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.

stargazine_ep2_banner.thumb.jpg.e37c929f88100393e885b7befec4c749.jpg

Dave1

Takahashi Abbe Orthoscopic eyepieces

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone
Whilst researching the new Tak Abbe ortho eyepieces, I came across this review, in the review he compares the new Tak Abbe to TMB monocentrics, Circle T Ortho's, and Baader Genuine Ortho's.
 
 
All in all a good review, and looks like the Tak Abbe are just above all other Ortho's and only very slightly behind TMB Monocentrics on planets.
 
On a side note, whilst reading on an Australian forum, someone had compared the Tak Abbe's to the Fujiyama ( KK ) Abbes. He placed the Tak's just above the Fujiyama in performance.
 
It's nice to see reports coming in on these eyepieces.
 
Dave
Edited by Dave1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking yourself into buying a set Dave? :happy7:

I find it interesting how some people seem to love the eye lens in the longer focal lengths being set down inside the eyepiece body while others, myself included, hate it that way. I'm sure the Tak ortho's are excellent, but for them to be better optically than the Fujiyama's and not as good as the TMB Super Monocentric's seems to me to be a very fine line to straddle. Perhaps the chunkier engineered body and the fact that they are relatively expensive compared to other ortho's, and they are made for Takahashi, has some psychological impact? That's not to say i wouldnt mind owning a set! What puts me off buying pricey Tak's for mono use is that I've seen the TMB Super Mono's consistently beaten by a mile, by cheap as chips, 365 Astronomy 16.8mm Abbe Orthoscopics and a revelation binoviewer, with X2 SW delux barlow. What a game changer!  I think the only mono eyepieces I have a mild craving for are the Astro Physics Planetaries. By "mild craving" I mean I'd sell my wife and kids for a set!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Over the years there seems to be a bit of a love , hate relationship going on with the Tak Ortho.

Obviously this review is very positive towards the Tak, seemingly besting all incomers?

But if this is the case then each to there own , but with the likes of the BGO and TMB super mono. Then maybe this is a bit wishful thinking??

All I know from what I have read over many many years I would not trade my set of BGO (Or TMB supermono if i was so lucky to own such a set)in for a set of Taks. Why because I have read a lot more indifferent feed back on the Tak Ortho compared to the BGO and Tmb supermono. 

Each to there own ,but I wonder if a ZAO was in the mix if the Tak would still of supposed bested or equalled that also. But maybe that would be stretching it a bit to far , As the ZAO are the king of the Ortho.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Are you talking yourself into buying a set Dave? :happy7:

I find it interesting how some people seem to love the eye lens in the longer focal lengths being set down inside the eyepiece body while others, myself included, hate it that way. I'm sure the Tak ortho's are excellent, but for them to be better optically than the Fujiyama's and not as good as the TMB Super Monocentric's seems to me to be a very fine line to straddle. Perhaps the chunkier engineered body and the fact that they are relatively expensive compared to other ortho's, and they are made for Takahashi, has some psychological impact? That's not to say i wouldnt mind owning a set! What puts me off buying pricey Tak's for mono use is that I've seen the TMB Super Mono's consistently beaten by a mile, by cheap as chips, 365 Astronomy 16.8mm Abbe Orthoscopics and a revelation binoviewer, with X2 SW delux barlow. What a game changer!  I think the only mono eyepieces I have a mild craving for are the Astro Physics Planetaries. By "mild craving" I mean I'd sell my wife and kids for a set!

Well as it goes I might buy a set Mike! That's one of the reasons I'm reading a lot about eyepieces and sharing some of what I find. I was going to invest in a set of Brandon eyepieces. Which I've already started down that road, with my acquisition of a Brandon 8mm. Although I have yet to use it, weather...

I'm not so sure about the psychological impact thing, the reviewer in the link did come across as knowing what he was doing. Only using exactly the same focal length eyepieces, same scope, same diagonal, all in the same observing session, and his telescope was a TAK FS128, so a high quality scope. In good to exceptional seeing conditions there is every chance he could see the difference. To me it came across Apples for apples review. 

