Takahashi 32mm Abbe MC

[25585]

As these eye pieces are less known than the LE ranges, specially the longer FL 32mm, I thought readers might be interested. 

I bought the 32mm Abbe as it had an advertised 28mm eye relief. However the eye lens is recessed down the barrel about 1cm/10mm, thus giving it an effective eye relief of 18mm. 

The fairly rigid eye cup, similar to those found on Vixen LV range up to 25mm can be turned down flat or pulled off completely. Doing either makes little difference. Wearing glasses I could just about see the whole FOV, not really satisfactory considering the small-ish AFOV of 42 deg. 

For a 32mm, very light weight, less than a TV Plossl 32 or Baader Eudiascopic 30mm, both also 31.7mm fit. I am looking forward to comparing them all. 

[Piero]

Never tried one, but I read (https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/474675-the-takahashi-abbe-ortho-a-brief-summary/), that it is a good eyepiece.  

[mikeDnight]

I've owned the 30mm LE which has the same recessed eye lens and that daft, restrictive rubber eye cup. I found it unpleasant to use because of the recessed lens and the rubber diaphragm of the eye cup, and I don't wear glasses for observing. It was bested by a 28mm RKE and a 32mm 1960's erfle, both being sharper towards the edge than the LE. If you're struggling to see the whole field with ease, then providing you're not entirely happy, you could send it back. 

[JeremyS]

1 hour ago, Piero said:

Never tried one, but I read (https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/474675-the-takahashi-abbe-ortho-a-brief-summary/), that it is a good eyepiece

That's an interesting thread, Piero. I see several of the participants think the Tak Abbes are produced in the same factory as the Fujiyama HD orthos (and that the Fujiyamas are the same as the Unversity Optics HD's, which has also been cited elswhere)

[F15Rules]

As a fan of other LE's and orthos in general, I do wonder what is the point of a 42degree ortho at 32mm focal length?

Dave

[25585]

5 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

As a fan of other LE's and orthos in general, I do wonder what is the point of a 42degree ortho at 32mm focal length?

Dave

Solar? 

It's a niche ep like Brandons longer FL I guess. It's only the effective eye relief aspect that's bugging me. 

Probably Barlows well, but not why I bought it. Stick to Vixen for Japanese eps in future (unless a XW 30 or 40 comes along - I can hope). The Tak goes back

[F15Rules]

1 hour ago, 25585 said:

Solar? 

It's a niche ep like Brandons longer FL I guess. It's only the effective eye relief aspect that's bugging me. 

Probably Barlows well, but not why I bought it. Stick to Vixen for Japanese eps in future (unless a XW 30 or 40 comes along - I can hope). The Tak goes back

I'm fortunate in that I don't need glasses for observing.

I've tried my new (to me) Gold Series Parks 30mm in daylight testing and it's very promising. Very good colour rendition of lichens on a nearby church tower, very very sharp on axis and across the vast majority of the field. I did get a short viewing of M42 as well, and the contrast seemed excellent, a good test of this will be against my Pentax SMC zoom and the LVW22. A nice 52 degree fov completes a great eyepiece package IMO, and when you think it's probably at least 30 years old, I'm chuffed to bits so far..

Dave

[JeremyS]

1 hour ago, 25585 said:

The Tak goes back

Now that's not a statement one hears much 

[F15Rules]

10 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Now that's not a statement one hears much 

...and Tak's a fact!! 

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, F15Rules said:

I'm fortunate in that I don't need glasses for observing.

I've tried my new (to me) Gold Series Parks 30mm in daylight testing and it's very promising. Very good colour rendition of lichens on a nearby church tower, very very sharp on axis and across the vast majority of the field. I did get a short viewing of M42 as well, and the contrast seemed excellent, a good test of this will be against my Pentax SMC zoom and the LVW22. A nice 52 degree fov completes a great eyepiece package IMO, and when you think it's probably at least 30 years old, I'm chuffed to bits so far..

