A chance to own the best

[John]

ZAO I's don't come up for sale very often (I've no link to this advert):

http://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=123136

Opinion seems to be that these are even a touch better than the ZAO II's. The pinnacle of planetary and deep sky eyepieces ?

 

[rl]

I'm afraid I'm at a time in life where floaters have long since become the limiting factor in ultimate contrast, especially with small exit pupils. For me, at least,  a bigger telescope or a better site (or both) provide a more cost-effective improvement than moving up from BGOs to ZAOs. Not that I can see through either with my specs on...

Interesting that he's prepared to consider a swap for some of the ethos set....

RL

[Stu]

Looks nice, but I do think there would be little benefit over other Orthos given our rubbish skies  

That said I do have the Zeiss Abbe Barlow and it is quite nice  

[John]

4 minutes ago, Stu said:

Looks nice, but I do think there would be little benefit over other Orthos given our rubbish skies  

That said I do have the Zeiss Abbe Barlow and it is quite nice  

I think thats the issue isn't it ?

How many nights would give you the seeing conditions that would let the ZAO's earn their price ?

 

[Stu]

2 minutes ago, John said:

I think thats the issue isn't it ?

How many nights would give you the seeing conditions that would let the ZAO's earn their price ?

 

Yep, agreed. I doubt I get any nights at home which would justify it, just a few nights a year when away.

Of course, given unlimited funds it would be lovely to try them but reality has to kick in unfortunately  

[Louis D]

On 2/23/2017 at 04:19, John said:

The pinnacle of planetary and deep sky eyepieces ?

From what I read on CN some years back , the pinnacle of planetary eyepieces would be Zeiss observatory monocentrics.  It was a line of eyepieces made by Zeiss exclusively for professional observatories.  As these observatories shut down or converted exclusively to instrumented observing around Europe, the CN contributor related his story of buying up these eyepieces and comparing them to ordinary Zeiss monocentrics which are normally considered quite extraordinary.  Apparently, these observatory class eyepieces are just a tad better due to even better polish.  Certainly unobtainium eyepieces for sure.

[laudropb]

Someone obviously thought they were worth the money as they are now sold.

[Louis D]

Found the CN post describing the Zeiss professional observatory class monocentrics.

[jabeoo1]

On 2/23/2017 at 11:22, John said:

I think thats the issue isn't it ?

How many nights would give you the seeing conditions that would let the ZAO's earn their price ?

 

Maybe a few a year?  Seriously 2-3 sessions/year is probably realistic. So if they were £3000 and I used them 1000 times over the next 333 years that would make them £3 a session.  

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, jabeoo1 said:

Maybe a few a year?  Seriously 2-3 sessions/year is probably realistic. So if they were £3000 and I used them 1000 times over the next 333 years that would make them £3 a session.  

Actual cost would also depend on their residual inflation adjusted resale value at the end of 333 years.  If they rose in value over those 333 years and could be resold for much more, your net cost might be minimal.

[John]

5 hours ago, jabeoo1 said:

Maybe a few a year?  Seriously 2-3 sessions/year is probably realistic. So if they were £3000 and I used them 1000 times over the next 333 years that would make them £3 a session.  

Well thats one way to think about it !

The asking price was a bit over £3K as it happens. I could not resist enquiring

 

[laservet]

On 2/23/2017 at 05:19, John said:

ZAO I's don't come up for sale very often (I've no link to this advert):

http://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=123136

Opinion seems to be that these are even a touch better than the ZAO II's. The pinnacle of planetary and deep sky eyepieces ?

 

I have both the ZAO I's and II's, two sets of each for binoviewing. Comparing them over a period of years I can see no difference between them other than the triangular cutouts in the field stop of the II's. There is some controversy about the differences between the I's and the II's. Roland Christen said they are the same except the II's have a slightly smaller field stop to mask off the less perfect outer edge. Others claimed the II's  are improved over the I's based on the Baader ad:

http://www.alpineastro.com/Eyepieces_Accessories/Eyepieces_Accessories.htm#AbbeII

Specifically: 

• The Abbe-II performance has been improved beyond the original Zeiss Abbe through a new lens design and improved glasses.   The new glasses are of the highest purity and are the most transparent and colorless that can be produced.

Roland said the "beyond the original Zeiss Abbe" refers not to the ZAO I's but to the earlier original Zeiss Abbe's. Others felt this referred to the ZAO I's. My e-mail to Baader asking for clarification went unanswered. Personally, I think if they were better/different than the ZAO I's the ad would have specifically said that.

The astrobuysell ad describes the 25 mm as "elusive." FWIW there were 400 sets of ZAO I's sold, and the 25 mm was included in the set, so there are just as many 25mm out there as 16, 10, 6 and 4mm. The elusive ZAO I is the 34mm, special order add on to the set, so there are less than 400 of the 34's in existence and the selling price for a 34 is now over $2000 USD.

