMEL. I HOPE IT WILL IMPROVE. I'LL REPORT MY FINDINGS.
JOE
---
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 20:06:45 EDT
Subject: From now on...........
Darwin,
From now on I'm going to stop yelling. I'm going to type quietly.
It is clouding up as I type. Maybe I can develop a way to observe clouds with a telescope. Rambling is what I do best.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 98 15:23:14 EDT
Subject: TAKAHASHI LE
Darwin,
The one ocular that always is great, no matter what the seeing, no matter what the scope, is the 7.5mm LE. My opinion of this eyepiece never varies as it does from session to session with others. (Zeiss excluded).
Joe
---
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 10:58:03 EDT
Subject: status of 16mm konig..........
Darwin,
I need some time to fully realize the differences between the DOCTER 16.5 and the U.O.16. Last evening I gave it a shot but the seeing was poor and the air was thick with humidity. Star images were blobs. Artificially illuminated haze reduced contrast to a minimum.
I know the DOCTER provides more contrast. I know the DOCTER has a smaller field. I know the DOCTER has more eye relief.
On to other things. The 18mm Intes Bertele still amazes me. I love the thing. Looking at the Ring Nebula, it was the only eyepiece that would show the small star next door (averted vision only). The DOCTER would show it at times (averted) but showed the ring better.
Joe
---
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 13:21:32 EDT
Subject: Eyepieces
Darwin,
I'm not to crazy about homemade ones.
I live near Paul Rini. Have you heard of him? He makes eyepieces. I tried his 75mm modified Plossl. Not good for the moon or day use. I could see the central obstruction of my sct. Also, the relief was so enormous that I couldn't focus without corrective lenses or contacts.
Not my cup of tea.
joe
---
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 15:45:26 EDT
Subject: 4000 plossls
Darwin,
I am selling (or at least trying to sell) my MEADE 4000 plossls. Not even a single bite. One is a 26mm/1.25", one is a 56mm/2.0. I'm starting to like the 56mm one, though. I want to sell the 26mm because I have so many other 25mm oculars.
1)25mm zeiss konig 1.25"
2)25mm MK70
3)25mm zeiss ortho 1.25"
Joe
---
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 98 09:39:19 EDT
Subject: THE AIR HERE HAS BEEN CHICKEN SOUP
Darwin,
Last night the air here was chicken soup. I could only see Vega, Altair, Arcturus, Deneb and a couple others. Phewey!!
I'm still thinking about getting a small apo. I could set it up on bad nights so I wouldn't have to drag out the big stuff.
Joe
---
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 98 11:14:27 EDT
Subject: 55mm UO PLOSSL
Darwin,
The man at University Optics advised me NOT to buy his 55MM plossl after I had all of his other 2.0" eyepieces. He claimed that it suffered from spherical aberration, and that he had given several refunds because of this.
Joe
---
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 98 16:10:13 EDT
Subject: 56MM PLOSSL
Darwin,
Based on your feedback, I think I'll keep the Meade 56MM Plossl. The thing is made so that the eye lens is recessed in the housing as to FORCE the observer to position his eye properly. In addition, the eyelens is huge compared to the narrow exit orifice for the eye, and this shields the eyelens from all outside light.
Joe
---
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 98 11:21:30 EDT
Subject: Darwin likes his new baby
Darwin,
Sounds like you've given a permanent home to a world class eyepiece. I knew a veteran like you would appreciate all the Takahashi LE has to offer. Always comfortable. Always crisp. Just plain dependable. You know the rest.
There have been times when transparent clouds have been a benefit to me as an observer. On clear nights with thin clouds on the move, I have kept on observing as the clouds 'try' to block the view. I simply viewed the clouds as a filter and observed different features on Jupiter that I couldn't see without the clouds. Some observers have told me that during an inversion the seeing is the steadiest.
I'm really glad you like the 5MM LE.
