Explore Scientific 92/100 or APM

[Stardaze]

Having gatecrashed another thread, it's only right that this debate continues in it's own thread. 

I'm along way away from upgrading my ES 82's but me being me, I probably will buy myself a couple of higher grade wide FOV EP's, probably in the 17 & 12mm region at some point when I'm feeling flush. I'd love to dip my toe in the TV pool but the ES 92's seem to compare well against ethos. The ES 100 deg EP's don't ever get a mention? Maybe there's a reason for that? And lastly, there's the APM offerings, at a very attractive price point. So how good are these options, in your opinion?

[rl]

Having owned examples of 3 of the 4 types you mention and used them om a variety of scopes from F/4 to F/10:

Most people rate ES100 as good as the Ethos. Personally I'm in the minority that would take issue with that..I sold all my Ethos collection when times were hard and got some secondhand ES100 series. They were good, but I found the edge correction and contrast not quite up to Ethos standards.  Which is a bit strange...somewhere on this site is an X-ray of an ES14/ 100 and an Ethos 13; the optical configuration is almost identical.  Having owned TV, you get used to excellence which raises your consciousness of minor faults in other products which might have otherwise have passed un-noticed ! It's close but I found there was a difference especially  in my 12" f/4.  Having said that I'm quite short-sighted and for some reason that seems to make a difference. I normally view without contact lenses...the TV eyepieces work just the same with corrected or uncorrected vision. The same isn't quite true with ES; with uncorrected vision I ran into issues with edge correction. The longer the focal length, the bigger the difference. I found the ES25mm virtually unuseable, the 20mm was good, and the 14 and 9mm started to approach the corresponding Ethoses. Mechanically they were probably better than TV, but at a cost in terms of weight.  Over time, as finances  permitted, they got slowly replaced again by the TV equivalents. But I paid  the same secondhand as what I'd paid new for the original set.  TV mania and brexit inflation have undoubtedly made them very much a luxury item. But as a rule you can knock 50 quid off the price if the box is missing..

The ES92 is a very good eyepiece indeed. I have the 17mm and it is superb. This is one range where ES really step up to the plate with something different that ticks all the boxes..pity there are only two of them! The 92 degrees is slightly wasted if you use glasses to observe; the field extends above and below my specs....and there is so much eye relief you need to use the fold-up rubber screen to keep out stray light.  But viewing is really comfortable. It's my heaviest eyepiece and very much an inappropriate choice for a ZS61 on a star adverturer... It's the ES eyepiece I've kept over the years which says something. 

I've also got a Myriad 3.5mm for which I paid #150 secondhand. It's edge correction is very good, comparable with the 3.5 Ethos, even in an F/4 scope, but the contrast falls short. But for the price they're worth a look,

No experience with the APM. Perhaps John will chime in?

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by rl
spelling

[John]

I don't have experience with the APM either but Grerry / @jetstream in Canada thinks highly of them and I would be influenced by his opinions.

On the ES 100's and 92's I agree with the above but I was not keen on the eye positioning with the 12mm so I don't have that one any more (I preferred my Ethos 13 to it as well).

I think the 92's are ES's best eyepieces to date. The only downside is that they are very large and heavy - very heavy in the case of the 17mm.

 

 

[Don Pensack]

The ES 92s are their best eyepieces, for sure, but heavy!  The 17mm is 1159g, and the 12mm is 1017g.

Your focuser must be up to the task--they're large and heavy.  Still, they're quite good.

 

But RL mentioned an f/4 scope.  As he noted, the ES 100° series isn't up to the task at f/4.

I have to report to you that neither is the APM 100/110° series, though the 9mm, 4.7,, and 3.7mm will do OK at f/4.

Tha 13mm and 20mm would be a disappointment, however, compared to the Ethos.

 

At f/5, the entire APM 100/110° series rates better than the ES, and they're a lot lighter.  Though not quite up to the standards of the TeleVue Ethos, they are a lot less money and better bargains than the ES 100s.

 

At f/7, they're all good except the edge of the field in the 20mm is still a bit astigmatic (better than the 20mm ES, however).

So it depends on the f/ratio of the scope and your expectations for correction at the edge of the field.  If perfect edge correction at, say, f/4.5 is required, even with a coma corrector only the Ethos and Nikon HWs will fulfill the requirements.

At f/6-f/7, with a bit of forgiveness for the edge aberrations, I'd recommend the APM 100 series (or the Stellarvue Optimus equivalent), and the 9mm and 5.5mm ES 100.

