Explore Scientific optical quality across ranges

[Louis D]

3 minutes ago, Piero said:

To me the most important thing is that people from different economical backgrounds and with different interests can get involved in this hobby and afford some decent equipment without spending too much. Investing after some saving is worth in my opinion, but it is great that people can show some beauties in the sky to their neighbours, relatives, family, friends and these other people might just say "wow, why not.. maybe I will also get my own telescope!"

Ah, the bliss of ignorance as newbies.  Just seeing the heavens up close for the first time is enough to elicit wonder and joy, never mind whatever aberrations might be present in a beginner's eyepiece collection and telescope combination.  It's sort of like the joy of having your first car.  It might not be a Ferrari, but your entry-level, used car suddenly catapults you to a whole new level of independence.  There's plenty of time in life to upgrade both your ride and your astro gear.  The important thing is to start somewhere.

[Piero]

6 minutes ago, iPeace said:

You conclude with "and so on". Is there really anything more?

Goodness.

I could also add the TV60 against the Tak60, but this would not help, wouldn't it? 

I guess, my input for this thread is over as I feel this topic can lead to an argument, which is the last thing I want. Please, ignore or cancel my above post.

[iPeace]

9 minutes ago, Piero said:

I could also add the TV60 against the Tak60, but this would not help, wouldn't it? 

Well, neither of those products are eyepieces. In that sense, no.

[alan potts]

I thought you put it across fine and no doubt a few of the others did too, you know though sometime having a go at the black and green wonders can be a bit like poking the tiger with a sore paw, dangerous..

Alan

[Littleguy80]

45 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Ah, the bliss of ignorance as newbies.  Just seeing the heavens up close for the first time is enough to elicit wonder and joy, never mind whatever aberrations might be present in a beginner's eyepiece collection and telescope combination.  It's sort of like the joy of having your first car.  It might not be a Ferrari, but your entry-level, used car suddenly catapults you to a whole new level of independence.  There's plenty of time in life to upgrade both your ride and your astro gear.  The important thing is to start somewhere.

That’s me. I’ve only ever used my own scope and eyepieces. The day I look through something fancier then my bank balance is in trouble  

[bingevader]

15 hours ago, Louis D said:

Probably because he likes to support innovators rather than imitators.  Without the former, there would be no latter.

That may have been the case a few years ago.

I'm not sure it holds water now.

I didn't think TV made a 92° or 120°, do they?

[bingevader]

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

Interesting point you make about the 18mm, I read somewhere that Meade who offered this as 1.25 inch eyepiece where as ExSc gave it a 2 inch treatment, many believe the elements are the same, don't know how true this is but given the fact all the others are apart from the 11mm, which Meade didn't carry, are like for like there maybe legs to it.

I've always considered it a 1.25" in a 2" frock!

I think people thought I was being a bit of a pedant when I mentioned it on here previously.

Still a lovely EP in my view.

Although it does seem a little like marmite in that area too!

[Timebandit]

4 minutes ago, bingevader said:

That may have been the case a few years ago.

I'm not sure it holds water now.

I didn't think TV made a 92° or 120°, do they?

 

 

They maybe thinking of it now though. What goes around comes around?

 

 

 

[Louis D]

2 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

They maybe thinking of it now though. What goes around comes around?

 

 

 

Whoever is making the Lunt/Myriad 100 series is after ES's business model.  Copy and improve on the breed to take away market share.

[iPeace]

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

I thought you put it across fine and no doubt a few of the others did too, you know though sometime having a go at the black and green wonders can be a bit like poking the tiger with a sore paw, dangerous..

Alan

@Piero, I apologize for coming across as the tiger. We have much in common; I will happily disagree with you on this point.

[jetstream]

I see tremendous support for Televue here among some but I'm puzzled by the "culture" of buying used by many who defend and admire Televue? Doesn't this "Televue" currency actually hurt the company?

We have 3 ES 82's, good eyepieces and very comparable to Nagler 82 degs. They don't offer Ethos, Delos contrast to my eyes and the Delos is better on axis than the Nagler.

Question: how many posters in this thread buy used Televue eyepieces?

[Piero]

31 minutes ago, iPeace said:

@Piero, I apologize for coming across as the tiger. We have much in common; I will happily disagree with you on this point.

No problem. 

 

24 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I'm puzzled by the "culture" of buying used by many who defend and admire Televue? Doesn't this "Televue" currency actually hurt the company?

We have 3 ES 82's, good eyepieces and very comparable to Nagler 82 degs. They don't offer Ethos, Delos contrast to my eyes and the Delos is better on axis than the Nagler.

