Did we start the frenzy?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

APM is selling new Monocentrics again. At the prices they are asking, I much prefer getting a Pentax XW (cheaper, and added bonus of not putting your eye out when looking through it). I have used orthos in the past, but only liked the longer focal lengths. One reason Radians are not going for silly prices like the BGOs is that there are sensible replacements for them. OK, the TV Delos and Pentax XWs are more expensive, but they are definitely better, and they are comparable in optical design (more elements and groups than the fabled Abbe Ortho). The comparatively affordable XF8.5 and 12 outcompete two of the Radian range. For the more price conscious, there are the HR planetaries and Vixen NLVs. Orthoscopics have acquired an almost magical allure and near mythical status. This is the main reason people start paying silly prices. There are sensible reasons to buy them, but only for sensible prices.

People often say "they don't make them like that anymore", without realizing there may be very good reasons for that, like abysmal eye relief and (in the case of Monocentrics) minute FOV

(runs for cover)

[John]

APM is selling new Monocentrics again. At the prices they are asking, I much prefer getting a Pentax XW (cheaper, and added bonus of not putting your eye out when looking through it).....

Having compared a 5mm TMB Supermonocentric with a 5mm Pentax XW Michael, I'd agree with that

[bingevader]

I have certainly got into ES since reading the reviews on here, they are good quality ep's in my opinion, and at a reasonable price. Telescope House were doing great discoumts at the IAS yesterday (as were a number of venders), so I got the 80 degree series 18mm for £136 instead of £175, dead chuffed with this purchase.

Good price! That's a bit more like it. European prices! I hope you enjoy it as much as I do!

Cheers

[rwilkey]

Yes, really looking forward to using it, especially on the Moon.

[alan potts]

I am not knocking anyone that has got or had one but aren't the TMB Mono's and Zeiss ortho's a bit of a waste if we are not putting them in anything but the finest optical quality scopes.

Robin, Congratulations on the 18mm ExSc, that's the 2inch one isn't it?

Alan.

[John]

I am not knocking anyone that has got or had one but aren't the TMB Mono's and Zeiss ortho's a bit of a waste if we are not putting them in anything but the finest optical quality scopes.

Alan.

I don't think so Alan. My scopes are certainly not "premium" but seem to benefit from the best eyepieces I can afford. Baader GO's / Delos / XW's are only fractionally lower in performance than the very best there is.

What I have heard is that the benefits of the very best eyepieces are more pronounced when they are used in really large scopes with top quality optics - something like 25+ inch F/4 dobs with the best mirrors that money can buy.

When I get such a beast I'll report on the differences I see

[alan potts]

I was not sure if the more affordable scopes delivered, but clearly they do. I know I have one very good one and that always seems to spit Sirius more easy than some of the others I have.

Guess we had both better start saving then, 25 inch with 1/10pv optics, what's that about 10,000-12,000 and a step ladder.

Alan.

[bingevader]

I can probably manage the step ladder at the minute!

Robin, Congratulations on the 18mm ExSc, that's the 2inch one isn't it?

Yep, very good indeed.

Cheers

[russ.will]

Yes, really looking forward to using it, especially on the Moon.

I'm very interested to hear what you think of the 18mm. I seem to be alone it not particularly liking it.

Russell

[alan potts]

Russell,

It would not do for us to all be the same, I don't think a great deal to my LX 200 as it happens but many love them. This is of course one of the F/L's where ExSc and Meade differ, the Meade as I am sure you know being a 1.25 eyepiece which was meant to be very good though it is the one I never had.

Alan.

[russ.will]

Indeed Alan, but I'm interested to know what Robin, as seasoned observer, thinks.

I did know about the barrel size difference, although I seem to recall posting (when) the 18mm arrived, that it had the look of a 1.25" EP in 2" body. I also note from reviews, the two 18mm EPs do share one thing in common - Tight eye relief.

Russell

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD using chubby fingers. Sorry.

[alan potts]

Russell,

Thats interesting to hear you say that I wonder if they are the same elements just different body. When you look at the whole Ex Sc 82 range there is only the much praised 11mm that is missing from the Meade range and the 18mm size difference. The 11mm in a good extra eyepiece to me as from 14mm down to 8.8mm is too much.

Alan

[russ.will]

I agree. I can spend whole evenings just roaming through those three focal lengths, just resorting to lower magnifications when trying to find something.

Russell

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD using chubby fingers. Sorry

[bingevader]

I know I many not be a "seasoned observer" with regards to an expansive EP collection and I've very little to compare it to, but I'm thoroughly enjoying my ES 18mm.

I don't find the ER tight at all and it's a significant step up from the 32mm, especially on nights when transparency isn't good enough to go much higher.

My first impression was that it looked as if it might have done as a 1.25" EP and if it is some kind of Meade clone, then that's not surprising.

It's crisp and clear across the large FOV and until I find a 14mm in the same price/quality bracket it'll do me just fine.

As always, it's horses for courses in personal EP preferences, but it's the price/quality that put ES in a very good place.

I too am eager to here Robin's assessment of the EP, you never know, he might hate it!

Cheers

[alan potts]

Bingevader,

You don't need to be a seasoned observer to have a valid opinion and at the end of the day if you like something that is all that matters in the end. I found the 16mm SWA by Meade and the the same elements used with the ExSc 16mm SWA fine for eye-relief but a few members on site found it tight. I guess there is more chance our eyes vary as oppossed to the eyepieces.

It will be nice to see what robin has to say, I guess the weather is not playing ball?

Alan.

[bingevader]

You don't need to be a seasoned observer to have a valid opinion and at the end of the day if you like something that is all that matters in the end.

I know, that's why I thought I'd chuck in my 2 pennies!

But it is always more helpful to hear from someone who can make a good comparison with a similar EP.

For my wallet, ES just seem to be hitting the quality versus price mark at the minute.

I found the 16mm SWA by Meade and the the same elements used with the ExSc 16mm SWA fine for eye-relief but a few members on site found it tight. I guess there is more chance our eyes vary as oppossed to the eyepieces.

I'm sure that's the case. I'm more than happy to use my 10mm TV Plossl, but I'm not sure I'd go much smaller than that.

It will be nice to see what robin has to say, I guess the weather is not playing ball?

Oh yes, come on Robin!

Cheers

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Eye relief was the only issue I moved from Mead S5K UWA to Nagler T4 (and a lonesome T5). The 12mm, 17mm and 22mm are used more often than most others when DSO-hunting. Very useful set of focal lengths