Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_terminator_challenge.thumb.jpg.b7f10f594317507d0f40662231b0d9a8.jpg

AbeSapien

Explore Scientific 68° Maxvision 40mm

Recommended Posts

Hello fellow watchers :)

 

Thanks to a few members on here I purchased a Skyliner 200P with BST Starguider eyepieces a while back. I absolutely love tanking the stuff out and sit in my spot all night long and enjoy gazing around.
As a member in my previous threat about the BST Starguiders suggested, I also bought myself a Explore Scientific 68° Maxvision 40mm to sweep around the night sky.

 

It was delivered last night and oh boy, this thing is huge! I mean I knew it had to be bigger... but that big? :D NICE!

Now here's the thing... As I took it out of the bag I noticed that the plastic shroud doesn't stay flat on the EP... It kind of makes a small wave... I attached a picture. Is this normal? Is this "expected behavior"? Or did I just manage to get a plum?

I saw that many people are taking apart the entire shroud to save weight and etc. but I don't think this is the thing I really want to do to a brand new EP.

 

What are your thoughts and experiences on this?

 

And another thing I just noticed... FLO and Explore Scientific are out of stock of Maxvision EP's... Did the pull the plug on producing them? I really wanted to get the whole set after holding one of them in my hands :)

IMG_9165.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks like it could be quite annoying when you are observing with it. Unless the plastic shroud is somehow not seated correctly I would look at returning it. Speak to your retailer first though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Maxvisions aren't in production it was a one off none fulfilled order so when they are gone they are gone. They are near identical to Meade 5000s (apparently).

Edited by happy-kat
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have been a massive production run! We’ve been saying that for 3 or 4 years now.

It is unlikely that you will notice the wavey rubber.

Great eyepieces for the money. Enjoy.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it bothers you I'm sure you can just return it with no problem. However, it looks like it might help cut out stray light if you have the raised bit of rubber to the out side of your eye, kind of like a slightly winged eyepiece.

Just turning a negative into a positive :)  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not normal - the rubber should be flat around the eye lens. If it is bothersome to you then I'm sure FLO will replace it.

The Maxvisions were, I believe, originally intended to be branded as Meade 5000 SWA's and UWA's but Meade switched supplier so the production run was re-branded "Maxvision" and distributed through the Explore Scientific dealer network.

I don't think they will be making any more though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stu said:

That looks like it could be quite annoying when you are observing with it. Unless the plastic shroud is somehow not seated correctly I would look at returning it. Speak to your retailer first though.

That's what I fear too... It bothers me already just seeing this wave...

 

Thanks for all the other replies. I contacted the seller and they are out of stock unfortunately... so no way to exchange it...

 

After scrolling over the site I also noticed that they carry the Explore Scientific 68 Series Eyepieces. Are they recommendable? If so I could see myself exchanging the Maxvision for the 68 SE 40mm... What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything underneath the rubber causing it to be pushed up ?

If not, maybe keeping the eyepiece standing on it's top for a while will press the rubber back into a flat profile ?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AbeSapien said:

After scrolling over the site I also noticed that they carry the Explore Scientific 68 Series Eyepieces. Are they recommendable? If so I could see myself exchanging the Maxvision for the 68 SE 40mm... What do you think?

The ES 68° are essentially the same (except the 28mm) design as the Maxvision, with soft eyecup, ES has reduced the weight compare to MV.

28mm are different where Maxvision 28mm has noticeable better image quality.

Of the other focal lengths, 16mm and 20mm are best, work well even in f4 scopes, the others are more suitable for f5 or slower as recommended by ES.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John said:

Is there anything underneath the rubber causing it to be pushed up ?

If not, maybe keeping the eyepiece standing on it's top for a while will press the rubber back into a flat profile ?

I think I'll try this before jumping to anything at the moment... :) THX

 

34 minutes ago, YKSE said:

The ES 68° are essentially the same (except the 28mm) design as the Maxvision, with soft eyecup, ES has reduced the weight compare to MV.

