Starting Planetary filter collection

[Mak the Night]

Although, from my experiences, I would recommend a neodymium filter to accentuate contrast in planetary features rather than coloured Wratten filters, I think orthoscopic or orthoscopic-like eyepieces (five element Plossls/Masuyama clones) are probably even better than using a filter. Principally as they don't darken the image. Filters, by their very nature diminish the light entering the eyepiece/diagonal.

These Astro Hutech Abbe orthoscopics (above) only have a 43° FOV, but as Dave in Vermont says, this isn’t any real problem when you are using high magnifications and specifically looking for planetary detail. Furthermore, I have discovered that even with medium magnifications orthoscopics often reveal far more detail (particularly with Jupiter I find) than other forms of eyepieces. This is almost certainly due to their higher 'contrast' than other eyepiece designs. The only EP's to be similar to Abbe ortho's are Masuyama types (Baader BCO, Eudiascopic, Antares UPL etc).

As some coloured Wratten filters are not necessarily cheap and neither are neodymium filters generally, it might be worth considering a decent orthoscopic or Masuyama-type eyepiece instead.

http://astro-baby.com/reviews/Orthoscopics/Orthoscopic%20Eyepieces.htm

[John]

This was my take on a bunch of abbe orthoscopics back in 2013:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/184935-astro-hutech-orthoscopics-compared-with-baaders-orthoscopics/

Interestingly one poster in that thread seemed sure that the manufacturer of these orthos was / is Masuyama itself. I can certainly recall seeing strong resemblences in finish and style between ranges such as the Celestron Ultimas and the Baader Genuine Orthos and the Astro Hutech orthos.

If you wear glasses when observing though, abbe orthos are going to prove challenging, whatever their other virtues are.

 

 

[Mak the Night]

I've read on the Interweb that Dr Masuyama's company was bought out by Takahashi but the Masayuma Optical Shop is still producing eyepieces, even though Dr Masuyama himself has since died. It's also said that the Takahashi LE's, Celestron Ultimas, Antares UPL, University Optics and others were produced by the same company. So it wouldn't necessarily surprise me that the Astro Hutech ortho's were made by them also. There doesn't seem to be any definitive proof for any of this speculation though.

My 15mm Antares UPL certainly seems like it could have originated from the same source. It has the quality and performance.

[N3ptune]

Wow, deeply I am starting develop the need to get an orthoscopic eyepiece, you people are good at convincing me with that (:,  Mak that's a beautiful collection of Hutech Abbe orthoscopics you have.

Thanks for these informations, it's new and interesting knowledge.

If I get an Orthoscopic eyepiece , I would need something like 6.5mm or 7mm to get 153x or 143x. A 7mm would be great. But I didn't see any 7mm in the modest search I just did.

(Now, Ill read a little bit of the AstroBaby's document before I go do bed)

 

 

 

[Mak the Night]

45 minutes ago, N3ptune said:

Wow, deeply I am starting develop the need to get an orthoscopic eyepiece, you people are good at convincing me with that (:,  Mak that's a beautiful collection of Hutech Abbe orthoscopics you have.

Thanks for these informations, it's new and interesting knowledge.

If I get an Orthoscopic eyepiece , I would need something like 6.5mm or 7mm to get 153x or 143x. A 7mm would be great. But I didn't see any 7mm in the modest search I just did.

(Now, Ill read a little bit of the AstroBaby's document before I go do bed)

 

 

 

Cheers, the 12.5 & 25mm are bino pairs, the other two are a 6mm and an 18mm. They also make a 7mm version. In my experience the five element Plossls/Masuyama clones are just as good as the Abbes.

[YKSE]

8 hours ago, N3ptune said:

But what about the Plossl ? I read the Orthos were replaced by Plossl, are they doing good job too ?

Plosslsare no long original plossls  since many years back , they are achromat pairs, which are cheaper and easier to produce, but less sharp on-axis than original plossls, therfore many stock eyepieces are plossls.

In the middle of this page, there's graphs showing on-axis sharpness of some different eyepieces, Here's a quote  for people don't care to read a full page:

"Orthoscopic (Abbe) usually has somewhat smaller field than Plössl, not due to inherently  inferior field definition, but for its high standards and customary use for planetary observing."

Aslo, orthos' has longer ER than plossls (about 0.8x focal length than plossl's 0.7x), this is more obvious in shorter focal lengths.

Besides, holding your eye a bit farther away from ER works jsut fine for planetary viewing, since they're small, and on-axis view is still well illuminated (there will be off-axis vignetting though).

[Stu]

6 minutes ago, YKSE said:

Plosslsare no long original plossls  since many years back , they are achromat pairs, which are cheaper and easier to produce, but less sharp on-axis than original plossls, therfore many stock eyepieces are plossls.