Question: how many posters in this thread buy used Televue eyepieces?

mm.. interesting.. 

------ 

I have some other question too. Considering that the TV Nagler eyepiece was invented in the 80s, we are now in 2017. How long does a patent apply for? Because, whilst I agree that ES cloned the Ethos design, I'm struggle to see how they `dishonestly` cloned the Nagler designed.. I'd rather say "made" their old version of a 40 years old scheme, in the same way as TV made their own version of the Plossl design, Zeiss for the Abbe design and so on. 

I am not acting as a lawyer for ES. It just seems to me that people are just doing their own business / interest in a way or the other. Same for the buyers. I also struggle to see how one is helping TV by buying s/h eyepieces. In addition, if TV is not overly expensive, why do you need to buy their eyepieces in the second hand market then?  

[Paul73]

Good point Mr Jetstream!

But, Televue couldn't charge the prices if they didn't have the support. There are plenty who buy new or a combination of new/used.

Paul

[Paul73]

ES may have cloned the Ethos. They produced a comparatively cheap, "nearly as good" range. I've owned the Ethos 21mm and the ES20mm 100°. I will buy the Ethos again.

I would buy the ES 82° range over the Nagler. But, the Delos trumps both!

Paul

 

[scarp15]

In response to Gerry's question, I have reflected on my history for buying Televue eyepieces, where just under 50% of purchases have been made S/H. Over the years discounts, by either a retailer or as a promotional period by Televue have made this a bit easier, perhaps less so presently with the weak pound against the dollar. Currently I have nine TV eyepieces and one Pentax XW.

[Louis D]

12 minutes ago, Piero said:

have some other question too. Considering that the TV Nagler eyepiece was invented in the 80s, we are now in 2017. How long does a patent apply for? Because, whilst I agree that ES cloned the Ethos design, I'm struggle to see how they `dishonestly` cloned the Nagler designed.. I'd rather say "made" their old version of a 40 years old scheme, in the same way as TV made their own version of the Plossl design, Zeiss for the Abbe design and so on. 

In the US, patents last for 17 years after being granted.  Meade was the first to commission a Japanese optical company make a clone of the Nagler T1 (the 4000 UWA) and Widescan (the 4000 SWA) designs.  This was fought through the courts.  No one argues about cloning the T1 or T2 designs, both patents are long since expired.  It is the much more recent Ethos that people get up in arms about.  ES basically copied the 13mm exactly to create their 14mm.  Since there was no patent, there's nothing illegal about it.  Nikon used the Ethos as the inspiration for their NAV-HW line and built upon it rather than outright copying it.  The fact that there is no patent out there for the NAV-HW line either means it still in the application process, or Nikon felt they couldn't patent it due to being too similar to unprotected prior art (the Ethos).  There have been companies who make a clone, file a patent, and then try to sue the original innovator for infringement of their derivative patent based on the innovator's unprotected prior art.  This is rare because all the innovator has to do is show that the product existed in the public domain prior to the patent application date to have the case dismissed with prejudice.

[YKSE]

 

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

In the US, patents last for 17 years after being granted.  Meade was the first to commission a Japanese optical company make a clone of the Nagler T1 (the 4000 UWA) and Widescan (the 4000 SWA) designs.  This was fought through the courts.  No one argues about cloning the T1 or T2 designs, both patents are long since expired.  It is the much more recent Ethos that people get up in arms about.  ES basically copied the 13mm exactly to create their 14mm.  Since there was no patent, there's nothing illegal about it.  Nikon used the Ethos as the inspiration for their NAV-HW line and built upon it rather than outright copying it.  The fact that there is no patent out there for the NAV-HW line either means it still in the application process, or Nikon felt they couldn't patent it due to being too similar to unprotected prior art (the Ethos).  There have been companies who make a clone, file a patent, and then try to sue the original innovator for infringement of their derivative patent based on the innovator's unprotected prior art.  This is rare because all the innovator has to do is show that the product existed in the public domain prior to the patent application date to have the case dismissed with prejudice.

Meade 14mm UWA was introduced in the 80th, Nagler T1 patent (US patent 4286844) was filed 1979 and T2 patent (US patent 4747675) was filed 1987, your 17 years and patents had expired doesn't add up.

Do you have any hard facts about Nikon NAV-HW? or speculating is an enjoyment for you?

Sorry to OP for being off topic.

[bingevader]

Yes, and TV "refined" the Plossl design.

We've been here before.

All I know is, besides the TV plossls, I'd not be able to afford an 82° EP, or the likes, if it wasn't for the pirates.

For those with deep pockets, it's all well and good.

The copycats have opened up the world of astronomy to plebs like me.

