Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

32mm Plossl - Meade 4000 or GSO/Revelation


barbusg60

Recommended Posts

I've used a 32mm Plossl 4000 Meade some time ago and i was pleased with what I saw. I would say they are good value for money and performed very well in my F10 LX 200. There are better on the market for sure but at extra cost. I have never used the GSO. I am sure there are plenty of forum members that will have a say on the GSO.

Alan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think there would be much difference between the two. I'd say get the one that costs you the least. The Vixen NPL 30mm is another contender I reckon though it might cost you a little bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys,

The GSO is about £35 delivered from the net and the Meade is £45 locally so a saving with the GSO but I would have to wait!

I thought they might be the same eyepiece but looking at photos they seem to be different shapes.

Has anyone used both and have a preference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspect there is no difference, I believe that GSO make the Meade Plossl's.

So what comes out are plossl's branded as "Meade" or as "GSO".

If there is any further QA applied before or after they leave the factory or not I don't know, but would doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Although we live in an OEM world with few  manufacturers and several brands, some facts are clear: even with external barrel being the same, not all 32mm plössl are the same.  Right now I have two and I'm waiting for a third. A Gso Super Plössl Fullu Multicoated 32mm 1.25" anbd a Celestron OMNI 32mm also FMC. Waioting for the Meade Series4000 32mm to finally choose the best from the group. So far results using my vintage OKKK 76.2mm f/16.4 refractor (39x), are:

Celestron OMNI 32mm: Superb coating and brighter images than the GSO. Also seems to have a lower focal distance than the GSO, perhaps 3mm or so less.
GSO Super Plössl 32mm: good coating but still darker than the Celestron, seems to have a little bit more focal length than the Celestron and just a bit more field. I think it has sharper images than the Celestron.

This facts makes hard to choose one brand for only one application. In low light stellars fields (DSO) the Celestron, being brighter, is better, no apreciable difference in sharpness to GSO in stars.
On the other hand, observing the Moon, bright light conditions, it seems the GSO gives sharper images than the Celestron, craters are more vivid and is easier to achieve focus.

So for the Moon I'd use the GSO, and for DSO the Celestron...  Let the Meade Series 4000 32mm arrive and I'd tell which one was the winner...

BTW, I have a Meade Series 4000 40mm 1.25" plössl. Although it has a narrow 44º field, it's a superb eyepiece with amaziong coatings. I really love this eyepiece despite its realtivelçy narow AFoV, that's why I'd give a try to the Meade S4000 32mm. If it's as good as the 40mm, no doubt it will be the winner.

Anyone with similar experience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Revelation /GSO 32mm and 40mm and I find them superb in my 10" reflector and 4" refractor. I have tried more expensive eyepieces including a TV panoptic and to be honest I could not tell much difference. For the money I dont think you could get a better eyepiece. I also have the Revelation Barlow which is stunning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 32mm GSO was/is one of my favourite EP's. I used it with the Heritage and had no major issues. It was really great for scanning the sky and hunting down objects before changing it for more powerful EP and zooming in on targets. I now use a Vixen 30mm NPL which is a better EP. Its sharp and gives great contrast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coatings have an important role in the qualty of the image delivered, because they are responsible for optimizing light transmission through the optic sysem. As the number of optic surfaces the light path must travel increases, the qualty of the coatings turns out to be a major qualty factor. In FMC plössls we have 6 surfaces, 3 for each doublet. Celestron OMNI series and Meade S4000 have IMHO better coatings than GSO. Thus images are brighter. On the other hand we must consider the qualty of the glass used, and the manufactury process qualty variation. GSO seems to have pretty good glass in general. Two eyepieces of the same brand may not have the same qualty, nowadays mass production makes it so, unless the manufacturer takes special care in assuring a very good Qualty Control (not very common unless you paid more $$$ for that). Same happens with doublets, main reflecting mirrors and specially with newtonian secondary mirrors that should be FLAT but in the real world it's frequent ot see they are like ondulated carpets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... In FMC plössls we have 6 surfaces, 3 for each doublet. ...

Surely it's 4 air-to-air surfaces that are coated ?

The plossl design is 4 elements arranged in 2 cemented pairs. They don't coat the cemented surfaces (though some manufacturers of more complex designs are now doing this).

post-118-0-53033700-1449336668.jpg

Intestingly Tele Vue plossls seem to have slightly higher transmission rates than most other eyepiece types from figures that I've seen although the variation from the best to the worst is only a few %. Every little helps I guess :smiley:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of interesting Plossl posts at the moment.

Classic Plossl arrangement is four elements in two groups, but some other examples out there (as John pointed out on another thread, Japan made Meade 4000 plossls were more sophisticated with five elements - sadly, John, following your post, I checked out where mine were made and I think they were a later batch sourced from Taiwan , but to my eyes they are still extremely sharp in slower scopes ). Meade 5000 series also has five and six elements.

Agree with Andrés that the 40mm 4000 (and the stock 40mm Celestron Plossl that comes with the Evolution scopes) are both superb. I use them both regularly and they always impress).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of interesting Plossl posts at the moment.

Classic Plossl arrangement is four elements in two groups, but some other examples out there (as John pointed out on another thread, Japan made Meade 4000 plossls were more sophisticated with five elements - sadly, John, following your post, I checked out where mine were made and I think they were a later batch sourced from Taiwan , but to my eyes they are still extremely sharp in slower scopes ). Meade 5000 series also has five and six elements.

Agree with Andrés that the 40mm 4000 (and the stock 40mm Celestron Plossl that comes with the Evolution scopes) are both superb. I use them both regularly and they always impress).