I'm not a fan or recessed eye lens either, prefer mine to be flush.

Dave

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

Over the years there seems to be a bit of a love , hate relationship going on with the Tak Ortho.

Obviously this review is very positive towards the Tak, seemingly besting all incomers?

But if this is the case then each to there own , but with the likes of the BGO and TMB super mono. Then maybe this is a bit wishful thinking??

All I know from what I have read over many many years I would not trade my set of BGO (Or TMB supermono if i was so lucky to own such a set)in for a set of Taks. Why because I have read a lot more indifferent feed back on the Tak Ortho compared to the BGO and Tmb supermono. 

Each to there own ,but I wonder if a ZAO was in the mix if the Tak would still of supposed bested or equalled that also. But maybe that would be stretching it a bit to far , As the ZAO are the king of the Ortho.

 

 

 

From what I read in the review, the TOA's didn't best the TMB monocentric on axis performance on planets? I certainly didn't read it that way, the way I read it it was very close, with the TMB monocentrics just having the edge.

I'd be very interested in reading over reviews of information on the TAK Ortho's :) If you don't mind sharing?

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...get the whole set!  Wish I could afford that as nothing quite like having a good Abbes set for when needed.  Not an every night eyepiece IMO but outstanding specialty tools.  One thing that is a rarity for Abbe world is one longer than 28mm focal length.  Most makers make a 25mm one, long ago University Optics offered a 28mm flat top one, but Tak has a modern 32mm Ortho in their line up!!  Certainly destined to be a rare bird, like the 35 ZAO-I.  But as good as the Taks are, IMO there is considerable way to get to the ZAO level.  Those were masterpieces of the minimum glass eyepiece maker's art.  I maintain a 6mm one as that is my most used planetary focal length.  I once borrowed the 25mm and was simply astounded at how differently it portrayed objects compared to other common 25mm eyepieces.  Amazing the clarity and purity it brought to the objects.

Edited by BillP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dave1 said:

From what I read in the review, the TOA's didn't best the TMB monocentric on axis performance on planets? I certainly didn't read it that way, the way I read it it was very close, with the TMB monocentrics just having the edge.

I'd be very interested in reading over reviews of information on the TAK Ortho's :) If you don't mind sharing?

Dave

 

Hi. Bits and pieces on CN over the years .  

Don't have specific links I can tour you on unfortunately.

I have no axe to grind on the Taks. If that's what you wish then go for it.

But IMO if looking for a set of quality Orthos and your not hung up on the Tak name. Then I would go for a set of Fujiyama Ortho. IMO modern equivalent of the late great BGO

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wow...get the whole set!  Wish I could afford that as nothing quite like having a good Abbes set for when needed.  Not an every night eyepiece IMO but outstanding specialty tools.  One thing that is a rarity for Abbe world is one longer than 28mm focal length.  Most makers make a 25mm one, long ago University Optics offered a 28mm flat top one, but Tak has a modern 32mm Ortho in their line up!!  Certainly destined to be a rare bird, like the 35 ZAO-I.  But as good as the Taks are, IMO there is considerable way to get to the ZAO level.  Those were masterpieces of the minimum glass eyepiece maker's art.  I maintain a 6mm one as that is my most used planetary focal length.  I once borrowed the 25mm and was simply astounded at how differently it portrayed objects compared to other common 25mm eyepieces.  Amazing the clarity and purity it brought to the objects.

Crikey BillP, I'm not going to get all of them in one go! Not unless I win the lottery! It would be a very progressive purchasing strategy. I appreciate that they are somewhat speciality eyepieces. Most of my viewing is of stars or planets.

I've never even seen a ZAO come up for sale on the secondhand market, so I don't have a clue to there value. 

