ES 20mm 68° not aviable... ok 2 x Ploss TV 25 mm for FS102NSV

[Fedele]

Hi...

FS102NSV is on the way. 

Meanwhile i m find the right choices for accessories.  II don't like parallax, short pupils, vignettes etc. For use with MaaxBright IIt I had thought of a pair of Explore Scientific 20 mm 68 ° 31.8 which reflect the various technical conditions. Since they don't seem to be available in the EU (if you have any information let me know where available), I had thought of two simple PLOSS TELEVUE 24 mm 31.8.
They should be excellent despite those fewer degrees. On the other hand, I like the idea of having fewer lenses in the optical path. What do you tell me?
On that price range (150 euros) what other choice do I have? (I repeat without parallax etc)
thanks a lot for the tips

[Fedele]

The difference at the end is not so huge. 
but with the ploss i have less lenses

 

[Ricochet]

What do you mean by parallax with respect to eyepieces? 

[Louis D]

I'm guessing English is not your native tongue.  Can you put "parallax" into context so we can figure out the proper English word for it?

[Fedele]

The curse of large eye relief eyepieces is notoriously the parallax effect: a small movement of the eye is enough to see the image disappear, even if it is an extended image like that of the Moon. No eyepiece has been shown to be exempt from this unpleasant feature, which however must be considered an intrinsic property of the optical scheme and not a real defect.

[Fedele]

i owned two UFF 18mm that has this effect. If it is tollerable in mono view, it is  difficult the use in Binoview. 

So...Explore Scientific They "go beating" (i don t know how to translate), they don't vignette, they guarantee a good exit pupil and they don't seem to suffer from parallax. But I'm not finding them in EU (just one).

For this I am turning to two PLoss Televue 25 mm. (i want this range of price)
The only doubt that I was reading a loss on the sidelines

[Louis D]

I recommend that you investigate adapting microscope eyepieces from Zeiss meant for surgical microscopes.  Denis of binoviewer fame on CN could help guide you.

[mikeDnight]

I tend to use eyepieces having around a 50°  apparent field in my binoviewer. For most deep sky targets i prefer to observe without a binoviewer given my scope has only 100mm aperture.  The binoviewer is spectacular when viewing the Moon and planets, and I usually use a binoviewer with a 2X barlow  which amplifies around 4X due to the extended light path. I've found that my 18mm Ultima's and 16.8mm Orthoscopic's are the ones that I use most. My 25mm Parks Gold (same 5 element design as the Ultima and Tak LE), give awesome wide-ish lunar views. I believe that Parks Optical still sell the Gold series eyepieces.  Baader Eudiascopic are the same, but you can also get the Takahashi LE's which are also great. Televue Plossl's are beautiful for lunar and planerary in a binoviewer, but I'd steer clear of the shorter focal lengths and use longer fl's along with a barlow instead. That would give you more eye relief and greater comfort when observing for long periods.

[mikeDnight]

There doesn't seem to be a way of editing the above post. I meant to say "steer clear" and not "swear clear". 

[Tiny Clanger]

6 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

There doesn't seem to be a way of editing the above post. I meant to say "steer clear" and not "swear clear". 

Click the 3 dots, top right which gives the edit option.

I make so many typing mistakes I had to find that asap 🙂

Heather

[Saganite]

10 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Click the 3 dots, top right which gives the edit option.

I make so many typing mistakes I had to find that asap 🙂

Heather

Me too, but it still took a while to figure out where the edit option was.

[jock1958]

10 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

There doesn't seem to be a way of editing the above post. I meant to say "steer clear" and not "swear clear". 

I think somebody mentioned something about the edit button on the latest SGL update, I didn’t realise that it was transferred to the 3 dots, thanks @Tiny Clanger

[mikeDnight]

10 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Click the 3 dots, top right which gives the edit option.

I make so many typing mistakes I had to find that asap 🙂

Heather

Thanks Heather!  I'd have grumbled on for years if you hadn't pointed that out, but thankfully I wouldn't have been the only one it seems.  I never think to look at SGL updates, its too much like reading instruction manuals, which are always an absolute last resort. 

[Mark at Beaufort]

Too late Mike I have done it for you 🙂

[jock1958]

15 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I tend to use eyepieces having around a 50°  apparent field in my binoviewer. For most deep sky targets i prefer to observe without a binoviewer given my scope has only 100mm aperture.  The binoviewer is spectacular when viewing the Moon and planets, and I usually use a binoviewer with a 2X barlow  which amplifies around 4X due to the extended light path. I've found that my 18mm Ultima's and 16.8mm Orthoscopic's are the ones that I use most. My 25mm Parks Gold (same 5 element design as the Ultima and Tak LE), give awesome wide-ish lunar views. I believe that Parks Optical still sell the Gold series eyepieces.  Baader Eudiascopic are the same, but you can also get the Takahashi LE's which are also great. Televue Plossl's are beautiful for lunar and planerary in a binoviewer, but I'd steer clear of the shorter focal lengths and use longer fl's along with a barlow instead. That would give you more eye relief and greater comfort when observing for long periods.

Great collection of Bino-viewing pairs Mike including the much sought after Vixen HR's, I'm not jealous honest!  

I'm in the early part of my BV journey and so far only have the 20mm WO Swans that came with the WO BV's and a pair of 26mm Halloween plossl's. What's the shortest FL you would go on the TV plossls?  I already have a TV 15mm and was thinking of getting another? Also are you using your 35mm Eudiascopic & 35mm Celestron Ultima as a matched pair? 

