EP advice for planetary - do I go ortho?

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, parallaxerr said:

365Astro have "Lacerta" versions of the same. The price is very attractive but I've read mixed reviews on the design in general. Again, personal preference I suppose.

https://www.365astronomy.com/4mm-the-planetary-uwa-eyepiece-58-degrees-1.25.html

I am not sure if the 'Lacerta' are Barsta or not, or even if they actually exist.

These 'Lacerta' EP's were both from 365. The 4mm is TS Optics, I'm not sure about the 4.5mm. They both work fine. It's a bit pic'n'mix at 365 sometimes. The price was good though!

[parallaxerr]

1 minute ago, Mak the Night said:

I am not sure if the 'Lacerta' are Barsta or not, or even if they actually exist.

These 'Lacerta' EP's were both from 365. The 4mm is TS Optics, I'm not sure about the 4.5mm. They both work fine. It's a bit pic'n'mix at 365 sometimes. The price was good though!

I'd be happy if the TS versions turn up as they're quite a bit more pricey from TS direct!

How do you rate them?

[Mak the Night]

1 minute ago, parallaxerr said:

I'd be happy if the TS versions turn up as they're quite a bit more pricey from TS direct!

How do you rate them?

I like them a lot, they work well in refractors. I have f/5 and f/6 Newtonians and they work really well. Sometimes you might get some edge of field darkening. They are ortho' sharp, bright and clear. For the money they are very good. The Sky-Watcher UWA's are very similar, probably have the same insides lol.

[ASSA]

1 hour ago, parallaxerr said:

365Astro have "Lacerta" versions of the same. The price is very attractive but I've read mixed reviews on the design in general. Again, personal preference I suppose.

https://www.365astronomy.com/4mm-the-planetary-uwa-eyepiece-58-degrees-1.25.html

There is a little Cheaper. Btw I had those 5 mm version of it and vixen plossl npl 6 mm was giving a sharper view. TMB was warmy and a little softy in my touch. Rumors say that the original Burgess are great and the clones like TMB, SW UWA are weaker optically, how much truth I do not know, never had Burges version, but the prices of it are twice as large as the clones.

Anyway, I remember this TMB nice, especially on the moon. It is worth noting that they are susceptible to non-axial viewing.

[mikeDnight]

21 minutes ago, parallaxerr said:

Yes, I can't help thinking they're worth a punt at that price. More FoV and eye relief than the Orthos too.

I seriously doubt you'll be disappointed Jon!  And the added comfort while observing can make the difference between seeing something on the border of detectability, or missing it completely! With the TMB planetaries that i had, i could let saturn enter the field, drift across and exit the field without distortion. The only one I ever owned that was duff was a 9mm, but I'd bought it second hand knowing it was faulty.

[25585]

1 hour ago, parallaxerr said:

Some more strong arguments to give orthos a try but Johns post sums it all up I think. There's very likely little difference and observers preference wins out. Now I'm thinking about trying orthos again, darn it.

Jon maybe you could borrow one? But for buying, the ES 4mm 92 deg new is "only" the cost of 2 orthos.

[John]

2 hours ago, Mak the Night said:

I'm pretty sure the BCO's just have bigger field stops to aid target location and acquisition. Hence the larger FOV, but as they're ortho's only 42° is sharp.

Thats my understanding of the Baader Classic Ortho as well.

[John]

I've owned some of the original TMB / Burgess Planetaries and also some of the Telescope Services branded ones (blue logos and printing on the barrel). They worked well for their price and were quite comfortable to use. Some of the focal lengths suffered from some off axis glare when a bright object was either at the edge or just out of the field of view. I've never been convinced by the clones of these that have emerged since Thomas Back's untimely passing. I think my recommendation would be to stick to the focal lengths of the original series rather than the intermediate and longer ones that came on the market later. The original TMB / Burgess Planetary series were 2.5mm, 4mm, 5mm, 6mm, 7mm and 9mm as far as I know.

Interesting comparison review from 2006 here of some of the eyepieces mentioned in this thread:

https://www.astromart.com/reviews/article.asp?article_id=464

[parallaxerr]

23 minutes ago, John said:

I've owned some of the original TMB / Burgess Planetaries and also some of the Telescope Services branded ones (blue logos and printing on the barrel). They worked well for their price and were quite comfortable to use. Some of the focal lengths suffered from some off axis glare when a bright object was either at the edge or just out of the field of view. I've never been convinced by the clones of these that have emerged since Thomas Back's untimely passing. I think my recommendation would be to stick to the focal lengths of the original series rather than the intermediate and longer ones that came on the market later. The original TMB / Burgess Planetary series were 2.5mm, 4mm, 5mm, 6mm, 7mm and 9mm as far as I know.

Interesting comparison review from 2006 here of some of the eyepieces mentioned in this thread:

https://www.astromart.com/reviews/article.asp?article_id=464

Thanks John. Interesting result with the TMB's and orthos tied out on image quality, but the TMB's winning on comfort.

[John]

I think comfort is quite important. I used to use orthos a lot but not so much now - must be getting old !

 

[parallaxerr]

I was thinking back to last year when I had a good spell observing Jupiter with the C8. I remember the ES82° 8.8mm providing too much mag for the then very good conditions and I had to drop back to the 11mm. I just ran a comparison through the FoV calculator and it looks like 4mm in the Equinox may be OTT anyway, especially seeing as Jupiter is now at a lower altitude and in the murky stuff.

I had it in my head that the C8 FL was 2350mm, but that's the C9.25, so my calcs have been way off!  The 11mm in the C8 was giving me x185 mag (not the x213 thought) so the ES82° 4.7mm in the Equinox is a fair match for that at x191, albeit with smaller exit pupil. I have a feeling I may end up using the 6.7mm I already have if the seeing is poor!