In the middle of this page, there's graphs showing on-axis sharpness of some different eyepieces, Here's a quote  for people don't care to read a full page:

"Orthoscopic (Abbe) usually has somewhat smaller field than Plössl, not due to inherently  inferior field definition, but for its high standards and customary use for planetary observing."

I've generally found the views in BGOs to be just that little bit sharper even than TV Plossls

[alan potts]

It's interesting a few years back one or two people who will remain nameless and me started a run on orthoscopics and more so BGO's, the prices went silly as they had stopped being made at the time. I bought a fair selection of them as well as some Hutechs to fill the gaps, I don't regret it one bit but have to be in the mood for using them and I tend not to bother with them in my Dobsonian.

As for plantary filters which is the OP subject I have just bought a Mars A filter by TV and now await Mars, as i am not getting up at 3.00 in the morning to view it.

Alan

[Mak the Night]

4 hours ago, Stu said:

I've generally found the views in BGOs to be just that little bit sharper even than TV Plossls

I've directly compared my 15mm Antares and TV Plossls and also my 25mm AH's and TV's. I do wonder if that little bit of added 'sharpness' that can be perceived is more to do with the extra contrast produced by these type of eyepieces. But I know exactly what you mean.

[Mak the Night]

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

It's interesting a few years back one or two people who will remain nameless and me started a run on orthoscopics and more so BGO's, the prices went silly as they had stopped being made at the time. I bought a fair selection of them as well as some Hutechs to fill the gaps, I don't regret it one bit but have to be in the mood for using them and I tend not to bother with them in my Dobsonian.

As for plantary filters which is the OP subject I have just bought a Mars A filter by TV and now await Mars, as i am not getting up at 3.00 in the morning to view it.

Alan

I'm thinking of getting a TV Bandmate for the Mars Opposition, what is it like compared to the Mars A?

http://www.telescopehouse.com/accessories/filters/lunar-planetary/televue-bandmate-planetary-1-25-filter.html

[alan potts]

4 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

I'm thinking of getting a TV Bandmate for the Mars Opposition, what is it like compared to the Mars A?

http://www.telescopehouse.com/accessories/filters/lunar-planetary/televue-bandmate-planetary-1-25-filter.html

I am not really sure as I have never had both. John had the Planetary Bandmate and did not get on with it so returned it, I sort of shelved the idea of one bases on his opinion, which I value. The Mars filters were out on the market a good few years ago, 6 to my knowledge. I believe these were developed purely for Mars but they do not seem to have been very popular, this may be due to cost and the fact Mars only comes close every other year. I picked mine up from site S/H about 6 weeks back so thought it was worth a try.

TV claim the Planetary was an extension of the A and B filters to help enhance detail on Jupiter and Saturn, if that is the case I struggle to see how it can also be for Mars, not that I feel that is claimed. With them being very much new kids on the block it may well be that no one on site has viewed Mars with one.

Alan

[Mak the Night]

7 minutes ago, alan potts said:

I am not really sure as I have never had both. John had the Planetary Bandmate and did not get on with it so returned it, I sort of shelved the idea of one bases on his opinion, which I value. The Mars filters were out on the market a good few years ago, 6 to my knowledge. I believe these were developed purely for Mars but they do not seem to have been very popular, this may be due to cost and the fact Mars only comes close every other year. I picked mine up from site S/H about 6 weeks back so thought it was worth a try.

TV claim the Planetary was an extension of the A and B filters to help enhance detail on Jupiter and Saturn, if that is the case I struggle to see how it can also be for Mars, not that I feel that is claimed. With them being very much new kids on the block it may well be that no one on site has viewed Mars with one.

Alan

Thanks, I was thinking the same thing about the TV Mars filters; that they were probably too expensive and too specific for something really only observable every other year. I have also been told the Bandmate is like a very good Baader Neodymium. With Mars rapidly approaching I may just take the plunge and get the TV Bandmate.

[YKSE]

21 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

Thanks, I was thinking the same thing about the TV Mars filters; that they were probably too expensive and too specific for something really only observable every other year. I have also been told the Bandmate is like a very good Baader Neodymium. With Mars rapidly approaching I may just take the plunge and get the TV Bandmate.

If there's any Televue product I don't want to spend money on, it'll be their filters. There's just no single Televue filter has a consistent favourite review.

[Mak the Night]

5 minutes ago, YKSE said:

If there's any Televue product I don't want to spend money on, it'll be their filters. There's just no single Televue filter has a consistent favourite review.

I'll tell you if it's any good after I've seen Mars with it lol!

[alan potts]

I will be reporting on the Mars A as and when but even if it is incredible you can hardly rush out and buy one.

