New Masuyama Eyepieces

[Mak the Night]

Masuyama Ultra-Premium Japanese 2" Eyepieces

I've just seen these. I have some Masuyama clones like the Baader BCO's, Eudiascopics and an Antares UPL, but these look like the real thing. I so want one!

[John]

They have an almost cult following over the pond.

I guess with those focal lengths they are aimed at the big SCT market ?

 

[YKSE]

49 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

Masuyama Ultra-Premium Japanese 2" Eyepieces

I've just seen these. I have some Masuyama clones like the Baader BCO's, Eudiascopics and an Antares UPL, but these look like the real thing. I so want one!

I'm not sure BCOs are clones to Masuyama, 3-1 lens/group arrangement i BCOs don't seem resembly 2-1-2 in Masuyama. Masuyamas are surely beautifully made, so are the price tag

[Mak the Night]

26 minutes ago, John said:

They have an almost cult following over the pond.

I guess with those focal lengths they are aimed at the big SCT market ?

 

I know they have a legendary status in the US. I was thinking that the 45mm would be good for my 235mm SCT. 52x for a 4.5mm exit pupil. I don't know if I'd see the obstruction at that magnification though. Plus, 500 quid or so is extravagant even by my standards. I'm starting to warm to the idea though lol.

[Mak the Night]

6 minutes ago, YKSE said:

I'm not sure BCOs are clones to Masuyama, 3-1 lens/group arrangement i BCOs don't seem resembly 2-1-2 in Masuyama. Masuyamas are surely beautifully made, so are the price tag

I don't think the BCO's are exact copies, probably more like they are heavily influenced by the Masuyama design.

[YKSE]

51 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

I don't think the BCO's are exact copies, probably more like they are heavily influenced by the Masuyama design.

May I ask what's the evidence of "heavily influenced"?

[Putaendo Patrick]

I've heard that Masuyama originally did a 100mm 4inch diameter eyepiece! Meanwhile this 80mm 3 inch might be a nice addition to my kit Dreaming is free, they say!

http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/eyepieces/less-than-60-fov/ploessl/kokusai-kohki-3-inch-barrel-masuyama-80mm-eyepiece

To put it in context, if you wanted to achieve a magnification of x100, you would need a focal length of 8 meters.

It'll be interesting to see how the new line, with improved glass and coatings, compares with the old Masuyamas. I may just buy a lottery ticket....

[F15Rules]

Lovely looking eyepieces to be sure, but £500+ for a 53degree fov??

I'd rather have the Eudascopic/Ultimas for around £130, and get some ES 24/30/40mm 68s with the change:-)

Dave

[Mak the Night]

20 minutes ago, YKSE said:

May I ask what's the evidence of "heavily influenced"?

I don't know, I'm guessing the idea of orthoscopic contrast with a larger FOV than most traditional Abbe ortho's. I'm not an expert on eyepiece design. Try phoning Al Nagler, I'm sure he'd know lol. I believe you won't be able to do the same with Sensei Masuyama San, as he's sadly deceased. I read somewhere how someone had disassembled a Baader Eudiascopic and it had similarities to a Masuyama EP but was actually quite different. They still tend to fall under the definition of Masuyama clones though.

[YKSE]

Baader Eudiascopic is said to be Masuyama clone since they're of the same 2-1-2 lens/group design and similar lens curves. BCOs are 3-1 lens/group of traditional abbe ortho design with most likely larger field stop, therefore wider FOV, also with pincushion distortion in the edge which don't exist in traditional abbe ortho. I'm no optical expert, but 2-1-2 lens/group vs 3-1 lens/group says clearly to me that they have no similarities.

[John]

There have been rumours for years that certain quality eyepiece ranges from other brands were manufactured by Masuyama, eg: the original Celestron Ultima's and Axiom's, Orion Ultrascopics etc.

Having owned those and Baader GO's, Astro Hutech Orthos, Fujiyama Orthos and University Optics HD orthos I can see resemblances in the fit, style and finish (but not optics) of the eyepieces but I don't know if that proves that Masuyama were involved in their production or not

It's possible that Masuyama produced eyepieces for other brands (many quality manufacturers have over the years) and also maintained their own exclusive range which are much admired. I guess it's also possible that the style, fit and finish was popular within Japanese manufacturing and so were adopted by another manufacturer for those other ranges.

