TMP planetary II eyepieces

[aerohound73]

 Hi was just wondering if anyone has used TMB planetary II eyepieces and what is their opinion of them?How good of an image does it produce and are there any problems with this eyepiece series?

[Grotemobile]

They are good for the price.They work well

at f10.Not so good in faster scopes f3-f5.

I have a 5mm & a 3.2.I have had no problems.

Steve

[ronin]

The TMB planetary's never quite lived up to expectations, the first series had a few small problems and when eventually fixed people seemed hesitant. Then better ones appeared. Also just about all the TMB's that you can buy in Europe are clones of the original TMB planetary and exactly what the design or features is open to question. Think there is just one outlet in the US that sells genuine TMB's.

Not sure where you are expecting to purchase from but the BST Starguiders are similar cost and a lot better.

In TS the TS HR's are apparently the same as the TMB's and are said to be reasonable as in closer to genuine TMB performance (59€), the TS NED are the same as the BST Starguiders (74€).

The whole aspect of TMB planetary eyepieces can get heated, and I suspect no-one actually is fully aware of the situation. I have 2 TMB's II and the BST's, I do not bother with the TMB's as the BST's out perform them by quite a margin.

Rats, read Breton and jump to the idea you were in France.

Nearest to BST Starguiders would be the Astro-trech Paradigms, and the Agena ED II. Same eyepiece just different names, both $60US, not aware of anyone in Canada selling the same but sure there is at least one.

Just looked up where you are - you must have some really dark skies there.

[aerohound73]

Its pitch black in my backyard.....I love it...some awesome views with my 200mm reflector!

[NGC 1502]

Its pitch black in my backyard.....I love it...some awesome views with my 200mm reflector!

We are not envious, we are VERY envious 

Enjoy your dark skies, Ed.

[Schorhr]

I have the HR Planetary 58 degree apparent field of view in 2.5mm, 3.2mm and 8mm.

These are great, affordable eyepieces that will work well at f/5.

For the 2.5mm to work you would require a well parabolized mirror and good collimation.

I would suggest going for 4-3mm as the exit pupil is a tad larger then, so under dark skies, you can use it for some DSO as well.

[Roy Challen]

Hmm, I have the 7.5mm 'clone', 'TMB designed', 'not genuine' whatever you want to call it. I got it s/h and my first look through it caused my jaw to put my alignment out! I was comparing it with my BGO 9mm which I got around the same time. Optically there is no difference, at least to my eyes in my scope. It is just as sharp edge to edge, and has just as good colour correction as the BGO. Of course it also has a wider FoV and better eye relief. I would like more time to make sure that my comparisons are correct, and if so there will be a bgo for sale and I'll be looking for another TMB.

Roy

[John]

I've had just the opposite experience. The Baader GO's, Astro Hutech and Fujiyama orthos that I have used have all delivered better quality images than even the original line of TMB / Burgess planetaries. The latter was a good attempt to deliver orthoscopic type qualities along with long eye relief and a wider apparent field but didn't quite live up to their billing in my opinion and the later clones have fallen a little further short I feel.

They are not bad eyepieces but nothing special wheras, the BGO gets closer to the very top levels of performance (Ie: Zeiss ZAO / TMB Supermono / Pentax XO) than it has any right to for it's purchase price.

For an eyepiece that delivers really close to BGO performance AND has the eyerelief the Vixen SLV's are well worth consideration although the pricing is well above the TMB Planetaries and their clones.

[ronin]

Roy, the history of these is pretty convoluted. None of it being helped by the sudden death of Thomas Back. From what I have slowly fallen across there was the Mk1 and Mk11. Then it seems they were licenced to be made in China, whether or not it was MkI's, MkII's or both seems lost. Also somwhat unknown is who was licenced to make them, I have seen at least 3 Chinese manufacturers with them on their website.

Then of course what if it simply does not say TMB on the side, or planetary?

Barsta that make the BST/Astro-Tech and some Skywatcher eyepieces have a range of 58 degree eyepieces in the same focal lengths but a slightly different external case and they are UWA eyepieces. I bet they are the same lens inside however.

So I suspect there are good clones and bad clones, and what you get is going to be difficult to preempt.

I have one somewhere that says Burgess on the side.

On thing is do not ask on the CN forum, I have seen this topic get quite heated. :eek:

[Roy Challen]

John,

I do like my BGO 9mm, it was after reading one of your reports that I decided to buy the next one that appeared on ABS! And I don't regret buying it at all, it's just that I was soooo surprised at the TMB. I just acquired a Televue barlow so I'll see how they both perform with that. Eyerelief doesn't bother me as I don't wear glasses so, I may have been a bit hasty when I said I would sell the BGO, and I seem to have got lucky with the TMB, but it really is that good. I also had a BST 8mm which I bought on the back of SGL reviews, it may have been a dud but it was nowhere near the TMB. I also have a Vixen NLV which I like.

Ronin,

Yes, I have read all the posts on here and CN regarding the history of these eyepieces and the controversy surrounding them, and I'm slightly bemused by the extreme brand loyalty exhibited by some of the posters on CN. But each to their own! I'm not so brand loyal, I just want a good (read very good) view through my telescope, and I can't afford super expensive eyepieces (yet). As you say, there are a number of eyepieces with virtually the same optics just in different casings, and the TMB planetary is just one of them  (aren't most eyepieces copies or evolutions of previous designs anyway?)

Roy

[John]

I can quite understand preferring eyepieces that offer more eye relief Roy. The shorter focal length orthos can be quite a chore with their short eye relief and tiny eye lenses

The Vixen SLV's seem to get very close to offering the best of both worlds.

[gooseholla]

I purchased the 6mm in Feb or March this year. To me it is a lovely eyepiece for c. £40 delivered (Skies the Limit). I have used it on Saturn, Jupiter and Mars this year and enjoyed excellent views, when the conditions have allowed me to go that high in my scope. I did consider purchasing more, but have no need to I don't think, at the moment.

[Charic]

I had the TMB 6mm Planetary II, from Sky's,  and at the time,   did not like it.  I felt the field of view was'nt right in comparison to my BST's.? Now my understandings are better, and I'm now once again looking for something 'Planetary' to  yet again compare to what I allready own.  When I last studied Jupiter, I eventually did get the perfect image one night, but I now wonder if it was ll just down to patience and conditions, or  could I have achieved  a better image, a little sooner, with a purpose built 'Plannetary' occular? My search is ongoing. 

[OC_]

TMB Planetary II normal planetary eyepiece, but the planets began to use eyepieces Astro-Fisiss or Vixen SLV picture in their contrast and nasyshenee

[OC_]

Photo eyepiece parsing and its schema