hutech orthoscipics.

[The Flinty Fox]

This may be a silly question but are the Hutech orthos identical to the BGOs, or, are they actually the BGOs if that makes sense. Have just seen them on FLOs website.

Cheers.

[E621Keith]

As far as I know, both were made by Masuyama.

However, it's hard to say whether they are exactly the same, because different brands can list different spec. Baader also claims they use a proprietary Phantom coating in the BGO. Whether this is a genuine technology or just marketing jargon is open to debate.

If the special coating is real and proprietary Baader, then Masuyama won't be able to use it in the Kasai/Hutech ortho. On the other hand if BGO's coating technology was Masuyama's then the two should be exactly the same. At worse, the Kasai should be identical to University HD ortho which doesn't make claim about special coating.

I think it will take a detailed side by side comparison to conclude whether the BGO and the new Kasai ortho uses the same coatings.

[John]

As nobody has seen any yet (as far as I know) it's a little hard to say !

My hunch is that they are the same as the University Optics HD orthoscopics which look very similar to Baader GO's with some small differences:

- the lens coatings look a slightly different hue

- the markings on the eyepiece are engraved on the BGO's but screen printed on the UO HD's

- the chrome barrel has a safety undercut machined into it.

I've found the UO HD orthos to be pretty much as good as BGO's optically.

But until the Hutech ones are in our hot sticky hands we won't know for sure

[andrew63]

I've been looking at jupiter with a 7mm HD and a 6mm BGO recently - obviously not identical mag. but very similar performance. I would expect the Kasai to perform as well and would be a bit surprised if it did not.

andrew

[The Flinty Fox]

Thanks.

So apart from the maybe different coatings and other small differences they are pretty much the same. They certainly look very similar with the green print and the concentric circles around the eye lens. And judging from the price I to would expect them to have similar performance.

The 12.5mm would make a nice addition to my humble eyepiece collection.

Paul.

[andrew63]

No doubt there will be a running debate when these are available - on any variations - but the bottom line is they, along with the BCO that John is testing are super eyepieces and i don't think you can go wrong which ever you choose. Just enjoy the view !

andrew

[Stargazer_00]

how do you expect an orthoscopic eyepiece would perform optically at the centre versus the Celestron Luminos eyepieces im currently collecting? I was looking at getting a 7mm luminos next but considering orthos might be better at higher magnfications I might use that £150 for some orthos instead.

[fredster]

how do you expect an orthoscopic eyepiece would perform optically at the centre versus the Celestron Luminos eyepieces im currently collecting? I was looking at getting a 7mm luminos next but considering orthos might be better at higher magnfications I might use that £150 for some orthos instead.

Should outperform the Luminos on-axis but its whether you want a narrow field of view at high power using your dob? When my newt is on the AZ4 i switch to the ES 82's, when its on the EQ i use the Orthos as fov doesn't matter. Could double the nudging with the Ortho. Just a thought. Plus the ES is only a smidge off the Ortho for on-axis sharpness, really is minimal and i guess the Luminos will be the same.

[John]

The Baader GO's and the Baader Classic orthos match my Ethos and Pentax XW eyepieces across 40 degrees of view.

What you get with the latter is ortho type performance across a much larger field of view, even with fast scopes and more eye relief as well. But they do make you pay for it !

[andrew63]

I use to own a Celestron 7mm Axiom - which was the model before the Luminos. And of course the telescope type will have some influence. In my refractor F7 if osbserving say Jupiter, in the axiom the central image was excellent but deteriorated somewhat from about 20 percent from the edge - perhaps 75% to 80%of the field was useable.

Last week the view with a 7mm HD ortho was sharp to the field stop - could observe banding as the planet dissected the field stop ! It's a bit unfair to do such a comparison, as they do different jobs really.

I might add i liked the axiom and also had the 15mm.

andrew

[Stargazer_00]

I'll stick with buying the Luminos' series for a bit more then. I'm geting UWAs because I love the spacewalk feeling of 82' EPs. And it'lll be less nudging.

I guess if I ever get some form of tracking mount I'll get Orthos. I'll just stick to collecting UWAs for now.

[John]

I'll stick with buying the Luminos' series for a bit more then. I'm geting UWAs because I love the spacewalk feeling of 82' EPs. And it'lll be less nudging.

I guess if I ever get some form of tracking mount I'll get Orthos. I'll just stick to collecting UWAs for now.

I think thats sound. I like ultra wide views too and with decent quality eyepieces like the Luminos, Nirvana, ES 82 etc the compromise is only a very small one at most.

If you ever have £50 going spare you could get a BCO 6mm and have it in your eyepiece box for moments when you want to do some critical high power viewing.

[Moonshane]

the way I have done my eyepiece buying is to have a core of four reasonably wide field eyepieces (26mm nagler, 13mm ethos, 10mm radian and 8mm radian) and then filled in with cheaper tv plossls and (were cheaper when I bought them) BGOs plus a tv 3-6mm nagler at the top end. I like my eyepieces packed tight at the higher magnifications to make the most of seeing. I have 32mm, 26mm, 15mm, 13mm, 12.5mm, and then eyepieces in 1mm increments from 11mm down to 7mm and then the zoom beyond.

