"New" Old Meade 4000 UWA eyepiece

[F15Rules]

I freely confess I have a real liking for certain older (vintage?) eyepieces, especially those made in Japan.

I recently bought what was claimed to be a mint, unused Meade 4000 UWA 8.8mm, complete with original box and bolt case.. I previously owned the 14mm from the same series, about 5 years ago, and I loved it - a real hand grenade and one of very few Meade products I have ever really liked, apart from their old and  excellent 3000 series, also made in Japan.

Sadly, the 14mm was sacrificed, along with some other fine eyepieces, on the altar of preparing to buy my Tak FS128, but I have read since that quite a few people rated the UWA 4000 range as the pinnacle of Meade's eyepiece offerings (perhaps not such surprising news given the unremarkable nature of so many other Meade product offerings IMHO!)..

Anyway, I'd also read that the 8.8mm and 14mm were/are the pick of the bunch, although the 4.7mm and 6.7mm seem also well thought of (there were just 4 sizes in the range).

So when this one came up, in such apparently mint condition, and fitting potentially well into my current line up, my resistance melted and I bought it.

The eyepiece arrived today, and I have to say it does look utterly like a new one! It was bought by the seller new from BC&F in 2007, and for various reasonss it never got used, and only taken out of the box twice, for checking over when purchased, and again when photographed recently for sale.

It's unusual in that it has both 2" and 1.25" barrel compatibility, although it's really a 1.25" eyepiece. But as my Nagler T2 12mm and Morpheus 17.5mm both have the same feature, it makes it handy to be able to use all 3 in both my 1.25" Baader prism diagonal, and my 2" Astro Tech mirror diagonal, without needing 2"-1.25" adapters.

It has an amazing (for its vintage) 84deg fov. Eye relief is fine for non specs wearers like me, but not I think if you do wear glasses. I prefer the eyecup upright Vs folded flat, as with it folded down you can get kidney beaning (although you can take in the field edges more easily)..but as I am happy to nestle my eye into the eyecup, that's my preference - and no kidney beaning.

Daylight views in my little Carton 60mm were very sharp, delivering a nice 81x. In my FS128 it will deliver 118x, and 236x when barlowed, and I very much look forward to checking out M42 and the Trap with this combination.

I attach some pics showing the Meade with my Carton 10.5mm, Nagler T2 12mm and Morpheus 17.5mm units.

Looking very much forward to first light👍.

Thanks for reading 😊

Dave

Edited January 29, 2021 by F15Rules

[RT65CB-SWL]

I have the 'smoothside' (i.e. no grip or eyecup) of the same e/p... they are very nice!

[John]

Nice !

I had the 6.7mm  Meade 4000 UWA (Japan made, rubber eye cup version) for a while. It was very sharp. Around 76 degrees AFoV I think but sill pretty wide and well corrected.

 

[Saganite]

A superb find Dave , in beautiful condition !!

I have tried all in that range except the 4.7mm.  All really great eyepieces, but my biggest regret is selling the pair of 6.7's that I had, totally stupid.

 

That's a really 'tasty' line up of eyepieces BTW.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Saganite

[John]

Their light transmission could be better .....

http://www.amateurastronomie.com/Astronomie/tips/tips3.htm

(last eyepiece listed)

 

[F15Rules]

11 hours ago, John said:

Their light transmission could be better .....

http://www.amateurastronomie.com/Astronomie/tips/tips3.htm

(last eyepiece listed)

 

Hmm...

That's an interesting list John..and somewhat confusing, too.

It looks like an old and very incomplete list to me, albeit we know Marcus Ludes is well respected as the figure behind APM in Germany.

Some glaring omissions in the list in 2021 such as:

No TV Delite, Delos, Ethos 

No Pentax XL or XW (and they've been around a LONG time, and all with excellent transmission..

No Baader Genuine orthos, Celestron Ultima or other Pseudo Masuyama (IMHO these all have excellent transmission), apart from Tak LEs.

No Vixen LVWs, SLVs or HRs

No Celestron Excels or BST Starguiders 

No Baader Morpheus or Hyperions

I could go on, but it just seems a very selective list and an incomplete one, since many of the above eyepieces have been, or are now, big sellers with good transmission ratings?