I'm grateful to TV, but I don't even covet their EPs, because I'll never afford them.

I hanker after some of the EP models, because I think, one day, maybe, on the 2nd hand market!

[jetstream]

3 hours ago, Paul73 said:

Televue couldn't charge the prices if they didn't have the support. There are plenty who buy new or a combination of new/used.

Yes Televue seems to be pushed by many experienced observers and who are followed by newcomers etc that buy new, creating a lucrative second hand market.. the eyepieces are then possibly bought and sold with little or no loss by the experienced astronomers. Just my thoughts, probably wrong.

The ES 82's do work well- well enough where I don't consider the 31T5 Nagler. Companies like ES bring great eyepieces to the table that allow many people to afford some nice glass.

[niallk]

How strong a patent is really depends on how well the claims are written, and can also depend on what is acknowledged by the examiner in the cited prior art list at the time it is issued.

In many cases, it can be possible to alter an aspect of a design and circumvent the claims of a patent.  This happens all the time in circuits, systems and algorithms in the electronics industry, for example.  Many times companies are in violation of each others patents, but don't sue each other.

If the ongoing fees aren't paid over the lifetime of the patent, it lapses.

Enforcing a patent can be very very costly!  One also has to submit and pay in each country you wish to have protection in - time and money!

My understanding is that the Ethos optical arrangement is not patented?

 

[Louis D]

4 hours ago, YKSE said:

 

Meade 14mm UWA was introduced in the 80th, Nagler T1 patent (US patent 4286844) was filed 1979 and T2 patent (US patent 4747675) was filed 1987, your 17 years and patents had expired doesn't add up.

Do you have any hard facts about Nikon NAV-HW? or speculating is an enjoyment for you?

Sorry to OP for being off topic.

The two Nagler patents were not expired at the time TV filed its infringement lawsuit in the 80s against Meade.  They are both expired as of 2004, so ES and everyone else can make variations on Nagler T1s and T2s all day without any worries.

Given the sheer number of Nikon patents filed on all sorts of eyepieces over the years, if we don't see a patent granted covering the NAV-HW line in the next few years, it's safe to assume they're never going to do it.  US patents take about 3 to 4 years to issue from filing right now.  Generally, patent applications are filed well before a product is brought to market.  I'm pretty sure the NAV-HW line has been out in the market for at least 6 years based on this CN posting.  Therefore, the relevant patent should have been issued about 2 years ago at the latest.  Nikon isn't the sort of company to not patent a significant advancement in the optical arts unless it thinks it is too derivative of prior art to be patentable.  Every company I've worked for has a patent committee that reviews all applications.  They look at prior art and look at the application to see if it advances the art significantly enough to pass muster with a patent examiner.  I'm guessing the internal patent committee made the decision to take a pass on patenting the NAV-HW.  They may have published the design somewhere in a trade journal just to cover themselves against a future patent troll.

[alan potts]

8 hours ago, jetstream said:

I see tremendous support for Televue here among some but I'm puzzled by the "culture" of buying used by many who defend and admire Televue? Doesn't this "Televue" currency actually hurt the company?

We have 3 ES 82's, good eyepieces and very comparable to Nagler 82 degs. They don't offer Ethos, Delos contrast to my eyes and the Delos is better on axis than the Nagler.

Question: how many posters in this thread buy used Televue eyepieces?

A fair point Gerry I would say that of the 33 that I once had only 16 were bought new which is not even 50% but I feel that I did have rather more than most, my Paracorr Mk2 was new so that sort of saves the day. I do have another problem here though, anything I need new I have to get from Telly House and for one eyepiece they charge 45 pounds for a courier, I will not deal with other European outlets for personally reasons, in anycase there I would have to pay a 30e bank charge for a transfer on top of any transport. So now as my local dealer can no longer help me in that area I tend to look for secondhand from site members. I feel I will have to bit the bullet on my De-lite wants and order as a batch from the UK, new.

Alan

[Louis D]

On 11/16/2017 at 13:18, Louis D said:

ES-92 range is basically flawless from edge to edge.  No astigmatism or field curvature that I can detect.  No SAEP or fuzzy field stops, either.

I have the original 30mm ES-82 with the flush mounted eye lens, and it is not pin sharp anywhere compared to the ES-92, Delos, or XW ranges.  The last 10 degrees fall apart with lots of chromatic aberration.  It is far better than the 30mm KK-Widescan clones which fall apart 50% out, but it also weighs twice as much.  I've already promised John I will spend some time characterizing what I'm seeing as unsharpness.  Stars just don't focus to nice tiny pinpoints anywhere.  I keep racking focus to no avail.  It's always close, but no cigar.

