Plössls - Are they any different to each other?

[Naemeth]

I've often been interested as to whether there is any difference between Plössls, particularly whether these new(-ish) "clones" would perform well against Japanese optics. As I already had a Meade Series 4000 Super Plössl, made in Japan, I asked Alan @ Skies the Limit if I could borrow one and then return it because I really wanted to see if there was any difference, and how much difference there would be.

For completeness, the Meade Plössl was bought 2nd hand for about £30, new ones (not made in Japan) are around £40. The Plössl from Skies the Limit is a clone of the Celestron Omni, at least, it's similar, and can be found here: http://www.auctiva.com/stores/viewstoreitem.aspx?loc=6805&rlid=10&item=380398759807&site=3&id=296546&format=9&clientSite=3. The Skywatcher MA is standard with all telescopes, and can usually be picked up rather cheaply second hand.

I am testing on a Skywatcher Heritage 130P Dobsonian, which is F/5, which is rather hard on eyepieces. Improvements could probably be found at F/6, F/7 etc. but things would only get worse at focal ratios faster than F/5.

Skywatcher 25mm MA vs Celestron Omni Clone 26mm vs Meade Series 4000 26mm Super Plössl

Line up:

Barrel of the Celestron Omni Clone:

Barrel of the Meade:

Barrel of the MA:

Weight: 65g, 130g, 135g

First Impressions:

The Barrel of the Celestron Omni Clone was the best I felt, it was completely blackened, unlike the Meade which was half blackened, and the MA which wasn't blackened. The weight of the two "proper" Plössls was very similar, and both were comfortable to hold, and were fine in the focuser, they also both look good, unlike the MA which looks rather cheap (and probably is) to be honest..

Now for my observations, taken on 21/11/12 and 23/11/12 (a bit muddled)

M45

MA – Noticeable Astigmatism ~80% out, sharp for roughly 50-60%. Neutral Tone

4000 – Sharper, some Astigmatism at around 90%, sharp at about 70-80%, Neutral

Omni – Between MA and 4000, sharp for 6 0%-70%, neutral, slightly better light transmission than 4000

Jupiter

MA – Bright Dot, little or no detail visible, white flare either side, with some orange false colour and blue around edges, ghosting at about 60%, bad internal reflections control

4000 – Better CA control, slight banding detectable, white flare, slightly clearer on moon colour, ghosting, at about 85%, sharper for slightly longer than Omni

Omni – Very slight CA, bands detectable, moon colour control good. Ghosting appears at about 85%

Double cluster

MA – Sharp about 50%

4000 – Sharp about 75%-80%

Omni – Sharp about 70% - 75%, Meade only slightly sharper

Panning

MA – Things come into view, unless in the middle it's not really comfortable to look at, pronounced CA at edges and astigmatism

4000 – Much better than MA, no CA when panning and sharp for much more of field (about 90% or so)

Omni – Panning about same as Meade, much better than MA!

Hyades

Omni – Some nice colour especially on Betelgeuse, clear, sharp for about 85% - 90%

4000 – Same as Omni, sharper by about 5%

MA – Colour not as clear on Betelgeuse, sharp about 50%.

M31

MA – Fuzzy blob, stars not very sharp, difficult to focus

4000 – Brighter than with the MA and sharper, one core star just visible

Omni – About the same as Meade, not quite as sharp

Moon

MA – I must say, Moon was a pleasure to view, slight CA on top and bottom of Moon, but really not very much, did become much less sharp in outer field, still sharp for about 50-60%. Nice and crisp clear craters

4000 – Stunning, amazing sight. No CA at all in centre, only from about 85% was it visible on the rim, and no loss of sharpness at all. As sharp as you could want, beautiful.

Omni – Again, very close to 4000, CA only present from about 80% of field, and small loss of sharpness was detectable.

Conclusion

Extremely close all in all, but I think the Meade edges it, but for the price the Omni Clone is truly excellent, considering it was only £25, and the improvement from the MA is certainly noticeable. If I only had one, I'd have the Meade, although I wouldn't mind having the Omni Clone if the Meade wasn't available, I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy the MA though, for a very cheap price you can upgrade, and you will certainly notice the difference. Panning around the sky with the MA was just uncomfortable, it seemed okay when I first got the scope, but now I've had it a while you can really notice the difference, especially if you look for it!

[John]

Interesting review

Is the Meade definitely a Japanese one ? - I'm only asking as there are lots of variants of the 4000 series around and it's quite hard to tell unless they have "Japan" stamped on them and on the box.

The Skies the Limit one may look a bit like a Celestron Omni but it's not one - I've owned a few Omni's and their barrels are machined aluminum, rather than chromed brass, and many include a safety undercut. Their rubber eyecups are a different design than the S t L ones too.

This sounds petty but I guess Celestron could complain that what is being reviewed is not linked to one of their products.

The MA is not a plossl of course - but I'm sure you knew that

[Naemeth]

Interesting review

Is the Meade definitely a Japanese one ? - I'm only asking as there are lots of variants of the 4000 series around and it's quite hard to tell unless they have "Japan" stamped on them and on the box.

