New Masuyama Eyepieces

[Mak the Night]

50 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

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.

 

Well, perhaps 'pseudo Masuyama' may have been more apposite. My limited experience with the 'clones' or 'pseudo Masuyama' suggested to me that anything with an orthoscopic like view with similar characteristics fell under the same definition. BCO's probably aren't even close to Masuyama type EP's internally. I still maintain that the Baader Eudiascopics and Antares 'Plossl' I have are often referred to as Masuyama clones (as I have read them described like that on other forums) are more or less indeed Masuyama inspired designs, or at least considered clones by many. 

As to the BCO's, maybe my argument was non-syllogistic, rather along the lines of: All dogs have four legs, all cats have four legs; therefore all dogs are cats. Which they aren't, of course.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

26 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

Well, perhaps 'pseudo Masuyama' may have been more apposite. My limited experience with the 'clones' or 'pseudo Masuyama' suggested to me that anything with an orthoscopic like view with similar characteristics fell under the same definition. BCO's probably aren't even close to Masuyama type EP's internally. I still maintain that the Baader Eudiascopics and Antares 'Plossl' I have are often referred to as Masuyama clones (as I have read them described like that on other forums) are more or less indeed Masuyama inspired designs, or at least considered clones by many. 

As to the BCO's, maybe my argument was non-syllogistic, rather along the lines of: All dogs have four legs, all cats have four legs; therefore all dogs are cats. Which they aren't, of course.

The understanding is essentially wrong in the case of the BCO, given the history of eyepieces. Calling a design of Ernst Abbe (1840-1905) a pseudo Masuyama, when the Masuyama EP came out in about 1985 is wrong. If you talk about other designs that place a singlet between two doublets you would be closer, but even then, looking at the design

It is in turn inspired by others:

Check out the Erfle 2, but more importantly the Zeiss Astroplanokular from 1955. Both have much the same layout, but the devil is in the detail. The various "5-lens Plossl" designs, especially from Japan might well be Masuyama clones, but Baader may also have drawn inspiration from the Zeiss Astroplan.

[jetstream]

I own a Tak LE and can say that it is one of my least liked. It is "soft" in comparison to others and with tight eyerelief - its the 12.5mm Tak LE- and offers acceptable contrast but not the best either. Looking through my eyes it does not compete at all with the 12.5mm Tak ortho.

I thought the new 45mm Masayama was a 3" eyepiece...wrong, hopefully a mass producer comes out with some 3", large FS dia eyepieces so we can maximize our rich field views, well for my SW120ED anyway lol!

The evolution of eyepiece design is a really interesting subject.

[Mak the Night]

2 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

The understanding is essentially wrong in the case of the BCO, given the history of eyepieces. Calling a design of Ernst Abbe (1840-1905) a pseudo Masuyama, when the Masuyama EP came out in about 1985 is wrong. If you talk about other designs that place a singlet between two doublets you would be closer, but even then, looking at the design

It is in turn inspired by others:

Check out the Erfle 2, but more importantly the Zeiss Astroplanokular from 1955. Both have much the same layout, but the devil is in the detail. The various "5-lens Plossl" designs, especially from Japan might well be Masuyama clones, but Baader may also have drawn inspiration from the Zeiss Astroplan.

I didn't realise the BCO's were an Abbe design. There again, I haven't taken mine apart. I assumed they were an Abbe type or inspired design with an extra element, although obviously I have no idea. All dogs are not cats. The extra element probably gave me the notion that they had some similarity with many five element designs also referred to as Super Plossls and/or psuedo Masuyama or Masuyama clones for some reason. Hence confusing my canines with my felines.

It is interesting why the Baader Eudiascopic (and its rebadged brethren) and my Antares Plossl (and its rebadged brethren) are often referred to as psuedo Masuyama or Masuyama clones by many who's opinion I greatly respect.

It certainly is a most intriguing field.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

58 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

I didn't realise the BCO's were an Abbe design. There again, I haven't taken mine apart. I assumed they were an Abbe type or inspired design with an extra element, although obviously I have no idea. All dogs are not cats. The extra element probably gave me the notion that they had some similarity with many five element designs also referred to as Super Plossls and/or psuedo Masuyama or Masuyama clones for some reason. Hence confusing my canines with my felines.

It is interesting why the Baader Eudiascopic (and its rebadged brethren) and my Antares Plossl (and its rebadged brethren) are often referred to as psuedo Masuyama or Masuyama clones by many who's opinion I greatly respect.

It certainly is a most intriguing field.

I think the confusion stems from the assumption that the BCOs have an extra element. According to the TS site they are the classic triplet-singlet design. According to Baader the main difference with the original is the use of different glasses and coatings, which allows the larger FOV

[Mak the Night]

4 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I think the confusion stems from the assumption that the BCOs have an extra element. According to the TS site they are the classic triplet-singlet design. According to Baader the main difference with the original is the use of different glasses and coatings, which allows the larger FOV

Yes, I had originally wrongly assumed the BCO's had five elements. I think it was when I was deciding on a 10mm EP for my little Mak I considered a BCO for a considerable time, then changed my mind for a Eudiascopic. Inextricably linking the two designs in my mind. In my defence, I have suffered some brain damage. It's easy to become confused when you've spent the last eighteen months learning to talk and walk again.

[jabeoo1]

Looks as if there has been a 26mm in 2" & 16mm in 1.25" introduced to the line.  Both 85 degree AFOV, could be very nice indeed.

[John]

5 hours ago, jabeoo1 said:

Looks as if there has been a 26mm in 2" & 16mm in 1.25" introduced to the line.  Both 85 degree AFOV, could be very nice indeed.

Could be great but I reckon that medium to long focal ratio scopes will get the best from them.

[25585]

The Masuyama 32mm has 82 degree AFOV and eye relief of 20mm. 

I would be interested in a comparison with a 31mm Nagler, Masuyama being much cheaper. 35 Panoptic has less FOV but better eye relief & is closer in price, so would qualify too.