 

[jetstream]

12 hours ago, Stardaze said:

there's the APM offerings

I own TV Ethos, Delos and the 20mm APM. With the Paracorr II in my f4.1/f4.8 dobs the APM 20mm shows slight astig when unmasked from coma, whereas the 21E does not.

The thing is I use the 20mm APM more- it equals or betters the 21E on my favorite objects- nebula. Each one shows things a bit differently but I can say that the 20mm APM is excellent and for the price difference I can't say I would buy a 21E again...

The highest contrast hyperwide I have owned was a 10mm Ethos, sold only because in this fl I have other personal considerations or preferences if you will. I use my equipment a lot weather permitting but I don't sit and examine slight edge performance differences, I'm too busy observing objects for this.

[Stardaze]

12 hours ago, rl said:

Having owned examples of 3 of the 4 types you mention and used them om a variety of scopes from F/4 to F/10:

Most people rate ES100 as good as the Ethos. Personally I'm in the minority that would take issue with that..I sold all my Ethos collection when times were hard and got some secondhand ES100 series. They were good, but I found the edge correction and contrast not quite up to Ethos standards.  Which is a bit strange...somewhere on this site is an X-ray of an ES14/ 100 and an Ethos 13; the optical configuration is almost identical.  Having owned TV, you get used to excellence which raises your consciousness of minor faults in other products which might have otherwise have passed un-noticed ! It's close but I found there was a difference especially  in my 12" f/4.  Having said that I'm quite short-sighted and for some reason that seems to make a difference. I normally view without contact lenses...the TV eyepieces work just the same with corrected or uncorrected vision. The same isn't quite true with ES; with uncorrected vision I ran into issues with edge correction. The longer the focal length, the bigger the difference. I found the ES25mm virtually unuseable, the 20mm was good, and the 14 and 9mm started to approach the corresponding Ethoses. Mechanically they were probably better than TV, but at a cost in terms of weight.  Over time, as finances  permitted, they got slowly replaced again by the TV equivalents. But I paid  the same secondhand as what I'd paid new for the original set.  TV mania and brexit inflation have undoubtedly made them very much a luxury item. But as a rule you can knock 50 quid off the price if the box is missing..

The ES92 is a very good eyepiece indeed. I have the 17mm and it is superb. This is one range where ES really step up to the plate with something different that ticks all the boxes..pity there are only two of them! The 92 degrees is slightly wasted if you use glasses to observe; the field extends above and below my specs....and there is so much eye relief you need to use the fold-up rubber screen to keep out stray light.  But viewing is really comfortable. It's my heaviest eyepiece and very much an inappropriate choice for a ZS61 on a star adverturer... It's the ES eyepiece I've kept over the years which says something. 

I've also got a Myriad 3.5mm for which I paid #150 secondhand. It's edge correction is very good, comparable with the 3.5 Ethos, even in an F/4 scope, but the contrast falls short. But for the price they're worth a look,

No experience with the APM. Perhaps John will chime in?

 

 

 

12 hours ago, John said:

I don't have experience with the APM either but Grerry / @jetstream in Canada thinks highly of them and I would be influenced by his opinions.

On the ES 100's and 92's I agree with the above but I was not keen on the eye positioning with the 12mm so I don't have that one any more (I preferred my Ethos 13 to it as well).

I think the 92's are ES's best eyepieces to date. The only downside is that they are very large and heavy - very heavy in the case of the 17mm.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

The ES 92s are their best eyepieces, for sure, but heavy!  The 17mm is 1159g, and the 12mm is 1017g.

Your focuser must be up to the task--they're large and heavy.  Still, they're quite good.

 

But RL mentioned an f/4 scope.  As he noted, the ES 100° series isn't up to the task at f/4.

I have to report to you that neither is the APM 100/110° series, though the 9mm, 4.7,, and 3.7mm will do OK at f/4.

Tha 13mm and 20mm would be a disappointment, however, compared to the Ethos.

 

At f/5, the entire APM 100/110° series rates better than the ES, and they're a lot lighter.  Though not quite up to the standards of the TeleVue Ethos, they are a lot less money and better bargains than the ES 100s.

 

At f/7, they're all good except the edge of the field in the 20mm is still a bit astigmatic (better than the 20mm ES, however).