Joe
---
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 98 13:56:03 EDT
Darwin,
As I said before, I'm glad you like the TAK LE. It makes me happy because you got something you like and I may have had something to do with motivating you to get it. That's nice.
Joe
---
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 98 11:46:21 EDT
Subject: zeiss orthos
Darwin,
With regard to eye relief, I believe that the shorter the focal length of the ocular, the shorter the relief. Oculars boasting huge relief use a built in barlow. The trouble with doing this is a reduction in resolving ability. This is the reason I got rid of my 2.5MM Vixen. I won't trade off resolution for high power. I want high power produced with 4 elements. Be warned that the eyelens of a Zeiss 4MM Ortho is not much more than a pinhole. I mean REALLY small. When I got the set, I couldn't believe it. These oculars are worth every penny. I got mine for $237.00 each, new. One hundred sets made their way to the U.S. Four hundred sets total were made. I think the price is going to go up and up. I was surprised when I saw the price people were asking. However, I've seen entire sets going for $1420.00. That's the original price, which includes a wooden box from Astro-Physics Inc. It breaks down to $237.00 each. What makes these so special is the Lanthanum glass. As it turns out, all Zeiss-Jena oculars use some sort of ED glass. Hence my obsession in obtaining Zeiss/Docter/Jena products. And since they aren't made any more, we pay a premium price.
---
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 98 14:23:02 EDT
Subject: At what cost?
Darwin,
At what cost do we observe the universe? I say "at all costs." Or at least as much as our spouses let us get away with.
Some people spend 20, 30, 40 thousand on a car. Others spend thousands on smoking cigarettes. When it comes to seeing, would you buy poorly made glasses? I know I don't have to rationalize spending money on good optics to you. I have found astronomy to be very expensive. I don't care how much it costs because it's worth it. I can't get into space any other way. My telescope is a spaceship. My telescope is a time machine. My telescope is a tranquilizer. My telescope explains to me that I am small and that life's little problems don't amount to a hill of beans. Sure, there are bills to pay. Sure, I have responsibilities. When I look into space, I want to see the complete, unabridged view. I want to see "all of the above."
How's that for rambling?
Joe
---
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 98 14:30:12 EDT
Subject: 20MM Nagler
Darwin,
But, I just can't see myself buying a 20MM Nagler.
Joe
---
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 98 16:46:23 EDT
Subject: Elements
Darwin,
Takahashi uses 5 elements. Vixen uses 7. (So they say). The Vixen is a barlowed modified plossl (once again, so they say). The Tak LE is secret. "Proprietary info", Takahashi calls it. Every fact sheet Takahashi prints is in Japanese, anyway. Only the pictures will do any justice to us who can't read Japanese stuff.
Joe
---
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 98 10:57:42 EDT
Subject: correction.......
Darwin,
Correction, Vixen LV uses 6,7 or 8 elements, depending on FL.
With my Edmund 6" f/8, I used a 4MM Ortho and a 3X Barlow on Jupiter.
Gotta' go
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 98 10:58:52 EDT
Subject: thanks
Darwin,
Not too much detail on Jupiter using a 3X Barlowed 4mm Edmund Ortho. I could see cloud bands, or at least different colors. Remember, it was a well figured newt at f/6. (6"). Using the unbarlowed 4MM on the 6" Edmund provided a wealth of detail. (Like you haven't heard that one before).
I'm glad you hooked up a 12.5MM Tak. Remember it doesn't use ED glass like the 5 and 7.5MM. I'm sure it's up to spec, though.
Joe
---
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 19:46:24 EDT
Darwin,
It always made sense that 4 element oculars were sharper and revealed fainter stars. Sure, wide fields are good for locating objects, but once you center them, pop in an ortho and away you go!