I suspect we will never know the truth unless someone can lay their hands on agreements between Masuyama and the other brands, which seems unlikely. Tele Vue manage to keep the manufacturers they use under wraps so I guess other brands might want confidentiality in who they use as well.

It's fun to speculate though

[Mak the Night]

4 hours ago, YKSE said:

Baader Eudiascopic is said to be Masuyama clone since they're of the same 2-1-2 lens/group design and similar lens curves. BCOs are 3-1 lens/group of traditional abbe ortho design with most likely larger field stop, therefore wider FOV, also with pincushion distortion in the edge which don't exist in traditional abbe ortho. I'm no optical expert, but 2-1-2 lens/group vs 3-1 lens/group says clearly to me that they have no similarities.

I'll take your word for it. I meant they had similar properties or characteristics. My 15mm Antares UPL is considered a Masuyama clone by many. It's very similar to looking through an 18mm BCO to me. So, to me, the BCO is a Masuyama clone.

[Mak the Night]

4 hours ago, John said:

There have been rumours for years that certain quality eyepiece ranges from other brands were manufactured by Masuyama, eg: the original Celestron Ultima's and Axiom's, Orion Ultrascopics etc.

Having owned those and Baader GO's, Astro Hutech Orthos, Fujiyama Orthos and University Optics HD orthos I can see resemblances in the fit, style and finish (but not optics) of the eyepieces but I don't know if that proves that Masuyama were involved in their production or not

It's possible that Masuyama produced eyepieces for other brands (many quality manufacturers have over the years) and also maintained their own exclusive range which are much admired. I guess it's also possible that the style, fit and finish was popular within Japanese manufacturing and so were adopted by another manufacturer for those other ranges.

I suspect we will never know the truth unless someone can lay their hands on agreements between Masuyama and the other brands, which seems unlikely. Tele Vue manage to keep the manufacturers they use under wraps so I guess other brands might want confidentiality in who they use as well.

It's fun to speculate though

It is all quite intriguing. Have you ever compared a Luminos with an Axiom? I have a 10mm Luminos that I use for planetary observing. The EOFB and occasional glaring don't bother me with a planetary target. I just like the 82° FOV for observing at high magnification (200x plus) with a non-driven mount. The Luminos are often denigrated and I believe are cheaper than the Axiom were. I don't think the Luminos was that bad though and they are quite well made and engineered.

[jetstream]

I believe that when Zeiss gave Baader the rights to their designs the BCO was one of the Abbe versions never released by Zeiss, with an extended field and pinchusion chosen, as Televue does, for its characteristics. No one else has Baaders (Zeiss) coating formula used with the BCO- and who knows what glass is in them.

The better the seeing and the bigger the scope the more the BCO's will pull away from many, many eyepieces, including my highly regarded KK Fuji Orthos.

I'm thinking Masuyama chose eyepiece designs from the multitudes out there- like most everyone else- and made some great eyepieces. I don't believe Baader "cloned" Masuyama on anything, but they may have both built ( or had built) the same eyepiece designs, such as the Abbe ortho.

It might be probable that a company named Ohi supplied many orthos with lenses, such as Circle T, University Optics, possibly Fujiyama and also possibly Masuyama...

edit- Ohi may have been run or owned by Mr Masuyama...

 

[Putaendo Patrick]

6 minutes ago, jetstream said:

It might be probable that a company named Ohi supplied many orthos with lenses, such as Circle T, University Optics, possibly Fujiyama and also possibly Masuyama...

Jetstream, I think that is certainly part of the story. The Japanese optics industry shares a similarly complex history to older Swiss watches, with many players often contributing to the finished article. Masuyama has always confused me, and it seems (for once) I'm not the only one!

So, to start, a certain Mr (or Dr) Masuyama designed a new type of eyepiece in the 1980s. These EPs were originally sold by a small retailer in Japan called ATM. But who made them? Some people claim that Mr Masuyama had a manufacturing company - but I've never seen any proof for or against. Nor do I know if Mr Masuyama owned ATM or if they merely bought his products.