So it depends on the f/ratio of the scope and your expectations for correction at the edge of the field.  If perfect edge correction at, say, f/4.5 is required, even with a coma corrector only the Ethos and Nikon HWs will fulfill the requirements.

At f/6-f/7, with a bit of forgiveness for the edge aberrations, I'd recommend the APM 100 series (or the Stellarvue Optimus equivalent), and the 9mm and 5.5mm ES 100.

 

 

2 hours ago, jetstream said:

I own TV Ethos, Delos and the 20mm APM. With the Paracorr II in my f4.1/f4.8 dobs the APM 20mm shows slight astig when unmasked from coma, whereas the 21E does not.

The thing is I use the 20mm APM more- it equals or betters the 21E on my favorite objects- nebula. Each one shows things a bit differently but I can say that the 20mm APM is excellent and for the price difference I can't say I would buy a 21E again...

The highest contrast hyperwide I have owned was a 10mm Ethos, sold only because in this fl I have other personal considerations or preferences if you will. I use my equipment a lot weather permitting but I don't sit and examine slight edge performance differences, I'm too busy observing objects for this.

Thanks for the detailed feedback fellas. For the record I'm using a 10" f5 Bresser dob so the weight could be managed. The APM 20 sounds like a bit of a steal for the money! Interesting @jetstreamthat you don't go hyper wide throughout into the higher mags, as that's a question I'll need to work out too. @John clearly you do have a preference for this throughout? I had wondered whether a 12mm Delos might make a nice addition in the mid-range later on? 

[Ships and Stars]

I can't tell you about the ES offerings, but used to own the Tele Vue 21E and 13E  (and a Leica ASPH zoom) and subsequently replaced those with the APM 20mm, 13mm and 9mm XWAs. I use them in both f4.9 and f3.95 scopes (12" and 20" SW dobs)

Before I sold the 21E, I spent hours one night swapping back and forth, over and over, between the 21E and the 20APM, to the point I couldn't remember which one was in the focuser without feeling around in the dark. The 21E had a slightly wider FOV than the one mm difference suggests, and seemed to snap to focus slightly easier than the APM. The TV eyecup is softer and lower profile, I have to kind of lean in a bit with the APM eyecup or fold it down.

The 20mm APM is c.33% lighter at 680g vs 1020g for the 21E. There is a corresponding size difference as well.

Optically, I could see no discernible difference between the 21E and 20APM side by side, even viewing stars at the extreme edge of the FOV at f4.9. The APM did not seem better than the Ethos optically, but it's close, very close in my humble opinion. By the way, I was using an ES HR coma corrector, the CC settings for the 21E and the 20APM were virtually identical. 

The 20mm APM is £240.00. The 21mm Ethos is £819.00 as you are probably aware. That is a huge difference.  Like ES, I suppose with the APM XWAs there is the ethical question of copyright and/or copying TVs design, but I don't know to what extent the designers of APM have done this. 

After testing the 20APM, I ordered the 13mm and 9mm siblings the following morning and the 21E went on ABS. I wasn't sure at first about ordering the 9mm, but it turned out to be a great move. It's killer on small galaxies, PN and lunar, and I've used it a lot more than I thought I would.

If I had a home obsy, I might have kept the 21E and 13E, but I'm always dragging my scopes around Scotland in a rush to various dark-sky spots and the thought of dropping the 21E some night after tripping on a rock, or even losing it somehow when packing up and heavily fatigued in the dark was a constant point of concern and stress which took away from the experience. At 1/3rd to 1/4th the price, I do not have that stress with the APMs!

While I do not have anywhere near the overall experience as John, Don and Gerry, et al have, I don't regret for a second buying the 20/13/9mm APMs. They are my go-to eyepieces. 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Ships and Stars

[John]

3 hours ago, Stardaze said:

.. Interesting @jetstreamthat you don't go hyper wide throughout into the higher mags, as that's a question I'll need to work out too. @John clearly you do have a preference for this throughout? I had wondered whether a 12mm Delos might make a nice addition in the mid-range later on? 

To be fair I have a set of Panoptic / Delos / Pentax XW's as well so I can use whichever I'm in the mood for 

Ask half a dozen folks what their preferences are and you will get half a dozen differing opinions I think. Eyepieces are very personal choices.

