magnification range on planetary targets using 4"-ish refractors

[Piero]

Some very fine glass in there! 

[Stu]

2 hours ago, timwetherell said:

Yep, that's exactly my experience too. I have 4,5,6,7,8,9,10mm for planets. For other targets I'm happy with 70% jumps but tweaking the image on planets is a very different matter. Though of course since the planets are now on holiday in Australia for the foreseeable future, it's all somehwat moot

 

 

Lovely case Tim. Can we see the other side too please?  

[Timebandit]

5 hours ago, timwetherell said:

Yep, that's exactly my experience too. I have 4,5,6,7,8,9,10mm for planets. For other targets I'm happy with 70% jumps but tweaking the image on planets is a very different matter. Though of course since the planets are now on holiday in Australia for the foreseeable future, it's all somehwat moot

 

 

 

 

Nice. That's a proper case, who needs a zoom with quality like that. Do I see some TMB supermono?

With John's confession recently of eyepieces and now timwetherell disclosure, then I am feeling so much better about my tag of being a collectionist after all☺ .

[Ben the Ignorant]

240x with an 80mm triplet.

[John]

Great eyepiece case Tim

I owned a 5mm TMB Supermono for a while and it was superb. Probably the best high power eyepiece I've used when the conditions were at their best. More often though I found that the University HD Ortho 5mm would provide very similar planetary views. Eventually I decided that the 30 degree AFoV and tiny eye lens of the Supermono were a bit too much of a chore with my alt-az mounted scopes so I let it go to another home.

This comparison of the TV Nagler zoom and the Supermono's has been around for a while but is interesting reading:

tmb2.pdf

[timwetherell]

6 hours ago, John said:

I owned a 5mm TMB Supermono for a while and it was superb. Probably the best high power eyepiece I've used when the conditions were at their best. More often though I found that the University HD Ortho 5mm would provide very similar planetary views. Eventually I decided that the 30 degree AFoV and tiny eye lens of the Supermono were a bit too much of a chore with my alt-az mounted scopes so I let it go to another home.

 

Yes I agree, the UO HD orthos are 95% the equivalent and substantially easier to use. In fact they're my preferred eyepieces when looking at the moon. I think there's  4,5,6,7 and 9 in the range which would provide a very good planetary set for a medium sized refractor. 30° FoV with no tracking is not easy! and to be brutally honest, the outer few degrees of the supermonos isn't that great so in reality you have a 20° sweet spot in the middle to work with. There was a point when a lot of people were raving about ball lenses for planetary viewing which would be even worse! 

[timwetherell]

7 hours ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

240x with an 80mm triplet.

That sounds about right - a good refractor should handle 80x per inch on the right target.

[Timebandit]

8 hours ago, John said:

Great eyepiece case Tim

I owned a 5mm TMB Supermono for a while and it was superb. Probably the best high power eyepiece I've used when the conditions were at their best. More often though I found that the University HD Ortho 5mm would provide very similar planetary views. Eventually I decided that the 30 degree AFoV and tiny eye lens of the Supermono were a bit too much of a chore with my alt-az mounted scopes so I let it go to another home.

This comparison of the TV Nagler zoom and the Supermono's has been around for a while but is interesting reading:

tmb2.pdf

 

Mr Nagler does seem to do very well from this review. And what it is more impressive is that the zoom is against a top performer like the TMB supermono. I did consider the Nagler zoom some time ago. But due to the fact I already had some Ortho in the equivalent focal range, then I certainly could not justify the new cost of a Nagler zoom ,in essence to double up on focal length. The second hand Nagler zoom market is very sparse and so I could not be tempted into buying a used example. And so the collection of my Orthos continued. In the end a full set of BGO was achieved. I would love to put the BGO against the Nagler zoom to see if my decision to continue with the BGO route in my case was a correct one. I suspect the BGO may just tip this on quality of view under the best conditions, but I may be completely wrong on this. The Nagler zoom would certainly win on field of view and the ability to change the focal length quickly to suit changing seeing conditions. At this point in time i consider the only advantage that I would achieve from a Nagler zoom over the BGO would be the speed to change the focal length range quickly to suit seeing conditions, as for me personally the slightly narrower view of  the BGO compared to the Nagler zoom would not concern me on planetary viewing in the APO. But well done Mr Nagler for producing a zoom that compares very very well against a top performer like the TMB supermono.      

 

 

 

[timwetherell]

Interesting article - the supermonos do have a very small eye lens but the easy answer to his question about cleaning them is to simply unscrew the holder inside and drop the cemented triplet out. Clean it and replace it. one piece of glass, one holder cylinder, symetrical design so very safe and easy to do

[jetstream]

The SW120ED goes above 300x on Jupiter in good conditions and higher on the moon, with the HR2 2.4mm @ 375x. The 90mm Apo triplet goes 200+ on Jupiter and again the HR2 2,4mm is sharp at 262x.

The Nagler 3-6 zoom performs well but the SW120ED will start to show its limitations and the orthos, Zeiss zoom pull away. The larger the aperture the more the difference to my eyes. It is a good eyepiece though.

[Stu]

8 hours ago, Timebandit said:

 

Mr Nagler does seem to do very well from this review. And what it is more impressive is that the zoom is against a top performer like the TMB supermono. I did consider the Nagler zoom some time ago. But due to the fact I already had some Ortho in the equivalent focal range, then I certainly could not justify the new cost of a Nagler zoom ,in essence to double up on focal length. The second hand Nagler zoom market is very sparse and so I could not be tempted into buying a used example. And so the collection of my Orthos continued. In the end a full set of BGO was achieved. I would love to put the BGO against the Nagler zoom to see if my decision to continue with the BGO route in my case was a correct one. I suspect the BGO may just tip this on quality of view under the best conditions, but I may be completely wrong on this. The Nagler zoom would certainly win on field of view and the ability to change the focal length quickly to suit changing seeing conditions. At this point in time i consider the only advantage that I would achieve from a Nagler zoom over the BGO would be the speed to change the focal length range quickly to suit seeing conditions, as for me personally the slightly narrower view of  the BGO compared to the Nagler zoom would not concern me on planetary viewing in the APO. But well done Mr Nagler for producing a zoom that compares very very well against a top performer like the TMB supermono.      

I think on balance the BGOs have the edge on the Nag Zoom but only under very good conditions. The zoom is still excellent and very flexible of course.