Telescope Services Planetary HR Eyepieces - some quick notes

[John]

Sticking to my resolve not to buy any more eyepieces, I've just taken delivery of 2 Planetary HR eyepieces in 4mm and 5mm focal length . The Planetary HR's are the same design as the TMB / Burgess Planetary series that were until recently on sale over here (I know that FLO used to stock them). Modern Astronomy list the TS Planetary HR's at just under £50 a piece but as it happens I bought mine direct from Telescope Services in Germany. Their spec is quite impressive each having 6 elements, full multi-coatings, a 60 degree FoV and 16mm of eye relief. A novel feature is the twist-up eyecup which lets you find a nice position for your eye which suits you.

I've only had a couple of hours with these 2 but I'm already impressed. The images through both EP's are excellent in terms of both contrast and sharpness and this seems to continue right to the edge of the field with my 8 inch F/6 newt. I compared them to my Nagler 4.8mm and the Planetary HR's were just as good and provided a slightly "cooler" image. Saturn at 300x (the 4mm) with a well cooled and collimated scope was superb - even the elusive crepe ring could be made out and more than the usual single cloud belt on the disk.

What's really nice about these eyepieces is the eye relief and the generous size of the eye lens which makes viewing though these relatively short focal length eyepieces a comfortable experience. My Nagler 4.8 has an eye relief of just 7mm and it feels a bit cramped compared to the Planetary HR's even though it does have much larger field of view when you get your eye in the right position.

The Planetary HR's are nicely made - not quite in the Tele Vue league quite but nicely machined and the lens coatings (eye and field lenses) have that nice dark green tint like the Naglers have. They are larger than conventional plossls and orthos but quite light and have nice reassuring rubber grips.

One issue with the early runs of the TMB / Burgess versions of these was some off axis glare from very bright objects - notably the moon. This was sorted in later version and I certainly did not notice this issue with saturn - even then I put it just outside the field of view. I'll be interested to see how these fare with the moon.

John

[GazOC]

These EP's have had me curious for a while, the specs are very impressive. Its good to see they might be living up to their reputation.

[part timer]

The 9mm is on its way to me from modern astronomy so after reading this I'm even more exited

[jupiter01]

I use Brandons for planetary work.

[part timer]

I have now given my 9mm a workout, First viewing the sun through my PST and, later on, saturn with the Tal.

Very impressed. There is a general impression of quality about this eyepiece, both mechanicaly and optically. The views were very nice and the eypiece barlows perfectly.

Eye relief was shorter than expected but still in the comfortable area.

I'm very happy with it

[AndrewP]

That's really good to know as I've just ordered a 7mm HR to tide me over whilst I save up for a Nagler 7T6. If it turns out to be as good as the write-ups I might invest a few more too!!

[John]

That's really good to know as I've just ordered a 7mm HR to tide me over whilst I save up for a Nagler 7T6. If it turns out to be as good as the write-ups I might invest a few more too!!

I've got a Nagler T6 7mm and it works beautifully with the Skyline 200P - it's worth saving for

John

[MartinB]

John, have you had chance to compare your planetary HRs with an orthoscopic. I know all the disadvantages of orthoscopics but I find them ok. Just wondered how the planetary detail, colouration and contrast would compare.

I was interested in your comments about the colour being cooler than the Nagler. It's just the same comparing my orthoscopics with my pentax 10mm xw and 7mm xl. I think the warm colouration seen with more complex EPs is an artefact.

[John]

John, have you had chance to compare your planetary HRs with an orthoscopic. I know all the disadvantages of orthoscopics but I find them ok. Just wondered how the planetary detail, colouration and contrast would compare.

I was interested in your comments about the colour being cooler than the Nagler. It's just the same comparing my orthoscopics with my pentax 10mm xw and 7mm xl. I think the warm colouration seen with more complex EPs is an artefact.

I've not had a chance to directly compare these with Ortho's Martin. Personally I find the short eye relief of otho's (and some shorter FL plossls TBH) a bit of a pain although over the years I have tried quite a few. They (ortho's) do perform very well though.

John

[Andrew*]

I was interested in your comments about the colour being cooler than the Nagler. It's just the same comparing my orthoscopics with my pentax 10mm xw and 7mm xl. I think the warm colouration seen with more complex EPs is an artefact.

Naglers do give a warm cast to the image. Comparing the Nagler zoom to the Hyperion zoom, there was an obvious yellow tinge in the Nagler. This might be a problem to double star observers, trying to ascertain the colour of particular stars.

I'm still totally sold on the Nagler zoom though. Thoroughly believe you can't beat it for planetary work, provided your focal length isn't larger than 1000mm or so, you don't wear glasses, and you can live without paying even more for the super-clarity of e.g. a monocentric. If you consider it as 4 EPs at £70 each, it suddenly becomes more worth it (especially if you buy 2nd hand)!

However, I can certainly see the value of the HR/planetary's with their extra FOV, eye relief and lovely price. I haven't had the pleasure of trying one out.

Andrew