 

[Stardaze]

54 minutes ago, Ships and Stars said:

I can't tell you about the ES offerings, but used to own the Tele Vue 21E and 13E  (and a Leica ASPH zoom) and subsequently replaced those with the APM 20mm, 13mm and 9mm XWAs. I use them in both f4.9 and f3.95 scopes (12" and 20" SW dobs)

Before I sold the 21E, I spent hours one night swapping back and forth, over and over, between the 21E and the 20APM, to the point I couldn't remember which one was in the focuser without feeling around in the dark. The 21E had a slightly wider FOV than the one mm difference suggests, and seemed to snap to focus slightly easier than the APM. The TV eyecup is softer and lower profile, I have to kind of lean in a bit with the APM eyecup or fold it down.

The 20mm APM is c.33% lighter at 680g vs 1020g for the 21E. There is a corresponding size difference as well.

Optically, I could see no discernible difference between the 21E and 20APM side by side, even viewing stars at the extreme edge of the FOV at f4.9. The APM did not seem better than the Ethos optically, but it's close, very close in my humble opinion. By the way, I was using an ES HR coma corrector, the CC settings for the 21E and the 20APM were virtually identical. 

The 20mm APM is £240.00. The 21mm Ethos is £819.00 as you are probably aware. That is a huge difference.  Like ES, I suppose with the APM XWAs there is the ethical question of copyright and/or copying TVs design, but I don't know to what extent the designers of APM have done this. 

After testing the 20APM, I ordered the 13mm and 9mm siblings the following morning and the 21E went on ABS. I wasn't sure at first about ordering the 9mm, but it turned out to be a great move. It's killer on small galaxies, PN and lunar, and I've used it a lot more than I thought I would.

If I had a home obsy, I might have kept the 21E and 13E, but I'm always dragging my scopes around Scotland in a rush to various dark-sky spots and the thought of dropping the 21E some night after tripping on a rock, or even losing it somehow when packing up and heavily fatigued in the dark was a constant point of concern and stress which took away from the experience. At 1/3rd to 1/4th the price, I do not have that stress with the APMs!

While I do not have anywhere near the overall experience as John, Don and Gerry, et al have, I don't regret for a second buying the 20/13/9mm APMs. They are my go-to eyepieces. 

 

Well that's a very strong and interesting argument, thank you. Seems like a no-brainer then starting from scratch. Sure, who doesn't lust after a TV or premium marque! I do like the flexible eye relief but that won't be a deal-breaker. I'll add them to the list... I might get them a bit sooner now, given their cost too. 

[Stardaze]

2 minutes ago, John said:

To be fair I have a set of Panoptic / Delos / Pentax XW's as well so I can use whichever I'm in the mood for 

Ask half a dozen folks what their preferences are and you will get half a dozen differing opinions I think. Eyepieces are very personal choices.

 

I can certainly see more of a use for the 1.25" narrow field options with your fracs, but do you use any of those with the dob regularlyJohn or predominately the Ethos? 

[Ships and Stars]

1 minute ago, Stardaze said:

Well that's a very strong and interesting argument, thank you. Seems like a no-brainer then starting from scratch. Sure, who doesn't lust after a TV or premium marque! I do like the flexible eye relief but that won't be a deal-breaker. I'll add them to the list... I might get them a bit sooner now, given their cost too. 

If work was steady and I was viewing from home, it would be second-hand TV as there's really no second-guessing quality and innovation. The 21E was slightly more immersive to use and in fairness, I only spent one night (albeit intensively) comparing the 21E and 20APM. 

There is a considerable weight savings with the 20APM as well, but the feeling of quality is not lacking, it's still a substantial eyepiece. I never looked closely at the ES92s, but then again, don't recall any coming up second-hand and that's normally how I shop. The 17mm sounds intriguing, but I won't be rushing out to buy one. 

Like @John says, eyepieces are a personal thing. Some don't care for the Leica zoom, but I loved mine and hated to sell it. I had to at the time to round out the XWA collection while still paying the bills.

Not sure of the availability of the 20mm APM at the moment, astroshop is saying Aug 1 for delivery and direct from APM is similar. Someone else might have them in stock though. If you didn't like it for some reason, don't think you'd have much problem shifting it!

 

[Stardaze]

7 minutes ago, Ships and Stars said:

If work was steady and I was viewing from home, it would be second-hand TV as there's really no second-guessing quality and innovation. The 21E was slightly more immersive to use and in fairness, I only spent one night (albeit intensively) comparing the 21E and 20APM. 

There is a considerable weight savings with the 20APM as well, but the feeling of quality is not lacking, it's still a substantial eyepiece. I never looked closely at the ES92s, but then again, don't recall any coming up second-hand and that's normally how I shop. The 17mm sounds intriguing, but I won't be rushing out to buy one. 