The Skies the Limit one may look a bit like a Celestron Omni but it's not one - I've owned a few Omni's and their barrels are machined aluminum, rather than chromed brass, and many include a safety undercut. Their rubber eyecups are a different design than the S t L ones too.

This sounds petty but I guess Celestron could complain that what is being reviewed is not linked to one of their products.

The MA is not a plossl of course - but I'm sure you knew that

Point noted. Oh, and the MA isn't a plössl, but it's sometimes discussed with plössls.

Oh, and it definitely was made in Japan, as it has it stamped on the barrel .

DISCLAIMER: THIS REVIEW IS NOT IN ANY WAY LINKED TO ANY CELESTRON PRODUCT.

and I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

[E621Keith]

Thanks for the review. I wonder what will happen if you throw in the TV plossl or top Chinese made Plossl (such as Vixen's NPL) into the mix.

[Naemeth]

Thanks for the review. I wonder what will happen if you throw in the TV plossl or top Chinese made Plossl (such as Vixen's NPL) into the mix.

If I had one to test with I would (TV certainly), mind you, it would make it difficult for me to look through any cheaper eyepiece again! (As did my visit to an observatory, where I got to see Jupiter through a 14").

[bombassa]

I think it's a great review for all new stargazers with the 10 and 25 supplied MA, who wonder if they would notice a difference if they replace them.

[ronin]

I tend to side with John, the MA is not a plossl - it bears greater similarity to a Kellner, a recommendation for people with MA's is to upgrade to a plossl for better performance and viewing. The Omni isn't an Omni although it is referred to as an Omni throughout.

GSO make the Meade plossl's and they have a good reputation.

[Naemeth]

I tend to side with John, the MA is not a plossl - it bears greater similarity to a Kellner, a recommendation for people with MA's is to upgrade to a plossl for better performance and viewing. The Omni isn't an Omni although it is referred to as an Omni throughout.

GSO make the Meade plossl's and they have a good reputation.

Sorry about that, It was quicker to type Omni, especially in the cold .

[Damo636]

Great review, thanks for taking the time to write it up. I used to own a few of the Meade 4000 series, and the 26mm (Japan) in particular was a lovely eyepiece. I had the opportunity to compare it with a 25mm Televue plossl and to be honest I couldn't tell much difference other than maybe a slight gain in contrast with the TV. Granted that comparison was with an f6 scope, so not near as stiff a test as your f5 would have provided.

[Naemeth]

Great review, thanks for taking the time to write it up. I used to own a few of the Meade 4000 series, and the 26mm (Japan) in particular was a lovely eyepiece. I had the opportunity to compare it with a 25mm Televue plossl and to be honest I couldn't tell much difference other than maybe a slight gain in contrast with the TV. Granted that comparison was with an f6 scope, so not near as stiff a test as your f5 would have provided.

Did you note any drop off in sharpness in the last 15% in either? At F/5, the Meade held sharpness quite well (and craters from the Moon were still visible and quite sharp), the CA wasn't great at the edge, but certainly not bad. The Clone did nearly as well, except it lost a bit of the sharpness right at the edge, and the MA was awful, the field of view might as well be ~40 Degrees, at least more of the field would be sharp!

[Damo636]

To be honest its a while ago now & I'm relying on my not so great memory, but as far as I can recall, at f6, they were both sharp right to the edge. I would be fairly confident though that the Televue would pull ahead at f5 & faster. The 25mm was my first foray into the green & black and I did find it impressive, but ultimately I ended up being lured by the wider fov ep's. If I was in the market for plossls today, I would be taking a long hard look at the Stirlings. They consistantly get rave reviews from users, some claiming they outperform even the Televue plossl!

[Naemeth]

To be honest its a while ago now & I'm relying on my not so great memory, but as far as I can recall, at f6, they were both sharp right to the edge. I would be fairly confident though that the Televue would pull ahead at f5 & faster. The 25mm was my first foray into the green & black and I did find it impressive, but ultimately I ended up being lured by the wider fov ep's. If I was in the market for plossls today, I would be taking a long hard look at the Stirlings. They consistantly get rave reviews from users, some claiming they outperform even the Televue plossl!

I've seen the Sterling Plössl's, and would probably go for a 20mm, but to be honest, the import duty and VAT kind of puts me off. In addition, I would have thought the TV Plössl might be on top at F/5, and most probably at F/4 (no direct experience, so I could not say for sure). I think it would be rather interesting to add to this review these Plössl eyepieces:

Televue 25mm

GSO 25mm

Vixen NPL 25mm

Sterling 25mm

maybe a Skywatcher SP 25mm and Celestron Omni (original) 25mm

That's still ~£200 worth of Plössls, which is a fair amount!

[Damo636]

I agree. At f5 and faster, the Televue would be the safest bet, but it would make for a very interesting comparison if someone could gather up all the condenders and perform a shootout!

[Naemeth]

I agree. At f5 and faster, the Televue would be the safest bet, but it would make for a very interesting comparison if someone could gather up all the condenders and perform a shootout!

