Louis D

23 hours ago, allworlds said:

Louis D, you say that, but ENS Optical is selling a 6 inch Mak with a whacking great chip in its corrector. (Selling it very cheap, of course.)

Yes, but notice the damage hasn't spread.  That corrector looks to be in no danger of shattering.  If shipping wasn't so high to the US (and ENS not removing VAT for US customers in their cart), I'd have a go with it.  They're $900 new over here.  I seriously doubt it has much if any effect on the image if completely masked off.  I don't see any evidence of spalled glass on the primary, either.

Compare that to these shattered SCT correctors.  What's going to hold the secondary in position in some of these cases?

1 hour ago, TheLookingGlass said:

The Baader Morphs do not "kidney bean" like Type 4 Naglers do.

Yes, there is literally no way to avoid kidney beaning once you are close enough to see the field stop.  It's so bad, though, that it is hard to recognize as such.  Most folks write it off as a fussy exit pupil instead.  You can see how bad they are in my comparison image below:

The 14mm Morpheus basically has none.

4 hours ago, quaoar said:

Since I went on a meat only, 1 meal a day diet, 4 years ago my floaters have disappeared. I'm 55. FWIW. 

I'm picturing you like this at mealtime: 😄

A bit off topic continuation (apologies to OP), but here goes:

I rarely use Barlows because of parfocality issues, long moment arm balance issues, exit pupil issues, and vignetting issues.  This despite the fact that I have five 1.25" Barlows, one 1.25" telecentric magnifier, two 2" Barlows, and a TV PBI.

I will tend to put the 2" GSO ED 2x Barlow and TV PBI into the focuser and leave them, simply observing for the rest of the night at 2x.  I find it fun to use my big glass at higher powers that way.

1 hour ago, TheLookingGlass said:

Pointless to own something, but never use it lol. 

Try telling that to stamp, coin, memorabilia, etc. collectors.

You'd like Jay Leno since he keeps his extensive antique car collection running and drives them occasionally thanks to his top notch garage team.  However, he is very wealthy and can afford it.

You've simply reinforced my conviction to only use Maks for travel scopes at 6" and under if the only other choice is an SCT.  Their thick meniscus correctors are practically invulnerable to damage in comparison to an SCT's thin corrector plate.

Agreed about the APM UFF.  I'm just not sure if it is reasonably priced in Australia.  There are the other brandings of it as well that might be cheaper in AUS $.

If the 31mm Luminos is as bad SAEP-wise as my 20mm Meade 5000 UWA, I can understand your friend's decisions to sell it.

22 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

A question: the outward face of the eye lens on the Morpheus appears to be completely flat. No other eyepiece I've seen has this feature, all the others have been obviously convex.

The 1.25" Pentax XWs and XLs appear completely flat to my eye as well:

I don't have it handy, or any diagrams for it to confirm; but from recollections, my 10mm Delos also appears to also have a (mostly) flat eye lens.  I think my 9mm Vixen LV does as well.

Agreed.  Doubling aperture diameter to a 12" would definitely be a noticeable step up.  I went from an 8" to a 15" Dob.  However, soon after, my back was ripped up by an auto accident (not my fault at all), and I haven't been out with it in years.  Thus, the 8" gets the use.  I ended up going the other direction to see what smaller scopes that I could manage to setup could do.

Please excuse me if it's inappropriate to create and post my own interpretation of someone else's image, but I wondered what I could do with some simple Photoshop Elements edits of the hybrid image above.  After some levels adjustments, increased saturation, and selective unsharp masking, I came up the following:

I'll admit I'm a sucker for colors that POP!

OMG, those prices are so high compared to USD prices! 😮  I hope y'all are paid roughly 2x what Americans are paid in absolute NZD.

At those prices, I would either watch the astro classified ads or go for the most aperture possible with FPL-51 glass.  If you go with a slightly longer focal ratio at 80mm, FPL-51 glass should be fine for all but the highest power viewing.