28mm are different where Maxvision 28mm has noticeable better image quality.

Of the other focal lengths, 16mm and 20mm are best, work well even in f4 scopes, the others are more suitable for f5 or slower as recommended by ES.

Hm okay I see... just talking about the 40mm, which one do you think has better eye relief and is sharper on the edges? What about correction?

Has anyone tried both perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting re the 28mm. I’ve tried both and found them noticeably different. Agreed re the 16 & 20mm MaxVisions, absolute gems! The 24mm 28mm are also good for the money (haven’t tried the 34&40mm monsters).

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AbeSapien said:

Hm okay I see... just talking about the 40mm, which one do you think has better eye relief and is sharper on the edges? What about correction?

Has anyone tried both perhaps?

These eyepeices are scale design, meaning eye relief(ER) is proportional to focal length, about 0.7, so 40mm has 28mm ER, enough for glass-wearer.

You may even feel too long with 40mm Maxvision if you don't twist up the eye guide, you can find out youself. Please be careful when twisting up the eye guide, you may unscrew the 2" barrel (since you're holding it) that lenses fall out of the housing.

edge correction should be very good for your f6 200P (noticeable better than BST e.g.).

 

1 hour ago, Paul73 said:

Interesting re the 28mm. I’ve tried both and found them noticeably different. Agreed re the 16 & 20mm MaxVisions, absolute gems! The 24mm 28mm are also good for the money (haven’t tried the 34&40mm monsters).

Paul

Did you do the comparion head-to-head or to memory?

This is the test done by Ernest in optical bench with his standarized methods and his comments on 28mm MV and ES:

mv28_vs_es28.thumb.jpg.abf7a0745f083e62e5ea9b9b2308d8a7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John said:

Is there anything underneath the rubber causing it to be pushed up ?

If not, maybe keeping the eyepiece standing on it's top for a while will press the rubber back into a flat profile ?

Oh my god, you were absolutely right with your suggestion... There was a rolled up foamy sticky tape underneath the shroud! :o 

I removed the both of them but I'm asking myself what their purpose is? Perhaps to prevent that area from getting moist and getting moldy? Should I try to stick them back?

FullSizeRender 2.jpg

FullSizeRender.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are still sticky then maybe get the back under there to hold the rubber in place? Just make sure they are flat!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Stu is right - they are probably there to keep the eye cup stuck to the top of the eyepiece body. They should be flat though, not rolled up !

Some folks remove the whole rubber eyecup and the assembly that it's attached to and use the eyepiece in a slimmed down "naked" form so I don't think those little foam sticky pads are in any way vital to it's operation.

Here is a "naked" 34mm Meade SWA (avert your eyes if easily shocked ! :grin:):

 

post-18869-14073059772499_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everybody :)

 

I'll cut them in four little pieces and try to get them back under there.

 

Yes, I was recommended to do that as soon as I'd get the EP, but I have to say that I quit like it as it is at this moment. Perhaps one day I'll strip it ;)

 

What are you guys using to clean the glas by the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AbeSapien said:

....What are you guys using to clean the glas by the way?

I'm a big fan of the Baader Wonder fluid and their micro fibre cloth. A modest investment up front but the kit provides for many cleanings and it seems really effective. The fluid is sprayed onto the cloth, not the lenses and used in moderation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for wonder fluid. Might seem a bit expensive but you use so little it will last ages.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the shroud off my 40mm Meade 5000 SWA (identical to yours), and there were no little bits of sticky foam under there.  I can't imagine why they would be under there.  There's no reason for them to be there, so don't put them back.

