Vixen HR 2.4mm

[iPeace]

It's here and I have used it twice in the TV-60 in comparison with the 2-4 Nagler Zoom. Plenty of LP here and a fullish Moon so Jupiter and Luna it is, or has been.

Really a very good performance. How to describe? It seems to give a brighter image than the Nagler Zoom, and certainly as sharp, all the way to the edge. Field a bit smaller, but I will say it's worth it.

I think I prefer it over the Nagler Zoom on Jupiter, but not on the bright full Moon (not that any eyepiece can do a lot for me there). Looking forward to trying it when there's more on Luna to enjoy. It doesn't zoom, of course, but if I will be traveling with a 3-6 Zoom anyway, it's tempting to take the HR along to supplement it instead of the 2-4 Zoom.

Very nice build quality, nice light weight for the performance it gives and I just like the look of it, a cool retro-vintage vibe to it. Comes with a clear bolt case.

Will try it in the TV-85 in due course and report.

[John]

Nice little report Mike !

I have the Nagler 2-4 zoom which I use primarily as my double star "hammer" (it splits them apart !) so I'm interested in how other things compare with it

 

 

[Piero]

I don't know your sky conditions, but if you have a chance, you could try it on a night where the Moon is not full and humidity levels are not high. Light scattering is really well controlled in that eyepiece. I am so looking forward to observing Saturn with that eyepiece, as that planet holds more magnification than Jupiter.

Depending on the seeing, some tight doubles (for a 60mm or 85mm) could also be nice tests.  

[iPeace]

1 hour ago, John said:

Nice little report Mike !

I have the Nagler 2-4 zoom which I use primarily as my double star "hammer" (it splits them apart !) so I'm interested in how other things compare with it

 

 

Well, you don't get the fun of zooming and watching the split take place before your eye, but otherwise I can't help but think you'd really like this. As stated elsewhere, focal lengths in the 3-6 range would be very compelling indeed.

[iPeace]

Really enjoying it tonight in the TV-85. Watching the surface of the Moon scroll by at high power is a treat. I apologize for another "can't quite explain it", but I find myself preferring it - ever so marginally - to the 2-4 Nagler Zoom, its closest competitor...

...except for the utility and fun of zooming, of course. Fortunately, the 2.5mm T6 Nagler is on hand to further complicate matters. By far the heaviest of the three, it shows so much more at once, an advantage which I cannot ignore.

And yet, the HR has something, some sort of purity, some kind of mojo that keeps me coming back to it.

No decisive consumer advice can be forthcoming. If you need a great short eyepiece, any of these will do. Zooming, wider field with green lettering or solid, lightweight vintage vibe, take your pick.

[John]

Fun at the high end eh ?

My current choice is the 2-4 Nagler zoom for this sort of thing. It keeps surprising me even when in the 12" dob.

 

 

[iPeace]

3 minutes ago, John said:

Fun at the high end eh ?

My current choice is the 2-4 Nagler zoom for this sort of thing. It keeps surprising me even when in the 12" dob.

 

 

Did you ever try the Vixen HR? You could actually say something sensible about it - and something tells me you would like it. 

[John]

27 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Did you ever try the Vixen HR? You could actually say something sensible about it - and something tells me you would like it. 

I've not tried one, yet Piero. I will one day soon I hope.

They sound wonderful, and I'm also very intrigued by the Tak TOA's which seem to be similar.

[Piero]

1 hour ago, iPeace said:

And yet, the HR has something, some sort of purity, some kind of mojo that keeps me coming back to it.

^^^ That's exactly my thought about that eyepiece. 

[Louis D]

On 5/11/2017 at 15:05, iPeace said:

but not on the bright full Moon (not that any eyepiece can do a lot for me there).

I'm guessing you probably have some binoviewer experience; but if you haven't, try looking at the full moon with two eyes instead of one.  I can do it quite comfortably and actually see detail clearly across the entire surface with binoviewers.  Sure, splitting the light in two helps, but not having one eye see daylight and the other blackness as in monoviewing has to be the bigger effect.

I just have too many and too large floaters to make use of eyepieces below about 3.5mm, and even then uncomfortably.  Maybe if I had a sub-f/4 scope I could use that 2.5mm.  Until then, I'll have to leave ultra high power eyepieces to others to report on.  Enjoy it.

[jetstream]

The HR2 2.4mm is my best eyepiece- no scatter, high contrast and extremely sharp. I love that bottom baffle too...

[iPeace]

2.0mm and 1.6mm now ordered for use with the Borg 71FL...

[Piero]

Wow, also the 1.6mm! You will be one of the very few people to report on this.

The 2.4mm plus VIP at 1.5x works well on my TV60.

[Ags]

When you get the 1.6mm, do please try barlowing it 

[John]

2 hours ago, iPeace said:

2.0mm and 1.6mm now ordered for use with the Borg 71FL...

I'm sure they will be great but don't you get issues with floaters with such short focal length eyepieces ?

I find that floaters become distracting for me when the eyepiece focal length is 2.5mm or shorter. I realise that this does vary person to person though.

[Stu]

33 minutes ago, John said:

I'm sure they will be great but don't you get issues with floaters with such short focal length eyepieces ?

I find that floaters become distracting for me when the eyepiece focal length is 2.5mm or shorter. I realise that this does vary person to person though.