26 minutes ago, Philip R said:

I am being serious now... Looking at the second image, I think it is a diffraction grating that fits over the eyepiece? 🤔... I have seen the item somewhere, but cannot remember when and/or where and that is so damn frustrating! 😬

Building on that, try focusing/pointing on/at a fluorescent light fixture, and then put it over the eyepiece to see if you get a spectrum with a few prominent emission lines:

14 hours ago, badhex said:

Thanks @Louis D - nice solution. I have been toying with the idea of an FF for one (or both) of my fracs, but always seen a lot of mixed opinions about how useful it is for visual. How crucial is the placement of the FF in the optical path (i.e. distance from objective or EP)? 

Supposedly, separation is dependent on focal length, but I've found that the same extra 15mm of separation from the diagonal body works fine for both the 432mm FL AT72ED and 600mm FL 90mm TS APO.  I removed the extra 15mm for the latter, but couldn't detect any difference visually, so I left it in to keep things simpler.  Since the GSO diagonal has a 112mm optical path according to Bill Paolini, that makes the total added separation distance about 127mm as compared to no diagonal/FF.

At first, I tried just screwing the TSFLAT2 onto the M48 filter threads of the original diagonal nosepiece.  It was clearly too much separation as the field got rather wonky.  It does help flatten the field of my 14mm Pentax XL, though.  If I pull it out of the focuser a bit as well, it gets a nearly flat field and sharpens up nicely to the edge.

I have found that high power, planetary images are better when I remove it because it adds some spherical aberration on axis.  It's totally invisible at mid/low powers (think of exit pupils greater than 1.5mm).

It really cleans up wide field, low power views and ultrawide mid power views.  It's similar to using a coma corrector in a Newtonian.  Once you've seen the correction effect, it's hard to go back to not using one.

Here are the suggested separation distanced based on focal length:

• focal length < 450 mm: 128 mm
• focal length 450-490 mm: 123 mm
• focal length 500-550 mm: 118 mm
• focal length 560-590 mm: 116 mm
• focal length 600-690 mm: 113 mm
• focal length 700-800 mm: 111 mm
• focal length ab 800 mm: 108 mm

I didn't think it would work for the 600mm FL APO based on this table since the diagonal enforces a minimum separation of 112mm unless I screwed it straight onto the diagonal body, but it seemed no different as compared to using 127mm of separation.  Experimentation is the key.

On 03/10/2022 at 09:22, badhex said:

Would love to see a couple of pictures of this setup Louis! 

Finally got to taking pictures of the TSFLAT2 attached to my 2" GSO dielectric diagonal this weekend.  Please ignore the dust in the second picture.  I think it's on the mirror, not the flattener optics.  It doesn't bother me or the images, so I'm not about to touch it.

The diagonal may say OPT, but it's still GSO made.

If this were a stereo microscopy forum, I'd guess it was an auxiliary magnifying lens to fit over the objectives, although the optics seem a bit small in diameter for this purpose.

Any idea how you came to possess it?

4 hours ago, Westmoorland said:

I'll be getting a Masuyama 32mm 82 degrees for my low power. My Baader Morpheus 14mm is my only premium current eyepiece and I think I'll get the Baader Hyperion zoom for everything else.

 

 

In what scope do you plan to use it?  It performs best in slower scopes (SCTs, Maks, CCs, slow refractors, etc.).

5 hours ago, markse68 said:

PS while we’re off topic, in 1.25”, 24mm UFF or HD-60 25mm?

Depends on your budget and ability to find the Meade used.  The 24mm UFF has a significantly wider TFOV (27.5mm FS) than the 25mm HD-60 (24.9mm).  It also has better edge correction, although the very edge sort of fuzzes out because the design was pushed too far.  Sharpness-wise, they're similar.  Usable eye relief is similar in both.  The UFF weighs 12.2 ounces while the HD-60 weighs 7.5 ounces.  Since I have 2" focusers, I much prefer the 22mm AT AF70 (Omegon Redline SW) at that TFOV and power.  It's better than either sharpness-wise across the field with about the same TFOV (28.6mm FS).  Oberwerk sells a 1.25" version singly if you contact them directly.

See below for images at f/6 in a field flattened 72ED:

A Japanese made Meade 4000 4-element vs 3000 comparison would seem interesting.  I wonder what distinguished them from each other.

Does anyone know if the 3000 series was intended as a value line by Meade?  Was it ever repackaged into a rubber grip barrel like the 4000 line?  I wonder if the later 4 element 4000 series was really a repackaged 3000 series.

