Delos 6mm and Meade 5.5 UWA.

[alan potts]

I did take photo's but can upload them sorry everyone.

Let me start by saying this is the first time I have done this and I know these are not exactly the same but I feel they are near enough each other for it to be a relevant head to head. I used them in 3 scopes though for the two last nights out the Moon was making low magnitude seeing all but impossible. The other night was very clear still air with a fine view of the Milky Way down to 6-8 degree above the horizon, it was also very cold.

Both eyepieces are very well made and feel solid, the price of the Delos is 295 Pounds and the Meade 113 pounds, so there is a big difference in the cost, but the TeleVue has the better box and eyecup system. It also seems to be twice the height of the Meade. One of the reasons I wanted this was to use with a Powermate so I will be viewing some way from the scope. This could be something of an issue with a Newtonian as it does not come with a free set of stepladders. The only problem I have is with the UWA and that is when you twist up the eye-cap, there is for me rather too much grease used on the black inner barrel. This could find its way onto the glass elements and that would not do.

Under normal circumstances I have little in the way of light pollution to ever worry about. The two nights where the Moon gets into the act I feel are nights we have to live with and I am sure all of us would rather see the Moon than clouds anyday.

The 3 scopes used are all in good collimation and well looked after. The idea behind the 6mm Delos was for me to use it as a planetary eyepiece for these three scopes, I also wanted to test it as a Powermated 3mm eyepiece for the APM 115mm F/L 805mm and only for this reason on this scope. The Meade was the nicest of all, it was a gift.

THE THREE TELESCOPES.

1, GSO 150mm RC F/L 1370mm.

This scope gives a magnification of X 228 on the Delos and X 249 for the Meade. This is about as much magnification as I would use on a 6 inch scope though I know some would push it higher for some objects. So on this scope for me they represent high end power.

2 Sky Watcher Man/Newt, F 5.26 and a F/L of 1000mm.

The Skywatcher gives a magnification of X 166 for the Televue and X 182 for the 5.5mm. For me we are again in the area of high end magnification, the sort we can use most nights of the year when the cloud base takes a holiday.

3. APM 115mm Refractor, F 7 with a F/L of 805mm.

Here we receive the lowest power from the two eyepieces with X 134 and X 146 respectively. I have to say this is an area where I tend to view the larger Planets as I like the high contrast afforded by the refractor and I always believe I can see more detail in them. I really do believe that many people over use magnifcation.

The objects I choose to look at were I hope a bit of a cross section of the things that we would view on a normal night out.

The Moon ( couldn’t really leave it out for the last two scopes).

Jupiter.

C1

C2 Both in memory of Sir Patrick

M57

M15

Rigel, ( low down ) I choose this because of a recent post saying he was finding it difficult to split.

Almach, one of my favorites.

GSO 150mm RC

Well lets start with an omission as the Moon was out of the way this night, well it was until about 3 o’clock in the morning and by that time the cold would have killed me, my little set of Bresser electronics was telling me it was minus 3 degrees and getting colder.

I tackled C1 first which seem ed a good place to start. I had to use other eyepieces to find it and then centre it before I could get the big guns out. I first tried the Delos and it was sharp when you consider the magnification at X 228 it is not the best object to view but the eyepiece showed the faint and rather disappointing open cluster as well as I have ever seen it. I have to say the Meade was not helped here by my poor section of object, this is a fairly faint cluster and pushing a 6 inch scope at close to X250 is not the most intelligent thing I have ever done

C2 also was as one would expect nothing more than a faint patch in both eyepieces, I did feel that the 6mm showed it that little bit better, it was brighter but I am sure this is as much to do with the magnification as anything else. For this reason I moved quickly over to M57. I have spent a good deal of time on this Messier Object of late and it has become a bit of an old friend. Both eyepieces did a good job on this and I would say that again the Delos was brighter but both showed the structure of the nebular but no centre star. I was beginning to think the light transmission of the Delos was that bit better.

M15 is I find a difficult globular unless you are giving it aperture. I did see some of the outer stars resolve themselves from the central mass and all in all it was a pleasing object to view but was just a little over magnified for my liking.

Rigel had just cleared the walnut tree but was low in the sky and looking towards the nearby town (6 miles away) so there is just a hint of light pollution in this part of my sky. Both eyepieces split the double very easily through some near the horizon air turbulence. I would have to say the stars through the Delos looked better, maybe tighter is the word. There did not seem to be so much jumping around in the Delos and I would not have thought the magnification was the cause of this, being only X 21 different. I switched back and forth a good few times checking on this. I have never changed eyepieces so many times before and came close to a drop on the ground more than once.

