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_comet_46p.thumb.jpg.9baae12eeb853c863abc6d2cf3df5968.jpg

mikeDnight

Vixen HR comfort

Recommended Posts

My HR 3.4 mm is a very nice eyepiece. I still don't think it is quite as good as my long gone Pentax XP 3.8 (why on Earth did I sell it???) on the FS 102, but the eye relief is more comfortable. I obviously was unable to do a side by side comparison, so my subjective view should probably be ignored!

I have an HR 2.4 incoming.....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great report Mike. I've steered clear of these so far as I can't believe I wouldn't struggle with such small exit pupils in my Tak. I suspect the answer might have to be using a pair of them in my binoviewer but that is a sizeable expense to take on without knowing the result first. Hopefully I might get to try one at some point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have to admit the 2mm has impressed me Danny. I've owned 5mm & 6mm TMB Super Mono's in the past, and they were great, but a little restrictive on eye relief. The HR eyepiece feels like it has oodles of eye relief, and despite it having a relatively narrow field of view, it certainly doesn't feel narrow. If you can imagine spending an hour looking through a 2mm eyepiece,  you'd probably think it would be a pretty uncomfortable, eye straining experience. However, I lost track of time and would have happily spent longer had the cold not got to me first.

 

It’s just a question of how far I try and push the scope. 650mm FL with a 2mm would be 325x so perhaps a stretch. 

And then of course even if not I’d need the rest of the range at some point so do I start at the 3.4mm and would down or the 2mm and work up? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dannybgoode said:

And then of course even if not I’d need the rest of the range at some point so do I start at the 3.4mm and would down or the 2mm and work up? :)

That's my strategy! Have 3.4 mm, 2.4 mm incoming. Then we'll see..... 🙂

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody here compared the Vixen HR 3.4 to a Hi-Le 3.6? I have tried to compare those two eyepieces, but have not yet come to a final conclusion. My first impression is that the Hi-Le has a cooler tone and more sharpness...

Share this post


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

It’s just a question of how far I try and push the scope. 650mm FL with a 2mm would be 325x so perhaps a stretch. 

And then of course even if not I’d need the rest of the range at some point so do I start at the 3.4mm and would down or the 2mm and work up? :) 

Is your scope a TMB Dan? If so you might be surprised how far you can push it on a good night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, marcus_z said:

Has anybody here compared the Vixen HR 3.4 to a Hi-Le 3.6? I have tried to compare those two eyepieces, but have not yet come to a final conclusion. My first impression is that the Hi-Le has a cooler tone and more sharpness...

I've not yet used a 3.4mm HR, but I've owned both the Tak 2.8 & 3.6 Hi LE's. I noticed there was some mild ghosting with both my Hi LE's, and some very strong ghosting on a 5mm LE, so as a consequence Takahashi eyepieces will always have a question mark over their quality control in my eyes. I'd love to try out the new TOE eyepieces but I'd have to look through one first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Is your scope a TMB Dan? If so you might be surprised how far you can push it on a good night!

Yes, the 105mm/f6.2 LZOS. Thomas Black assembled too so he’ll have tested it no doubt. Will mull it over -  mist say I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my lunar observing the last few nights...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

My HR 3.4 mm is a very nice eyepiece. I still don't think it is quite as good as my long gone Pentax XP 3.8 (why on Earth did I sell it???) on the FS 102, but the eye relief is more comfortable. I obviously was unable to do a side by side comparison, so my subjective view should probably be ignored!

I have an HR 2.4 incoming.....

Jeremy, your HR 2.4 should arrive tomorrow, looking forward to your first light, thanks 👍

The FS102 should take with ease the HR 2.4 mm. I use the FS102 with the HR 2mm and occasionally with the VIP barlow on the Moon. The XW 3.5mm is another excellent eyepiece which worked perfect yesterday, the views where calm. There was a occasionally little haze as Mike mentioned here as well. I think for the Moon even the HR 1.6mm would work nicely seeing permitting.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried the Tak 2.8 & 3.6 Hi LE as well, but did not like them for the same reasons as Mike. In my opinion the Vixen HR and the Tak TOE (I haven't yet tried this) are in different league. Though I do like the Tak LE 5 and 7.5mm a lot for the planets, Jupiter and Saturn. For Jupiter and Saturn I prefer the Tak LE 5 and 7.5mm over XW, Abbe, XO eyepieces. I like the color rendering of the Tak LE on these two planets. The LE 5mm and 7.5mm are more comfortable to use then the XO, Abbe. On the moon not so much with the LE 5 and 7.5mm. The LE 30mm is much better in that regards, these are lovely eyepieces for binoviewing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Has anybody here compared the Vixen HR 3.4 to a Hi-Le 3.6? I have tried to compare those two eyepieces, but have not yet come to a final conclusion. My first impression is that the Hi-Le has a cooler tone and more sharpness...