All right, I'm back inside after extensively checking out what is going on with my 30mm ES-82 in my 8" dob with a GSO coma corrector.  After comparing it to a 27mm Panoptic, 22mm AT AF70, 40mm Meade 5000 SWA and Plossl, and 30mm KK Widescan clone, I stand by most of what I said from earlier recollections.  In the center of the 30mm ES-82, stars simply refuse to focus down to pinpoints like the rest of the list, so it isn't a magnification issue.  As near as I can tell, as I hunt for best focus, I get a reddish and the bluish star image on either side of the compromise best focus position, all the same size.  This position is still somewhat bloated compared to the rest of the list at best focus.  Because of this, the star looks kind of spikey, possibly due to residual uncorrected astigmatism in my eye.  I can tell when an eyepiece comes to pinpoint focus because suddenly, thin diffraction spikes come into view from the spider vanes.  This never happens with the 30mm ES-82.  Even the KK Widescan clone comes to a sharper focus in the center.  The KK WS clone does have lots of edge astigmatism and some field curvature as I recalled.  The 40mm Meade 5000 SWA isn't quite pinpoint at the edge.  There is the slightest astigmatism there, but it is much less than the 30mm ES-82.  Because of the finer focus, I could make out fainter stars more easily in the 40mm Meade than in the 30mm ES-82 despite the paler background in the 40mm because more of the star's light was focused into a single point, making it brighter.

I will back off slightly on edge aberrations after comparing it to 12mm and 17mm Nagler T4s as well as a 13mm AT AF70.  The amount of chromatic aberration is small, much smaller than my statement above.  It is similar to the T4s which have just a little.  The 13mm AT AF70 is abysmal chromatic aberration wise.  I'll also revise my 17mm AT AF70 opinion as well.  It is just a step behind the 22mm AT AF70 which is just about the same correction wise as the 27mm Panoptic center to edge.

On to my Meade HD-60 line thoughts.  The 25mm barely comes to focus with the focuser racked all the way in.  As such, all I could tell is that it isn't particularly sharp anywhere and the edge is astigmatic.  The 18mm comes to focus, but isn't sharp anywhere and is highly astigmatic at the edge as well as having field curvature.  I couldn't recommend either the 18mm or 25mm to anyone.  The 12mm is far superior to the 13mm AT AF70.  It has slight field curvature and slight astigmatism at the edge, but no chromatic aberration.  It focuses to a sharp focus in the center.  The 9mm has very, very slight field curvature, no astigmatism that I could detect, and focuses to a sharper pinpoint in the center than my 9mm Vixen LV.  That LV displayed some astigmatism at the edge when I really looked for it.  I was kind of bummed by this revelation.  The 6.5mm and 4.5mm come to a sharp focus without noticeable field curvature or edge astigmatism, but my skies weren't steady enough at those powers to make any further judgements.  My 7mm Pentax XW and 5mm Pentax XL were sharp edge to edge, but stars just weren't steady tonight at high powers.

The 14mm Morpheus definitely has significant edge astigmatism, obvious without looking very closely; but it is also significantly wider than the Delos and XWs, so I'm still cutting it a lot of slack.  The 14mm Pentax XL definitely has noticeable field curvature.  More than anything discussed above.  However, it focuses stars to a point at the edge when refocused.

The 17mm ES-92 is super easy to hold the entire view with eyeglasses without having to touch the folded down eye cup, just like the 14mm Morpheus, 10mm Delos and 7mm Pentax XW I compared it to for eye relief.  The 17mm and 12mm Nagler T4s only display about 70 degrees without pressing in or tilting one's view.  The smooth side 14mm Meade 4000 UWA is easier than the T4s to take in closer to 80 degrees, but not quite all of it without pressing in.  It is remarkably well corrected and easy to use for a 30+ year old design.  Yes, it is a derivative design, but significant improvements were made over the T1s, so I can see why TV lost that lawsuit.

Sorry to go so far off topic, but I promised John I'd have a second look at the 30mm ES-82 since I bashed it pretty well originally.  If you can live with the slightly bloated stars not quite coming to best focus anywhere, then it's a keeper.  Just don't do any critical observing with it.  Use it to scan the skies for targets and then switch to something sharper for a detailed look.

The rest of the thoughts I wanted to record while they were still fresh in my mind.

[Littleguy80]

9 hours ago, YKSE said:

Sorry to OP for being off topic.

No apology required. It’s a really interesting discussion. I like it when a simple question sparks discussion

I personally think a strong secondhand market helps a manufacturer. For people buying products new, knowing you can sell it on and recover some money makes it a less risky purchase. For people buying secondhand, it’s an opportunity to try something they may not be otherwise be able to afford. I wonder how many secondhand purchasers then go on to buy another TV eyepiece from new. 