Joe
---
SEPTEMBER 1998:
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 98 13:53:21 EDT
Subject: eyepiece list
Darwin,
My eyepiece list as of 9/1/98
1)4mm Zeiss Ortho 1.25"
2)5mm Takahashi LE 1.25"
3)6mm Zeiss Ortho 1.25"
4)7.5mm Takahashi LE 1.25"
5)10mm Zeiss Ortho 1.25"
6)12mm U.O.Konig 1.25"
7)12.5mm Zeiss 90 Degree 1.25"
8)16mm U.O.Konig 1.25"
9)16mm Zeiss Ortho 1.25"
10)16.4mm Docter/Zeiss ED 1.25/2"
11)18mm Intes Bertele 1.25"
12)20mm U.O. Erfle 1.25"
13)25mm Zeiss Ortho 1.25"
14)25mm Zeiss Konig, MgF2 coated, 1.25"
15)25mm U.O. MK70 Konig 2"
16)32mm U.O. Konig 2"
17)34mm Zeiss Ortho 1.25"
18)40mm U.O. MK70 Konig 2"
19)48mm Brandon, MgF2 coated. 2"
20)52mm Omcon Erfle 2"
21)56mm Meade Series 4000 Plossl 2"
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 98 15:25:17 EDT
Subject: someone mentioned omcon erfle
Darwin,
In the e-mail you sent me someone mentioned an Omcon Erfle 52mm. Of all my "Big Guns", it is my least favorite. I'll probably sell it. I'm still experimenting with trying to improve it. I suspect it's made with cheap glass. I disassembled it, blackened the edges, and added baffles to the interior of the barrel. The weather has hampered my testing attempts. It's hard to judge contrast looking into illuminated haze. Even on these bad nights, my other oculars, (40mm MK70, 48mm Brandon, 56mm Meade Plossl), worked better. I have an abundance (too many) of eyepieces in this range. I should just keep the best ones. I tend to get tied up with selecting eyepieces instead of enjoying the view. No sense going back and forth from an eyepiece you like and know to be good to an eyepiece you aren't sure about and are trying to validate. I really have my doubts about the Omcon Erfle. I already sold my 35mm version. Only sharp in the center. No contrast at all. Total washout. The 52mm is sharp to the edge; that is why I kept it, hoping to improve its contrast. I may not be able to.
The U.O. 20mm Super Erfle is terrific in every way. I'm thinking about getting the 25mm version. I have too many 25mm oculars right now, anyway. All the 25mm eyepieces I have I'm keeping. I have a Zeiss Ortho, a Zeiss Konig, and a U.O.MK70, all in the 25mm range.
Talk to you later.
Joe
---
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 98 11:17:24 EDT
Subject: I'm back......
Darwin,
I used my 12.5 Zeiss 90 degree for the first time. Very impressive. At last I have an eyepiece that I will use every session. Extreme contrast. Very comfortable. Incredible. THE widest FOV I ever saw. Pinpoints to the edge. NO seagulls. NO coma. Completely flat field. Perfect.
I'm also thinking about selling some other oculars. Now I want to get a 20mm Nagler. I'm addicted to the FOV provided by the 12.5 Zeiss. To finance the 20mm Nagler I have to sell some others. On the chopping block are the following: 12mm U.O.Konig, 18mm Intes Bertele, 20mm U.O.Erfle, 52mm Omcon Erfle.
Joe
** At this point, I had already decided to get the 16mm UO Konig
** from Joe. Darwin
---
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 98 12:02:33 EDT
Darwin,
When you e-mail other people, please feel free to use my name regarding my comments about equipment. I feel proud to know you and it would make me happy if you told others about my experiences.
Joe
---
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 98 15:09:46 EDT
Darwin,
The 12.5 Zeiss is a very rare eyepiece. I got it from Ludes in Germany. He claims it's the only one he's ever seen. It was a real pain in the neck to get. Customs decided that they would hold it until I paid a ransom for it. Then the U.S.Postal Service decided to jump on the bandwagon and also charge a ransom fee.
As it turns out it's the best ocular I have ever looked through. (Aside from the other Zeiss eyepieces I have).
It came with two adapters, one for 1.25", one for 2.0". I love this thing.
Got to go.