Dave

Share this post


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

 

Hi. Bits and pieces on CN over the years .  

Don't have specific links I can tour you on unfortunately.

I have no axe to grind on the Taks. If that's what you wish then go for it.

But IMO if looking for a set of quality Orthos and your not hung up on the Tak name. Then I would go for a set of Fujiyama Ortho. IMO modern equivalent of the late great BGO

 

 

I didn't think you did have an axe to grind, I just like to learn and read everything I can to make a fully informed purchase. I have read some of the stuff on CN. At the moment I would say its between investing in Brandon's or the TAO's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dave1 said:

I've never even seen a ZAO come up for sale on the secondhand market, so I don't have a clue to there value.

For the common focal lengths of 16mm and shorter I've never seen one for less than $500-600 USD.  For the rarer 25mm and 35mm ZAO-1's at least $1500 USD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

For the common focal lengths of 16mm and shorter I've never seen one for less than $500-600 USD.  For the rarer 25mm and 35mm ZAO-1's at least $1500 USD.

 

The ZAO are optically excellent and the king of the Ortho IMO. 

But for the price point of the ZAO these days it does make them hard to justify the price. In these modern times there are so many optically great eyepiece's out there. And at shorter focal lengths then the eye relief is just so tight it is uncomfortable for any extended period IMO. 

If I was in the market for a top quality Ortho like clarity and sharpness, but with a more comfortable viewing experience. Then the TV delite and the Pentax XW would be at the front of the queue. Excellent optics , but around 20mm eye relief and fov of around 60d and 70d. Justifying the price of a ZAO these days when there are great alternatives like delite and Pentax XW is difficult.

If you dont mind narrow fov and tighter eye relief . Also the vixen HR series especially at the very short focal lengths is a great alternative for high power sharpness. 

 

 

 

Edited by Timebandit
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Timebandit said:

The ZAO are optically excellent and the king of the Ortho IMO. 

But for the price point of the ZAO these days it does make them hard to justify the price. In these modern times there are so many optically great eyepiece's out there. And at shorter focal lengths then the eye relief is just so tight it is uncomfortable for any extended period IMO.

I quite agree with you.  For this price point on the used market, it is hard to justify.  In fact, many times I have decided to sell my 6mm ZAO and 5mm XO because they are so expensive and used so little.  But then, even after using all the premium eyepieces you mentioned, an evening comes where I am on a target appropriate for these little gems, and the sky conditions are also supporting the venture, and when I put them in and look at the view I just gasp.  They really are the pinnacle of the eyepiece art IMO and show it well when all else is in place in the optical chain.  So then, when I do this, then I think how foolish I was considering selling them because there is just nothing out there that shows as refined and transparent of a view.  So for me at least they are very much of a paradox...too expensive and impractical and the small AFOV really only good for a narrow band of targets...and also worth every penny and difficult to imagine not being able to have such a view when I want to.   In the end, very happy the day rolled along where I could afford them, and hope I am never foolish enough in the future to ever let them go.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever do have an abberation Bill, and decide to offer your material possessions to the poor, then please keep me in mind! :angel:

5ab21f168d637_2018-03-2109_06_32.png.8cacaa80db1df537d745f53009e6a0fd.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ole Bugs is my favorite you know :icon_biggrin:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/03/2018 at 21:22, BillP said:

I quite agree with you.  For this price point on the used market, it is hard to justify.  In fact, many times I have decided to sell my 6mm ZAO and 5mm XO because they are so expensive and used so little.  But then, even after using all the premium eyepieces you mentioned, an evening comes where I am on a target appropriate for these little gems, and the sky conditions are also supporting the venture, and when I put them in and look at the view I just gasp.  They really are the pinnacle of the eyepiece art IMO and show it well when all else is in place in the optical chain.  So then, when I do this, then I think how foolish I was considering selling them because there is just nothing out there that shows as refined and transparent of a view.  So for me at least they are very much of a paradox...too expensive and impractical and the small AFOV really only good for a narrow band of targets...and also worth every penny and difficult to imagine not being able to have such a view when I want to.   In the end, very happy the day rolled along where I could afford them, and hope I am never foolish enough in the future to ever let them go.