I'm a lunar/planetary observer in the mid-Atlantic US under the jet stream, and there are only a few nights each year where the seeing is stable enough and the humidity low enough to see a difference between the ZAO's and the Ethos. I bought the ZAO I's new when they were first introduced and paid $236 USD each, well worth the money. At current prices they are a niche eyepiece for observers with scopes with low scatter optics who observe in good seeing and low humidity so the reduced scatter of the ZAO's isn't swamped by atmospheric seeing or scatter from humidity or scope optics.

On those rare nights the eyepieces can be magical. I was able to see Deimos and Phobos in the same fov as Mars without an occulting bar, ZAO I's in a MkV binoviewer in an Astro-Physics 10" Mak-Cass, testimony to the low scatter optics of the entire optical chain. This was not visible in any other scope that night, was not visible in my scope with other eyepieces. Humorist Dave Barry summed it up best, "There is a fine dividing line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.'"

[John]

So thats 4 sets of ZAO's in total then Paul ?

The asking price set for sale that I linked to (which has sold now) was around £3K I believe so your 4 sets would be worth somewhere in excess of £10K I would have thought. Not that it matters if you really enjoy them

[Timebandit]

51 minutes ago, laservet said:

I have both the ZAO I's and II's, two sets of each for binoviewing.                 

 

 

48 minutes ago, John said:

So thats 4 sets of ZAO's in total then Paul ?

The asking price set for sale that I linked to (which has sold now) was around £3K I believe so your 4 sets would be worth somewhere in excess of £10K I would have thought. Not that it matters if you really enjoy them

 

Woow, Four sets of ZAO,  now that's just just being greedy ?

I would be more than happy with one set of the king of the Orthos ZAO, I will have to just keep dreaming. Your a lucky chap ☺

[laservet]

35 minutes ago, John said:

So thats 4 sets of ZAO's in total then Paul ?

The asking price set for sale that I linked to (which has sold now) was around £3K I believe so your 4 sets would be worth somewhere in excess of £10K I would have thought. Not that it matters if you really enjoy them

Yes, four sets. When the I's were first offered for sale Marty at Company 7, knowing I'm a planetary nut, loaned me a full set. The first night out was a very stable low humidity night and I bought the set on the spot. A little over a year later, when the 100 sets allocated for sale in the US were nearly sold out, Marty told me Baader was planning to resurrect the Zeiss binoviewer and he recommended I buy a second set. I was reluctant, didn't want to be stuck with a second set if the binoviewer didn't come to pass, so Marty offered to buy the second set back from me at full purchase price if the binoviewer didn't make it to market (at that time nobody could have predicted the silly high prices these eyepieces would command on the used market).

Zeiss offered to do a second run of 400 sets of ZAO I's right after the first run sold out but Zeiss wanted double the price and the dealers were reluctant to fork over that kind of money for an eyepiece that took over a year to sell only 400 sets. There was no internet hype at that time over the ZAO I's. The ZAO II's were heavily hyped on Cloudynights and other places when they were released. As a result most of the ZAO I original sales were to planetary observers who appreciated these niche eyepieces for what they are, not many sets came up for sale used. Due to the hype accompanying the II's some people bought them expecting miracles, and a lot of sets showed up on the used market once these people discovered the subtle benefits came at the cost of extremely tight eye relief on the 6 and especially the 4mm, making them uncomfortable to use and difficult to clean the tiny eye lens.

[jetstream]

6 hours ago, laservet said:

Due to the hype accompanying the II's some people bought them expecting miracles,

You have an impressive collection Paul!

I have a question(s) about the ZAO 1 and ZAOII's... these eyepieces are revered by many as deep sky, galaxy eyepieces- do both series perform the same on these objects? In your experience do they offer deeper views than high quality ortho's?

My skies can be excellent here at times and my deepest eyepiece so far is the sometimes maligned 10mm BCO, compared to quality widefields that is. I've had chances for ZAO 1's but passed because of lack of knowledge on my part.

[laservet]

17 hours ago, jetstream said:

You have an impressive collection Paul!

I have a question(s) about the ZAO 1 and ZAOII's... these eyepieces are revered by many as deep sky, galaxy eyepieces- do both series perform the same on these objects? In your experience do they offer deeper views than high quality ortho's?

My skies can be excellent here at times and my deepest eyepiece so far is the sometimes maligned 10mm BCO, compared to quality widefields that is. I've had chances for ZAO 1's but passed because of lack of knowledge on my part.

They are superb deep sky eyepieces for objects that fit in the fov due to their high contrast/low scatter, I saw no difference between the I's and the II's. The 25mm and the 34mm I use the most for deep sky.