[mikeDnight]

12 minutes ago, jock1958 said:

Great collection of Bino-viewing pairs Mike including the much sought after Vixen HR's, I'm not jealous honest!  

I'm in the early part of my BV journey and so far only have the 20mm WO Swans that came with the WO BV's and a pair of 26mm Halloween plossl's. What's the shortest FL you would go on the TV plossls?  I already have a TV 15mm and was thinking of getting another? Also are you using your 35mm Eudiascopic & 35mm Celestron Ultima as a matched pair? 

I've had most of the TV plossl's but can't remember all the various focal lengths. I know they go down to 8mm but feel 10mm is more comfortable. If you're using a barlow on the nose of your binoviewer then 18mm to 15mm would give some superb lunar and planetary views. Your 25mm Halloween's will be excellent!  I love the 35mm Eudiascopic and Ultima, and yes I use them as a matched pair in my binoviewer. They are identical in optical performance and pair up perfectly. 

[Louis D]

17 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I believe that Parks Optical still sell the Gold series eyepieces.

To quote @Don Pensack on CN:

In 2012, the owner of Scope City, Parks, and Lumicon closed ScopeCity and sold Lumicon and shut down Parks.

The Parks inventory was scrapped (a shame) and the new owner of Lumicon sold to the current owner in 2016.

It is likely Parks and Scope City are gone forever, like Optical Craftsman, etc.

 

The Parks and Scope City websites are still seen because the obsolete architecture they run on is held in one server that also runs other old sites.

They can't shut down the Scope City or Parks Optical sites without shutting down the still-operating sites on the same server.

The ironic reason is that no one knows the programming or structure of the sites any more to go in and shut down individual sites.

Eventually, the older sites still running will update to new website structures and the server will be shut down.

[mikeDnight]

Thanks for that info Louis. It is very sad. I remember looking longingly at the Parks scopes when they advertised in Sky & Telescope back in the early 80's. I could only just afford the magazine back then, so a telescope from Parks was just a dream.

[Don Pensack]

18 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I tend to use eyepieces having around a 50°  apparent field in my binoviewer. For most deep sky targets i prefer to observe without a binoviewer given my scope has only 100mm aperture.  The binoviewer is spectacular when viewing the Moon and planets, and I usually use a binoviewer with a 2X barlow  which amplifies around 4X due to the extended light path. I've found that my 18mm Ultima's and 16.8mm Orthoscopic's are the ones that I use most. My 25mm Parks Gold (same 5 element design as the Ultima and Tak LE), give awesome wide-ish lunar views. I believe that Parks Optical still sell the Gold series eyepieces.  Baader Eudiascopic are the same, but you can also get the Takahashi LE's which are also great. Televue Plossl's are beautiful for lunar and planerary in a binoviewer, but I'd steer clear of the shorter focal lengths and use longer fl's along with a barlow instead. That would give you more eye relief and greater comfort when observing for long periods.

Parks closed in 2012.  Baader Eudiascopic eyepieces are no longer available.  Celestron Ultimas haven't been made for 25 years.  Takahashi LEs are still available.

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, Don Pensack said:

Parks closed in 2012.  Baader Eudiascopic eyepieces are no longer available.  Celestron Ultimas haven't been made for 25 years.  Takahashi LEs are still available.

I did read somewhere, probably on CN, that Takahashi used their influence to stem the flow of this five element Masuyama design from Japanese manufacturers to such companies as Celestron, so as to keep it for themselves. Have you any idea if there's any truth in this Don?   Having said that, I think the 25mm Parks Gold and 35mm Ultima are leaps and bounds better than the 25 & 30mm Tak LE's.

Edited January 23, 2021 by mikeDnight

[John]

20 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

I did read somewhere, probably on CN, that Takahashi used their influence to stem the flow of this five element Masuyama design from Japanese manufacturers to such companies as Celestron, so as to keep it for themselves. Have you any idea if there's any truth in this Don?   Having said that, I think the 25mm Parks Gold and 35mm Ultima are leaps and bounds better than the 25 & 30mm Tak LE's.

Sounds like a possible plot for a thriller novel / movie: "The Masuyama Conspiracy"

 

 

[Don Pensack]

On 23/01/2021 at 11:21, mikeDnight said:

I did read somewhere, probably on CN, that Takahashi used their influence to stem the flow of this five element Masuyama design from Japanese manufacturers to such companies as Celestron, so as to keep it for themselves. Have you any idea if there's any truth in this Don?   Having said that, I think the 25mm Parks Gold and 35mm Ultima are leaps and bounds better than the 25 & 30mm Tak LE's.

I doubt it.  Meade stopped making theirs (it was from the high-end company Kowa) when they moved from Japan to Taiwan and then on to China.

Celestron changed suppliers and changed hands, ending their Japanese connections.

Meade did the same thing in pursuit of a higher profit margin.

Parks lost the monetary ability to import large quantities, which put an end to their relationship.

Orion changed suppliers to mainland China and stopped their Japanese imports.

I don't know what happened to Antares, Tuthill, Omcon, et.al. but I suspect when they were no longer available from the factory, that ended it.

Ohi Optics eventually stopped making the eyepieces.  Baader was one of the last to bring them in.

No one I've read has been able to pin down Takahashi's source for the LEs.

I think the true reasons for the demise of the 5-element eyepieces were:

--everyone moving to China to lower costs

--the increasing popularity for wider fields of view

--the Japanese stopping the manufacturing of the product as the orders disappeared

--the move downward in prices.  People paid more for simple eyepieces back then, but they expect to pay much less today.

 

 

[mikeDnight]

Thanks for your detailed and insightful reply Don. It's much appreciated.