Well, I had a quick first light with the  2.5mm Planetary TMB II eyepiece in my AT72ED.  Here are my recollections:

• Its field of view appears to be flat, sharp, and color free edge to edge after looking at Luna at nearly full phase, Jupiter, and Saturn.
• I didn't notice any imparted color tone on Luna.
• Craters, NEB/SEB, and rings all looked clean and well defined.
• Stars and Galilean moons appeared pinpoint edge to edge with no refocusing.
• I didn't see any flaring, glare, scatter, ghosting, etc.
• I didn't see any indication of bright objects just outside the field of view casting light into the FOV.
• There is no thin blue line at the field stop nor any false color on the limb of Luna.
• There is just barely enough eye relief to take in the entire FOV with my eyeglasses pressed to the retracted and folded eyecup, so I'd estimate about 15mm of ER.  However, at that tiny exit pupil, my astigmatism was a non-issue without eyeglasses.
• The AFOV appears to be on the order of 60 degrees.  I'll have to run it through my testing measurements to get an exact number.
• I did not try to check for edge astigmatism on a bright star because none were handy.  However, it would seem to have very low levels if it is present.
• The eye cup tube twists up and down smoothly through maybe 1cm of travel.
• The eye cup itself flips up and down and seems just the right stiffness to stay in place.
• I didn't notice any kidney beaning (SAEP), ring of fire (CAEP), general blackouts, or edge of field brightening (EOFB).
• It is labelled AQUILA, not TMB, as in the stock image below.  I'll take and upload images of my eyepiece when I get the chance.
• The matte black color, rubber grips, and chrome bands make for a handsome looking eyepiece.
• The tapered undercut is very shallow and caused zero issues inserting or removing the eyepiece into/from a compression ring eyepiece holder.
• I saw no debris in the FOV on the face of Luna.

Overall, a very impressive debut by a $35 eyepiece.  So far, I highly recommend it.  I'll have to do eyepiece/Barlow comparisons sometime when I have more time, and I'm less exhausted from a busy Saturday.

Aquila brand:

instead of TMB Optical

which is probably best since I'm sure TMB's estate isn't getting any royalties on the sale of these eyepieces.

5 hours ago, graham56 said:

i still use the 3000 series 40mm plossl in a max bright2  narrow field but crystal clear ,27mm field stop so no vignetting a lot better than the 4000 series imho

Which 4000 series?  The original Japanese 5 element smoothies, the same in a rubber grip barrel, or the various 4 element Chinese made versions?  Don't quote me, but I think there was even a Japanese made 4 element version.

Don beat me to link to Ernest's tests.  I refer to them often as a double check on my own testing.  We're generally in pretty close alignment.

Here's Ernest's general eyepiece testing forum:

http://astro-talks.ru/forum/viewforum.php?f=32&sid=2ae665e58ed7af435f7ca61502fcbf44

and in organized/indexed form:

http://astro-talks.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1897#p29513

An xls spreadsheet of my testing results:

Eyepiece-Data-Summary v1.0.xls

A few of my threads testing eyepieces:

In the daytime, you will definitely be benefiting from the pinhole effect.  The smaller the pupil opening, the greater the depth of focus.

I also wonder if the spotting scope is slightly slower (higher f-ratio) and as such has a slightly greater depth of focus.  I know if you stop down a telephoto lens, it will have greater depth of focus.

I would try both scopes under identical viewing conditions.  Same lighting, subject, etc.  I would also try an off-axis aperture mask on the H150 to see if depth of focus improves any.

13 hours ago, allworlds said:

And I spend too much time in front of a screen so I kind of prefer my books and magazines to be paper.

Me too.  When Outdoor Photographer switched to digital-only during the height of the pandemic, I couldn't bring myself to do more than glance through the photos.  I let my subscription lapse.

Which Meade UWA 14mm were you using?  There was the vintage 4000 version (actually 2, smoothie which I have and recessed eye lens with rubber grips) which I've found has terrible stray light control and outdated coatings, and the newer 5000 version which may have been either JOC (ES/Bresser) or some other manufacturer (pre/post ~2013).  Side-by-side, I found the 14mm Morpheus better than the 4000 version in all respects.  It wasn't even close.