[Stargazer_00]

I'm currently trying to plan out what to put in a roughly 20mm slot. Either a 19mm luminos from flo or a 20mm 100 degree es from the states for about the same money. Not Sure if I want to go lower than the 24mm either. At 50x is okay. A 28 nirvana or a 31mm luminos maybe. I have a 32mm plossl and it doesnt get much use. Too low to show much. Usually swap right out for a 24 or 18

[John]

20mm is a very useful focal length in an F/4.7 10" newtonian. I found my 31mm Nagler got little use in my old 10" F/4.8 but the 20mm was in the drawtube a lot. The exit pupil that the 31mm gave was, for me, a bit over large at 6.4mm but the 4.2mm of the 20mm was spot on.

Unless you are using a coma corrector you might want to stay at 82 degrees though - at 100 degrees the coma that the scope optics produce could really start to get obvious.

I guess this is moving away from the original topic of the thread though !

[Stargazer_00]

Yeah Sorry hijacked alot but given me good advice Thanks.

[crazyjedi]

I was about to post a thread asking how the Hutech orthos match up to my BGO's when i saw this thread discussing said EP's. I'm quite tempted by the 9mm but the price point is quite high. For the sake of another twenty five pounds I could get the 8.8mm Meade 5000 UWA. I'm unsure which way to go because if the Hutech are as good as the BGO's (which I love) I could be tempted to take a punt on the 9mm. If they don't measure up though I could be tempted to dable in the wide field lens market and try the Meade.

[alan potts]

I was think of getting one of these If they have them when I land in England at the end of April. The BGO's seem to be finished in the shops and I am not that bothered to start paying highest bidder. Is there a UK outlet for the Kasai versions?

Crazyjedi,

The 8.8mm UWA is a very good eyepiece, I have had one for 3 years and have only let it go a short while back. I don't know if this new one at 116 pounds is the same though. I have the 5.5mm at the moment and that is very good but I may well sell it as I want a 3.5mm Delos soon.

Alan.

[crazyjedi]

Alan,

I do very much like my Meade 5000 plossls and rate them quite highly but.... My Meade 5000 5.5mm plossl is outperformed in every aspect (except FOV) by my BGO 6mm which is why I was so impressed by the BGO's in the first place. It would be nice to try out a decent wide field EP though. Currently the widest I go is 68 degrees which always impresses me whenever I plug in my ES 24mm.

It does depend very much on how the Hutech compare to Baaders Ortho's. If they don't come up to scratch it might well be Meadesville for me.

[Stu]

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php?/topic/178925-Hutech-Japanese-made-Orthoscopic-Eyepieces/page__view__findpost__p__1846187

Another thread along similar lines.

Alan, FLO are ranging the Hutech/Kasai Orthos which is great news.

Stu

[andrew63]

Not wishing to go off subject too much myself Rob. I was observing jupiter last night before the clouds rolled in with a Meade 5000 8.8mm uwa that you and Alan mention - and the view was nice, sharp to nearly the edge. - With the price at telescope house it's a bargain. For my setup it's not powerful enough as a planetary lens - but gives a sharp contrasty view.

It will not match a good ortho for fine detail though such as the hutech. A good lens also worth considering is a Pentax 8.5mm XF all in a similar price range - it would be a kind of bridge between the two designs for me - give crisps views with a wider field. If i could have a 9mm ortho a meade 8.8 uwa or pentax 8.5 for around a £100 - i'd opt for the pentax now.

andrew

[John]

With respect guys, most decent eyepieces give sharp clear views these days. Orthos like the Baader CO's and GO's just go that little bit further with sharpness, contrast and light scatter control than most other eyepieces I've used, including the likes of the Circle-T orthos, the Ethos and the Pentax XW's. It's only a little bit and it is at the expense of wide fields of view eye relief and generous size eye lenses as with all orthos so you "pays you money and makes your choice" in the light of that

[andrew63]

I agree John - but for me, in the non-premium bracket - 'crisp' and 'contrasty' views can not be taken for granted ! So it's worth shouting from the rooftops when you come across them in the £100 range

andrew

[crazyjedi]

Completely agree Andrew. That's why I have been so amazed by the BGOs that I managed to get before they vanished. Nothing comes near them for the price.

[Astro_Baby]

Well there are still BGOs to be had, FLO still have the 6mm and there have been a rash of secondhand ones on ABS mostly under a ton which is pretty good going really for such a good bit of glass. i have go not overdo this as ai have a set but prefer to use the less highly rated Circle T Volcano Tops for the comfort value. Plus the VTs are, to me at least, some of the most beautiful looking EPs but thats cos ai am a retro style fan

I jus wish ai had believed in orthos sooner but I got all starry eyed over widefields because thats wha people said were good. Glad ai bought in though to orthos when I dis. I kind of saw orthos as a bi old and fuddy duddy and had bad memories of how dreadful some were years ago with .965 fittings, muddly glass, looking through a straw, like sticking pins in your eyes. It kind of put me off until Talitha who used tompost here donvinced me to give em a try. Should have listened when Merlon gave me the same advice....sorry Merlin, your afvice was good but ai was too thick to take it. Folly indeed.