Brandon vs Televue (8mm)

[John]

The orthos that I've used and reported on here seem to have done pretty well in my F/5.3 dob and F/6.5 refractor. They included Baader GO's Astro Hutech and Fujiyama's of various focal lengths.

By Super Abbe do you mean these ?:

http://www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Accessories-Telescopes-Ascension.asp?p=0_10_5_1_1_1

I've tried a couple of those but they were not a patch on Baader Classic Orthos let alone BGO's etc for me.

 

 

[jabeoo1]

Back to the Moon last night, & Judging by other members viewing reports the seeing was nothing short of excellent, the very seeing that EP's are free to reveal their excellence.  The view in the Brandon was nothing short of breathtaking.  The softened periphery /  frame to the exceptional on axis view was not distracting.  As the details drifted across the field of view the Brandon hoovered up everything, revealing an exceptionally rich view that appeared tonally untainted.  The razor impression of the long shadow angled off Mt Piton to the Imbrium basin was precisely razor sharp, only delaying a glance to the Apennine Mountains which were a million greys frozen mid roiling boil.

The 3D, sharpness, contrast and honest tones revealed in these viewing conditions makes me hold this eyepiece tighter than I thought I would.  I have not had much time with the Tak-100 & I suspect everything just fell into place last night.  Comparing the Brandon to the TV seems a lost venture,  if you can have a go with one then do.  Even if you just sell it on to someone else who in turn might hold it dearer than you, and speaking of dear, they are, which is a shame because if they were more affordable new I suspect they would be more coveted here in the UK.   

I must look through the 48mm Brandon on a dark sky.   The last time I saw the entire double cluster in Perseus was through my now sold 26mm Nagler & 10" Dob.  The 48mm gives the same TFOV in the Tak-100.  

I can understand why they divide opinion, but I am addicted now. 

[John]

The conditions were superb for high power viewing yeasterday evening - until the clouds came along

Sounds like this is a case where these eyepieces are different in character rather than one being better than the other.

Thanks for posting your experiences with them

 

[mikeDnight]

On 05/01/2017 at 18:23, John said:

The orthos that I've used and reported on here seem to have done pretty well in my F/5.3 dob and F/6.5 refractor. They included Baader GO's Astro Hutech and Fujiyama's of various focal lengths.

By Super Abbe do you mean these ?:

http://www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Accessories-Telescopes-Ascension.asp?p=0_10_5_1_1_1

I've tried a couple of those but they were not a patch on Baader Classic Orthos let alone BGO's etc for me.

 

 

Yes John, I think they are the same with a different label. I've used a 16.8mm pair for years in my binoviewer and they gave better views than my 18mm Tak LE's. They also gave superior views to the 18 and 12.5mm Fujiyamas, but to be fair, the Fujiyamas had to be faulty they were so bad. The tiniest, tiniest fraction off axis and the Fujiyamas just fell to pieces, giving totally distorted views. I could only put the problem down to faulty grinding of the lenses, so even in polishing they were doomed!

I'd like to try different brands/makes, but so far I'm having great views with the super abbe generic cheapies, which in the bv  give more detailed lunar and planetary views than my 5mm XW, which itself is excellent. Working at the scopes native F7.5 the super abbes are not so good, showing considerable edge distortion. With a 2X Barlow they are sharp to the edge!

Mike

[mikeDnight]

23 hours ago, jabeoo1 said:

Back to the Moon last night, & Judging by other members viewing reports the seeing was nothing short of excellent, the very seeing that EP's are free to reveal their excellence.  The view in the Brandon was nothing short of breathtaking.  The softened periphery /  frame to the exceptional on axis view was not distracting.  As the details drifted across the field of view the Brandon hoovered up everything, revealing an exceptionally rich view that appeared tonally untainted.  The razor impression of the long shadow angled off Mt Piton to the Imbrium basin was precisely razor sharp, only delaying a glance to the Apennine Mountains which were a million greys frozen mid roiling boil.