Dave

If the 30mm Parks is anything like my 35mm Eudiascopic (fast becoming my all time favourite low power eyepiece), youll have some breathtaking views of the milkyway over the next few months Dave. There was a 30mm Ultima on AB&S a short time back. I nearly pulled the trigger on it but i just felt it was too close to 35mm to be of practical advantage. I shouldn't think things through so much, it would have made a nice collectible even if it was rarely used!

[F15Rules]

I think I saw that Mike , a lady seller asking £70?

At the time I thought it a little expensive, but having seen the GS30 up close, I can see it compares well to a TV 32mm plossl and one of those would be at least that much to buy used☺..

[25585]

I will give the Tak a try out first maybe. Pit it against my Eudiascopic & TV Plossl. Be day viewing however. Church clock will make a good test at 1/4 mile away. 

But if the Tak is disappointing, I am either not keeping it, or will get the hack saw out to chop off 5mm of not needed tube.

So far the Eudiascopic 30mm is my favourite thirtysomething ep 1.25 inch fit. I would swap the Tak 32 Abbe for another to have a pair for bino viewing, if anyone is interested. 

There are a couple of Celestron Axiom Japan made eps (black & orange) on ebay if anyone is interested. 

[marcus_z]

As an observer who uses the Abbe 32 without glasses, I find the eye relief a little bit too large. The eyepiece has an outstanding sharpness and contrast and gives a very neutral color tone. I'm sorry to hear that you are not satisfied.

[Dave1]

14 hours ago, F15Rules said:

As a fan of other LE's and orthos in general, I do wonder what is the point of a 42degree ortho at 32mm focal length?

Dave

Perhaps because an ortho should give better contrast on axis, than a widefield eyepiece with more glass in it? Which would be benefical when looking at faint DSO's. Not helpful having only 42 AFOV if looking at big or wide DSO's though. As I guess there is a place for both. 

[F15Rules]

1 hour ago, Dave1 said:

Perhaps because an ortho should give better contrast on axis, than a widefield eyepiece with more glass in it?

Hmm..I think modern premium widefields deliver comparable on axis performance on most UK average clear nights. But price is a factor, orthos generally being much lower cost (not Taks though!), and as Mike has previously said, a smaller, fully sharp field can help when studying fine planetary or double star details without the potential distraction of wider fields which might bring other, distracting objects into view.

Getting back to the 32mm though, I would think that the low magnification and brighter sky background would wipe out any "ortho"  advantages?

But I agree we are all different so there is certainly a place for both☺.

Dave

[Dave1]

6 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Hmm..I think modern premium widefields deliver comparable on axis performance on most UK average clear nights. But price is a factor, orthos generally being much lower cost (not Taks though!), and as Mike has previously said, a smaller, fully sharp field can help when studying fine planetary or double star details without the potential distraction of wider fields which might bring other, distracting objects into view.

Getting back to the 32mm though, I would think that the low magnification and brighter sky background would wipe out any "ortho"  advantages?

But I agree we are all different so there is certainly a place for both☺.

Dave

Isn't physics physics? I don't think a clever design or glass coating can make up for the fact that less glass means less light loss as it travels through the glass. Technically an Otho will get more light to your eye, and contrast and definition is two of the most critical areas when it comes to planetary viewing. I have had the chance to look through modern eyepiece design, and saw no advantage other than it having a widefield and was sharp to the edge.  On the same evening, in the same conditions, the person who eyepiece it was, looked through my scope and otho. Exclaimed how take sharp the stars were and also the deference in the contrast to the back ground. Everybody that has ever looked through my othos and scopes always comment on how good the contrast is..:)

I'd say its more critical because of UK seeing conditions to have the eyepiece that maximises your chances of teasing out maximum amount of detail given the seeing conditions. Seeing conditions wont cancel out benefits of an eyepiece design. A better deign in a given moment should reveal more detail. If there really was no advantage to certain designs, then there would be little point in paying huge amounts of money on an eyepiece or favouring a design.

Light transmission is the single most important aspect when viewing dso's. If you want to see as much details as possible. Which is why for dso, planetary, and double star I stick with less is more. 

Everything has it place and everybody has there taste.