If they come up 2nd hand, I could probably amass them, either that or make some enquiries and ask if I can borrow them off anyone. Big ask though, and I'd personally want to not only test at F/5, but at F/4, F/5 and F/6 (maybe F/8), and I just don't have the scopes to do that!

[Ags]

I have a genuine ( ) Celestron 25mm E-Lux plossl and I find that a fine eyepiece for a freebie. It gives sharp view in my ST80, which is a stern test for any eyepiece, particularly widefield ones.

I had a 15mm Omni but I hated it - I suspect it was broken - that would explain why the shop (not FLO) threw it in as a free gift.

[Damo636]

Agreed. What we need is someone with scopes of varying speeds and type to perform this shootout. Someone who has been entrusted in the past with various eps for comparison!

John, are you out there???

[Ags]

Eyepieces are a personal choice, I don't think you can get a truly objective comparison.

[ollypenrice]

I have a Meade and a TeleVue Plossl and assorted scopes and F ratios so I'll give them a shoot out ASAP. I've never done this, actually. In the daytime (I often use the plossls for wildlife in a casual way) the TV is scarcely any different from the Meade but the stars might well show a difference, especially in the F4.1 Newt. I'll wait till it stops raining, though! (Yes, it sometimes happens here too...)

Olly

[FLO]

I tend to side with John, the MA is not a plossl - it bears greater similarity to a Kellner, a recommendation for people with MA's is to upgrade to a plossl for better performance and viewing.

The MA is a 'Modified Achromat' and, lets be honest, is pants.

The Omni isn't an Omni although it is referred to as an Omni throughout.

I agree. In the interest of fairness the Chinese Plossl discussed in this review and described by the retailer as "Based very closely on the Omni range of eyepieces made by Celestron" is definitely not related to the Taiwanese-made Celestron Omni Plossl.

The attached photos show a genuine Celestron Omni Plossl.

HTH,

Steve

[FLO]

PS: It appears to have more in common with the £20 Chinese-made Skywatcher Plossl, except the Skywatcher model has a milled safety undercut in the barrel.

HTH

[Delboy_Hog]

I think it's a great review for all new stargazers with the 10 and 25 supplied MA, who wonder if they would notice a difference if they replace them.

Absolutely, as someone who's never looked through anything else, this makes for very interesting reading! You always wonder what type of improvement you'd get and whether it's worth the extra cash, so reviews like this are very helpful indeed, so thank you Naemeth!

The MA is a 'Modified Achromat' and, lets be honest, is pants.

And I have to say, I thought the 25 was the best of the bunch that my scope came with! I spend more time with that one than any of the others. Maybe I need to invest... <Thinks...pay day soon... >

[FLO]

... reviews like this are very helpful indeed, so thank you Naemeth!

Yes, apologies Naemeth for not acknowledging that. I was reeling from the suggestion the Chinese-made eBay Plossl was based on the Celestron Omni Plossl! So forgot my manners

And I have to say, I thought the 25 was the best of the bunch that my scope came with! I spend more time with that one than any of the others. Maybe I need to invest... <Thinks...pay day soon... >

Sure you sure you have an MA? Most Skywatcher telescopes are supplied with a 10 and 25mm Plossl. The 10mm is poor (internal reflections reduce contrast and cause ghosting) but the 25mm is okay.

HTH

[Naemeth]

Yes, apologies Naemeth for not acknowledging that. I was reeling from the suggestion the Chinese-made eBay Plossl was based on the Celestron Omni Plossl! So forgot my manners

Sure you sure you have an MA? Most Skywatcher telescopes are supplied with a 10 and 25mm Plossl. The 10mm is poor (internal reflections reduce contrast and cause ghosting) but the 25mm is okay.

HTH

Sorry, I really wasn't trying to offend anyone, I was merely told it was a similar design, and that information came directly from the manufacturer. I refered to it throughout the review as the Omni merely because I was typing outdoors (and it was of course cold!) and thus I kept it short. I should have changed it before I posted the review, and for that I am sorry. For the sake of clarity, the Plössls reviewed in this review are Meade and a chinese clone, allegedly a clone of the Celestron Omni, although it may be a clone of a standard Plössl.

[FLO]

You don't need to worry about offending me, I'm a retailer

The Plossl has an interesting history. It was invented back in 1860 but wasn't popular until the 1980's when manufacturers began offering a number of variations. Today the name 'Plossl' is used to describe pretty-much any four-element design and many cheap low quality 'Plossls' are sold under the mistaken belief they are all equal. A 'good' Plossl is actually quite expensive to manufacture because it needs quality glass and well matched convex and concave lenses, otherwise they suffer from internal reflections. I won't turn your thread into an advertisement by mentioning specific brands or models but suffice to say a well-made Plossl is noticeably superior to generic Chinese-made clones.

HTH,

Steve

[whooshbang]

Interesting review and thanks! So in summary, It's a Meade Plossl Vs Omni Chinese clone plossl Vs Skywatcher MA eyepiece?

I am happy with my Meade eyepieces but have never had the luxury of comparison with other plossls. If chinese clones are coming a close second to my meade set then maybe there is room for improvement somewhere? without breaking the bank?

As someone mentioned though it's also down to personal preference.. This review is food for thought though.