Vixen HR 3.4mm

[Don Pensack]

Almost every line of specialized planetary eyepieces comes and goes.

There are very few who want to have 2 sets of eyepieces and/or only view planets.

And because there is no 'economy of scale', they are typically expensive.

So, my advice is, when a line that gets high praise is available, buy them.

[Frenchastro]

1 hour ago, Don Pensack said:

Presque toutes les gammes d'oculaires planétaires spécialisés vont et viennent.

Rares sont ceux qui veulent avoir 2 paires d'oculaires et/ou ne voir que les planètes.

Et parce qu'il n'y a pas d'« économie d'échelle », ils sont généralement coûteux.

Donc, mon conseil est que lorsqu'une ligne qui reçoit des éloges est disponible, achetez-la.

it's so true !

The TOE will undoubtedly follow the path of Tak Le and TAO.

Hr, toe, LE...finaly i choose something else....i choose not to choose 🤦

[Deadlake]

4 hours ago, jetstream said:

I would presume the difference between the TOE and HR to be very small and the difference between those two and others like XW and Delos to be easily noticeable.

I just need some good seeing to try out the HR 1.6 mm, no TOE to compare with there. 😃

[Piero]

The three copies of HR I had were excellent and I found the HR design quite comfortable as far as ER concerns. However, 42 deg is still 42 deg and after years of use and comparisons, I found that I prefer eps with a larger fov. Therefore, I sold my 3.4mm, 2.4mm and 2.0mm with no regret. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Piero

[Littleguy80]

14 minutes ago, Piero said:

The three copies of HR I had were excellent and I found the HR design quite comfortable as far as ER concerns. However, 42 deg is still 42 deg and after years of use and comparisons, I found that I prefer eps with a larger fov. Therefore, I sold my 3.4mm, 2.4mm and 2.0mm with no regret. 

What did you replace them with, Piero? 

[Piero]

21 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

What did you replace them with, Piero? 

I didn't replace them, but just use my Zeiss zoom + VIP for high power. This combo doesn't reach 370x that the 2mm HR does with my tak, but realistically when I want that kind of power I prefer to use a larger telescope. 

Eyepieces are a complicated matter!

[mikeDnight]

I think the HR's really come into their own when observing double stars. With a tracking mount you can use really silly powers, as even the 1.6mm Barlows really well when the seeing is steady. To me the HR's don't feel like they have a restricted field, in fact I was surprised at how comfortable they all were. Id really like a Tak turret to go along with them. 

[John]

Interesting discussion 🙂

The only eyepiece in this sort of league that I've owned and used was the TMB Supermono 5mm. Superb performer but the tiny AFoV (~30 degrees), miniscule eye lens and very short eye relief became tiresome quite quickly whatever the quality of the view though it.

Which is the best option for those who need or like longer eye relief these days ?

These "top tier" performers as discussed here are superb I'm sure but I think they all have 12mm or shorter eye relief as I recall ?

I guess the TV DeLite might be the next best thing but with the additional eye relief for those who like that ? (I've not used a Delite I ought to add)

 

[Highburymark]

10 minutes ago, John said:

Interesting discussion 🙂

The only eyepiece in this sort of league that I've owned and used was the TMB Supermono 5mm. Superb performer but the tiny AFoV (~30 degrees), miniscule eye lens and very short eye relief became tiresome quite quickly whatever the quality of the view though it.

Which is the best option for those who need or like longer eye relief these days ?

These "top tier" performers as discussed here are superb I'm sure but I think they all have 12mm or shorter eye relief as I recall ?

I guess the TV DeLite might be the next best thing but with the additional eye relief for those who like that ? (I've not used a Delite I ought to add)

 

Delite, XW or Delos, I’d say John. Take your pick - they’re impossible to split as planetary eyepieces. Maybe Ethos too, but I haven’t used a high power Ethos.
I find the 10mm eye relief of the TOEs very comfortable, though obviously they’re not going to appeal to those who wear glasses. I’ve spent the past few weeks trying out my new Pentax XO 5.1, with an absurd eye relief of less than 4mm, so the TOEs are positively luxurious in comparison. It’s an incredible eyepiece. But the TOEs are in the same ballpark in my view, in that they show clearly superior detail and scatter control on the Moon and planets to the excellent Delos/Delite/XW group. Maybe not quite at XO levels, but very close.  I’ve written about them at length elsewhere, and have tried not to turn this HR thread into a TOE-fest, (though a TOE-fest sounds strangely appealing), but if anyone wants confirmation of how good they are, just read the many reports on CN and elsewhere.
To end this post on-topic, I think we can thank Vixen’s designers for both the HRs and inspiring Tak to produce the TOEs. If only they’d priced the HRs more realistically, they might still be with us!

[John]

When I bought and sold my TMB Supermono 5mm the used prices were around £100. Now they go for 4x-5x as much. 

@mikeDnight actually had and sold one of those many years back - for £90 I seem to recall !

I think now I'll stick with my Nagler 2-4mm zoom, XW 3.5mm and 5mm and Ethos 4.7mm I think. I did have a phase when I chased those ultra sharp, ultra low scatter eyepieces regardless of AFoV and eye relief but not nowadays 🙂

[mikeDnight]

10 hours ago, John said:

When I bought and sold my TMB Supermono 5mm the used prices were around £100. Now they go for 4x-5x as much. 

@mikeDnight actually had and sold one of those many years back - for £90 I seem to recall !

