BST Starguider reviews

[Dom1961]

Does anyone know of any Starguider reviews? I cant find any on here or on google :'(

[John]

The eyepieces get dozens of mentions on here - just use the "search" facility. They have also been known as the BST Explorers. Meanwhile, here is a review of the same eyepieces under the Astro Tech Paradigm branding:

http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/cn-reports/eyepiece-reports/first-look-astro-tech-paradigm-eyepieces-r1845

[Night Hawk]

Is this something you are looking for?

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/183444-impressions-of-a-bst-starguider/

[Dom1961]

I know they are mentioned a lot its just I couldnt find any in depth reviews

[Dom1961]

Those are great, thanks!!

[russ.will]

The eyepieces get dozens of mentions on here - just use the "search" facility. They have also been known as the BST Explorers. Meanwhile, here is a review of the same eyepieces under the Astro Tech Paradigm branding:

http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/cn-reports/eyepiece-reports/first-look-astro-tech-paradigm-eyepieces-r1845

It was interesting to re-read that review, especially in light of recently having owned a pair of 15mm examples to re-aquaint myself. It's beneficial revisit these things to be sure your memory holds true and/or you aren't just parroting received internet "wisdom".

They lack angular magnification distortion (significantly better than either the TV Delos or Plossls in this regard alone) but have a curved field that requires you re-focus your nice round planet as it nears the edge of field - significantly worse than the aforementioned. The author seems to have got this crossed up and called it pincushion.

I was extremely surprised at just how sharp they were on axis and contrast was excellent with no EFOB. As is usual with long ER EPs, they were difficult to use in daylight (solar) with eye placement slightly tricky (nothing like as bad as a Vixen NPL) indicating a bit of spherical aberration of the exit pupil.

This is why I find the lack of professional, objective reviews in the English language frustrating. I'm a rank amateur (probably got some of the above wrong) but even I can see stuff that review hasn't picked up.

Russell

[John]

I suppose it's only amatuer astronomers who even look through eyepieces today. The professionals are all busy studying the Universe through other methods.

I'm grateful that anyone is prepared to contribute their thoughts on a product to a public forum for free though. I've enjoyed the reviews that Tom Trusock, Ed Ting, Todd Gross and others have posted on the web over the years. I'm certainly not up to their standards

[russ.will]

You know what I mean. The Germans have Wolfgang Rohr and we have what?

Russell

[John]

You know what I mean. The Germans have Wolfgang Rohr and we have what?

Russell

Perhaps you could give some examples of what you consider good quality reviews posted on free-to-view forums so that us poor folks who try and post stuff have something to guide our efforts ?

NB: I ought to point out that personally I don't have access to a Zygo testing facility, or similar

[russ.will]

I just did.

There's no need to get defensive and I too am happy to read those same sources. I too have taken the time to write up my experiences of stuff I have owned - I'm not lucky enough to get free astro stuff, just hi-fi and home cinema.

It's just that as a [former] reviewer from another sphere, I'm reluctant to accept the 'findings' of anybody else until I've correlated it with my own ears/eyes and there's the rub - They're mine and they're different, so some stuff checks out and some stuff doesn't and a lot of that BST/Epic report doesn't to my eyes. There is no arguing with that.

The 'Berichte' link in the German site is for reports and it's all posted and discussed at astro-foren.com. However, that only currently covers scopes, which again is part of the frustration. The Japanese have some excellent objective resources too, although that just seems to create differences of opinion between how to interpret who's results. Alas, measurement also requires a measurement standard and even the manufacturers have their own interpretations of what that should be, or even what they think relevant. It shouldn't stop people from trying though.

Russell

[ronin]

Dom just remember one aspect = the BST's are still a sub (just) £50 eyepiece, they started out less then that at £36 I think as Explorers.

People saying their £400 Pentax and £250 Delos and £500 Ethos are better and they would not swap is just not a fair comparison, and I suspect that you will get this.

[YKSE]

Ronin,

Since you've had BSTs AND TV plossls for years, wouldn't it be more appropriate that you write a review about these eyepieces?

[ronin]

Wouldn't know where to start or finish, I like them, they do what I want, really just that simple.

I also have small refractors which is not the normal for many people here - works OK in the WO GT81 but no idea how this would relate to a 200P.

All reviews are somewhat personel as well, always recall a friend in photography they like the Kodachorome and I liked the Ektachrome.

Who was correct?

Neither of us is the answer.

Oddly I would only say they work for me, having worked in optics and having myopia and astigmatism I do not count a pair of eyes (mine) as necessarily suited to reviewing the actual performance of either. Cannot produce any numerical data to back up anything so nothing other then an opinion.

If Dom were closer I would meet up and they could try the BST's and or TV's.

That is the easier option, then other then my opinion (and just opinion) they could decide themselves.

Did that to one person at work and another in Cambridge.

But like say a Telrad, people rave about them being good, I tried one and couldn't use it to save my life, worst finder I ever experienced. That does not mean that everyone should forget ever using them, just I should.

For all I or any one can say is BST's should be an improvement over what Dom has, 95% or 98% sure they will be. But that is an improvement not perfection, I do not expect perfection on a £49 eyepiece.

[russ.will]

.... recall a friend in photography they like the Kodachorome and I liked the Ektachrome.

Who was correct?

Neither of us is the answer.

Correct - you should both have been using Fujichrome! 

Russell

[Roy Challen]

Perhaps you could give some examples of what you consider good quality reviews posted on free-to-view forums so that us poor folks who try and post stuff have something to guide our efforts ?

NB: I ought to point out that personally I don't have access to a Zygo testing facility, or similar

I do! But it's set up for metallurgy.

[YKSE]

having worked in optics

Glad you mention that again, I'm looking forward to read an insightful analysis or comment from you about optics, other than mentioning "Bird-Jones design" to beginners.