Here's a posting by Tamiji Homma on CN briefly comparing the HR to the TOE.  A couple of posts down he begs off comparisons to the Hi-Le due to the focal length differences.  If you hunt around on CN, you'll probably find more comparisons of the HR, TOE, Hi-Le, and other high end planetary eyepieces.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday was another night with excellent seeing. At the urban edge the sky was dark with the magnificent moon in Waxing Gibbous phase.

The scope was my trusty FS-102NSV on the AZ-EQ6. The optics of this sample are sharp, the startest in and out looks the same.

I tried a few different eyepieces, lower -and higher magnification. I enjoyed the Moon with low magnification, as it looked as if the moon was floating in space. All of these eyepieces gave nice views of the Moon, Pentax XW, ZAO 16mm, Nikon HW 17mm, Pan 24mm, Tak LE 30, Vixen HR 2mm.

I went crazy so tried the Vixen HR 2mm and later I put the Baader VIP 2x between, at 820x magnification the Copernicus crater was still usable sharp and not dim. I observed a few hours and mostly concentrating on the Copernicus crater, with a 93km diameter, its a large crater with lots of detail. The circular rim has a discernible hexagonal form, with a terraced inner wall and its 30 km wide, it sure looked nice.

I took a few snapshots with the phone holding on the eyepiece, to give you an idea of the FOV and sense of detail with the Vixen HR 2mm. Through the eyepiece the views where sharper and I couldn't see the small amount of chromatic aberration seen on the below pictures.

First picture of Copernicus, picture taken with Samsung phone, Vixen HR 2mm, FS102NSV: Magnification 410x

Second picture of Copernicus, picture taken with Samsung phone, Vixen HR 2mm, VIP 2x Barlow, FS102NSV: Magnification 820x

 

image.png

image.png

Edited by Stardust1
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering you took those images with a hand held Samsung phone, they are spankingly impressive. Who in their right mind would try doing this with a 4" refractor, a 2mm eyepiece and a 2X VIP barlow giving 820X? I'm ever so glad you're not in your right mind! :icon_biggrin: :thumbsup: :icon_cyclops_ani:

May be you'll win Stu's imaging challenge!? 

Edited by mikeDnight
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Mike for the kind words! The photos are right out of the phone (Samsung S6) without any processing or cropping.

Now thinking hard of the Vixen HR 1.6mm. With the FS102 giving 512X, and with the 2x VIP 1025X, I think it would be too much for the 4", but who knows without trying 😉

Edited by Stardust1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

I know you are a planet man first and foremost, but have you tried any tight doubles with your new Vixen HR? These can be a real test of good optics, and the apparent lack of scatter in yours could mean it would perform very well on fairly tight doubles such as Delta Cygni, Theta Aurigae etc?

Traditionally I liked using BGO's on this type of target, as they seemed to have noticeably less glare and scatter than some of the other short focal length orthos..

Would value your thoughts in this area 😀
Dave

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I've observed any doubles with any seriousness Dave, but if seeing allows, I may just give them a go again! I'm not sure how a 2mm will do but it will be enjoyable to spend an evening or two finding out. 😊

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was showing people Beta Monocerotis last night at an outreach event. It's not a real challenge for a decent 102mm scope but what a lovely object :icon_biggrin:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks John, I don't think I've actually ever viewed Beta Mon, but it's definitely on my target list now 👍.

My trusty old "What Star is That?" book (Peter Lancaster Brown 1971) says of Beta, "Mag 3.9, blue-white; also a triple system, mags 4.7, 4.6, 5.6, dist 7.4" and 2.8". A beautiful object for 2.5" telescopes".

Consider it observed tonight if the promising skies hold!😊👍

Dave

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William Herschel described Beta Mon as “one of the most beautiful sights in the heavens” when he discovered it :icon_biggrin:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly a lovely one, not seen it many times.

Screenshot_20190215-172816_SkySafari 6 Pro.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite challenges is Tegmen/Tegmine. If I can get a clear three-way split, I'm doing well. :happy11:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

One of my favorite challenges is Tegmen/Tegmine. If I can get a clear three-way split, I'm doing well. :happy11:

What aperture do you find you can get the 3 way split in, Mike?

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, F15Rules said:

What aperture do you find you can get the 3 way split in, Mike?

Dave

If I may intrude, this image was taken at 250x with a 127mm SC Mak….   .891154419_CNC-ZetaCancri-Tegmine-PS.jpg.20aa593faa090b7b622fa35ef770a2d6.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, F15Rules said:

What aperture do you find you can get the 3 way split in, Mike? 

85mm - not quite.

150mm - does the job, Mak or Newt.

:happy11:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight I tried the Tegmen/Tegmine, but I couldn't get the 3 way split in a 4". The seeing didn't cooperate, I will try next time. Though I think it might be at the limit of the 4". 

  • Like 2

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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