It's the exit pupil which will drive this. The Borg is f6 I think? 2.0mm will be 0.33mm exit pupil, 1.6mm will be 0.26mm. Likely pretty dim and if you suffer from floaters they will be very evident. That said, if the 2.4mm was ok then maybe your eyes can take it  

Fun on the moon and for doubles maybe.

[iPeace]

I am not entirely without trepidation and appreciate all contributions.  My thoughts are as follows.

The Borg is f/5.6 (400/71). So, if my maths are OK, more like the 2.0mm at 0.36 exit pupil and the 1.6mm at 0.28.

For comparison, I really enjoyed the 2.4mm in the TV-85, which was 250x at 0.34. The 2-4 Nagler Zoom at 2mm gives 300x at 0.28, admittedly getting dimmer but enjoyable to a point.

So the 2.0mm in the Borg should be 200x with slightly larger exit pupil than the 2.4mm in the TV-85 (I am pretty confident this will be good) and the 1.6mm in the Borg should be 250x with equal exit pupil to the 2mm Nag zoom in the TV-85 - and here's where I will be trying to squeeze the very last bit out of the Borg's better glass and the design of the HR.

Someone has to try. 

Definitely a Moon-only proposition. Or maybe Mars, Saturn and Jupiter.

[John]

6 hours ago, Stu said:

It's the exit pupil which will drive this. The Borg is f6 I think? 2.0mm will be 0.33mm exit pupil, 1.6mm will be 0.26mm. Likely pretty dim and if you suffer from floaters they will be very evident. That said, if the 2.4mm was ok then maybe your eyes can take it  

Fun on the moon and for doubles maybe.

I think 2.4 would be the lowest I would go with my scopes and judging from my experiences with the Nagler 2-4 zoom. The latter is a great little tool though so I'll stick with that. It showed me 2 Uranian moons that night when I also saw the HH nebula so I've no complaints about it at all

Very happy for others to try these - I guess FLO would loan me some though, if I get really curious.

 

[Stu]

I assume they are specifically designed for fast scopes to allow high mag. If there is anything like a 150mm f4 (for instance) out there then this would give you x375 and a 0.4mm exit pupil. Perhaps in some of the best observing sites in the world, where you can use insane magnifications they would make sense in some of the mega fast dobs, f2.5 say. Fairly extreme stuff and a niche product I think.

[Timebandit]

 

I suppose if you have a quality scope with top quality lens/mirror and you have done the maths to make sure the magnification is going to be feasible to be able to be used in very good conditions then certainly worth a punt. Especially as I think I read an article somewhere that a chap Barlows a ZAO to get similar focal length of the HR . And the HR was certainly holding its own against the ZAO , to which in its self is an endorsement. 

But I think for the average astronomer set up ,and the very unsettled seeing conditions we get in the UK ,then the HR may be a very underused eyepiece  

 

 

[Piero]

I don't think that adding an HR to an average set up makes much sense. It is a bit like installing the wheels of a Ferrari in a Fiat Punto in my opinion. Seeing is important but a lot also depends on the telescope focal length. On my TV60, the HR 2.4mm (150x) was used quite a lot actually and on planets too. It gave me some remarkably nice views of Jupiter that I will not forget easily. Some think that that the exit pupil for this eyepiece is too small, resulting in a very dim image, but I have to say (and I said previously) that the HR 2.4mm gives surprisingly bright views. In terms of brightness they were almost on par with my previous Vixen SLV 5mm (yes, 5mm, same telescope, and the SLV was not defective at all). 

Using a f.l. of 740mm (e.g. Tak f7.4), the HR 2.4mm gives 308x. This is often too high for planets (except for attempting difficult moons). This is not all though. There are other interesting targets: Moon, Sun, and tight double stars. Personally, I am not too much into double stars, but I successfully used the HR 2.4mm on Lunar and Solar observation. For me the HR is mainly a dedicated eyepieces for these two targets with the Tak, and I don't regret its purchase at all. Given the higher frequency of visibility for these two targets, the HR finds its use in my Tak nearly as much as the other eyepieces, and certainly more than the 24 Pan. I believe Mark can find use for all 3 HRs with his new f5.6 refractor. 

I wish the HR were also available as 5mm, 4mm, and 3.3mm for planets with the Tak. Whilst the TOE are getting some mixed reviews as far as I can see, the HR are possibly the best available eyepieces in terms of optical quality at the moment, I reckon. 

[iPeace]

59 minutes ago, Piero said:

I wish the HR were also available as 5mm, 4mm, and 3.3mm

Indeed! 

[JeremyS]

4 hours ago, Piero said:

Whilst the TOE are getting some mixed reviews as far as I can see

Can you point us in the direction of those reviews, Piero? Would be interesting to see what people think.

[Piero]

Hi Jeremy ( @JeremyS ) , 

Sure! I am trying to collect the links in one place to make things easier for members. 

Takahashi TOE  (links inside this discussion): 

Essentially, it is not clear whether it is in the league of the HR, XO, ZAOII, or not.. Hopefully more people will test them.

 

 

I'm trying to do the same for the Vixen HR (links inside this discussion): 

 

[JeremyS]

33 minutes ago, Piero said:

Sure! I am trying to collect the links in one place to make things easier for members.

Thanks Piero - very helpful. I am following with great interest. I once has a Pentax XP3.8 which was a brilliant performer on the planets with my Tak FS102. Pity I sold it! But I wouldn'y really want to go any higher in mag, which tends to rule out the new Vixen HR's.

Jeremy