TMB Supermonos or ZAO IIs for f/5 newt?

[denis0007dl]

I want to hear your experiences and which eyepieces you recommend better for f/5 Newt, TMB Supermonos or ZAO IIs?

Thanxs!

[John]

Rare and expensive eyepieces those. I owned a TMB Supermoncentric 5mm for a while and it was just a little better at showing subtle planetary contrast than a University HD Ortho 5mm when the seeing conditions were excellent. Under average seeing conditions I could see little or no difference between them.

From what I've read the Zeiss ZAO II's perform at least as well as the TMB Supermono's so, given the 30 degree apparent field and tiny eye lens of the latter, I'd probably go for the ZAO II's. The huge assumption however is that you can find any for sale anywhere - they are as rare as hens teeth on the used market and there are only limited numbers of the Supermono's being commissioned by APM in Germany at something around £400 apiece.

If you are able to accept a very slight compromise in ultimate performance under the best conditions then the Baader Genuine Orthoscopics (used) or the Astro Hutech and Fujiyama Ortho's provide very good performance for considerably less outlay.

[Dude_with_the_tube]

Absolute overkill for f5 newt.both sets of these EP's are as a min 3000usd per set and as John said,super rare to find.i have a set of BGO and they provide absolutely beautiful planetary views and I can't wish for anything else.is there any difference between circle t or BGO in views? Nope.and if there is,then I am struggling to see it.would I swap them for as a min 5 times more expensive set with tighter relief and narrower view to gain that tiny increase of quality? No unless someone gives them to me as a present .

[Andrew*]

I would agree with John and Dude. I have a set of Zeiss Abbe-IIs, but have never tried a monocentric. I have compared the orthos to many different eyepieces and have only observed very subtle improvements in the view. For example, I felt the colour saturation was noticeably greater on Albireo than a Circle-T ortho. I also observed a 2km crater on the moon near Pico which I could not see as readily in another ortho. In another example I observed the E and F stars in the Trapezium in the Orion nebula in a 120mm refractor in moments of good seeing.

These examples are rare and the differences are very slight indeed. Recently I had a TV Delos, Baader zoom eyepiece and ZAO-II looking at the sun in white light and could not see any obvious improvements in in the ZAO at all.

99% of observers will be much better off investing their hard-earned in Baader orthoscopics or those of a similar caliber, or something more comfortable such as the Pentax XW or Delos range which offer orthoscopic-quality views, rather than the huge sums required for the top tier. The other 1% are dedicated planetary observers whose observing skill and meticulous observing standards demand that last tiny sliver of transmission and scatter control to get the finest details in the best seeing conditions. If you are (which I am not, by the way) in this last % and have exhausted the possibilities afforded by the next best orthoscopics, I would recommend the ZAO-II for its larger true field and I imagine better edge sharpness in a fast newt than the monocentrics, but bear in mind I haven't tried the latter.

Andrew

[denis0007dl]

Thanxs all for comments, and expecting more comments, especially from first hand experienced observers with these eyepieces!

I have read that TMB Supermonos are not so good for fast systems like f/5.....

Someone mention Delos eyepieces.....

[Andrew*]

I did :-p

Have you read the reviews on cloudynights? There's one particular one - 6mm shootout, which I think compares the two you're after. If i remember correctly, the ZAO matched or beat the mono on every category.

[John]

Thanxs all for comments, and expecting more comments, especially from first hand experienced observers with these eyepieces!

I have read that TMB Supermonos are not so good for fast systems like f/5.....

Someone mention Delos eyepieces.....

You are right that TMB Supermono's are optimised for F/7 and slower scopes. They do work pretty well in faster ones though because they simply don't show much field that is far from the central optical axis, having such a narrow apparent field of view.

I may be wrong but I doubt you will get lots of feedback on these eyepiece types as not many folks actually own and use them as far as I know !.

Lot's of folks use the Delos and XW eyepieces though and those are excellent performers and also offer comfortable eyerelief, large eye lenses and sharp 70 degree fields of view as well 

[Naemeth]

At this price point I doubt there are many who own one, let alone both. I'm sure both would be fine at F/5, it really is a lot of $$ to put in a standard newt.

[BillP]

I've had the TMB Supermonos in 4mm to 8mm focal lengths and have used all the ZAO-IIs and some of the Is and currently maintain the 6mm ZAO-II (I would like them all but just can't afford).  In my f/4.7 10" Dob, only half of the AFOV of a TMB Supermono is in focus.  So they have quite a bit of field curvature when used in fast scopes.  For a fast scope, I much prefer the ZAOs.  Both are neck-in-neck in performance, although the ZAO does not have the short focal ratio scope problem (especially the ZAO-IIs) and you get a lot more AFOV and better eye relief as well.

[alan potts]

I am not going to disagree with anything that has been said along the lines of are they really worth it. As Bill above states only half the FOV is in focus using  TMB Super, I would not pay 400 quid for that type of performance. Then of course there is getting the Zeiss Orthos, more chance of being run over on the Moon. I would go for, as I have, BGO's or Hutechs.

The other one to consider but I have yet to see a 5mm one S/H is the Pentax XO, though TS are showing stock of the 2.5mm, a bit short for me or it would be gone.

Alan