You'd clearly expect Zeiss & Co to be right up there, but also surely the Pentax XWs, TV Delos and ES SWA & UWAs would feature too? As I say, it may be just an old list, but Pentax XLs and XWs have been around for 20-30 years, and universally well regarded in terms of coatings and light transmission?

It's also interesting to look in the far right column at the overall percentage ratings..in many cases the quoted differences are very small statistically - a few percentage points? And how.many of us can distinguish differences of, say, 3-5 percentage points with our own eyes?

It reminds me of the (often quite heated!) debates over the pond in the context of the difference between, for instance, standard diagonals, "enhanced" diagonals and dielectric diagonals, especially the latter two, how hard it is to see a difference?

To take a real example in my own case..a few years back I bought a 2" Televue Enhanced Diagonal. It worked really well, (and their one piece construction from a block of aircraft grade aluminium is superb) and I was very happy with it. 

About a year later I had a hankering to try an Everbrite version of the same diagonal...so I bought one, same build quality and size, but a good deal more expensive..and could see very little, if any, difference between them, even though I'm sure Tele Vue claimed several percentage points higher transmission for the Everbrite..

Heres an example of what I mean about the debates:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/655975-tele-vue-enhanced-aluminium-v-everbrite-diagonals/

In "real life" usage, I've concluded that such debates are pretty meaningless, and largely unhelpful to the average amateur..what matters is what I see through my scope, with my eyepieces, through my eyes in my local conditions. I know that my own eyes would really struggle nowadays to see the very fine detail I could see 15-20 years ago, certainly in terms of light transmission differences.

However, I'm equally sure that at least some of this deficiency is countered by the fact that I am now a better observer than I was 15-20 years ago..why? - because I don't rush my sessions like I did when I had little time, I had work the next day, I had young children, etc etc. And I see more when I look for longer. And I have better dark adaptation when I'm not in a rush, better preparation, and more patience in waiting for those fleeting moments of best seeing.

That's why I rarely visit CN these days, there are just too many threads that start off as a decent discussion, such as is the norm here on SGL, but then get hijacked by people who believe that their own experience is 100% infallible

Then along comes someone who thinks the exact opposite, but also thinks their experience is also infallible, and then it all falls apart from there..(very UNLIKE what we see on SGL!).. and yet, in a country the size of the USA, the difference in seeing conditions across the US must be tremendous - from pristine desert skies to areas very like the UK, driven by the Jetstream, often to despair!😂.

In conclusion, I don't dispute the pure statistics of Mr Ludes' table: the pure figures may be right (and maybe my 8.8mm version of the Meade is better (or worse!) than the 6.7mm quoted in the table).. I haven't actually used it at night yet..but I am confident that I have enough other, proven eyepieces with which to compare the Meade, in order to judge whether I like it enough to keep it😉.

But it looks and feels like a top end eyepiece, and I'm really looking forward to finding out one way or the other!😊

Dave

[John]

19 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Hmm...

That's an interesting list John..and somewhat confusing, too.

It looks like an old and very incomplete list to me, albeit we know Marcus Ludes is well respected as the figure behind APM in Germany.

Some glaring omissions in the list in 2021 such as:

No TV Delite, Delos, Ethos 

No Pentax XL or XW (and they've been around a LONG time, and all with excellent transmission..

No Baader Genuine orthos, Celestron Ultima or other Pseudo Masuyama (IMHO these all have excellent transmission), apart from Tak LEs.

No Vixen LVWs, SLVs or HRs

No Celestron Excels or BST Starguiders 

No Baader Morpheus or Hyperions

I could go on, but it just seems a very selective list and an incomplete one, since many of the above eyepieces have been, or are now, big sellers with good transmission ratings?

You'd clearly expect Zeiss & Co to be right up there, but also surely the Pentax XWs, TV Delos and ES SWA & UWAs would feature too? As I say, it may be just an old list, but Pentax XLs and XWs have been around for 20-30 years, and universally well regarded in terms of coatings and light transmission?

It's also interesting to look in the far right column at the overall percentage ratings..in many cases the quoted differences are very small statistically - a few percentage points? And how.many of us can distinguish differences of, say, 3-5 percentage points with our own eyes?

It reminds me of the (often quite heated!) debates over the pond in the context of the difference between, for instance, standard diagonals, "enhanced" diagonals and dielectric diagonals, especially the latter two, how hard it is to see a difference?