[Mak the Night]

I think I read on Cloudy Nights that Don Pensack said the TV Planetary Bandmate wasn't hugely dissimilar to their Mars filters anyway. I honestly think it was a bit of a marketing mistake to have two apparently dedicated Mars filters and they just couldn't sell them.

[YKSE]

2 hours ago, Mak the Night said:

I'll tell you if it's any good after I've seen Mars with it lol!

I'll be very interested in your findings, I'm also very sure that my money feel very safe

[Mak the Night]

1 minute ago, YKSE said:

I'll be very interested in your findings, I'm also very sure that my money feel very safe

I'll keep you informed if I get a chance to see Mars through the clouds.

[alan potts]

I only know of one person that has all of them having had a think and that is Joves down in Australia, he had A and B as well as the new one but he has a very young family and I have not seen him on for a fair while, he is a big TeleVue fan. I do recall a short report about the two Mars filters.

I tried my filter on Jupiter last night but the seeing was dire after a fairly hot day so not the best test, can't say I liked the colour it gave the disc and although the GRS was coming around I thought I could see better without a filter. So I await Mars.

[John]

4 hours ago, alan potts said:

...I tried my filter on Jupiter last night but the seeing was dire after a fairly hot day so not the best test, can't say I liked the colour it gave the disc and although the GRS was coming around I thought I could see better without a filter. So I await Mars.

Sounds similar to my feelings on it Alan.

[Mak the Night]

Anyway, what with the Mars Opposition coming, I decided to pull the trigger as I'd only regret not taking the opportunity if I didn't.

I suppose time will tell.

I'm almost ready for Mars now ... lol!

[alan potts]

I would not think being TV they are the same but you never know these days. Many congratulations on your new fitler, it did cross my mind having said I was not keen on the pinky colour of Jupiters disc that as least on Mars it would be less noticeable. It may be interesting to see with scopes from 4.5 inches to 18 if this makes a difference to the outcome.

Alan

[John]

When I got my TV Planetary Filter my initial reaction was that it did indeed enhance the contrast of the view of Jupiter. The pink cast that was added to the view was not great but I was expecting something like that.

When I got more analytical about the filters performance though and did quite a few comparisons "with and without" I realised that the filter was enhancing the contrast of the stronger features but this was at the expense of the more subtle ones. My reason for using a tool such as a filter is to help me "push the envelope" a bit and to see either new stuff or to make difficult stuff just a little easier and that was where I felt a bit let down. When I added the pink tint to the equation I came to the conclusion that this £125 tool was not one that was going to be for me so I got a refund. It it had cost £20 or less I'd probably have hung onto it for occasional use.

I didn't get a chance to use it on Saturn or Mars though so maybe the filter is a stronger player when viewing those worlds ?

 

[Mak the Night]

27 minutes ago, alan potts said:

I would not think being TV they are the same but you never know these days. Many congratulations on your new fitler, it did cross my mind having said I was not keen on the pinky colour of Jupiters disc that as least on Mars it would be less noticeable. It may be interesting to see with scopes from 4.5 inches to 18 if this makes a difference to the outcome.

Alan

Thanks. I have been thinking about this filter for months. I'm getting a much bigger scope in a couple of weeks, so much of what I have been acquiring is as much for that as anything. That, and the Mars Opposition are also one of the reasons I bought the 10mm Delos. Hopefully the weather will get better in a few weeks and I'll be able to test this new kit properly in a nice sized scope. I got first light with the Delos on M42 last year (unfiltered at 130x) what I saw took my breath away. And that was with a 4" Mak. Anyway, I suppose we'll see what our respective filters are like on Mars. I hope you aren't disappointed with yours.

[Mak the Night]

51 minutes ago, John said:

When I got my TV Planetary Filter my initial reaction was that it did indeed enhance the contrast of the view of Jupiter. The pink cast that was added to the view was not great but I was expecting something like that.

When I got more analytical about the filters performance though and did quite a few comparisons "with and without" I realised that the filter was enhancing the contrast of the stronger features but this was at the expense of the more subtle ones. My reason for using a tool such as a filter is to help me "push the envelope" a bit and to see either new stuff or to make difficult stuff just a little easier and that was where I felt a bit let down. When I added the pink tint to the equation I came to the conclusion that this £125 tool was not one that was going to be for me so I got a refund. It it had cost £20 or less I'd probably have hung onto it for occasional use.

I didn't get a chance to use it on Saturn or Mars though so maybe the filter is a stronger player when viewing those worlds ?

 

I'll have to see what this filter is like. I know using filters is very subjective, I'd been debating about the Bandmate for a while, as you say, it's not cheap. I blame Mars Opposition fever! lol