By this time my Rab Duvet was showing it’s value but I hate wearing gloves to observe and my hands were like ice ( minus 5.2). From Rigel I swug round and up to Almach. This was high in the sky and a good star to check out the image quality of both eyepieces from one side to the other. Almach was a nice site in both eyepieces but again this was really too much power for the object. Firstly the Delos giving X 228, it did not matter where it was in the field of view the result was the same, sharp, well as sharp as a star can be with this amount of power. The Meade was by no means bad, it to was sharp for about 90% of the field of view, it was only when we got down to the very edges I found the star unacceptable. This though is never a big deal with driven scopes as most of the time the object in question is in or around the middle of the field, I am not even sure I would be too bothered if I were using a Dobsonian scope either, this type of magnification will always throw up problems, that is if your seeing is good enough to use it in the first place.

Jupiter was excellent in both and I have to say I could not see anymore detail in the Delos that I could not see in the Meade. The later only faltered as the Planet was place to the very edge of the field of view. Here though the Delos seemed to give a slightly white image that the Meade. Throughout the test I could not see any problems with correction, ghosting or aberrations from either eyepiece. I believe that the Meade was a bridge too far in terms of power for this size of scope and the Delos was close to that limit, I would not go out and buy a 5.5mm for this scope even though it did perform better than I thought it would. Optically the Televue was a better eyepiece to use but I believe this is down to the choice of telescope for the fist part of the test.

Sky Watcher 190mm Mac Newt.

I started the same way but due to the Moon being at ¾ phase the objects were going to be a test to say the least. I located C1 which was much better than I thought it was going to be on a clear, cold and still night. I am sure this was a combination of a larger telescope (40mm) and shorter focal length. The magnifications here were back to everyday working numbers at X 166 for the Delos and X 182 for the Meade UWA. Both eyepieces here showed the cluster almost the same as each other and I am sure that it was only that this object was some distance from the Moon that I was able to find it at all, goto’s do have there uses.

I had a look for C 2 but it was more a case of averted imagination that I was seeing anything at all so moved on to M57. This was not as good as I hoped in either eyepiece I am sure due to the light from From Sir Patricks favorite object. It was the Delos though that gave the sharper of the views but I have to say I was really picking at straws.

M15 was a delight with both pieces considering the conditions. The larger scope here making a big difference and the magnification now being in the Globular range showed a good deal of outer stars resolved. This was something of a shock to me. I have to say the Televue did a better job here, I really do believe I could see more individual stars around the cluster.

Rigel was up a little earlier tonight than before and a very nice clean view was afford from both the Meade and the Delos, the later was possibly just a little cleaner image with the stars standing out that bit better. I rechecked a number of times and again at the end of the night but by then it was higher in the sky and I could not see any difference. Orion is of course higher in the sky for me.

Jupiter which is about as Moon proof as they come was up next. The Planet looked fabulous with both eyepieces and I couldn’t see any difference in the details I was seeing. I could clearly see the centre belts and the one above and and the polar bands, sadly no Great Red spot. I really did prefer the view with the Meade on this occasion it was a little more coloured and not so white as the Delos. I didn’t see any ghosting with this scope either so both eyepieces seem to well put together all round.

Almach was superb with only the edge letting the Meade down a little, I tried a re-focus on the Meade and I think it helped a little when it was at the very edge. I do believe this eyepiece would be a great purchase for someone with the right Dobsonian, to use as a high power eyepiece where the image is allowed to drift across the field of view and then nudged on to the next view.

The Moon had made a bit of a mess of the sky for looking at DSO or anything faint but it was razor sharp in both eyepieces. I am not sure why but the Meade was as sharp as a knife at the very edge viewing the moon, only on stars did it let itself down a little. I can only think that stars are more difficult to show as a sharp point of light. The Meade also gave a nice bright blue ring all the way around the outer edge, normal from my experience. The other thing that was also visible on the Meade was some yellow/green aberrations at the edges, maybe 10% either side. didn’t find this unpleasant and I am sure may other eyepieces are worse.

The Delos was again top dog, sharp everywhere with no false colour but it is 2 1/2 times the price.

The following night I had the 115mm out with the two combatants. I did not even bother looking for the 2 Caldwell objects due to the Moon and I have to say M57 was a dead loose too. The magnification was X 134 and X 146 respectively and I knew the stars would appear better with the refractor. Both Rigel and Almach were beter to look at but I have to say the same things were true of both eyepieces, so little point going over covered ground.