The original line of Masuyama eyepieces appear to have last only a short while in the market place. Some people claim he sold out to Takahashi - but if so, what did he sell? His manufacturing company or the EP design? And what did Takahashi do with it?

And at some point, the original Mr Masuyama died.

Jump ahead to 2013 when William Paolini published his Choosing and Using Astronomical Eyepieces. Paolini lists two lines of Masuyama EPs. The first were described as discontinued, the second had apparently been advertised but were as yet unavailable. The technical specifications for both lines were given by the Ohi Optical Manufacturing Company Ltd., Japan.

Jump ahead to the present, at least one Masuyami EP is being provided by Kokusai Kohki who appear to be a Kyoto-based retailer. According to their web-site, "Our business serves mainly the local Japanese amateur astronomy market" and they "locally represent SBIG, APM, TMB, JMI, Kendricks AI, Astro Systems, Losmandy, Baader Planetarium, Synta and many other fine overseas astronomy equipment makers as their Japan agent."

But Kokusai Kohki also appear to have some interest in the manufacture of two brands of Japanese EPs - firstly Fujiyama HD-OR which they say "are hand crafted at our Tokyo factory" and seondly Masuyama. "In collaboration with Mr Masuyama of Masuyama eyepiece fame, Kokusai Kohki has gone out on a limb in introducing a truly new eyepiece, the 3 inch barrel size Masuyama 80mm". http://www.kkohki.com/English/kkohkiparts.html

Nevertheless, the Ohi Optical Manufacturing Company still appears to be the actual manufacturer. I don't read Japanese, but their site http://www.ohi-optical.co.jp/base.html appears to show technical specifications and even a photo of a production bench.

And finally, now FLO is offering three further Masuyami EPs. Are they sourcing them from this same Kokusai Kohki / Ohi Optical Manufacturing Company relation? Or maybe a completely new player is entering the market? Improbable, but the possibility exists!

So, is Masuyami now merely the name of a design (like Plossl) perhaps used under some form of licensing agreement, or do today's Masuyami have a direct continuity with those originally made in the 1980s?

 

[Mak the Night]

These are the nearest eyepieces I have to 'Masuyama' type designs. The Antares 15mm is Japanese made and seems slightly longer than a normal Plossl. Although the 10mm Baader Eudiascopic is only about the same size as an equivalent Plossl. It has an FOV of 44.4° as opposed to 45.6° for the 35mm Eudiascopic. The Antares appears to have a 50° FOV to me, and yet, both the Eudiascopic and the Antares UPL are considered Masuyama clones.

This pair of 18mm BCO's also have 50° FOV's although the 10° or so towards the EOF is not as sharp and mainly to aid in target acquiring I believe. I use them primarily for lunar/planetary at magnifications around 200x-250x.

All of the above eyepieces have an orthoscopic type contrast or quality which is quite noticeable. I was under the impression that Masuyama type eyepieces had an orthoscopic type contrast often combined with around a 50° FOV. The Baader Eudiascopics are less than 50° however. Which is why I assumed the BCO's were influenced by Masuyama designs. I shall have to do more reading up on this lol.

[jetstream]

The views through the eyepiece is what counts, to me anyway, I have a chart somewhere with many designs, old like the Abbe and relatively new, like the Nagler design.

3 of your pictured eyepieces have this lens configuration, one is a plossl and I'm not sure what the Eudascopic is really.

I can say this Mak, you have some nice glass!

[Mak the Night]

28 minutes ago, jetstream said:

The views through the eyepiece is what counts, to me anyway, I have a chart somewhere with many designs, old like the Abbe and relatively new, like the Nagler design.

3 of your pictured eyepieces have this lens configuration, one is a plossl and I'm not sure what the Eudascopic is really.

I can say this Mak, you have some nice glass!