The 3D, sharpness, contrast and honest tones revealed in these viewing conditions makes me hold this eyepiece tighter than I thought I would.  I have not had much time with the Tak-100 & I suspect everything just fell into place last night.  Comparing the Brandon to the TV seems a lost venture,  if you can have a go with one then do.  Even if you just sell it on to someone else who in turn might hold it dearer than you, and speaking of dear, they are, which is a shame because if they were more affordable new I suspect they would be more coveted here in the UK.   

I must look through the 48mm Brandon on a dark sky.   The last time I saw the entire double cluster in Perseus was through my now sold 26mm Nagler & 10" Dob.  The 48mm gives the same TFOV in the Tak-100.  

I can understand why they divide opinion, but I am addicted now. 

Now you need to stop this! I'm finding myself looking at complete sets of Brandons and I've a feeling this isn't going to end well for me, financially speaking!

Mike 

[John]

Are they really worth £200 apiece ?

Nothing I've read here or on other forums have convinced me that they are apart from the novelty of owning something "different". Sorry to be blunt.

I reckon Ed Ting has probably got it right - their time has come ..... and gone:

http://www.scopereviews.com/page3f.html

Heres a set in Europe for you Mike:

http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/eyepieces/eyepiece-cases-sets/brandon-eyepiece-set-walnut-case

Cheaper than a Tak 100 at least ....

 

[mikeDnight]

7 hours ago, John said:

Are they really worth £200 apiece ?

Nothing I've read here or on other forums have convinced me that they are apart from the novelty of owning something "different". Sorry to be blunt.

I reckon Ed Ting has probably got it right - their time has come ..... and gone:

http://www.scopereviews.com/page3f.html

Heres a set in Europe for you Mike:

http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/eyepieces/eyepiece-cases-sets/brandon-eyepiece-set-walnut-case

Cheaper than a Tak 100 at least ....

 

Thanks for that sobering wake up call John!

There was a thread on CN about a year ago, in which Brandons were the topic of discussion. I mentioned in passing that I used XW's. It seemed to be the opinion of several Brandon owners that I keep the XW's in favour of the Brandon's, as the comfort factor coupled with the already excellent optics would outweigh any supposed advantage the Brandons may have.

The only thing I dislike about the XW's is the unneccessarily bulky body, making them difficult for some observers to use in binoviewers. It annoyed me when I read in the leaflet that came with the XW's the statement "New American Size!" If I could thin down the body they'd be perfect, but it seems that bulk and weight have some strange appeal?? 

When I got the FC100, I thought it would be nice to have a set of lightweight occulars of high quality that would match the scope. And, despite the sound advice of those Brandon owners, I did eventually sell my entire set of XW's, putting myself through many pains buying and trying different supposed high end eyepieces, which never quite matched my expectations. Some in fact were a massive disappointment! I'm now slowly reacquiring XW's!  

Mike

[Timebandit]

 

Yes , the Pentax XW really do take some beating for the optical quality, eyerelief and fov  .   These eyepieces are like a top notch Ortho without all the disadvantage that can come with an Ortho, tight eyerelief, fov. IMO a great eyepiece would spend the money on Pentax XW rather than Brandon at £200 anyday

At the price of a set of Brandon's IMO you would be better off buying one or two second hand ZAO in your most used focal length. At least then you know you will be getting the best of the best in optical term's.      

[jabeoo1]

If I look up the word Crank in the dictionary, one definition states:  A person who has strange or unusual ideas or beliefs.  

There is understanding here where some of us are coming from.  Its not always about the cutting edge comfortable easy options that make for pleasurable experience. Thats why I have a log burner and not a radiator in my living room .  Brandon eyepieces fit somewhere inside this mode of thinking, I can't help myself, I do things skewed, I always will but the results are a pleasure not a chore.  

 

8 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Now you need to stop this! I'm finding myself looking at complete sets of Brandons and I've a feeling this isn't going to end well for me, financially speaking!

Mike 

 

Try one first, see it they float your boat or not.  Getting the set is a huge outlay,  I do plan on more but its going to be careful acquisition.

 

8 hours ago, John said:

Are they really worth £200 apiece ?

Nothing I've read here or on other forums have convinced me that they are apart from the novelty of owning something "different". Sorry to be blunt.

 

No they are not worth £200+ each !  We know we can kit ourselves out for half that price with more than satisfactory results.    