I think now I'll stick with my Nagler 2-4mm zoom, XW 3.5mm and 5mm and Ethos 4.7mm I think. I did have a phase when I chased those ultra sharp, ultra low scatter eyepieces regardless of AFoV and eye relief but not nowadays 🙂

I admire your determination to rough it out with XW's. Ethos & Nagler Zooms John. 😆 

XW's are some of my favourite eyepieces, and the 3.5mm & 5mm are stunning. I've not yet used an Ethos in the shorter focal lengths, although I did have a 13mm and loved it. And the Nag zooms are lovely too. I can't imagine anyone having any of these eyepieces losing too much sleep because they don't have HR's.

[Highburymark]

14 hours ago, John said:

When I bought and sold my TMB Supermono 5mm the used prices were around £100. Now they go for 4x-5x as much. 

@mikeDnight actually had and sold one of those many years back - for £90 I seem to recall !

I think now I'll stick with my Nagler 2-4mm zoom, XW 3.5mm and 5mm and Ethos 4.7mm I think. I did have a phase when I chased those ultra sharp, ultra low scatter eyepieces regardless of AFoV and eye relief but not nowadays 🙂

The Nagler zooms have an advantage that not even the best Abbés can match - dialling in the perfect power must sometimes be more important than extreme performance.  
There’s another dimension to this - just because one eyepiece shows slightly more detail than another, doesn’t diminish the view in the other! There’s still more than enough to see! For me it’s been about curiosity to see what is possible. 

[Don Pensack]

Especially the 6mm Ethos, which is one astounding eyepiece.

The specs:

Tele Vue, Ethos

6

100.7

<2

3.5

5(7)

diffr.

diffr.

diffr?

 

The first three figures after the 100.7° measured apparent field are the spot size at f/4 in center, mid field, and edge of field.

The last 3 figures are the spot size at f/10

The parenthesis on the f/4 edge of field is the actual length, radially, of the star image.  What we see is the smaller figure.

Anything less that 10 is seen by the eye as perfect.  Diffr. means limited only by the diffraction in the scope.

In seeing that allowed me to go to 3.7mm, the 6mm was as sharp as any planetary eyepiece I've ever seen.

If 6mm yields a high enough power, the 6mm Ethos is excellent.  For any use.

 

 

[Mr Spock]

I’m not sure many would sprnd £654 on a planetary eyepiece or put up with the size and weight. Add in a x2 Powermate to reach 3mm and we are talking £1k!

Especially when eyepieces like the HR and TOE are so small and light. 

[Don Pensack]

Agreed, I think few would spend that much.

But how many of those small narrowfield eyepieces can also be used for deep sky purposes on a non-tracking mount?

And have you looked at the prices of used Zeiss Abbe orthos or TMB SuperMonocentrics?

[John]

My mounts are all undriven and I LOVE wide field views 🙂

I paid about the same as a TOE costs new for my mint pre-owned Ethos 4.7 and as @Don Pensacksays, the 6mm Ethos is an amazing eyepiece.

The Nagler zoom is the exception of course but it's instantly variable focal length more than earns it a place in my eyepiece case 🙂

It will be interesting to watch out for the where next line of specialised high power eyepieces comes from - I think Vixen surprised people with the HR's so who knows what might be hatching out there 😀

Edited April 14, 2023 by John

[Highburymark]

2 hours ago, John said:

My mounts are all undriven and I LOVE wide field views 🙂

I paid about the same as a TOE costs new for my mint pre-owned Ethos 4.7 and as @Don Pensacksays, the 6mm Ethos is an amazing eyepiece.

The Nagler zoom is the exception of course but it's instantly variable focal length more than earns it a place in my eyepiece case 🙂

It will be interesting to watch out for the where next line of specialised high power eyepieces comes from - I think Vixen surprised people with the HR's so who knows what might be hatching out there 😀

How about an SVBony ultra-planetary? APM have just launched a TMB barlow, so could there be anything else in the pipeline? Takahashi are supposedly working on new eyepieces. But what’s happened to Vixen since the HR? Just down to SLVs and Plossls in the UK, it seems, and FLO doesn’t seem to be stocking the telescopes any more 😕

[Highburymark]

4 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Especially the 6mm Ethos, which is one astounding eyepiece.

The specs:

Tele Vue, Ethos

6

100.7

<2

3.5

5(7)

diffr.

diffr.

diffr?

 

The first three figures after the 100.7° measured apparent field are the spot size at f/4 in center, mid field, and edge of field.

The last 3 figures are the spot size at f/10

The parenthesis on the f/4 edge of field is the actual length, radially, of the star image.  What we see is the smaller figure.

Anything less that 10 is seen by the eye as perfect.  Diffr. means limited only by the diffraction in the scope.

In seeing that allowed me to go to 3.7mm, the 6mm was as sharp as any planetary eyepiece I've ever seen.

If 6mm yields a high enough power, the 6mm Ethos is excellent.  For any use.

 

 

How do those figures compare with the shorter focal lengths in the Ethos range Don? 

[Don Pensack]

I don't see a test for the 4.7, but here is the 3.7mm:

Tele Vue, Ethos SX

3.7

112

<4

6-8

6-9

diffr!

diffr.

diffr??

 

Personally, I don't think the 4.7mm quite measures up to the 6mm or 3.7mm.

It's closer to the performance of the 8mm--a whisker below the 6mm.

 

Note that the eye lenses on the 3.7mm and 4.7mm are recessed more than the longer focal lengths.

The eye relief feels a lot tighter.