Joe
---
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 98 17:45:52 EDT
Subject: which one....
Darwin,
Of the two eyepieces, I know the U.O. 20mm Erfle to be superior. It has a much larger eye lens, more relief, more throughput. It's a proven design. The Bertele is a curiosity, a novelty. It's mysterious, heavy, exotic. I like it a lot. It's great on faint objects. I never tried it on the moon or planets. I can't figure out how it's made. It has a large FOV.
The U.O 20mm Erfle is an excellent all around ocular. It's great on galaxies. You can see how "clear and clean" it is just holding it up to a light.
If I could have only one, I would choose the U.O.20mm Erfle.
Thanks,
Joe
** At this point, I decided to buy the 20mm UO Super Erfle from
** Joe. Darwin.
---
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 98 09:53:23 EDT
Subject: I had a good run.
Darwin,
Finally, I had a good run. Clear skies, steady seeing. Saw lots of Planetary Nebulas. Twenty or so. Used the Zeiss Orthos with LP filters. Also looked at a couple of Open Clusters with the 48mm Brandon, 52mm Omcom Erfle, 56mm Meade Super Plossl. I finished up by trying to see the North American Nebula and the like. Negative on them. Skies here are not dark enough for large nebulas but I keep trying anyway.
I got a chance to compare the Omcon Erfle with my other wide field/low power "big guns". It's vastly improved since I blackened the edges of the lenses. I'm still going to sell it since I'm heavily into that range of ocular. While I'm on the subject, I compared the Brandon with the Meade Super Plossl. The Meade is easier to use and the Brandon has a tad better contrast. The Brandon must be used with the eye perfectly on axis or it blacks out. The Meade's eye lens is recessed deep in the housing and the opening in the barrel is only 1/2" wide. This forces you to position your eye on axis. You don't get a chance to see if the Meade blacks out because of the parallax this 1/2" orifice provides.
The Brandon is physically smaller and weighs much less than the Meade. The Brandon is made much nicer. The lenses in the Brandon are very large in diameter. I could see the same magnitude stars in both eyepieces, however, the background is a little darker and the stars a little brighter in the Brandon. I don't know which one I like better.
The Meade design shields the eyelens from stray light. This fact helps the Meade with regard to contrast. My observing site suffers from stray light (porch, interior, street); this fact hurts the Brandon because this light enters the eyepiece through the eyelens, reducing its inherent contrast.
I believe the Brandon would be the winner hands down at a dark site with no stray light. At my light polluted sight, the Brandon is only slightly better with regard to contrast, while the Meade is more comfortable to use because it doesn't let you view off axis.
Both eyepieces provide the same FOV and are parfocal.
Joe
---
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 98 15:15:51 EDT
Subject: 12.5 Zeiss & 16.4mm Docter
Darwin,
In the future I will write up these two oculars, send you the info, and you can post it for me.
Oh, by the way, I'm getting a 20mm Nagler. My latest thinking is to have two types of eyepieces; wide field and orthos. I have the orthos and a couple of Tak LEs for lunar and planetary observing. I have the 12.5mm and 16.4mm Zeiss wide fields. The 20 Nagler will fill the space left by several oculars I'm selling leading up to my 25mm MK70, 32mm Konig, 40mm MK70, 48mm Brandon, and the 56mm Meade (if I keep it).
Joe
---
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 15:25:17 EDT
Darwin,
Jupiter is indeed the most active member of the Solar System. It is possibly the most active object in the sky.
I have a H-Alpha filter set for the Sun. Solar activity changes rapidly. You can see the changes live, in real time. Always different. Never predictable.
Jupiter is a good photographic subject. Jupiter is also good for the oh-ahh factor. It always amazes me every time I see it.
Joe
---
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 98 11:04:31 EDT
Subject: I'm glad for ya......