To take a real example in my own case..a few years back I bought a 2" Televue Enhanced Diagonal. It worked really well, (and their one piece construction from a block of aircraft grade aluminium is superb) and I was very happy with it. 

About a year later I had a hankering to try an Everbrite version of the same diagonal...so I bought one, same build quality and size, but a good deal more expensive..and could see very little, if any, difference between them, even though I'm sure Tele Vue claimed several percentage points higher transmission for the Everbrite..

Heres an example of what I mean about the debates:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/655975-tele-vue-enhanced-aluminium-v-everbrite-diagonals/

In "real life" usage, I've concluded that such debates are pretty meaningless, and largely unhelpful to the average amateur..what matters is what I see through my scope, with my eyepieces, through my eyes in my local conditions. I know that my own eyes would really struggle nowadays to see the very fine detail I could see 15-20 years ago, certainly in terms of light transmission differences.

However, I'm equally sure that at least some of this deficiency is countered by the fact that I am now a better observer than I was 15-20 years ago..why? - because I don't rush my sessions like I did when I had little time, I had work the next day, I had young children, etc etc. And I see more when I look for longer. And I have better dark adaptation when I'm not in a rush, better preparation, and more patience in waiting for those fleeting moments of best seeing.

That's why I rarely visit CN these days, there are just too many threads that start off as a decent discussion, such as is the norm here on SGL, but then get hijacked by people who believe that their own experience is 100% infallible

Then along comes someone who thinks the exact opposite, but also thinks their experience is also infallible, and then it all falls apart from there..(very UNLIKE what we see on SGL!).. and yet, in a country the size of the USA, the difference in seeing conditions across the US must be tremendous - from pristine desert skies to areas very like the UK, driven by the Jetstream, often to despair!😂.

In conclusion, I don't dispute the pure statistics of Mr Ludes' table: the pure figures may be right (and maybe my 8.8mm version of the Meade is better (or worse!) than the 6.7mm quoted in the table).. I haven't actually used it at night yet..but I am confident that I have enough other, proven eyepieces with which to compare the Meade, in order to judge whether I like it enough to keep it😉.

But it looks and feels like a top end eyepiece, and I'm really looking forward to finding out one way or the other!😊

Dave

Fair enough Dave.

This is another CN link I'm afraid but at least it is Don Pensack who is also a member here of course:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/395293-eypiece-transmission/?p=5062914

That was the original "smooth side" Meade UWA 14mm of course. They might have improved things a little with the Mk II ones ?

What matters most is how YOU find the eyepiece, of course

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by John

[F15Rules]

Interesting stuff John..

It could be that the second generation Meade UWAs had improved coatings..

I'm wondering though whether 20 or so years ago the polish of Japanese made EPs made up, at least partly, for any coating deficiencies? This might back up Don's assertion in your quoted thread, where he says "The fact that a ten inch reaches over 0.4 magnitudes deeper than an 8" shows how little effect transmission in eyepieces has. Probably of more importance are factors such as the spectrum of transmission and the polish quality on the glass."

I think that modern coatings application technology, wherever EPs are made now, including China and especially Taiwan, is to an exceedingly high standard, which is to all our benefit of course..

Dave

[Carl Au]

4 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Hmm...

That's an interesting list John..and somewhat confusing, too.

It looks like an old and very incomplete list to me, albeit we know Marcus Ludes is well respected as the figure behind APM in Germany.

Some glaring omissions in the list in 2021 such as:

No TV Delite, Delos, Ethos 

No Pentax XL or XW (and they've been around a LONG time, and all with excellent transmission..

No Baader Genuine orthos, Celestron Ultima or other Pseudo Masuyama (IMHO these all have excellent transmission), apart from Tak LEs.

No Vixen LVWs, SLVs or HRs

No Celestron Excels or BST Starguiders 

No Baader Morpheus or Hyperions

I could go on, but it just seems a very selective list and an incomplete one, since many of the above eyepieces have been, or are now, big sellers with good transmission ratings?

You'd clearly expect Zeiss & Co to be right up there, but also surely the Pentax XWs, TV Delos and ES SWA & UWAs would feature too? As I say, it may be just an old list, but Pentax XLs and XWs have been around for 20-30 years, and universally well regarded in terms of coatings and light transmission?