Like @John says, eyepieces are a personal thing. Some don't care for the Leica zoom, but I loved mine and hated to sell it. I had to at the time to round out the XWA collection while still paying the bills.

Not sure of the availability of the 20mm APM at the moment, astroshop is saying Aug 1 for delivery and direct from APM is similar. Someone else might have them in stock though. If you didn't like it for some reason, don't think you'd have much problem shifting it!

 

I'm in no rush at the minute, there's a few other bits I want to get, to cover the bases first. If anything, I might get the 13 first (in stock too) to plug a gap I have there first. I bet the overall FOV of the APM 20 isn't too dissimilar to the ES 24 82 that I have, so it could render the ES obsolete in the process 🤔 

[Ships and Stars]

22 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

I'm in no rush at the minute, there's a few other bits I want to get, to cover the bases first. If anything, I might get the 13 first (in stock too) to plug a gap I have there first. I bet the overall FOV of the APM 20 isn't too dissimilar to the ES 24 82 that I have, so it could render the ES obsolete in the process 🤔 

It's the right time of year for something astro-related to be on backorder. I won't have true darkness here in NE Scotland again until mid-August at the very earliest, and that will be accompanied by a swarm of midgies in the countryside, as I found out the hard way last year. It was a horror show throughout the night without a stiff breeze! 

You could try the 13mm in the meantime and see how you get on? 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Ships and Stars

[Stardaze]

25 minutes ago, Ships and Stars said:

It's the right time of year for something astro-related to be on backorder. I won't have true darkness here in NE Scotland again until mid-August at the very earliest, and that will be accompanied by a swarm of midgies in the countryside, as I found out the hard way last year. It was a horror show throughout the night without a stiff breeze! 

You could try the 13mm in the meantime and see how you get on? 

I'll probably do that. Have a filter or two on the list, so slowly building up the gear in readiness for the winter months. You're right about darkness, end of July here and there's been no break in the cloud this week at all. Just looking at the specs, the EP's look huge - 157mm long? Is that correct?

Edited June 9, 2020 by Stardaze

[Ships and Stars]

57 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

 Just looking at the specs, the EP's look huge - 157mm long? Is that correct?

That sounds about right, but a lot of that goes into the focuser. They're not too heavy either. No problems with a CC in either my single or dual speed SW focusers in the 300/500p.  

Edited June 9, 2020 by Ships and Stars

[John]

2 hours ago, Stardaze said:

I can certainly see more of a use for the 1.25" narrow field options with your fracs, but do you use any of those with the dob regularlyJohn or predominately the Ethos? 

Most of the time I use Ethos with the dob and the 1.25" with the fracs. For high powers in the dob (300x plus) the Pentax XW's proved a touch better than the short focal length Ethos (took me 6 months of comparing them to come to that conclusion !) so the 5mm and 3.5mm XW's get used in the dob as well.

The size and weight of some of these hyper-wide eyepieces can come as a surprise if you are used to smaller ones:

 

[jetstream]

9 hours ago, Stardaze said:

Interesting @jetstreamthat you don't go hyper wide throughout into the higher mags, as that's a question I'll need to work out too

Over time I've found that orthos or Delos class eyepieces fit the bill for me starting around 12mm as these designs offer less scatter and enhanced sharpness if conditions allow the difference to be seen. The large hyperwides are a challenge in the fracs- the 20mm APMs substantially less weight help here.

You mention filters... the right choice is crucial for success IMHO...

[Don Pensack]

6 hours ago, Ships and Stars said:

I can't tell you about the ES offerings, but used to own the Tele Vue 21E and 13E  (and a Leica ASPH zoom) and subsequently replaced those with the APM 20mm, 13mm and 9mm XWAs. I use them in both f4.9 and f3.95 scopes (12" and 20" SW dobs)

Before I sold the 21E, I spent hours one night swapping back and forth, over and over, between the 21E and the 20APM, to the point I couldn't remember which one was in the focuser without feeling around in the dark. The 21E had a slightly wider FOV than the one mm difference suggests, and seemed to snap to focus slightly easier than the APM. The TV eyecup is softer and lower profile, I have to kind of lean in a bit with the APM eyecup or fold it down.

The 20mm APM is c.33% lighter at 680g vs 1020g for the 21E. There is a corresponding size difference as well.