If it has 5 elements then it's not really a plossl at all. The Meade 5 element design was dubbed a "Super Plossl" by Meade but was actually a copy of the 5 element design that the Celestron Ultima range was using and often refrred to as a "pseudo-Masuyama design" after the company that was manufacturing the Ultima's for Celestron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it's 4 air-to-air surfaces that are coated ?

The plossl design is 4 elements arranged in 2 cemented pairs. They don't coat the cemented surfaces (though some manufacturers of more complex designs are now doing this).

attachicon.gifplossl.jpg

Intestingly Tele Vue plossls seem to have slightly higher transmission rates than most other eyepiece types from figures that I've seen although the variation from the best to the worst is only a few %. Every little helps I guess :smiley:

Hi  John! I didn't mention air-to-air surfaces specifically. In all we have 6 interfaces in a plössl: 4 air-to-air as can be ssen in the picture you posted and 2 internals, cemented. Don't know if all individual lenses have coatings prior to cementation or if they put the coatings after it, thus leaving only air-to-air surfaces to get the coating process as common manufacture method. But, as you've mentioned I've heard some manufacturers are coatming all surfaces, but I sincerely don't know which brands are doing this and if in fact it has advantages over uncoated cemented surfaces. But for the sake of not confusing folks here, you're right: let's consider only 4 air-to-air surfaces for FMC in plössls. Regards and thanks for the remark, John!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi  John! I didn't mention air-to-air surfaces specifically. In all we have 6 interfaces in a plössl: 4 air-to-air as can be ssen in the picture you posted and 2 internals, cemented. Don't know if all individual lenses have coatings prior to cementation or if they put the coatings after it, thus leaving only air-to-air surfaces to get the coating process as common manufacture method. But, as you've mentioned I've heard some manufacturers are coatming all surfaces, but I sincerely don't know which brands are doing this and if in fact it has advantages over uncoated cemented surfaces. But for the sake of not confusing folks here, you're right: let's consider only 4 air-to-air surfaces for FMC in plössls. Regards and thanks for the remark, John!

I believe that Pentax are applying special coating techniques to the cemented surfaces of their XW eyepieces and that Vixen have done something similar with their SSW range.

It's not common though, as yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Pentax are applying special coating techniques to the cemented surfaces of their XW eyepieces and that Vixen have done something similar with their SSW range.

It's not common though, as yet.

But is a trend for some manufacturers. Just checked Ricoh Imagining site for the Pentax XW series eyepieces (70º). Original Pentax MC on all air-to-air surfaces and special proprietary coating on cemented surfaces:

PENTAX-Original Multi-Layer Coating for Outstanding Light Transmission Efficiency

"All lens surfaces that come in contact with air are treated with the original multi-layer coating, while all laminated surfaces are treated with the innovative partial coating, to offer the light transmission efficiency of more than 90 percent (an astonishing 96 percent at 550nm) over the visible light spectrum."

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/binoculars/scope/xw/

Also Vixen SSW 83º series:

"Full multi-coating on all lens surfaces, in combination with special coating on the lens connecting surfaces,"

http://www.vixenoptics.com/Vixen-SSW-14mm-Ultra-Wide-Eyepiece-p/37125.htm

But this characteristic is not in the page of SSW series @ Vixen, strange...

http://www.vixen.co.jp/en/corporate/news_ssw.html

Hope this info is useful for all!

Regards

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, my Meade Series 4000 32mm arrived so now I have 3 32mm plössls to compare. This is important because 32mm eps (with 50º-52º AFoV) have the maximum fieldstop diameter for a 1.25" eyepiece (about 27mm), therefore they are the eps that will give the maximum TFoV for your scope (Field stop x 57.3 / scope focal length).
The plössls are:
Celestron Omni 32 mm
Meade Series 4000 32mm
GSO Superplössl 32mm

The winner is the Celestron Omni eyepiece without any doubt! Sharp an bright! The Meade came closer to the Celestron, coatings seem to have same type and coloration. Meade ep focal length seems to be longer than the Celestron and the field a little bit narrower. Anyway, looking at M44, without any doubt the Meade Series 4000 outperformed the GSO superplossl. Not only fainter stars where easy to pick up but also star colours were more vivid. These test where done with two different scopes: a 200mm (8in) f/5 reflector and a vintage 76.2mm (3in) f/16.4 refractor (this one was put side by side with a Polarex 75mm f/15 and if I should give rates, the Polarex being 100, this 3in f/16 would be 90, so yes, it's a damn good refractor).

So yes, between Meade series 4000 32mm and the GSO SP, no doubts, I'd choose the Meade sereies 4000 eyepiece!
REgards, Andy
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been a while since I was out with my scope ( weather related issues ) but the last time I looked, I preferred my Revelation Astro's  over my  Japanese Meade's, on  image quality alone, but alas, not in the focal length you desire.

For my 32mm EP,  I chose the Sky-Watcher PanaView with its 70° afov, but again, as good as this EP is, its probably too big for the 130P ( size  -  needs a 2" focuser and the weight? )

I think both the EPs you suggest have similar afov @ 52°. Its down to your own eyes, as to what you feel would be the best, rather than any technical specifications. There must be a difference, I feel the Revelations are better, you may find the Meade s better..........?

I need to test a little more from a better site to fully realise which EPs are the better ones for my tired old short sighted  +50 models. Only then will I be able to categorically decide on which set stays, but In my minds eye, its the Revelations!

As you can see, some folk can have the complete opposite  review with the same EP,  folk are just  so  different  from each other regarding their  perceptions,  their situation, and most importantly their own eyes see through the eyepiece in question.

Picking EPs was never going to be an easy task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.