Darwin,
I would agree that the Takahashi is more comfortable than the U.O. Ortho in equal focal length. By design the ortho should be a bit sharper and resolve better. Takahashi makes very smoothly figured high quality glass which probably equalizes it with the U.O. ortho design. You report no difference between the 12.5 oculars except for comfort and fov. Good. Interesting. That's how I thought they would stack up. (The Tak costs three or four times more).
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 08:56:50 EDT
Subject: I got your messages...
Darwin,
The Zeiss Orthos are made from Lanthanum glass and they out perform any other planetary eyepiece at any given focal length. They also have a special "Zeiss only" multi coating. At focal length they provide pinpoint star images which have no dimensions. Extreme contrast. Good eye relief in all focal lengths, except the 4mm which is tight.
It's amazing how on some nights the seeing is so bad that we think somebody broke our scopes. It's like someone sprayed bug spray on the mirrors.
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 10:04:24 EDT
Subject: Zeiss
Darwin,
The Zeiss orthos are a proven design, (orthoscopic), and exotic materials. I think Pentax uses ED glass in one of its elements. All orthos are good because of design. Zeiss orthos are a combination of design and exotic glass.
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 13:51:15 EDT
Subject: CURRENT EYEPIECE LIST
4MM ZEISS ORTHO
5MM TAKAHASHI
6MM ZEISS ORTHO
7.5MM TAKAHASHI
10MM ZEISS ORTHO
12MM U.O.KONIG
12.5 ZEISS 90 DEGREE
16MM ZEISS ORTHO
16.5MM DOCTER/ZEISS ED
18MM BERTELE
25MM ZEISS ORTHO
25MM MK70 2"
32MM U.O KONIG 2"
34MM ZEISS ORTHO
40MM MK70 2"
48MM BRANDON 2"
52MM OMCON ERFLE 2"
56MM MEADE 4000 2"
---
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 98 16:05:59 EDT
Subject: 20mm Nagler
Darwin,
Yes, the 20mm UO Erfle is a nice eyepiece. It is very good on objects like clusters and galaxies. I'm sure you will like it.
I also received my 20mm Nagler. Ah! What a feeling! I finally did it! What a load off my mind! What a load on my mount! This thing weighs a ton. I believe it will take the place of many of the eyepieces that I currently own. Like I told you before, if I could have only one eyepiece, this would be the one. I feel that I have a very good deep sky trio with the 20mm Nagler, the 16.4 Docter, and the 12.5 Zeiss.
Joe
** My success with my 20mm Nagler had a minor influence on Joe.
---
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 98 19:39:12 EDT
Subject: Planetary nebulas
Darwin,
The best are the NGC ones. Many are found with digital setting circles only. I locate the coordinates of the sky, then look at the field with LP filters, starting with LP1 and progressively increasing the contrast with LP2, etc. When I suspect I have located one, narrow the field with shorter and shorter local length oculars until I'm sure I've found it. (Planetary Nebula). It's very challenging, even with digital setting circles. Some are very small, only 2 or 3 arcseconds in diameter. Many are very nice, as you can see shape, definition, and color in them.
Joe
---
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 98 11:53:56 EDT
Subject: I'm in love with an eyepiece...
Darwin,
I'm in love with an eyepiece. She is a 20mm Nagler.
Like I said before, "If I could have only one eyepiece, it would be a 20mm Nagler". Now all my other eyepieces are on the "endangered species" list. Well, not ALL of them.
This eyepiece is wonderful. I must admit that I have taken an "about face" regarding my theory about "minimum number of elements". Al Nagler has earned a place next to Erfle, Zeiss, Abbe, and Konig.
Talk about correction! This eyepiece is good. Once again, I'm rambling.
I got a good observing run in on 9/22. The sky was immaculate. I did my Cygnus list with the 20mm Nagler. Also M13, M57, M56 and several others I can't recall. I had a nice evening.
I'd like to sell some of my eyepieces, since the 20mm Nagler covers so many observing situations. The list:
25mm MK70
32mm Konig 2"
40mm MK70
52mm Omcon Erfle
56mm Meade Plossl
All are 2" eyepieces. I'll keep the 48mm Brandon. I'd like to try a 35mm Panoptic. And the beat goes on.
