John

11 minutes ago, Captain Magenta said:

I really must try harder then. I’ve tried for the Veil with 10x50 binoculars from where I currently live, 21.8 skies, without success.

I've seen the Eastern Veil with 11x70 binoculars on an excellent night here and under really dark Dartmoor (Devon) skies but not in smaller binoculars, thus far.

It's bloomin cold and windy out there plus the seeing is none to good either. I decided to set my Tak FC100-DL up for wider fields so I was able to give the focuser some work to do with the 2 inch diagonal and this beast !

While the seeing is rather poor the transparency between the scudding cloud patches is excellent. The views of the M31 group and the Perseus double cluster are superb

11 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

However I remember one respondent saying how it was just nice to hold a well engineered, designed piece of glass carefully wrapped in precision machined metal in ones hand and know that you have something of true quality workmanship.

I think this is the case with a great telescope. The difference between performance between mid and top range scopes is similarly very little but there is that feeling you get when it isn't a mass produced item built to a price but an item that is built to a standard, a high one at that.

That is a very good point and does chime with me. I suppose pride of ownership also comes into the equation as well

7 minutes ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Sod's Law in action tonight. It's crystal clear outside and forecast to remain so until tomorrow morning. The temperature will dip to around 1°c. The perfect night if it wasn't for the 15mph wind gusting at 25mph. Am I a wimp for not setting up, or sensible? 🙄

Similar here. I am out with my refractor having a quick look at Jupiter and Saturn but a) it's cold, b) it's gusty and c) the seeing seems to be rather poor.

I doubt that I'll be out much longer

I'm not a regular binocular user but I found a pair of older, Japanese 11x70's by Opticron (the Oregon LER I think the model is) pre-owned and find that I can hand hold them reasonably comfortably, which is a big plus for me. I think the current Oregon binoculars are different though - the LERs are out of production now.

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

And what about all the scopes in between?

When I tested them back in 2010 the scopes I used were a 250mm F/4.8 newtonian, an F/5.9 150mm mak-newtonian and an F/6.5 102mm ED doublet refractor. The astrgmatism (which is what I think I was seeing) was very apparent in the outer 20% of the field with the newtonain and quite a lot less, but still there to some extent, in the slower scopes. I suspect that @bomberbaz is correct that around F/8 and slower will enable the Hyperions to show their full qualities (and they do have them).

The Hyperions are thoughtfully designed and nicely made eyepieces.

3 hours ago, 12green said:

Thanks for help. Are Vixen SLV are warmer/cooler colour on axis than Starguiders.

The SLVs have a very similar presentation to the Pentax XWs I felt, but with a smaller AFoV of course.

I found that being loaned equipment (many thanks FLO) to try out and report on for the forum helped with observer bias.

Not having had to invest my own hard earned money meant or worry about re-selling losses did help keep a level head and clear mind when comparing items.

It also meant interesting packages arrived from time to time

3 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

While there are some differences in high end equipment, a lot of what is perceived is down to expectation bias. If something costs a lot more, we expect it to be a lot better and so that's what we see.....

 

I suppose that is what is lacking - quantifiable testing of optics in an unbiased way. The French magazine "Ceil et Espace" used to publish eyepiece group tests that included a whole array of optical bench tests alongside the more subjective practical observing ones. There is a Russian based astronomer known as Ernest who does something similar for eyepieces.

Herr Rohr in Germany used to do quite a lot of independent optical testing of scopes but not so many lately:

http://interferometrie.blogspot.com/2014/?view=classic

To counter that, there are many folks (me included) who are more interested in how a scope performs to their eyes, under the stars, than in looking at lots of technical test reports.

Having owned a couple of expensive scopes for over 5 years now I'm in the camp which feels that they perform a little better than much lower cost alternatives but in the cold light of day, justifying the additional cost on that basis of that performance difference alone would be challenging

Luckily, I don't have to !

The independently measured AFoV of the Baader 8-24 zoom is:

43.8° at 24mm
48.9° at 20mm
54.0° at 16mm
59.4° at 12mm
68.4° at 8mm

(source: Don Pensack's Eyepieces Etc website)

With the Baader Q-Turret 2.25x barlow I can see clear vignetting of the AFoV of the 24mm Panoptic (field stop diameter 27mm) but none with the 17.3mm Delos (F/S diameter 21.2mm).

My guess is that the field stop diameter of the Baader zoom will not be large enough to cause noticeable vignetting even at the 24mm setting.

14 minutes ago, paulastro said:

If you work at it, you may be able to do what I did. I slowly introduced one of my scopes into the lounge over a period of time.  One day at a time, and then two days and so on with some gaps when it stays in my office/library for a day or so.  Eventually my wife has accepted my scopes as members of the family, so I now no longer need to resort to 'glancing lovingly'. 😊

This does work. I have 6 scopes located in our dining room now. 3 in an alcove one corner and 3 hidden from view in a cupboard in the opposite corner. I've offered to put some sliding doors over the alcove but my other half says that the scopes don't bother her.

They do create a "conversation point" if we ever have guests but that has been very, very rarely over the past 18 months of course.

I don't have grandchildren just yet but when and if that happens my kids are already joking that I will be known as "Grampy Telescopes"

Better than "Grumpy" I suppose !

I think this is what lies behind this labeling:

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65

16 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

This same question can be posed of shoes, cars, golf clubs, televisions, computers, kitchen knives, cell phones, and on and on. It is human nature to want the best we can have given what our budgets allow, once one spends many years 

in a hobby one wishes to gravitate towards the best they can afford. Regardless of how similar said object is to a less expensive brand, it becomes a right of passage to ones self.

