Jump to content

290128050_ConstellationBanner.jpg.6eb5d1fe82e0853d4c3b80a745d12d74.jpg

Celestron Ultima LX


Recommended Posts

I have just recently come across these eyepieces from Celestron. I have previously heard about the Ultima edge and the Ultima duo, but not the LX. Has anyone got any experience or knowledge of this particular range of eyepieces. Thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're an older line from 10 to 15 years ago.  They're optically the same as the Omegon Redline SW, Astro Tech AF70, Olivon 70°, SkyWatcher SWA 70°, and several other brandings.  The 22mm is excellent, the 17mm is pretty decent, the 13mm has loads of edge chromatic aberration and EOFB, and I have no personal experience with the shorter focal lengths.  The 32mm is reportedly an Erfle or Konig, and as such, nothing special correction-wise.  They have plenty of eye relief for eyeglass wearers once you screw off the rigid eye cup.  With its 43mm thread up top, you can fit it with a Baader Morpheus eye cup if you like.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Louis D said:

They're an older line from 10 to 15 years ago.  They're optically the same as the Omegon Redline SW, Astro Tech AF70, Olivon 70°, SkyWatcher SWA 70°, and several other brandings.  The 22mm is excellent, the 17mm is pretty decent, the 13mm has loads of edge chromatic aberration and EOFB, and I have no personal experience with the shorter focal lengths.  The 32mm is reportedly an Erfle or Konig, and as such, nothing special correction-wise.  They have plenty of eye relief for eyeglass wearers once you screw off the rigid eye cup.  With its 43mm thread up top, you can fit it with a Baader Morpheus eye cup if you like.

Thanks for the heads up. It was just the first time I had come across them and was curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Louis summed them up pretty well..

I owned the 13, 17 and 22mm and the 22mm was definitely the best, and the 13mm the least good.

Not bad eyepieces, but the Axiom LX (not Luminos) are much better all round, and with an 82deg fov..big eyepieces, all of them.

Dave

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, F15Rules said:

I think Louis summed them up pretty well..

I owned the 13, 17 and 22mm and the 22mm was definitely the best, and the 13mm the least good.

Not bad eyepieces, but the Axiom LX (not Luminos) are much better all round, and with an 82deg fov..big eyepieces, all of them.

Dave

 

Thanks Dave. What puzzles me, is why Celestron changed over from the Axiom to the Luminos. The feedback I’ve heard categorically favors the former 🤔. But then who am I to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a long story, but essentially the chinese manufacturer who made the Axioms for Celestron decided to sell their own range of optically identical eyepieces, branded Explore Scientific, effectively undercutting the Celestron version.

Celestron then switched to another chinese manufacturer, who made them a very similar looking design cosmetically to the Axiom LX range, but a different design optically, generally thought to be inferior to the original Axiom LXs.

Louis D will I'm sure be along with a more detailed explanation 😊.

HTH,

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome Ian..

My 31mm Axiom LX has been on loan for a while to a good friend of mine here on SGL...he had bought a Pentax XW30 last year and liked it, but was intrigued by my reports on how good the Axiom 31mm (and the 23mm) are..

..earlier this week he reported on his first in depth session with the 31mm Axiom, in extremely positive terms, and agreeing with my own conclusion that the 31mm Axiom was/is a better eyepiece than the Pentax XW30mm, in terms of sharpness to the edge (Pentax not sharp to the edge of it's 70degree fov, Axiom sharp almost to the edge of it's 82deg fov), presentation of extended objects such as star clusters and starfields, and aesthetic overall views.

My testing was in my F8 Takahashi FS128, and his was in a 6" F8 apo of known excellence. Short F5/F6 ratio scopes might show  different results, but I personally doubt it.

The biggest perceived negative against the Axioms in 19mm, 23mm and 31mm is their physical size (the 31mm is c 1.4kg...even  heavier than the Tele Vue Nagler 31mm!). However it is possible to "decloak" these big eyepieces ie to remove their outer shell, and reduce their weight by c 1/3 in the process.

If you're interested in finding out more, see my thread in this from last year here:

"De-cloaking a Celestron Axiom LX UWA eyepiece"

HTH.

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow 1.4kg! now that is what you call a lump of an eyepiece. I was just about to mention, what you call de-cloaking and I call de-frocking (same outcome). From what I have garnered the axioms are a nice eyepiece, a conclusion I reached due to the fact that they very seldom come up for sale. I now have another few eyepieces to add to my list.

  Cheers  

        Ian 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, F15Rules said:

It's a long story, but essentially the chinese manufacturer who made the Axioms for Celestron decided to sell their own range of optically identical eyepieces, branded Explore Scientific, effectively undercutting the Celestron version.

Celestron then switched to another chinese manufacturer, who made them a very similar looking design cosmetically to the Axiom LX range, but a different design optically, generally thought to be inferior to the original Axiom LXs.

Louis D will I'm sure be along with a more detailed explanation 😊.

HTH,

Dave

Yes, that's basically correct.  Here's my post on the subject from 2016:

No one on SGL knows for certain who makes the Luminos eyepieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.