I'm keeping the Zeiss 25mm Konig I got from Ludes in Germany. It has a narrow FOV, but is very sharp and has EXCELLENT contrast. I suspect it will make a nice planetary eyepiece when Jupiter finally clears the tree tops at my observing site.
It has a 1.25" barrel. It's not multi coated but is MgF2 coated. The 48mm Brandon is also MgF2 coated. I'm sorry I waited so long to get this 20mm Nagler. The other side of the coin is that I experienced all the rest before I tried the best.
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 98 20:01:24 EDT
Subject: I see a 35mm Panoptic somewhere on the horizon.
Darwin,
Am I thinking straight if I see a 35mm Panoptic on the horizon? I believe that a 35mm would fill the gap between the 20mm Nagler and the 48mm Brandon.
Joe
** I liked the 35mm Panoptic, and that might have had an
** influence on Joe, though it was probably his 20mm Nagler.
---
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 98 11:28:31 EDT
Darwin,
At my site I do have light pollution. With experience I have grown more aware of loss of contrast and washout with my longer focal length oculars. Simply stated, I use longer focal length eyepieces to look at open clusters that cover a wide slice of sky. These open clusters are comprised of mostly bright stars.
I want the 35mm because it will bridge the gap to my 48mm brandon. The 27mm Panoptic is, in my opinion, too close in focal length to my 20mm Nagler. I don't want crowd my eyepiece menu with redundancy. I got the 20mm Nagler in an effort to eliminate several other eyepieces.
Joe
---
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 98 14:22:03 EDT
Subject: nail on head
Darwin,
I believe my list of deep sky eyepieces will end up as:
12.5 Zeiss 90 degree
16.4 docter ED
20 Nagler
35 Panoptic
48 Brandon
56 Meade Plossl (optional)
Joe
---
OCTOBER 1998:
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 98 13:45:24 EDT
Subject: current ocular list
Darwin,
While we're on the list topic, my current eyepieces:
Deep sky: 12.5 Zeiss 90 degree
16.4 Docter
20 Nagler
25 Mk70
35 Panoptic
48 Brandon
56 meade Plossl
Planetary: 4,6,10,16,25,34 Zeiss Orthos
5, 7.5 Takahashi LEs
25 Zeiss Konig
Joe
---
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 98 19:13:35 EDT
Subject: Barlows
Darwin,
I'm going to start using my barlows. I have a Klee and an Astro Physics barlow. The AP barlow is a two inch convertible model. (By convertible I mean the lens cell unscrews from the main body and can be screwed into an eyepiece filter end).
In the recent past, I have used barlows as photographic tools only. I use the Klee to boost guiding accuracy, and the AP for telenegative amplification. (To fill a 6X7cm frame with the moon).
In the not so recent past, I used a barlow all the time. I didn't have so many eyepieces and barlowing gave me more flexibility. Since I have gotten my hands on the more complex designs like the Nagler and wide angle Zeiss, I have trashed my theory regarding minimum number of elements in an optical train. (It's just dormant in the corner of my mind.). I still have plenty of respect for corrected four element designs like Orthos and Konigs, but the modern eight and six element designs have my attention and respect. So why not barlow a corrected four element ocular? Once again, I have a lot of testing to do.
Joe
---
** I got an 80mm f/11.4 Celestron Achromat that Joe knows about.
** Darwin.
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 98 11:24:23 EDT
Subject: Chromatic aberration
Darwin,
Chromatic aberration can be almost eliminated a couple of ways. Light blue filter. Minus violet filter. Gold plated diagonal. Using a barlow. (F11 is more chromatic than F22, etc.). Most achromats are long. Just make yours "longer" with a barlow.
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 98 11:48:27 EDT
Subject: Stop it down
Darwin,
Another way to reduce chromatic aberration is to stop down the objective. Sounds funny, stopping down an 80mm. But stopping down to 60mm would result in F14.7. 50mm would result in F17.6.