For astronomy equipment I agree. For practically everything else I'm not bothered to be honest. That's probably just me though

15 minutes ago, vineyard said:

In wine, there are blind tastings all the time (even double-blind).  In medical trials, double-blind is standard.  Have people ever tried that in astronomy (either visual or AP)?  The judgment of Paris was (rightly) famous in wine circles b/c it showed that when tasted blind, Californian wines knocked the hallowed French brands off their perch.  Even French drinkers picked (unknowingly!) the Californian wines as better.  Would be v interesting to see that tried in astronomy!

I've read of "blind testing" sessions for eyepieces occasionally but not of telescopes. It's an interesting idea.

With some of the ES eyepiece ranges, what seems to have happened is that ES signed an exclusivity deal with a manufacturer with a 2 year (or so) term. Once that ended, the manufacturer was free to market the design to other brands.

I've seen a similar thing with other designs, eg: the Long Perng made 82 degree range. Originally it was only available under the William Optics branding (the UWAN range) but after a while started appearing under other brandings, often at a lower cost.

Now whether the specifications are exactly the same in all respects, is hard to tell. In the past it has been possible for a brand to specify better quality coatings for example, especially if they were ordering a large quantity.

29 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

... What it is not though is snobbery......

 

I think that is the least likely reason for wanting to own one. Astronomers are practical, down to earth folks from the ones that I've met 

Curiosity was probably the strongest driver for me, having been in the hobby for many years and having read about these almost mythical brands and models. When the chance came to procure one (or two) of my own, the temptation was too much to resist

My observing circumstances are such that I am "aperture limited" as well and the 12 inch dobsonian is as far as I can go in that direction so the other direction to aspire to is quality.

Interesting responses so far - many thanks

48 minutes ago, Steve said:

My understanding is if an eyepiece has that label then it was originally intended for sale in California. I don’t think the label is required outside of California. 

That is my understanding as well. The Californian requirements very stringent apparently and have resulted on such labeling appearing on a surprisingly wide range of products.

This is a genuine question that I have been asking myself for the past 5 years or so but I'm still unsure what the answer is.

We have access to some excellent scopes these days for great prices and yet there seems to be unabated enthusiasm still for similar specified scopes from the really expensive marques.

My personal experience seems to indicate that the actual performance differences between moderately expensive scope and one of the really expensive versions amount to perhaps 5% or so (depends on how you quantify performance I suppose) but the price differential is often very much more than that - sometime 2x or 3x as expensive.

So what is it that motivates quite a number of us (including myself) to want to own these expensive instruments ?.

My best guess is that, once you have been in the hobby for some time, you develop a burning curiosity to see "what the fuss is all about" with these highly reputed brands. With widespread reporting, through forums such as SGL, I think expectations on what they deliver are, broadly well managed so there is no expectation that whole new target areas will become attainable but it is more about an enthusiasts desire to be using something that is, or is close to, as "good as it gets" within it's niche.

I'd be very interested in others views on this though, both those who have "taken the plunge" and those who have not

I've avoided the terms "premium" and "top end" deliberately because I'm not sure that they are helpful.

11 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Here's a sketch of M57 as observed through a 100mm apo just for you. ☺ It takes time to get properly dark adapted, but with carful observation and the use of averted vision its amazing how the detail comes into view.

Here's another nice object, M1 the Crab nebula, and again the finer detail flickers in and out of view when using averted vision. This sketch was made using a 128mm apo.

Below is the old classic that's worth searching for, The Messier Album and John Mallas with his beautiful 4" Unitron refractor.

Great stuff as usual Mike 

I find it fascinating that you have sketched that magnitude 13.2 star next to the Ring Nebula. I have seen it with my 100mm / 102mm refractors as well and yet the limiting magnitude for the aperture is often given as 12.8-12.9.

Personally I think the scope performance calculators "understate" the capabilities of a quality refractor

1 hour ago, scarp15 said:

... Currently, besides the 21E, I do from time to time, consider selling my Ethos; 6, 8, 13 and settling for Delos and DeLite's....

That goes through my mind from time to time as well. My 1.25 inch eyepieces are Delos and Pentax XW's. Then again I sometimes think about staying with the bigger eyepieces and disposing of most of the 1.25 inch set

I used to be indecisive but I'm not so sure now .....

It has been rather poor here as well. I've had a few short sessions observing Jupiter early evening and then it's clouded out the rest of the night

If my 100mm refractor was not very quick to cool I'd have probably not observed at all on those nights.

This evening, another 20 minutes or so observing Jupiter while supper cooked. After supper, it has clouded over. This is turning into a pattern lately

It is just as well that the 100mm refractor hardly needs any cool down time.

4 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Lovely set, John.

Looking at them, I wonder if the main difference from then and now for you is mainly just the larger fov and extra eye relief, rather than outright sharpness and contrast on axis?🤔😉

Dave

 

Thanks Dave.

Since then I have moved over to eyepiece sets with Ethos or Pentax XW / Delos eyepieces at their core because I felt that these delivered both the widest views I wanted (Ethos) more eye comfort (XW / Delos) and slight performance improvements over the Naglers in the areas of sharpness, light scatter and neutral tone. The performance differences are slight though - the Naglers are excellent eyepieces.

This thread has more mentions of Tasco than any I've seen on SGL for many years !

This was the set that I had about 12 years ago and very fond of them I was too !: