Jump to content

 

1825338873_SNRPN2021banner.jpg.68bf12c7791f26559c66cf7bce79fe3d.jpg

 

kurtz9

New Members
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Carolina
  1. Personally if I couldn't use a 2" EP the longest FL I'd probably have is 24mm.... a 68 degree AFOV 24mm like the ES68-24 is about the maximum field you can get in a 1.25" EP anyway, so why lower the magnification if you won't fit any more sky in?
  2. If you want a straight use EP the ES82 in 8.8 or the ES100 in 9mm would work great for you... Another option if you have a 2x barlow of some kind would be the ES14, which comes in both 82 and 100 AFOVs and barlows down to 7mm at 2x (and as an owner of a 9.25 myself, 7mm works just great on moon/planets even in average/not great seeing- your skies may vary of course) And if you DON'T have a 2x right now, well, you can get the 14mm 100 degree ES -and- a 2" 2x ES focal extender for less than what a comparable Ethos by itself costs.... and most folks find the ES100s and Ethos equal in visual quality (especially given you're using a slow scope)
  3. To be clear- If folks feel like they want to pay 2-3 times as much for a product to support innovation, or because they prefer the behavior of a particular company over another, I completely, totally, and firmly support their right to do that. It's their money, they should be perfectly free to "vote" with it how they want.... and I certainly see the appeal in encouraging companies that innovate. For that matter if they want to pay 2-3 times more because they feel good about having a certain brand name, I think that's silly personally, but certainly support your right to do that too. My objection is when folks attempt to justify having spent a lot more by insisting it's a functionally much better product, when in most cases, to most observers, in most scopes, it genuinely isn't- to the point that most threads you can find comparing them are filled with folks saying they couldn't see much difference. It's why I wish there was some way to do a genuinely "blind" EP comparison.... I guess you'd have to build some sort of generic-looking box/shroud for every EP you intended to test to make it impossible to tell what brand/model a person is looking through... Because I'd bet real money most folks in most scopes would not reliably be able to pick the "expensive" EP as the better one in such a face off between ES100s and Ethos (or ES82s and Naglers... or ES68s and Panoptics)
  4. Right, because when he bought those the ES equivalents didn't exist. He's since mentioned if he had it to do all over again today he'd have ESes in there instead of Televues because having since compared them he can't find the value in paying 2x (or nearly 3x in 20/21mm) for basically identical views. Hence my advice to the OP to consider doing the same. And yes I know he's an SCT user- so am I primarily, as I mentioned. Though it's worth noting many of the users in the other threads I referenced are F5-ish Newt users who also felt the ES EPs stood up just fine against the Televues in their scopes too.... (especially those running with a paracorr) YMMV of course- overall I'd encourage folks to try both on their own if possible, with their scope, in their conditions, and their eyes.
  5. No I wouldn't, because it's not. I'm running a 9.25" F/10 scope, and not getting it to any bortle 1 sights in the foreseable future. I'd about bet cash money you couldn't tell the difference between TV and ES eps under those conditions in a blind comparison... (just as soon as someone figures out how to do an honest blind comparison of EPs ) When I compared them myself- and this was before I'd decided to "keep" either- so I had no horse in the race at that point- I was perfectly willing to keep the TVs if they were actually noticeably better.... they weren't. Now- in a much darker sky, with a super highly trained observer, and a much faster scope (and maybe without any paracorr) maybe you can start to see differences that'd matter... the folks who spent twice as much on EPs certainly seem to think so anyway But an awful lot of people sure don't seem to be able to- Heck, here's a guy who analyzed them so deeply he xrayed and was unable to find any significant difference between em even then (plus a lot of actual in-scope testing) ES14-100 vs Ethos 13: http://www.svenwienstein.de/HTML/es_14mm_ethos_13mm_English.html For that matter, Rod Mollise, who presumably knows a bit about observing, having published a number of astronomy books and all, also commented that he couldn't find any significantly different- It's quite possible your eyes are better than mine...but... My result in one on one testing of the Ethos vs. ES100 at the Chiefland Astronomy Village a while back not long after the ESes came out was "virtually indistinguishable." Here another thread- http://www.cloudynig...tific-14mm-100/ Of the 4 people who have directly compared both on page 1 we get:1 saying they're basically identical in performance1 saying he prefers the ES1 saying he only prefered the Ethos due to how ER impacted him1 saying the ethos has a very very slight edge in field curvatureor this- http://stargazerslou...fic-100-degree/ Here's another where he compares 3 different FLs of ES100 vs the comparable Ethos EPs and then another poster also mentions directly comparing ES100s and EthosesAgain they're basically a pick-em situation with the 9mm ES beating the 10mm Ethos but the 13/21 ethos slightly better than the ES but "very close"As to resale, gotta disagree there too.... we just had this conversation over on CN, and I was shocked how much resale $ the TV EPs lost... $650 new Nagler 31s go for $450 used...just the lost resale there would cover almost 2/3rd of what I bought my equivalent ES82-30 for brand new... (Granted the TVs start with a lot higher price to lose value from....but I don't consider that a selling point either) As to the steak dinner thing- If you live someplace a steak costs over $500 (the price difference between a 20mm ES100 and a 21mm Ethos)... or even just over $200 (difference between the new ES100-14 I recently bought and a new Ethos 13).... you should really think about going vegan
  6. Silly idea... but.... if you're happy with the maxvision 28mm... why not just get a 2x focal extender? That'd give you 14mm with exactly the same eye relief as the original eyepiece.... and (in the US anyway) the ES 2x FE is only a few bucks more than the 14mm ES82 is That'd also let you use the radian at 5mm for a higher mag option with wider FOV compared to your Vixen.... and even give you a 3mm option if you ever have a night of perfect seeing
  7. I combine the stock red dot with the celestron 9x50 RACI.... this way I only have to contort myself for about 5 seconds to get whatever in the FOV of the RACI, then I can center it there, and then center in the EP to hit align.... repeat a second time (or a third if using sky align instead of 2 star) and I'm done.