The longer the better.
Joe
---
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 98 13:02:49 EDT
Darwin,
Your search for the hard to see division in Saturn's ring system is best done with Saturn at or near Zenith. I know you have the optics. Just be there when the seeing is perfect and Saturn is overhead.
I got a chance to use the 35 Panoptic. Anyway, it cleared again, the stars were steady, and the seeing good. I could easily split the Double-Double. The little star next to M57 could be seen without averted vision. I scanned the Cygnus open clusters. The 35 Panoptic's entire field is usable. Excellent contrast. Faint stars were not washed out. Sharp both on and off axis. I like it. Better contrast and sharper off axis than the 32mm U.O. Konig. Perfect complement to the 20mm Nagler and the 12.5mm Zeiss. Very, very comfortable. I'll keep it. I searched the constellation of Cephus for open clusters, planetary nebulas and galaxies. This area of the sky is more light polluted than the rest of my celestial dome. The 35 Panoptic still provided adequate contrast (equal to the others previously mentioned) while scanning this area of the sky. In the mean time, I've reposted the 25mm MK70 and the Meade 56mm Plossl. Wish me luck.
Joe
---
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 98 18:01:26 EDT
Darwin,
I forgot to mention that I barlowed the 7.5 Takahashi with the Klee and observed M57 and M13. Nice!
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 98 12:41:30 EDT
Subject: Good stuff...
Darwin,
So now I have a collection of eyepieces that I truly love. Each one is a work of fine art. I find relaxation in knowing my selection doesn't have the excess overlap it had in the past.
My next eyepiece will probably be a 7mm Pentax XL.
Gotta' go.
Joe
** I had been exercising a little influence trying to convince
** Joe that maybe a 7mm Pentax XL was the next deep sky eyepiece
** that he was looking for.
---
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 98 15:01:43 EDT
Subject: eye relief
Darwin,
Of all my deep sky oculars, the 20mm Nagler has the least relief and I'm ok with it, but I don't want to get any new ones with less. To get the whole FOV I can feel my lashes touching the eyelens. If I pull back a little, I still see a hugh field, and to see the edges I have to move my whole head around. I like doing that. It's like looking out a window. It's like looking both ways before you cross the street.
The Panoptic is a pleasure to use. Loads of relief. I don't have to do gymnastics to look through it. I don't do gymnastics to use the 20mm Nagler, but it isn't as effortless as the Panoptic to use.
The 48mm Brandon has the most relief, but the eye must be placed perfectly on axis to prevent blackout and to see the whole field. The Brandon has a "sweet spot".
The 12.5 Zeiss and the 16.4 Docter are both a pleasure to use. The 12.5's field is so big that you must "look both ways before crossing".
Hence my reasons for wanting the 7mm XL. I'm spoiled now and it's your fault.
Joe
---
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 98 17:47:08 EDT
Subject: 20 Nagler
Darwin,
Tuesday evening was good at my site. Clear, clear, clear. Seeing was steady. Looked at Open Clusters in Cephus and Lacerta. Also a few Planetary Nebulas and Galaxies. Galaxies are tough with light pollution. Open Clusters leave a lasting impression in my mind and I enjoy recalling the images as I fall asleep or the next day when things get ugly at work.
The 20mm Nagler continues to amaze me. It is very satisfying to use. It is extremely sharp. The 35mm Panoptic is also wonderful. I like being able to switch back and forth without refocusing. The 20mm is particularly good on faint objects.
I think the 20mm Nagler has acted as a catalyst to return me to doing eyepiece comparisons. I'm not sure that I'm completely happy with the 16.4mm Docter. Maybe it's not fair to compare the performance of other eyepieces to the 20mm Nagler, but after an evening of going back and forth between the 16.4mm Docter and the 20mm Nagler, I have found that the Docter can't hold a match to the Nagler. The intent of my next survey would be to find an eyepiece that shares qualities similar to the 20mm Nagler and the 35mm Panoptic. I want to try a 16mm Nagler.