Optically, I could see no discernible difference between the 21E and 20APM side by side, even viewing stars at the extreme edge of the FOV at f4.9. The APM did not seem better than the Ethos optically, but it's close, very close in my humble opinion. By the way, I was using an ES HR coma corrector, the CC settings for the 21E and the 20APM were virtually identical. 

The 20mm APM is £240.00. The 21mm Ethos is £819.00 as you are probably aware. That is a huge difference.  Like ES, I suppose with the APM XWAs there is the ethical question of copyright and/or copying TVs design, but I don't know to what extent the designers of APM have done this. 

After testing the 20APM, I ordered the 13mm and 9mm siblings the following morning and the 21E went on ABS. I wasn't sure at first about ordering the 9mm, but it turned out to be a great move. It's killer on small galaxies, PN and lunar, and I've used it a lot more than I thought I would.

If I had a home obsy, I might have kept the 21E and 13E, but I'm always dragging my scopes around Scotland in a rush to various dark-sky spots and the thought of dropping the 21E some night after tripping on a rock, or even losing it somehow when packing up and heavily fatigued in the dark was a constant point of concern and stress which took away from the experience. At 1/3rd to 1/4th the price, I do not have that stress with the APMs!

While I do not have anywhere near the overall experience as John, Don and Gerry, et al have, I don't regret for a second buying the 20/13/9mm APMs. They are my go-to eyepieces. 

 

I recommend replacing the soft rubber bottom eyepiece cap on the 20mm with a hard plastic one.  The rubber one gets pressed against the bottom lens of the eyepiece in the box or a case, leaving a smudge on the lens.

I have had to both clean the lens and replace the eyepiece cap on every one I've sold.  That comment only applies to the 20mm, not the other focal lengths.

[John]

4 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

I recommend replacing the soft rubber bottom eyepiece cap on the 20mm with a hard plastic one.  The rubber one gets pressed against the bottom lens of the eyepiece in the box or a case, leaving a smudge on the lens....

 

Good point - I noticed that when I was testing the Myriad 20mm which uses similar soft rubber dust caps on both ends.

 

[Ships and Stars]

22 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

I recommend replacing the soft rubber bottom eyepiece cap on the 20mm with a hard plastic one.  The rubber one gets pressed against the bottom lens of the eyepiece in the box or a case, leaving a smudge on the lens.

I have had to both clean the lens and replace the eyepiece cap on every one I've sold.  That comment only applies to the 20mm, not the other focal lengths.

Excellent point - just swapped it out. Not much clearance in there, thank you Don! 👍

Edited June 9, 2020 by Ships and Stars

[Stardaze]

49 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Over time I've found that orthos or Delos class eyepieces fit the bill for me starting around 12mm as these designs offer less scatter and enhanced sharpness if conditions allow the difference to be seen. The large hyperwides are a challenge in the fracs- the 20mm APMs substantially less weight help here.

You mention filters... the right choice is crucial for success IMHO...

Please divulge your ‘must have’ filters of choice 😀

As for caps, FLO didn’t have any replacements last month when I tried to order, haven’t looked elsewhere, so where have you sources from?

[jetstream]

4 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

Please divulge your ‘must have’ filters of choice 

Well, Lumicon used to have top quality filters and maybe they do again. I don't live my life on maybes however and now like the newest Astronomiks and for sure the Televue OIII and UHC.

I have superb older Lumicons -OIII and UHC- and got a very bad Hb...

My new TV's are excellent.

Of course all this is just my opinion.

[John]

I agree with your opinion Gerry

I have a really good older Lumicon O-III but they definitely went through a wobble a year or two ago when they brand came under new ownership.

The Tele Vue Bandmate II's are superb I hear - made by Astronomik.

I have an Astronomik O-III in the 1.25 inch size which is very good and their H-Beta as well.

@Stardaze - maybe another thread on filters would be fruitful ?

 

[Stardaze]

32 minutes ago, John said:

I agree with your opinion Gerry

I have a really good older Lumicon O-III but they definitely went through a wobble a year or two ago when they brand came under new ownership.

The Tele Vue Bandmate II's are superb I hear - made by Astronomik.

I have an Astronomik O-III in the 1.25 inch size which is very good and their H-Beta as well.

@Stardaze - maybe another thread on filters would be fruitful ?

 

You'll have to move this John, sorry! Realised after I posted, that's it's in the imaging section here: 

 

[John]

No problem - moved into this section