If you ever want remove the shroud, it's quite simple.  Just work a butter knife gently under the edge of the rubber where it meets the shiny steel ring that says Maxvision.  Go around the entire lower edge working the glue loose by gently prying the rubber upward.  Once the rubber comes loose, lift it off and locate the little screw in the spiral slot and unscrew it.  Remove it and the bushing surrounding it.  Put it away in the original box in a baggie for safe storage.  Now lift off the metal portion of the shroud and put it away in the box for storage.  Next, clean off the greasy lube on the eyepiece barrel with your favorite cleanser on a clean paper towel.  There you go!  You've saved about a pound in weight and an inch in diameter and gained about 3mm of eye relief.  This eyepiece is my favorite for scanning the heavens with eyeglasses because it's so comfortable and wide-field with 29mm of usable eye relief and 71 degrees of AFOV (both measured).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thank you for the Magic Fluid tip. Buying myself right into it! :)

 

Thank you @Louis D for the detailed description of taking it appart. At the given moment I won't strip it, but who knows what the future holds! Some valuable input here :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/12/2017 at 00:22, John said:

I think Stu is right - they are probably there to keep the eye cup stuck to the top of the eyepiece body. They should be flat though, not rolled up !

Some folks remove the whole rubber eyecup and the assembly that it's attached to and use the eyepiece in a slimmed down "naked" form so I don't think those little foam sticky pads are in any way vital to it's operation.

Here is a "naked" 34mm Meade SWA (avert your eyes if easily shocked ! :grin:):

 

post-18869-14073059772499_thumb.jpg

Am I the only one who thinks these EPs look so much better decloaked?😁

Dave

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Am I the only one who thinks these EPs look so much better decloaked?😁

Dave

They might look better but I can think of a couple of practical disadvantages for me at least:

- the shiny exposed top of the eyepiece is likely to cause unwanted reflections from light sources nearby which can reflect off the eyeball and onto the eye lens. It should be blackened IMHO.

- the eye relief will place the eye position for the non-glasses wearer well off the top of the eyepiece which personally I find uncomfortable to hold for some time and allows stray light into the ware etween the eye and the eyelens which, again IMHO, should be as dark and shielded as possible.

If a nice tall flexible soft rubber eyecup could be added and the top of the eyepiece body blackened then I'd be more enthusiastic :icon_biggrin:

Without their bodywork these eyepieces look like the old "smooth side" Meade 4000 and TV ranges so they do have an appeal, I can see that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you'll be really happy with the new eyepiece! I love low magnifications myself, and the Maxvisions happen to be top class eyepieces.

About their history: JOC (Kunming, China) made Meade's eyepieces. Meade broke up with JOC after JOC set up Explore Scientific to compete with them. When this happened JOC was in the middle of the production of a large batch of Meade series 5000 SWA eyepieces. Meade no longer wanted them and JOC dumped them on the European market branded as Maxvision, a brand they had used before.

This cost Meade a fine, which was settled by Sunny who now is the owner of Meade. Meade uses a new manufacturer, United Optics, also in China.

The Maxvisions are identical to the Meades, except for the name on the barrel, and where the Meades had a coloured ring, the Maxvisions don't. But there was a huge difference in price! 

post-38669-0-48168800-1413471549_thumb.gif

I never bought the 40mm because I was intimidated by its size, and eye relief of the 16mm is too short for me (I suffer from long eye lashes).

Optically, the ES 68° appear identical to the Meade SWA and Maxvision 68°. All three or on a par with Televue's Panoptics.

The rubber eye cup is truly big, but I really like it because it is so effective. It creates a pitch black cavity with the view at he bottom. I do agree though, that these eyepieces look better uncloaked. Don, Starman over at cloudy nights, suggests a home-made eyecup made from a piece of bicycle inner tube as an alternative. See there for pictures.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John said:

They might look better but I can think of a couple of practical disadvantages for me at least:

- the shiny exposed top of the eyepiece is likely to cause unwanted reflections from light sources nearby which can reflect off the eyeball and onto the eye lens. It should be blackened IMHO.

- the eye relief will place the eye position for the non-glasses wearer well off the top of the eyepiece which personally I find uncomfortable to hold for some time and allows stray light into the ware etween the eye and the eyelens which, again IMHO, should be as dark and shielded as possible.