 

Yes I agree if you have already got the best then a ZAO is certainly a keeper. Obviously you probably get far more use for such a eyepiece being on the other side of the pond with far better weather/atmosphere conditions than we have in the UK. So with that in mind the superior optics of the ZAO on especially the likes of planetary and Luna on great A1 seeing/atmospheric nights must be a sight to be hold ?

 

 

On 21/03/2018 at 09:00, mikeDnight said:

If you ever do have an abberation Bill, and decide to offer your material possessions to the poor, then please keep me in mind! :angel:

5ab21f168d637_2018-03-2109_06_32.png.8cacaa80db1df537d745f53009e6a0fd.png

 

Naa , don't listen to Mike he has one of those posh Taks so does not need the added benefit of a ZAO to assist him ?.

But on the other hand I only have one of those Chinese SW ed scopes , so need all the help I can get, so more than willing to accept a ZAO as a charitable gift ?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Yes I agree if you have already got the best then a ZAO is certainly a keeper. Obviously you probably get far more use for such a eyepiece being on the other side of the pond with far better weather/atmosphere conditions than we have in the UK. So with that in mind the superior optics of the ZAO on especially the likes of planetary and Luna on great A1 seeing/atmospheric nights must be a sight to be hold ?

 

 

 

Naa , don't listen to Mike he has one of those posh Taks so does not need the added benefit of a ZAO to assist him ?.

But on the other hand I only have one of those Chinese SW ed scopes , so need all the help I can get, so more than willing to accept a ZAO as a charitable gift ?

 

 

Yes, but how much better would Bill's kindly donated Zeiss Abbey Ortho's be in my Tak than in .........Oops! Mind that step!! :grin:

5ab439a05481b_2018-03-2223_23_18.png.af66699c19801bf01da2009813ed2a48.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Yes, but how much better would Bill's kindly donated Zeiss Abbey Ortho's be in my Tak than in .........Oops! Mind that step!! :grin:

5ab439a05481b_2018-03-2223_23_18.png.af66699c19801bf01da2009813ed2a48.png

 

 

I thought you chaps/ladies in the Tak club have already been given a yellow card for elite comments, about us lesser classes with Chinese offerings ?  ?

 

Maybe Bill would like to try his ZAO in a Tak FC 100 DC and a SW 120ed if he gets a chance at some point ,And his feelings of which scope showed the most improvement of using such a great Ortho as the Zeiss .

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

I thought you chaps/ladies in the Tak club have already been given a yellow card for elite comments, about us lesser classes with Chinese offerings ?  ?

 

Maybe Bill would like to try his ZAO in a Tak FC 100 DC and a SW 120ed if he gets a chance at some point ,And his feelings of which scope showed the most improvement of using such a great Ortho as the Zeiss .

 

 

I genuinely love the SW ED's in all their guises, after all I've owned five of them, including three 120's. They are superb! B-uuut, would the greater aperture of the 120 offer that all important edge in definition, over the superlative figure of the Canon Optron lens of the Tak??? I think the best way to find out is for BillP to loan us both (long term of course), his Zeiss Abbey's and let us battle it out! :boxing:

I'm sure Bill won't mind, he's still got plenty of other toys to play with! :grin:

