What's in the box?

[mike bacanin]

Hi Andrew,

Based on what i see with my own Zeiss Abbes,and using the zeiss barlow. the contrast will be stunning and the lack of glare around a planet as good as it gets. btw the barlow to me introduces no issues with the image, it is the best, period! congrats!

Regards

Mike

[Andrew*]

So I got to see some stars last night - 1st time since Kielder!!

The moon was high, transparency was totally pants with veil cloud obliterating everything dimmer than mag 2 or so. Seeing was mediocre. So obviously not the ideal conditions to reveal the best of the Abbe-IIs.

I compared the 10mm Zeiss with the 2x barlow to a 5mm Telescope House ortho (Japanese??) on the moon, Albireo and epsilon Lyrae.

Andrew

[Ben Ritchie]

I compared the 10mm Zeiss with the 2x barlow to a 5mm Telescope House ortho (Japanese??) on the moon, Albireo and epsilon Lyrae.

...and...!?!

[Andrew*]

Oh! So you want to know the results? Silly me.

Well, in all honesty (and that's saying something!) I spent a long time on Epsilon lyrae with the two 5mm eyepieces 120x) and the split was very tough indeed. I could already see in the 16mm (37.5x) that the pairs were elongated, and high power confirmed that I had seen it right).

In moments of better seeing I could make out darkness between the components of E2, and at all other times they were just a tiny figure of 8, in both eyepieces. The TH offered the everything the Zeiss did. So, for sharpness on axis: Japan - 1; Germany - 1. I suppose this result actually shows the excellence of the barlow mroe than anything. The fact that I was comparing a barlowed ortho to a "naked" one and got the same result means the barlow practically disappears in teh optical chain.

However, all is not lost. Viewing Albireo, the secondary component showed a much clearer blue colour in the Zeiss than the TH ortho. The TH view was a bit more greyish.

On the moon I couldn't see any difference, but it looked gorgeous, even through the veily cloud. The sky around the moon was obviously grey as there were clouds in the way. Perhaps the background was a hair darker in teh Zeiss, but how much is down to imagination?!?

Oh, and I also saw some coma in the 16mm at f/5. Only to be expected of course.

I didn't take out the lightbridge because of the abysmal conditions. Further reports in better conditions to follow

Andrew

[Brass n glass]

It would be interesting to know how the new Zeiss orthos compare for colour with Baader Genuine Orthos. It's maybe not surprising that the Zeiss eyepieces do a better job than the old Circle Ts, which I think kept the same basic 1960s coatings for decades - Hugh.

[John]

It would be interesting to know how the new Zeiss orthos compare for colour with Baader Genuine Orthos. It's maybe not surprising that the Zeiss eyepieces do a better job than the old Circle Ts, which I think kept the same basic 1960s coatings for decades - Hugh.

Mind you the circle T put up a damm good show for an EP that you can pick up for £20 !.

John

[Brass n glass]

... and was designed more than 100 years ago

[Andrew*]

It would be interesting to know how the new Zeiss orthos compare for colour with Baader Genuine Orthos. It's maybe not surprising that the Zeiss eyepieces do a better job than the old Circle Ts, which I think kept the same basic 1960s coatings for decades - Hugh.

Mind you the circle T put up a damm good show for an EP that you can pick up for £20 !.

Certainly did. I actually paid about £15 for it...

I wasn't expecting to see differences on the on-axis sharpness front TBH. I mean with how many eyepieces these days can you notice ANY difference in sharpness in the centre of the field? Personally, none.

However, any differences there WERE in sharpness would have been obliterated by the seeing anyway... I wouldn't be surprised if under excellent seeing conditions I would see a difference.

Oh, and the little triangles outside the field stop? Not a bother. If you don't want to see them, you don't see them.

Andrew