If a nice tall flexible soft rubber eyecup could be added and the top of the eyepiece body blackened then I'd be more enthusiastic :icon_biggrin:

Without their bodywork these eyepieces look like the old "smooth side" Meade 4000 and TV ranges so they do have an appeal, I can see that.

 

Been using my 40mm Meade 5000 SWA decloaked since the big blowout sale when I picked it up for $125 shipped several years back, and I've never had an issue with reflections off the shiny top.  Where I get reflections is off of the backside of my eyeglass lenses.  Someone needs to make winged guards to slip onto the side of glasses like horse blinders to block stray light.  While seated, I've never had issues holding the view with it while wearing eyeglasses.  It's much easier than with, let's say, a 12mm or 17mm Nagler T4.

3 hours ago, Ruud said:

The rubber eye cup is truly big, but I really like it because it is so effective. It creates a pitch black cavity with the view at he bottom.

I do agree that a well shielded view is nice, but eyeglass wearers can't get close enough to make that happen, so a light blocking hood is probably our best option unless it's really hot and sticky out at night.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, John said:

Without their bodywork these eyepieces look like the old "smooth side" Meade 4000 and TV ranges so they do have an appeal, I can see that.

Agreed John, that's really what I meant, that they look better decloaked IMO.

I've never looked through a decloaked version. I have owned MVs in 16, 20 and 28mm versions and ES equivalents in 20, 24, 28 and 34mm.. with the exception of the ES28 which I found disappointing (and not as good as the MV28), I much prefer viewing with the ES range, much better build and I really am not keen on that flat black slab of rubber on the bigger MVs..others will think the opposite I guess. But both ranges offer exceptional value. 

My own personal favourites were the ES 24 and 34, just wonderful low power views through both 😋.

Dave

Edited by F15Rules
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Kronos831
      Heyyy its meee kronos and i have been wondering about getting a filter...I really want the best contrast and brightness i can on my nebulas(i want to view M42 M57 M27 M31  M81 M82 and lots more) with my future 8" dob. Is this filter really going to help me?
      https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/es_uhc_filter_125.html
      If it just a matter of quality of the filter itself  can you suggest a better one in the same price range?
      Or will not the uhc filter help me in general .IF so can you reccomend another one?
      Also is this         https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/uhc-filter.html         this       https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/es_uhc_filter_125.html        https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/baader-uhc-s-filter.html               this better?
    • By Neil27
      For sale is my lovely Explore Scientific APO ED 102mm triplet refractor.
      Lovely condition, great optics that are unmarked and blemish free, views are stunning and pin sharp.
      Selling due to lack of use, as a recent change of job keeps me away from home quite a bit, so its not getting any use.
      Comes with:
      Essential 102mm triplet APO refractor
      Tube rings with integrated carry handle
      Vixen dovetail
      2 inch visual back / adaptors and focuser
      Aluminium case
      It is the essentials model so didn't come with any finder or diagonal.
      Price is £450 ovno due to condition and inclusion of vixen dovetail.
      Payment accepted is cash, cheque or bank transfer (which is easiest) or PayPal if buyer pays fees.
      Pick up only or can meet half way by arrangement - don't really like sending optics through the post.
      Thanks for reading and if you have any questions then please pm me and we can discuss in more detail.


    • By jeffkane5
      Help! 
      I am wanting to take up astrophotography and recently sold my Celestron 5se as this was not giving me the results I want.
      I have been researching scopes over the last year or so and have made a short list based on what I can afford and what will give me the results I am after and of course build quality.
      My short list in no particular order is 
      Explore scientific 80 triplet
      William optics z61
      Skywatcher 100ed
      My dilemma is which one to go with. All the reviews are equally as good although 1 or 2 negative notes on the skywatcher but not enough to put me off. Whatever I go with will most likely be a second hand unit as I hate buying items like this new. The exception may be the Williams as not too many come up on the used market. Is this a good sign I ask?
      Can anyone give me a steer as to which scope to settle with?
    • By 25585
      Apo F8 & Dob F4.7 tests  https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/user-reviews/comparing-the-masuyama-25mm-52°-25mm-65°-and-26mm-85°-r3122
       