Edited by mikeDnight
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really wouldn't make sense IMO to do an evaluation of a ZAO between say my TSA-102 and a SW120ED because they have so many different attributes that one would not be able to tell what improvement was being driven by the eyepiece, vs the main optic.  Now if you want to evaluate a ZAO in a TSA-102 vs. a SW100ED then more likely we could make some inferences relative to what the eyepiece was bringing to the table in each.  But in my experience with testing so much stuff, it has stuck out to me that the more refined the optical chain, the more benefit I see in a ZAO vs. a lesser eyepiece.  I generally see less of a distinction with my Newts because a little dust on a mirror has more impact than a little dust on a refractive optic, so the additional scatter can start to mask some of the improvements the eyepiece could have generated.  But after a fresh cleaning of my mirrors, then the distinctions are more pronounced.  Getting rid of all the stray light potentials in an OTA and keeping the optics as dust free as possible really does work wonders (and don't stop at the OTA as I found some diagonals or 2" to 1.25" adapters have some pretty shiny and reflective surfaces reflecting back towards the main optic).  IMO anything that lessens contrast is the biggest contributor to poor views. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's really done it now Bill, and put the cat among the pigeons.

The newt chaps will be giving their mirrors a wash and polish to get the very best out of them.

And as for the Frac boys and girls, their diagonals will be getting extra cleaning. And the sales of Baader Wonder fluid will hit the roof ,with all the lense attention.

I can see another thread on the way " To clean or not to clean" ?

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/03/2018 at 18:23, BillP said:

Wow...get the whole set!  Wish I could afford that as nothing quite like having a good Abbes set for when needed.  Not an every night eyepiece IMO but outstanding specialty tools.  One thing that is a rarity for Abbe world is one longer than 28mm focal length.  Most makers make a 25mm one, long ago University Optics offered a 28mm flat top one, but Tak has a modern 32mm Ortho in their line up!!  Certainly destined to be a rare bird, like the 35 ZAO-I.  But as good as the Taks are, IMO there is considerable way to get to the ZAO level.  Those were masterpieces of the minimum glass eyepiece maker's art.  I maintain a 6mm one as that is my most used planetary focal length.  I once borrowed the 25mm and was simply astounded at how differently it portrayed objects compared to other common 25mm eyepieces.  Amazing the clarity and purity it brought to the objects.

Maybe I should keep my 32mm TAO then @BillP

I have read a comparison by you, comparing the Abbe to LE, the former coming out favourably. 

I am disappointed by the effective eye relief. Advertised as 28mm, but deeply recessed eye lens and poorly designed eye cup take up at least 10mm ER. 

I can understand the Moon and Jupiter viewers wanting the best. But Saturn, rings apart, and Mars + the rest are fine in less specialised wider field eps, many of which have good on axis performance. However it will be interesting to see how a TV 32mm compares, if I keep the TAO (sell for £170 I expect).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 25585 said:

However it will be interesting to see how a TV 32mm compares, if I keep the TAO (sell for £170 I expect).

If you do a test I'd be interested to hear, especially if you Barlow them.  A few years back I did a personal experiment and took some common Abbes and a few Plossls of similar focal lengths and Barlowed them for high magnification lunar and planetary observing.  None of the Plossls when Barlowed were able to produce as crisp of an image as the Abbes Barlowed to the same magnification.  Was a real eye opener.  Convinced me that Plossls are not a good choice to Barlow for planetary observing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BillP said:

If you do a test I'd be interested to hear, especially if you Barlow them.  A few years back I did a personal experiment and took some common Abbes and a few Plossls of similar focal lengths and Barlowed them for high magnification lunar and planetary observing.  None of the Plossls when Barlowed were able to produce as crisp of an image as the Abbes Barlowed to the same magnification.  Was a real eye opener.  Convinced me that Plossls are not a good choice to Barlow for planetary observing.

I expect my Barlow will be the weakest point in doing so. A TV x2.5. Will compare with my Vixen LVW 13mm image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that compare would be off from what I was suggesting.  My expectation is that a 12.5mm Abbe with the TV 2.5x vs. a 5mm Abbe will be quite close if not exactly the same view.  However, a 12.5mm Plossl with the TV 2.5x will probably show a softer view than a 5mm Abbe.  Just something that I noticed in my experimentation than Plossls do not Barlow as well as other designs. 

Edited by BillP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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