pete14

On 31/12/2019 at 15:31, JTEC said:

Yes. My point was really prompted by hearing the ZAOs consistently lauded as unmatched by any current production eyepiece and wondering why, with the advances we’ve seen with glass, coatings, etc, this was still the case. For example, in his review of 24-26mm eyepieces, Bill Paolini gives the ZAOs straight ‘A’s for contrast/resolution/transmission on a range of solar system and deep sky targets, with no other eyepiece, including many respected ones, coming even close.  And his view appears to be shared by many other similarly expert observers who know what they’re talking about.

Granted, there are subjective as well as objective differences due to design, materials, production quality, etc, between eyepieces that lead to subtle (or sometimes gross) differences in observer experience, not to mention matters of individual preference that further cloud (oops! bad word!😖) the issue. But the ascendancy of the ZAOs - in terms of the package of observer experience that they reportedly gave - still goes pretty much unchallenged.

It can’t be the case that with current technology it is no longer possible to produce such character and quality.  So it must be that the will - or, realistically, the market - is considered to be no longer there. Or maybe all that polishing is soooooo expensive.  Or we are being pushed by marketing to favour optical tours de force like the Ethos series over pure ‘classical’ excellence.  Hmmm ... can of worms detected ... most of my eyepieces are Ethos, Delos or otherwise by Televue, by the way, and I think they’re outstanding. But I’ll just note that the 21mm Ethos is currently priced at £816 and, knowing that not everyone wants or even likes 100*, query why a structurally much simpler eyepiece of ZAO quality could not be made and sold for considerably less.

 

 

 

I agree with  much of your thoughts on it. I too have TV eye pieces; Pans, Ethos, Radians and love them however, I don't believe it s all that simple when your going into small FL. I mean look at camera lenses, crazy expensive multiple elements.

I don't  know the answer but I do know this we, or I should say a friend has an old, over 120 year old 75mm lens doublet, if I (recall correctly) Conrady Made by Watson & Sons Brass tube long F15 before coatings, the views looking at the moon were stunning.  We routinely took it up to 700x even 800x though at 650x it was excellent !  The telescope was called Century.  Now how's this possible ? Granted its not an oil spaced triplet of modern times but I will say this, It must have been a passion of its time for there were no aberrations that we could detect through this lens and perhaps modern day coatings robs the underlying achievement of what it was meant to do on such an old lens. Can they do that today ! I will add that the sweet spot on this old beauty is between 500x - 650x Amazing for something some damn old.

On 23/12/2019 at 09:28, JTEC said:

I doubt this one will ever run out of mileage 🙂. I’ve used the UO orthos, some of the shorter BGOs, the odd Fujiyama and all of the BCOs and now have the Taks 6, 9 and 12.5, the last two in pairs for binoviewing.  The UOs were too long ago to compare with. My recollection of the BGOs is, like that of other users, very positive. I had a 6mm that I really liked for its good contrast and sharpness, so, naturally, I sold it ... why do we do this?! 🤔. I think the BCOs are great value but, speaking personally, not quite as good and I don’t like their feel and construction. The current Taks, in my view, are comfortably as good as any of the above and are the best high quality ortho option now available and, like all the Tak stuff I’ve experienced (I have the 4mm TOE) of unsurpassed overall quality and build. 

That said, I’ve read over and over and over again and thereafter ad infinitum about the legendary magical qualities of the true ZAOs and how they outshine each and every ortho made since. And this from people well qualified to make the assessment.  Why is it that with the continuing progress in coating technology etc, this is still the case?  I know about ‘polish’ etc but Televue eyepieces, for example, don’t exactly have the finish of a frosted bathroom window.  The ZAOs were made, I believe, about 25 years ago. Unless we’re to settle for vague romanticised explanations about ‘the lens maker’s art’ and the like, their objective qualities are presumably analysable and quantifiable.  What’s stopping equal quality from being produced and on offer now? 

As I understand it, at least compared with the TMB and Fujiyama the TMB mono is a cemented triplet all 3 lenses are cemented together. The Fujiyama too is a triplet where 2 lenses are  cemented followed by a non-cemented singlet.

From personal experience each of these designs imo appear to bring out unique attributes to the view,  the scratch & dig or material composition is something all together different. Of course the higher the polish, the more $$$$$ !

On 19/03/2018 at 01:59, mikeDnight said:

Are you talking yourself into buying a set Dave? 

I find it interesting how some people seem to love the eye lens in the longer focal lengths being set down inside the eyepiece body while others, myself included, hate it that way. I'm sure the Tak ortho's are excellent, but for them to be better optically than the Fujiyama's and not as good as the TMB Super Monocentric's seems to me to be a very fine line to straddle. Perhaps the chunkier engineered body and the fact that they are relatively expensive compared to other ortho's, and they are made for Takahashi, has some psychological impact? That's not to say i wouldnt mind owning a set! What puts me off buying pricey Tak's for mono use is that I've seen the TMB Super Mono's consistently beaten by a mile, by cheap as chips, 365 Astronomy 16.8mm Abbe Orthoscopics and a revelation binoviewer, with X2 SW delux barlow. What a game changer!  I think the only mono eyepieces I have a mild craving for are the Astro Physics Planetaries. By "mild craving" I mean I'd sell my wife and kids for a set!

A friend and I have had the opportunity to compare, here in Vancouver, BC  a TMB Mono and Fujiyama 7mm eyepieces together exercising a fine refractor.  At first look through the TMB was extremely impressive, sharp, contrasty, resolution very high.

Comparing and dropping in the Fujiyama was equally impressive with similar results. passing back in forth between the two eyepieces scrutinizing every bit of detail went on for a lengthy time whereby, we both concluded the Fujiyama was equally good and real bang for the buck. The only discerning difference we could ascertain was the TMB had a slight increase in MAG hence producing a slightly larger image and transparency appeared to have an edge,, (light throughput). Which we both found odd yet surprising.

IMO I found the Fujiyama to be every bit as good as the TMB Monocentric. Is the TMB worth more ? yes sure it is, a slight gain in performance but, at twice the price. You decide,  I'd be very happy with the Fujiyama !