Transmission differs only by a couple percent at the most between the ZAO's and the Kasai Orthos, far below our visual threshold of detection, I would not expect a noticeable difference in brightness of deep sky objects. Here is a transmission chart. The testing was performed by Konrad Horn Optik Messungen (Konrad Horn Optical Measurements), a German optics testing institute that specializes in UV-VIS-NIR spectroscopy in the range 185-3200 nm and provides measuring services for a variety of optics including optical fiber, prisms, lenses, etc. The equipment used is regularly tested and certified by the German government:

http://www.amateurastronomie.com/Astronomie/tips/tips3.htm

The main difference  between them would be the superb polish and ultra clean glass of the ZAO's resulting in lower scatter and higher contrast. I can see a difference on a really good night in a good scope in low contrast planetary detail, my acid test for an eyepiece, that superb contrast would help deep sky objects to a lesser degree. A close second to the ZAO's would be the old Pentax SMC Orthos, if you can get a clean one, Pentax had such quality control problems at that time with fingerprints, dust, and even hair between the elements, that two companies offered "clean your Pentax Ortho" services.

Here's some eye candy.

[John]

8 minutes ago, laservet said:

They are superb deep sky eyepieces for objects that fit in the fov due to their high contrast/low scatter, I saw no difference between the I's and the II's. The 25mm and the 34mm I use the most for deep sky.

Transmission differs only by a couple percent at the most between the ZAO's and the Kasai Orthos, far below our visual threshold of detection, I would not expect a noticeable difference in brightness of deep sky objects. Here is a transmission chart. The testing was performed by Konrad Horn Optik Messungen (Konrad Horn Optical Measurements), a German optics testing institute that specializes in UV-VIS-NIR spectroscopy in the range 185-3200 nm and provides measuring services for a variety of optics including optical fiber, prisms, lenses, etc. The equipment used is regularly tested and certified by the German government:

http://www.amateurastronomie.com/Astronomie/tips/tips3.htm

The main difference  between them would be the superb polish of the ZAO's resulting in lower scatter and higher contrast. I can see a difference on a really good night in a good scope in low contrast planetary detail, my acid test for an eyepiece, that superb contrast would help deep sky objects to a lesser degree. A close second to the ZAO's would be the old Pentax SMC Orthos, if you can get a clean one, Pentax had such quality control problems at that time with fingerprints, dust, and even hair between the elements, that two companies offered "clean your Pentax Ortho" services.

Here's some eye candy.

I've seen that data before. It makes interesting reading. The TV plossls did well in those tests.

[laservet]

2 hours ago, John said:

I've seen that data before. It makes interesting reading. The TV plossls did well in those tests.

Considering that it takes a difference of at least 8% before one can visually detect a difference even some of the wide field designs did very well, including the T5 and T6 Naglers. I would love to see results for the newer Ethos and Delos.

[jetstream]

4 hours ago, laservet said:

Here's some eye candy.

Thanks for the superb eye candy and information

I think I'm really looking for a point of reference for the objects viewed and eyepieces used- and also the views the ZAO's offer. As I wait for faint galaxies to pop in and out of view with the 10BCO, I wonder if more would pop in with a top tier eyepiece or possibly hold them longer in direct vision. I did not know that the ZAO1's were so good...

Next time a 10mm ZAO1 comes along I think I'll get one. Thanks Paul.

 

[John]

You have probably read this Gerry but just in case, Alvin Huey has some interesting stuff to say on eyepieces. His primary interest is really deep sky with large apertures under dark skies:

http://www.faintfuzzies.com/AboutUs2.html

 

[jetstream]

1 hour ago, John said:

You have probably read this Gerry but just in case, Alvin Huey has some interesting stuff to say on eyepieces. His primary interest is really deep sky with large apertures under dark skies:

http://www.faintfuzzies.com/AboutUs2.html

 

Thanks John, I have read Alvin's site and find much information there. One thing is for sure- these simple eyepieces can offer excellent deep sky performance and I think my copy of the 10BCO is pretty good.I just ordered a new (old stock Circle T) volcano top 9mm Kasai ortho from UK to try on things and compare to the 10mm. Puzzling thing is my Tak 12.5mm ortho offers near unbeatable planetary performance but gets beat by good widefields on faint galaxies and in every scope I have. I almost think there might be more than transmission at play for really deep eyepieces...

[Louis D]

Here's another chance to pick up some new ZAO II's.

[jetstream]

On 2017-03-01 at 21:41, Louis D said:

Here's another chance to pick up some new ZAO II's.

The only thing is this- I could put the $4000.00 toward a 20"+ mirror that would get me much deeper than the ZAO's, with my BCO. I still want a 10mm ZAO though.

[laservet]

9 hours ago, jetstream said:

The only thing is this- I could put the $4000.00 toward a 20"+ mirror that would get me much deeper than the ZAO's, with my BCO. I still want a 10mm ZAO though.

An excellent point, as long as your seeing supports 20" aperture. Mine does not, I'm under the jet stream most of the time, effective aperture here tends to top out at 10-11".