Thanks, a lot of that glass wasn't cheap lol. The Antares is interesting, they were sold under quite a few different brand names including Celestron. I think it may be what is often termed a 'Super Plossl' and has five elements rather than the traditional four of a regular Plossl. Having said that, I'm not quite sure what a regular Plossl actually constitutes as Al Nagler in the late '70s apparently redesigned and improved the original design by Georg Simon Plössl back in 1860. Oddly,  the Antares has the letters M.C. written on it. Masuyama Clone? Surely not? ROTFL

[YKSE]

Here's definition of orthoscopic according to Oxford dictionary:

Having or producing normal vision; yielding an image free from optical distortion; specifically of binocular vision: without the reversal of convexity and concavity produced by pseudoscopic instruments.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/orthoscopic

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, YKSE said:

Here's definition of orthoscopic according to Oxford dictionary:

Having or producing normal vision; yielding an image free from optical distortion; specifically of binocular vision: without the reversal of convexity and concavity produced by pseudoscopic instruments.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/orthoscopic

Well, you can't argue with the OED. Generally though, when amateur astronomers discuss 'orthoscopic' eyepieces they're usually referring to Abbe-type orthoscopic eyepieces.

Op cit ~ ‘orthoscopic eyepiece noun Optics a kind of eyepiece, typically consisting of a planoconvex eye lens with a triplet field lens, giving a high-quality image..’ (sic)

Which just about describes what I know of Abbe orthoscopic eyepieces. What strikes me about various Masuyama clones (at least the ones I've used) is their similarity to using an Abbe orthoscopic in the respect to the very high contrast definition. I have every one of the TeleVue 1.25" Plossls, and as superb as they are, they are different to look through compared to a bog standard Abbe-type orthoscopic.

The 'Masuyama clones' however, do seem to be very orthoscopic-like in use. My 18.2mm TeleVue DeLite is like using a 60° orthoscopic, although I've never heard it referred to as a Masuyama clone.

[YKSE]

There're more correct way to use a word, and also less corret ways, it's everyone's free choice when we know the differences

[Mak the Night]

32 minutes ago, YKSE said:

There're more correct way to use a word, and also less corret ways, it's everyone's free choice when we know the differences

Well, technically, it's a matter of semiotic interpretation.

[jetstream]

These 2 look similar

 

[jetstream]

You know, if the Masuyama 45mm has a large enough field stop and is actually offered for sale, I might buy one for my SW120ED....

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

On 6/25/2016 at 19:18, Mak the Night said:

Well, you can't argue with the OED. Generally though, when amateur astronomers discuss 'orthoscopic' eyepieces they're usually referring to Abbe-type orthoscopic eyepieces.

Op cit ~ ‘orthoscopic eyepiece noun Optics a kind of eyepiece, typically consisting of a planoconvex eye lens with a triplet field lens, giving a high-quality image..’ (sic)

Which just about describes what I know of Abbe orthoscopic eyepieces. What strikes me about various Masuyama clones (at least the ones I've used) is their similarity to using an Abbe orthoscopic in the respect to the very high contrast definition. I have every one of the TeleVue 1.25" Plossls, and as superb as they are, they are different to look through compared to a bog standard Abbe-type orthoscopic.

The 'Masuyama clones' however, do seem to be very orthoscopic-like in use. My 18.2mm TeleVue DeLite is like using a 60° orthoscopic, although I've never heard it referred to as a Masuyama clone.

The TMB Paragon also has "Orthoscopic Super-Wide" on the barrel for the reasons stated in the OED.  Its rectilinear distortion is indeed minimal.

Throughout the thread you use the word clone in a very odd meaning: i.e. that the externals (such as barrel design, focal length F.O.V.) of the designs are similar, whereas everyone else is looking at the internals (2-1-2 of Masuyama vs 3-1 of Abbe orthoscopic), i.e. the actual optical design. I have seen a 25mm Plossl with exactly the same specs as a Kelner 25mm. Only the lettering on the housing showed the difference. That does not make them  clones in my book. By contrast, I call my MaxVision 24mm 68 deg a clone of the Meade S5K SWA of the same specs a clone, because they are optically near identical (coatings may differ). In that sense the ES 24mm 68 deg is also a clone, although its housing is different, unlike the Meade vs MaxVision case, in which the barrel design is very similar indeed.