On Jupiter the image was very sharp indeed and I am sure I could see more detail than the night before with the larger scope which seems a little odd because the moon was even closer to the Planet, but as I said before Jupiter is almost Moon proof. I could not pick a favorite from these views and spent a good deal of time looking at the sights in front of me. The longest I have spent on Jupiter all year, it was so good I forgot the cold. I tried the Powermate exercise here pushing the scope to X 267 for the Delos and close to X 300 for the Meade. I was surprised by what I saw, the belts could still be seen but with less contrast and whilst some may find it acceptable I personally thought it was too much. I am not sure that I would bother doing a repeat of this and in my view I saved 190 pounds that I was going to spend on the 3mm Radian. I did however try my 7mm Nagler in the scope with the Powermate and it gave me much better quality of image so now I want a 3.5mm Nagler, is there no end to it, Yes when you have all of them.

The Moon was by now over ¾ phase and very bright the whole Moon fitted into the FOV of both eyepieces which I rather like. Both were razor sharp and again the Meade had the yellow/green edge aberration, maybe someone will tell me what it is called.

In conclusion I have to say there is no doubt that TeleVue Delos is a class eyepiece and is my choice of the two but not by as much as one would think. The Meade is a very good eyepiece in its own right and wins hands down on value for money front. I would recommend the Meade 5.5mm UWA to anyone, I was going to offload it but not now, It can sit in my cabinet with its TeleVue brothers and hold its head high.

Hope this is acceptable, Happy New Year to everyone who bothered to read this far.

Alan.

[Spec-Chum]

Fantastic review Alan

The Moon was by now over ¾ phase and very bright the whole Moon fitted into the FOV of both eyepieces which I rather like. Both were razor sharp and again the Meade had the yellow/green edge aberration, maybe someone will tell me what it is called.

It's called Chromatic Aberration (CA) and is caused by the lens failing to converge all the colours to the same focus point.

[John]

Excellent review Alan - I really enjoyed reading it and thanks for posting it.

Happy New Year to you too

[alan potts]

I really must get my mate to show me how to upload photos, it may have made it a bit better. Next the 4.5mm Delos by that time I hope I can do a better job.

Spec Chum, thanks for that I thought it was called that but didn't want to look a fool.

Alan.

[John]

I really must get my mate to show me how to upload photos, it may have made it a bit better. Next the 4.5mm Delos by that time I hope I can do a better job....

Alan,

You use the "Attach Files" facility which should appear at the foot of the post that you are composing. This enables you to browse the drives on your computer and select the file / files to attach to the post. I've not worked out how to embed them in the text yet so mine appear at the foot of the text.

Regards,

[alan potts]

John,

I worked out the first part but for what ever reason could not get them to load onto the piece I had written. I opemed the folder and everything but could I heck as get them on the site, I must be doing something wrong. It took me as long to find the little camera as to write the review, my cameras are too big to use for site upload.

Nevermind,

Something else has just occured to me looking out the window, for the two nights with the Moon out we also had 100% snow cover which must have a impact on the sky darkness with the moon reflecting off it.

I didn't even notice the snow I was so into making notes and being careful not to drop things.

Alan.

[estwing]

that' a brillant report alan,great read well done....

[JamesF]

Very interesting comparison Alan. Thank you for taking the effort to post it.

To insert an image at a specific point in the text you need to place the cursor at the right point by clicking there in the text, then click on the "insert image" (or whatever it's labelled) button.

James

[Damo636]

Fabulous review Alan, thanks for taking the time to write it up.

Happy New Year :-)

[russ.will]

Thanks for taking the time to do such an in depth write up Alan. There's a lot of work that needs doing to get a good review done, so I appreciate the effort you've made.

i think the photo issue may be related to the image size. If I want images to appear within the text, I tend to resize to 1024x768 and link to them from an image hosting website, like Imageshack.us, as it allows bigger file sizes to be viewed that the forum software will allow.

Cheers

Russell

[andrew63]

A very good read Alan - Happy New Year to you.

andrew

[Dunkster]

What a great read - thanks for that Alan

Earlier in the year I was over the pond and picked one of these up for a song, for use with my C6. I'm ashamed to say that it's never had first light as soon after I convinced myself I needed the C6's bigger brother (whose unboxing resulted in monsoon May, I'm sure of it!), with associated marathon focal length Definitely going to have to rectify the situation now

[foundaplanet]

Thank you, I enjoyed reading this very much.

Good review..

[Charon]

Excellent report Alan.

[alan potts]

Thank-you for the kind words. I now realise that I should have posted it in Equipment reviews, maybe I can get one of the Moderators to move it to the correct place.

Just out interest I put the LX 200 out last night and got some time on it. I tried both eyepieces in this but the magnification was massive X 507 and X 550 only good for the Moon in my view. Maybe some people do look at the Moon with this amount of coal on the fire, but it's not for me. I would also say the scope needed a longer time to cool, this will not help.

Alan.

[John]

Thank-you for the kind words. I now realise that I should have posted it in Equipment reviews, maybe I can get one of the Moderators to move it to the correct place.....

Done Alan

[alan potts]

Thanks John, I was going to PM you later.

Alan.