[John]

4 hours ago, Louis D said:

All right, I'm back inside after extensively checking out what is going on with my 30mm ES-82 in my 8" dob with a GSO coma corrector.  After comparing it to a 27mm Panoptic, 22mm AT AF70, 40mm Meade 5000 SWA and Plossl, and 30mm KK Widescan clone, I stand by most of what I said from earlier recollections.  In the center of the 30mm ES-82, stars simply refuse to focus down to pinpoints like the rest of the list, so it isn't a magnification issue.  As near as I can tell, as I hunt for best focus, I get a reddish and the bluish star image on either side of the compromise best focus position, all the same size.  This position is still somewhat bloated compared to the rest of the list at best focus.  Because of this, the star looks kind of spikey, possibly due to residual uncorrected astigmatism in my eye.  I can tell when an eyepiece comes to pinpoint focus because suddenly, thin diffraction spikes come into view from the spider vanes.  This never happens with the 30mm ES-82.  Even the KK Widescan clone comes to a sharper focus in the center.  The KK WS clone does have lots of edge astigmatism and some field curvature as I recalled.  The 40mm Meade 5000 SWA isn't quite pinpoint at the edge.  There is the slightest astigmatism there, but it is much less than the 30mm ES-82.  Because of the finer focus, I could make out fainter stars more easily in the 40mm Meade than in the 30mm ES-82 despite the paler background in the 40mm because more of the star's light was focused into a single point, making it brighter.

I will back off slightly on edge aberrations after comparing it to 12mm and 17mm Nagler T4s as well as a 13mm AT AF70.  The amount of chromatic aberration is small, much smaller than my statement above.  It is similar to the T4s which have just a little.  The 13mm AT AF70 is abysmal chromatic aberration wise.  I'll also revise my 17mm AT AF70 opinion as well.  It is just a step behind the 22mm AT AF70 which is just about the same correction wise as the 27mm Panoptic center to edge.

On to my Meade HD-60 line thoughts.  The 25mm barely comes to focus with the focuser racked all the way in.  As such, all I could tell is that it isn't particularly sharp anywhere and the edge is astigmatic.  The 18mm comes to focus, but isn't sharp anywhere and is highly astigmatic at the edge as well as having field curvature.  I couldn't recommend either the 18mm or 25mm to anyone.  The 12mm is far superior to the 13mm AT AF70.  It has slight field curvature and slight astigmatism at the edge, but no chromatic aberration.  It focuses to a sharp focus in the center.  The 9mm has very, very slight field curvature, no astigmatism that I could detect, and focuses to a sharper pinpoint in the center than my 9mm Vixen LV.  That LV displayed some astigmatism at the edge when I really looked for it.  I was kind of bummed by this revelation.  The 6.5mm and 4.5mm come to a sharp focus without noticeable field curvature or edge astigmatism, but my skies weren't steady enough at those powers to make any further judgements.  My 7mm Pentax XW and 5mm Pentax XL were sharp edge to edge, but stars just weren't steady tonight at high powers.

The 14mm Morpheus definitely has significant edge astigmatism, obvious without looking very closely; but it is also significantly wider than the Delos and XWs, so I'm still cutting it a lot of slack.  The 14mm Pentax XL definitely has noticeable field curvature.  More than anything discussed above.  However, it focuses stars to a point at the edge when refocused.

The 17mm ES-92 is super easy to hold the entire view with eyeglasses without having to touch the folded down eye cup, just like the 14mm Morpheus, 10mm Delos and 7mm Pentax XW I compared it to for eye relief.  The 17mm and 12mm Nagler T4s only display about 70 degrees without pressing in or tilting one's view.  The smooth side 14mm Meade 4000 UWA is easier than the T4s to take in closer to 80 degrees, but not quite all of it without pressing in.  It is remarkably well corrected and easy to use for a 30+ year old design.  Yes, it is a derivative design, but significant improvements were made over the T1s, so I can see why TV lost that lawsuit.

Sorry to go so far off topic, but I promised John I'd have a second look at the 30mm ES-82 since I bashed it pretty well originally.  If you can live with the slightly bloated stars not quite coming to best focus anywhere, then it's a keeper.  Just don't do any critical observing with it.  Use it to scan the skies for targets and then switch to something sharper for a detailed look.

The rest of the thoughts I wanted to record while they were still fresh in my mind.

Thanks for taking another look throught these Louis and for reporting what you saw.

Are your ES 82's the current design or the earlier "mushroom top" design ?