I want to see the same giant FOV, the same sharpness, the same contrast in a 16mm as I get from the 20mm Nagler. The 16mm Nagler would be parfocal as an added bonus.
The 12.5 Zeiss is up to par with the two TeleVues that I have. The views provided by the 12.5 Zeiss have the same effect of imprinting star images in my mind as the Nagler and the Panoptic do.
Joe
---
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 98 20:07:30 EDT
Darwin,
The Docter 16.4mm has lightening at the edge of the FOV. Also, they claim it is a 70 Degree, I believe it more like 60-65 degrees. Last, this eyepiece has a slight amount of chromatic aberration.
Joe
---
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 17:23:47 EDT
Subject: current list
Darwin,
My current eyepiece list:
4,6,10,16,25,34mm Zeiss Abbe Orthoscopic set
7mm Pentax XL
7.5 Takahashi ED
12.5 Zeiss 90 Degree
16mm Nagler
16.4 Docter ED
20mm Nagler
25mm Zeiss Konig
35mm Panoptic
48mm Brandon
5mm Takahashi ED: down for repairs.
Joe
---
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 98 10:47:32 EDT
Subject: 7mm Pentax XL compared to 7.5mm Tak LE
Darwin,
I got a chance to use my new 7mm Pentax XL. I won't bore you with comments regarding size. You already know the difference.
With regard to comfort, the Pentax is a Cadillac. The Takahashi 7.5 LE is very comfortable compared to any Orthoscopic eyepiece, but the Pentax is one of the most comfortable eyepieces ever made. Period.
Both eyepieces are equal in terms of contrast.
The Pentax has a larger field of view. Both eyepieces have a completely usable, flat field. The Takahashi's contrast is equal all the way across the entire field of view. The Pentax has a faint lightening at the edge of the field of view. I have seen this effect in other ED eyepieces. I don't consider it to be a problem. Even with this lightening at the edge, the 7mm Pentax XL is a world class eyepiece. In terms of sharpness, I thought the Pentax was a little better than the Takahashi. I wasn't sure until my wife said she thought she was looking through "cheese cloth" while observing through the Takahashi. I don't think I would go that far, but I think the Pentax is a "hair" sharper. We were looking at a faint open cluster in Aquila when we made these comments. Both eyepieces performed equally focused on Vega. No ghosting or flare. The Pentax revealed fainter stars than the Takahashi. While viewing faint open clusters, averted vision was needed using the Takahashi. The same stars could be seen directly with the Pentax. In summary, I really love both eyepieces. I won't be finished with my comparison until the Moon and Jupiter have cleared the tree tops at my observing site. They will both have a permanent place in my collection. I predict using the Takahashi as a planetary eyepiece and the Pentax as a deep sky eyepiece.
Joe
** I personally had proven that a 7mm Pentax XL has better
** contrast than a 7mm Nagler in side by side tests. Darwin.
---
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 98 13:57:32 EDT
Subject: 25mm Konig
Darwin,
The best way I can describe its performance is this: it's like a narrow FOV 25mm ortho. When I look through this eyepiece I feel like I'm looking at the light at the end of the tunnel. I didn't mind it at first, but the Nagler and the Panoptic spoiled me. (I have you to blame...). And like you say, I'm "thinking down" these days. I don't think you'll give rave reviews.
Joe
** Joe has been cutting down on his number of eyepieces or
** thinking about ways to get the number down, "thinking down."
** Whereas, I have been systematically trying to increase the
** number of eyepieces that I own. Darwin.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Where will Joe go from here? Only his heart knows. Eyepiece reviews can influence us, and over time we form opinions. But, we change and adjust as we seek that memorable telescopic image that will stay with us for a lifetime. May that telescope or newly acquired eyepiece become one of your best friends.
Now, go out and observe, and share what you see with a friend.
DARWIN BAGLEY