    • By Ben the Ignorant
      Why crave for long eye relief, and then restrict it with a raised eyecup? Why conceive wide fields optics only to make them narrow with same raised eyecup? My Myriads and Nirvana/TS/William clones have a rotating eyecup that resists turning firmly, they never spin unless I want them to. The Meade/Maxvision 18mm/82° and 34mm/68°, on the other hand, possess a rubber eyecup that also serves as a grippy external frame. These oversize grips offered so much leverage to the turning mechanism, they triggered it often with no will on my part. 
      Almost each time I handled them, the integral cup spun, reducing the eye relief and field, plus it made me doubt if I had fully seated and locked them in the diagonal. The 34mm was the worst offender, its mechanism had almost no resistance at all. That was very annoying, when you observe you want quietness, your gear shouldn't be doing irritating things of its own.
      Having had enough of that, I lifted the rubber with a handy little tool I always carry in my back pocket: the Dunlop Ultex guitar pick. Ultex is plastic, but it's the glassiest pick material, dump it on something hard and its sounds almost like glass foil or stone foil, if such a thing was possible (Dunlop's more rubbery Tortex was great but it's outdated, just compare). Still Ultex is flexible, a mandatory quality of guitar and bass picks. And it won't scratch anodized aluminum.
      A 1mm thick pick did the job after a 0.73mm colleague broke; not tough enough. 0.60mm's give out the most harmonics but they were too thin at first sight for this. I don't play 1mm's anymore, they mute too much harmonics, however this one got a nice alternate occupation.

      Experience from many other little jobs similar to this one made me keep the broken pick when most folks would dump it right away. Never trash something until the work is over. This piece of scrap plastic proved the ideal tool, with the right curvature and bite, to remove the crystalline superglue that remained on the metal cylinder.

      The mechanism is simply a stud that moves inside a curved slot.  I wiped the now-useless grease, and filled the slot with a short piece of electric wire to block the stud. Sorry for the blurry shot.

      No need to glue the wire, the tight-fitting rubber housing keeps it in place. I did put three drops of glue to attach the rubber to the inside metal housing. I kept the caps on, but I should have taped them to better protect the lenses against tools and glue, big sin here! I didn't use superglue, I'll wait and see if that all-purpose Pattex sticks hard enough to both metal and rubber. If it doesn't, superglue it will be. The "tire" fits the "wheel" tight enough that even no glue could do temporarily.

      Did the same with the 34mm:

      Interesting how the crown's edge has some green anodizing that was destined to match the green deco of the eyepiece, had it been sold under the Meade brand. It was impossible to lift that massive rubber housing with a pick, I had to do it with a screwdriver, but it inevitably scratched the black barrel, which I patched up with a black marker. These are the black smears under the wire.
      There is some risk in opening a high-grade eyepiece, so don't try before you have praticed on cheap or damaged ones. It also voids the warranty, be careful. Waterproof eyepieces are obviously a no-no for that mod! Assuming one could unscrew the sealed parts, humid air would enter through the thinnest opening, and ruin the anti-fogging protection.
      I hope this is interesting even if you don't get to use the tip. I didn't know what I would find in there, nor did I know how I would fix the sloppy eyecup. Simply opening a bits drawer made me notice that piece of wire, bulb switched on inside my head. I had considered drilling the frame to insert a locking screw but what an awful lot more work and risk it would be!
      Somehow it escaped my mind that I also own a 24/82 Meade/Maxvision ocular that has a turning integral rubber frame and eyecup, but much firmer fortunately; I might do the same mod for it or not. And a 7mm Panorama, if a preliminary, partial takedown shows it can be done safely. I'll keep you posted.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.