  8. Nope... just to be extra confusing Televue makes BOTH telecentric and non-telecentric units. The telecentric ones are specifically called Powermates, the non-tele ones are "just" barlows. The Powermates are only available in 2x and 4x in 2" and 2.5x and 5x in 1.25" Likewise the Telecentrics from Explore Scientific are only made in 2x for 2" and 2x, 3x, and 5x for 1.25" Only place I know of you could get a telecentric 2.25x would be Seibert- because he makes pretty much anything you want so long as you don't mind a potentially long wait for it
  9. Just to be contrary For the price of a single 21mm Ethos you could instead get: An Explore Scientific 20mm 100 degree AND An Explore Scientific 14mm 100 degree AND A really nice steak dinner and there's no shortage of folks who've directly compared the ES100-20 to the Ethos 21 and the ES100-14 to the Ethos 13 and found very little to no difference other than price. (YMMV by scope, observer, location, and target of course)
  10. FWIW a few companies also make telecentric barlows- these do NOT change the eye relief or anything else other than the magnification. The Powermates from Televue do this, as do the Focal Extenders from Explore Scientific. (Seibert also makes telecentrics, but good luck actually getting one)
  11. That's one of the best parts- The weight of the big EPs with a focal extender lets me move my C9.25 far enough forward on the dovetail that the big 2" diagonal clears the base going to zenith Plus it's much harder to misplace huge eyepieces or have em slip from your fingers since you need to hold em with your whole hand!
  12. I find it to be excellent... I do find if you want to see the very edges of the field you need to move your eyeball around some, but haven't had the need to get close enough that I brush my lashes on the top of the lens or anything....and that's with the eyecup UP (ie I didn't need to roll it down) The fact the field stop isn't obvious looking dead on is one of the things that really contributes to feeling like you're doing the spacewalk thing rather than just looking through a little piece of glass I expect folks with glasses or different vision than mine will get varying results of course- I know I've seen some folks (like John) mention needing to roll the eyecup down to see it all for example. Eye relief is 14.5mm if that helps you any...it also turns into a nice 100 degree AFOV 10mm EP in the ES 2" focal extender, with no change to the eye relief. That's really weird... given they're from the same company I would expect their price relative to each other at least would be the same everywhere.... (for reference in the recent sale you could get the ES82-30mm for $315, on sale from $339.... and the ES100-20mm was on sale for $279, down from $329 regular price)
  13. If the scope is now slightly rear heavy, but less so than it was previously front heavy and worked fine, I doubt you'll have any issue. BTW if you decide you want higher magnification in the future let me recommend the ES-100 degree in 20mm, it's the most reasonably priced of the 100 degree series (actually slightly cheaper than the 30mm 82) and produces excellent views in my 9.25" F/10
  14. The Ethos is comparable to the ES-100 series... (and as noted by many, they're very close- with many such as in the link I provided preferring the ES over the TV, and some preferring the TV). They're certainly close enough in visual quality, while far apart in price, that I'd again encourage folks to try both before buying either if they get the chance. For the Delos- those are a line of 72 degree long-ER EPs in shorter FLs (they don't go any higher than 17.3) from TV... If you're someone who needs a good bit of ER for higher mag EPs the Delos is a great option- and there is no equivalent option at all from ES there. But for the Panoptics, Naglers, and Ethos, there is. The EPs I most often see compared to the Delos are the Pentax XWs... no cost savings there though compared to TV For the OP- I agree if they're ES82 copies they'll be excellent- my concern would be paying prices similar to the original without getting the same support/warranty as the original.... though if they're being bought in Europe that might be less of an issue as I don't think ES europe offers the same lifetime warranty ES does here.
  15. No, apparently they justify it by just declaring "it's better" despite folks who have actually directly compared not agreeing with em I wonder if cognitive dissonance is to blame It's unreasonable because they're different lines from the same makers who offer both types of EPs. Zeiss never made 82 or 100 degree lines so you can't compare those directly in the same way. But TV and ES -do- make identical lines across 68, 82, and 100 FOVs. So the fairest comparisons are the ES68s versus the TV Panoptics... the ES82s versus the Naglers... and the ES100s versus the Ethos. And as I've pointed out- usually when people directly compare, there's no "clear winner" on either side across the board. Some folks prefer TV.... Some prefer ES... and a few see no significant differences at all. But almost universally those who have actually compared the two do not note huge differences. Other than price of course. Heck, in your own post even you admit when you do that (directly compare the most comparable EPs between them) the difference is small. If you personally prefer the little things the nagler does better....and find that's worth paying twice as much, knock yourself out.... Others prefer the little things the ES does better, plus the fact they get similar performance for a lot less cost. I'd certainly encourage folks to try both if they have the opportunity to and decide for themselves..... that's what I did, and that's why I own the ESes and the televues got returned. I could see the small things each did better.... (generally same as what is noted elsewhere- the TV gives slightly sharper edge of FOV stars, the ES gives slightly better light transmission) and not only were the differences small, with a slight preference on my part for the brighter views, the fact the ES was half the price made the choice even easier. TV is generally the benchmark because in most of these widefield classes they were first to market- So everyone will always want to know if a new entry is a worthwhile alternatve. Sometimes- like Celestrons 82 degree EPs- the answer is no- they're not a worthwhile alternative, performance is significantly inferior. Sometimes- like the ES lines in 68, 82, and 100- the answer is yes.... it is a worthwhile alternative, performance is very comparable, and one would do well to try both if they can before buying, but either will offer outstanding results.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.