 

8 hours ago, John said:

I reckon Ed Ting has probably got it right - their time has come ..... and gone:

http://www.scopereviews.com/page3f.html

 

I agree with what is said in this article, all except  the comments on the Takahashi LE's (I have owned the 7.5 & 5mm).  Sharpness is not a word I associate with them at all  , the internal reflections are appalling, causing a soft image to my eye.  I would take the Brandon over the Tak LE's without a second thought.  

 

[mikeDnight]

On 07/01/2017 at 10:21, jabeoo1 said:

If I look up the word Crank in the dictionary, one definition states:  A person who has strange or unusual ideas or beliefs.  

There is understanding here where some of us are coming from.  Its not always about the cutting edge comfortable easy options that make for pleasurable experience. Thats why I have a log burner and not a radiator in my living room .  Brandon eyepieces fit somewhere inside this mode of thinking, I can't help myself, I do things skewed, I always will but the results are a pleasure not a chore.  

 

 

Try one first, see it they float your boat or not.  Getting the set is a huge outlay,  I do plan on more but its going to be careful acquisition.

 

No they are not worth £200+ each !  We know we can kit ourselves out for half that price with more than satisfactory results.    

 

I agree with what is said in this article, all except  the comments on the Takahashi LE's (I have owned the 7.5 & 5mm).  Sharpness is not a word I associate with them at all  , the internal reflections are appalling, causing a soft image to my eye.  I would take the Brandon over the Tak LE's without a second thought.  

 

How much an eyepiece is worth I suppose is in the eye of the beholder. For me, a fractional gain in contrast and definition could be worth hundreds of pounds, if it helps me to see a hairs breadth more detail on a planet. However, I've yet to see any single eyepiece deliver the detail I see in my binoviewer while using a pair of cheap eyepieces.

Putting cost into perspective, I was in my local butcher's the other day and the chap being served before me was talking about a football match he'd taken his kids to watch. He said the tickets cost £50 each! I didn't ask him how many kids he had but it would have been at least two, so that's £150 he paid to watch Burnley play a home game. To my mind, that's horrifyingly expensive! Theyed have to pay me £150 before I'd watch a bunch of over paid labotomized Neanderthals kick a pigs bladder around a field. Does it show that I HATE football? I'm not totally sport phobic, as I'm an excellent swimmer and I love watching ladies beach volleyball, but I'm digressing. 

It seems people will pay large sums of money to follow or participate in sports, and no one blinks an eyelid. But when it comes to eyepieces  and telescopes, spending a few hundred pounds is often looked on with horror. A friend of mine pays over £1000 per year to be a member of a golf club, and then he has to pay £20 per game on top of that. By comparison, the average high end telescope and eyepiece set are chicken feed, and once paid for they last a lifetime!

If the Brandons do have an edge, I would certainly consider a set, and would probably even pair some up for binoviewing. 

Mike 

[swamp thing]

On 1/12/2017 at 22:59, mikeDnight said:

 

Putting cost into perspective, I was in my local butcher's the other day and the chap being served before me was talking about a football match he'd taken his kids to watch. He said the tickets cost £50 each! I didn't ask him how many kids he had but it would have been at least two, so that's £150 he paid to watch Burnley play a home game. To my mind, that's horrifyingly expensive! Theyed have to pay me £150 before I'd watch a bunch of over paid labotomized Neanderthals kick a pigs bladder around a field. Does it show that I HATE football? I'm not totally sport phobic, as I'm an excellent swimmer and I love watching ladies beach volleyball, but I'm digressing. 

It seems people will pay large sums of money to follow or participate in sports, and no one blinks an eyelid. But when it comes to eyepieces  and telescopes, spending a few hundred pounds is often looked on with horror. A friend of mine pays over £1000 per year to be a member of a golf club, and then he has to pay £20 per game on top of that. By comparison, the average high end telescope and eyepiece set are chicken feed, and once paid for they last a lifetime!

 

Mike 

Mike 

To put your perspective into perspective......most of my friends don't "blink an eyelid" either, instead they almost go into cardiac arrest when they have to reach for their wallets in order to go and watch a game of football