Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

278 Excellent

About JTEC

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I’m not sure it’s helpful to frame the debate this way - but it is your question and I know what you’re getting at. I have a pretty eclectic bunch of eyepieces including a 13mm Ethos, 8 and 10mm Delos, 5 and 7mm Pentax XW and pairs of the Tak orthos at 6, 9 and 12.5mm to use mono or bino. The wider fields are all ‘sharp’ with, to my eye, the 10mm Delos being marginally the sharpest and most transparent, followed by the 8mm, and the other three differ more in character than in quality. The orthos are perhaps a teeny bit sharper than the best of the ‘wide fields’. But here’s the thing, I think
  2. One more for the Televue Powermates - superb optically and mechanically, pretty much invisible in the train.
  3. I have wondered the same thing, Louis. BillP’s review of the BBHS made it sound very tempting. I’d like to give one a try but can’t justify the expense of doing so.
  4. Both Baader-Zeiss prisms perform beautifully in my scopes (TEC140 and C11) at all useable mags. Visibly less scatter than the ‘best in class’ AstroPhysics Dielectric I previously used, and sold. No discernible unwanted colour whatsoever at these focal ratios (f7 and f10). Work perfectly with binos, where same applies. BillP seemed to prefer the 1.25 prism slightly over the 2” for planetary views. Can’t say I really notice any difference; that said, my best ever planetary views have indeed been with the TEC, Zeiss-Baader binos and the 1.25 prism.
  5. Both seem to me to have the capacity to take your scope to unexpected levels and show what it can ‘really’ do - at least, on the Moon. Barlowing them is interesting : )
  6. They’re fantastic aren’t they! I have only the 4mm TOE and the 3.4mm HR and use them in a TEC 140 - don’t think the shorter ones would get much use. I’ve tried to characterise the differences between them. I’d agree with your word ‘smoother’ for the TOE. Perhaps paradoxically, the ‘smoothness’ doesn’t seem to entail any loss of available detail though.
  7. I bought a C11 because I wanted an affordable step up in aperture from my TEC140. I also have a 12” f6 Newtonian which is great optically but more awkward; the C11 is stubby, convenient, portable and has the advantage over the Dob of working well on my AZEQ6 enabling easy goto and tracking. I also had ideas of doing some planetary imaging ... which, of course, I never got round to doing! The refractor is the scope I’d never give up because optically and mechanically it’s as good as it gets and it delivers special image quality. I am a fussy observer and I was prepared to be underwhelmed by t
  8. Just to support and concur around the 17.5 Morpheus. It’s one of a few eyepieces in my rather randomly accreted collection - that includes, among others, an Ethos, several Delos and a couple of Pentax XWs - that I think is outstanding and really wouldn’t want to lose. The others I feel the same about are the 10mm Delos, the Tak TOE 4mm and the 3.4mm Vixen HR. I like the 6.5 Morpheus a lot as well, very sharp and comfortable to use.
  9. Plus 1 for orthos. I’ve found the 6.5mm Morpheus to be excellent on Moon and planets. Relatively wide field, easy eye relief and not crazy expensive. In this sort of range, I also use the Pentax XW 5 and 7mm, the Tak 6mm ortho, the Tak TOE 4mm and the Vixen HR 3.4. They’re all, IMO, superb eyepieces that differ more in feel and character than objective quality. I’ve been using and comparing them all on Mars lately in my 140mm f7 apo; the 6.5 Morpheus definitely belongs.
  10. You’re right, there’s not much off axis to be had! They’re a bit quirky and known for the famous ‘floating image’ effect. I like them and they go down well, I find, when showing people things through the scope. I don’t think anyone would suggest choosing them in preference to, say, a pair of 24mm Pans though. That said, they are the fraction of the price and a lot of fun to use. The RKE range as a whole has slipped off the radar and something is being lost, I think. These are very sharp, bright and contrasty eyepieces that In the shorter focal lengths work very well on Moon and planets
  11. I agree about the Delos being a bit hefty when paired, so not first choice despite their optical excellence. Also using a TEC140 and Baader Mk V and just for interest, the pairs I have are: Tak orthos 6, 9, 12.5, Tak LE ortho 18, Sterling (Long Perng) Plössl 20 mm and Edmund RKE 28mm. Used with x1.7 (giving about x1.5) GPC or x2 Powermate. I’d say the 9mm orthos get most use but if I had to pick one pair it would be 18s and vary the negative lens. As you say, eyepiece preferences are personal though.
  12. You might like to include the Morpheus range in your options to consider. Supposedly these were designed with binoviewing in mind. I’ve tried pairs of these and of the Delos, and they both work fine. Both excellent as singles, of course. For some reason, I’m more comfortable with narrower fields than these for binoviewing. Orthos work well for me, as do the TV Plössls, but it sounds as if you’re looking for more eye relief than these generally offer. I really like the pair of 18mm Tak LEs that I use, and these have more generous relief. If I could keep only one pair it would be these.
  13. John, I have both the 2” and the 1.25. I use them interchangeably in my TEC 140 And C11 (just the 2” in the SCT). I also have the Baader 1.25 mirror diagonal but that doesn’t get used much because, IMO, both prisms are better in terms of contrast and scatter. The eyepieces I use are typically high-end: Tak orthos, Delos, Ethos, Tak TOE and Vixen HR and sometimes push the magnification quite high, so the prisms are being given a decent test. I use the smaller prism with the bino when using the Baader glaspath compensator in the train and the 2” when using it with the 2” TV Powermate instead o
  14. Ah, that would be the OOUK AG, presumably ...
  15. Agreed. It sounds as if you have access to some good dark skies ;>) I understand what you say about textured background - from the darkest sites I’ve visited, lying on your back scanning the MW through Cygnus, say, gives an impression of continuity. Not always easy to separate scattered starlight from nebulosity, I find, at least without filtration. 200mm f3.8 sounds interesting!
  • 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.