It's also interesting to look in the far right column at the overall percentage ratings..in many cases the quoted differences are very small statistically - a few percentage points? And how.many of us can distinguish differences of, say, 3-5 percentage points with our own eyes?

It reminds me of the (often quite heated!) debates over the pond in the context of the difference between, for instance, standard diagonals, "enhanced" diagonals and dielectric diagonals, especially the latter two, how hard it is to see a difference?

To take a real example in my own case..a few years back I bought a 2" Televue Enhanced Diagonal. It worked really well, (and their one piece construction from a block of aircraft grade aluminium is superb) and I was very happy with it. 

About a year later I had a hankering to try an Everbrite version of the same diagonal...so I bought one, same build quality and size, but a good deal more expensive..and could see very little, if any, difference between them, even though I'm sure Tele Vue claimed several percentage points higher transmission for the Everbrite..

Heres an example of what I mean about the debates:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/655975-tele-vue-enhanced-aluminium-v-everbrite-diagonals/

In "real life" usage, I've concluded that such debates are pretty meaningless, and largely unhelpful to the average amateur..what matters is what I see through my scope, with my eyepieces, through my eyes in my local conditions. I know that my own eyes would really struggle nowadays to see the very fine detail I could see 15-20 years ago, certainly in terms of light transmission differences.

However, I'm equally sure that at least some of this deficiency is countered by the fact that I am now a better observer than I was 15-20 years ago..why? - because I don't rush my sessions like I did when I had little time, I had work the next day, I had young children, etc etc. And I see more when I look for longer. And I have better dark adaptation when I'm not in a rush, better preparation, and more patience in waiting for those fleeting moments of best seeing.

That's why I rarely visit CN these days, there are just too many threads that start off as a decent discussion, such as is the norm here on SGL, but then get hijacked by people who believe that their own experience is 100% infallible

Then along comes someone who thinks the exact opposite, but also thinks their experience is also infallible, and then it all falls apart from there..(very UNLIKE what we see on SGL!).. and yet, in a country the size of the USA, the difference in seeing conditions across the US must be tremendous - from pristine desert skies to areas very like the UK, driven by the Jetstream, often to despair!😂.

In conclusion, I don't dispute the pure statistics of Mr Ludes' table: the pure figures may be right (and maybe my 8.8mm version of the Meade is better (or worse!) than the 6.7mm quoted in the table).. I haven't actually used it at night yet..but I am confident that I have enough other, proven eyepieces with which to compare the Meade, in order to judge whether I like it enough to keep it😉.

But it looks and feels like a top end eyepiece, and I'm really looking forward to finding out one way or the other!😊

Dave

Excellent post.

[John]

Well, when I compared the Meade 4000 UWA 6.7mm with the Pentax XW 7mm that I replaced it with, even I could see the difference in brightness when observing smaller DSO's such as planetary nebula.

On brighter targets such as the moon, planets and double stars, the light transmission has no real impact though. 

But, as we must always say, "your mileage may vary"

 

 

[F15Rules]

53 minutes ago, John said:

Well, when I compared the Meade 4000 UWA 6.7mm with the Pentax XW 7mm that I replaced it with, even I could see the difference in brightness when observing smaller DSO's such as planetary nebula.

On brighter targets such as the moon, planets and double stars, the light transmission has no real impact though. 

But, as we must always say, "your mileage may vary"

 

 

That's just what I'd expect John..I'd take a Pentax 7mm over the Meade 6.7mm any day, on looks alone..I think the latter looks very like the ordinary series 4000 plossls (although I've never seen one in the flesh).

The 8.8mm is an altogether beefier beast, much more like the Nagler T2 12mm in heft and solidity, although smaller than the Nagler.

The XW 5,7 and 10mm are truly wonderful eyepieces, which is why I was genuinely surprised that they didn't figure in Marcus Ludes' comparison tables?

This thread I found interesting, just demonstrates the subjective "YMMV"-ness of how people see their equipment..