 

[John]

With Jupiter, I find that 130x - 180x usually gives the sharpest and most contrasty views when I'm using my refractors. With my 12" dob the optimal range seems to be more 150x - 220x but rarely do higher powers than that deliver more satisfying views on this target. On Saturn, Mars, Uranus and Neptune I can press on more power.

 

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, John said:

Thats my understanding of the Baader Classic Ortho as well.

It would make sense. I don't know how else they could achieve 50°. 

This Bushnell Kellner supposedly has 45° FOV, although with the size of the field stop it seems more like 50°. I find this EP has an ortho' type contrast while lunar viewing with a small Mak. I've directly compared it to a 25mm Astro Hutech and there is no discernible difference. According to Bushnell it's good at f/8 and slower. I believe them lol.

[John]

Practically any eyepiece works well with a mak-cassegrain

[NGC 1502]

37 minutes ago, John said:

With Jupiter, I find that 130x - 180x usually gives the sharpest and most contrasty views when I'm using my refractors. With my 12" dob the optimal range seems to be more 150x - 220x but rarely do higher powers than that deliver more satisfying views on this target. On Saturn, Mars, Uranus and Neptune I can press on more power.

 

I’ve found similar with my 10” Dob, Jupiter best at 120-200x, but other planets can take a bit more power given good seeing.

Possibly it’s all that potential low contrast detail on Jupiter that limits somewhat very high powers ?  Do others agree with that ?

Ed.

[John]

13 minutes ago, NGC 1502 said:

Possibly it’s all that potential low contrast detail on Jupiter that limits somewhat very high powers ?  Do others agree with that ?

Ed.

Thats my theory as well. The features on Jupiter are marked by subtle contrast changes so really high magnification tends to blur them rather than emphasise them. Saturn's surface features (rather than the ring system) are similar and rather harder to see than Jupiters so we tend to concentrate more on the rings. Mars surface features are also contrast changes but generally the planet is small in angular size so high magnifications are required to boost the image scale so that we can pick at least some of the features out.

I've recently acquired a very helpful book on planetary observing - The Planetary Observers Handbook by Fred W Price. This contains much useful information to aid observation which I hope to apply in due course 

 

 

 

[Timebandit]

 

 

I just run through the eyepieces on the planets . Uping the power as I go . When the clarity  sharpness and contrast starts to drop off then I have gone to far, and drop it down a .5mm or 1mm eyepiece increment . If seeing conditions change again then up or down it . 5mm or 1mm to suit. That way I am just on the money for the maximum magnification for that particular seeing/atmosphere and target conditions. It does help though when you have eyepieces ranging from 3.5mm to 9mm for planetary. With increments of .5mm or 1mm . Call me a collectionist but with planetary these little adjustments in magnification can make all the difference.

 

 

[John]

1 minute ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

I just run through the eyepieces on the planets . Uping the power as I go . When the clarity  sharpness and contrast starts to drop off then I have gone to far, and drop it down a .5mm or 1mm eyepiece increment . If seeing conditions change again then up or down it . 5mm or 1mm to suit. That way I am just on the money for the maximum magnification for that particular seeing/atmosphere and target conditions. It does help though when you have eyepieces ranging from 3.5mm to 9mm for planetary. With increments of .5mm or 1mm . Call me a collectionist but with planetary these little adjustments in magnification can make all the difference.

 

 

Yep, thats how I tend to do it as well. And why I have quite a few shorter focal length eyepieces (as I'm sure you do !)

[Highburymark]

2 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

I just run through the eyepieces on the planets . Uping the power as I go . When the clarity  sharpness and contrast starts to drop off then I have gone to far, and drop it down a .5mm or 1mm eyepiece increment . If seeing conditions change again then up or down it . 5mm or 1mm to suit. That way I am just on the money for the maximum magnification for that particular seeing/atmosphere and target conditions. It does help though when you have eyepieces ranging from 3.5mm to 9mm for planetary. With increments of .5mm or 1mm . Call me a collectionist but with planetary these little adjustments in magnification can make all the difference.

 

 

How about a nice zoom for increments of 0.000001mm? ??

[Charic]

28 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

Call me a collectionist but with planetary these little adjustments in magnification can make all the difference.

Thats one of the advantages of having several EP's to choose from.
On any night, but preferably one of good seeing, one of my eyepieces will  surely fulfil my criteria, a good image, in focus, nicely framed, if not, time to head back inside?

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, John said:

Practically any eyepiece works well with a mak-cassegrain

That's one of the advantages of Mak's.

[Timebandit]

38 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

How about a nice zoom for increments of 0.000001mm? ??

 

 

That would drive me crazy trying to adjust a zoom to step up in 0.000001 increments . The planet would be out of Fov by the time I had twisted the zoom to make sure it had been adjusted up only another 0.000001 and not to much?. I think I will stick to popping out an eyepiece and popping another one in raising it by .5mm?

 

 

[John]

The Nagler 2-4mm zoom has click stops at half mm intervals. Very useful for fine tuning. You can work in between them but half a mm is enough for me !

 

 

[25585]

I guess another option is a turret (Takahashi make a nice one). So for planets, 10>7>5>3.5 using Pentax XW eps.

[parallaxerr]

Well after all the debate, budgeting, toing & froing I've ended up pulling the trigger on a new EP for planetary work in the Equinox.

I stumbled across and read @kerrylewis's wanted ad for a 3-6mm Nagler zoom, only to discover a pre-owned one for sale at TH, supposedly in excellent condition.

Budget blown satis. Palpitations starting!