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/446333-vintage-gold-the-88mm-meade-4000-uwa/

I'm really looking forward to trying out my new acquisition, and I'll report back honestly what I find. However it performs, though, it won't change my view that on the whole I don't rate Meade or most of their equipment very highly..with a couple of honourable exceptions..🥴🙂

Dave

[John]

45 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

....I'm really looking forward to trying out my new acquisition, and I'll report back honestly what I find. However it performs, though, it won't change my view that on the whole I don't rate Meade or most of their equipment very highly..with a couple of honourable exceptions..🥴🙂

Dave

I will look forward reading your findings Dave

And I'm with you all the way with Meade, having had quite a few disappointments with their stuff over the years

 

[Louis D]

7 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Interesting stuff John..

It could be that the second generation Meade UWAs had improved coatings..

I'm wondering though whether 20 or so years ago the polish of Japanese made EPs made up, at least partly, for any coating deficiencies? This might back up Don's assertion in your quoted thread, where he says "The fact that a ten inch reaches over 0.4 magnitudes deeper than an 8" shows how little effect transmission in eyepieces has. Probably of more importance are factors such as the spectrum of transmission and the polish quality on the glass."

I think that modern coatings application technology, wherever EPs are made now, including China and especially Taiwan, is to an exceedingly high standard, which is to all our benefit of course..

Dave

As I've reported elsewhere, the original smooth sided Meade 4000 UWA 14mm is very well corrected across the field.  Really remarkably well considering it's nearly 40 years old.  However, it's control of stray light is abysmal.  As the moon is panned around the field, there are all sorts of glares and reflections that are completely absent in the 14mm Morpheus and 14mm Pentax XL.  I'll have to have a look through the top and bottom lenses with a bright light to see what's going on inside.

[Don Pensack]

The original versions of the Meade Series 4000 UWA eyepieces had some issues:

1) apparent fields actually quite a bit smaller than claimed--more like 76-78°

2) serious spherical aberration of the exit pupil.  This bothered the 14mm more than the shorter focal lengths, but it was present nonetheless.

3) some actually uncoated interior lens surfaces.  I took my set apart several years after getting them to clean interior surfaces and blacken lens edges and was shocked to see that.  Explains Louis's comments.

4) some shiny spacers that were very much improved by blackening with flat black paint.

It's highly likely these were made by Kowa, the manufacturer of the 5-element S.4000 "Super Plössls" and the S.4000 SWAs, which would explain the high polish on the lenses.

 

[Louis D]

16 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

The original versions of the Meade Series 4000 UWA eyepieces had some issues:

1) apparent fields actually quite a bit smaller than claimed--more like 76-78°

2) serious spherical aberration of the exit pupil.  This bothered the 14mm more than the shorter focal lengths, but it was present nonetheless.

3) some actually uncoated interior lens surfaces.  I took my set apart several years after getting them to clean interior surfaces and blacken lens edges and was shocked to see that.  Explains Louis's comments.

4) some shiny spacers that were very much improved by blackening with flat black paint.

It's highly likely these were made by Kowa, the manufacturer of the 5-element S.4000 "Super Plössls" and the S.4000 SWAs, which would explain the high polish on the lenses.

 

I think I'll leave mine be as an "unrestored" collector's piece and just use the 14mm Morpheus day to day instead.  No amount of blackening will fix the SAEP, uncoated lenses, and slightly tighter eye relief.  I just get a kick out of looking through it and marveling at what was accomplished nearly 40 years ago with that eyepiece.

[A McEwan]

I've had several Meade S4k eyepieces, and still have their 6.7mm UWA, which is a very good eyepiece. It's one of my longest surviving eyepieces and sees regular use, usually after using the 13mm Nagler.

I owned the 14mm UWA too and it was very good, and was one of my earliest ultra wide angle eyepieces, but I think I disliked the weight and bulk, if I remember correctly. Very nicely made though and I do remember having excellent views through it.

The S4k Plossls are good workhorses. Probably very similar to smoothside TeleVue Plossls of the same era, or maybe a tiny tad behind them but I'm pretty sure they're close. I have fond memories of the 12.5mm. Not sure why I don't still have it....

Ant

[Saganite]

I share the same views Ant, and the pair of Meade 4000 26mm smoothie 5 element units which I have owned and used for a good few years now, are quite superb.

[Rob]

Very, very nice.. I do want one!!. I missed out on some Meade 3k Japans recently... GRRR.

 

Enjoy it!