Four Awesome Eyepieces!

[mikeDnight]

  This is not a review, just my experiences when comparing the views through four beautiful, top class, eyepieces. There's nothing scientific, just ubjective waffle. Hope it's of use.

  Initially desperation sent me out in less than favourable conditions, because just as with many others, my skies have been cloudy for ages. A few nights ago however, there appeared to be a chance through gaps in the clouds to get a reasonable look at the night sky.  On that first night I used my 100mm refractor to check out some old & some new eyepieces that I have, while on the second night I used my 128mm refractor.

  So what four eyepieces were being compared and why?  Well the "Why" part of the question is easy to answer. All four cover a similar high power range, and all four have already got or are rapidly acquiring a fine reputation as being top class planetary eyepieces. Here are some:

left a 4mm TOE by Takahashi,  centre a 3.5mm XW by Pentax, and right a 3.4mm High Resolution eyepiece by Vixen. Not exactly new kids on the block I know, but they are all top class in their field, so how did they compare and "Where's the fourth one!!!"?

Night one with the 100mm was plagued with fast moving cloud, the edges of which played havoc with the star images and lunar detail. However, some things that stood out as being notable were that out of all the eyepieces, it was the multi element Pentax XW that gave a significantly brighter image than any of the others. Possibly this was because the XW has the widest apparent field out of the group; it having a 70° apparent field. So more elements don't necessarily mean a dimmer view. The XW was very sharp showing high power wide field vistas of the lunar surface, and sharp across the field.  Star images were textbook perfect at 229X on what was at best an average night of Antoniadi 2 to 3 variable.

The 4mm TOE gave wonderfully detailed lunar views as did the 3.4mm Vixen HR, but clouds brought my session to an early end. It was at that point I suddenly remembered I had a fourth eyepiece that had somehow slipped my mind. What I needed was another clear night, and preferably one without cloud.

  I could hardly believe it when the following night was clear. This time I used the 128 instead of the 100, which at 1040mm fl, meant the magnifications on all four eyepieces would be higher and so would offer a more critical comparison.  I would rate the seeing when I began as 3 Antoniadi & later 2, so the night got better as it went along.

 The Pentax as a joy on the moon, and revealed intricate fine detail at 297X. Turning to the 4mm TOE, I felt there was some subtle improvement but couldn't quite say what it was for certain. Perhaps the narrower field plus the slightly lower power of 260X played a part, or perhaps it was the eyepiece design? The TOE is not a minimal glass design though it has been designed with high definition viewing in mind. Whatever it was it was subtle, yet I prefered the lunar views through the TOE more, because there was less distraction in that it concentrated my attention on a narrower, yet still highly detailed area of the Moon. The Pentax gave more of an eye full!   The TOE also gave a somewhat dimmer, though still very bright, view of the Moon.   Star images in the TOE were also perfect yet for some reason presented themselves in a more pleasing way than in the Pentax. At first I reasoned that this was likely due to the lower magnification, but that thought soon changed.

  The 3.4mm Vixen HR gave a magnification of 304X in the FS128, yet out of all the four eyepieces it gave the most aesthetically pleasing, almost 3D view of the Moon. It also gave the narrowest true field and had the sharpest field stop I've ever seen. May be these things together led me to like this eyepiece the most?  The TOE's excellent star images were not the result of it giving lower magnification, or at least that's what I concluded, because the Vixen HR just blew me away on the stars. The pure white and subtle pink hues of Castor were mouth-watering (Not a scientific term!), and to me at least the HR was and is the eyepiece to beat.  At this point I had to back track a little because I wanted to compare the colour hues of Castor in the XW and the TOE. With the XW the hues were least noticeable although they were there. The TOE rendered the star colours more vividly and I'd like to say on par with the HR? More experimenting is needed between these two on the stars.

  But now comes the surprise eyepiece.  A surprise because I haven't mentioned it until now, but an even bigger surprise because of how it performed against these three world class eyepieces.  It's the SvBony 3 to 8mm Zoom!

  What a beauty this turned out to be!  I don't intend to discuss the eyepiece mechanics, just how it compared to the other three.

  Having a constant 56° apparent field the lunar views were bright and razor sharp to the edge throughout the zoom's range of 130X, 142X, 173X, 208X, 260X, & 347X in the FS128 refractor. It's worth remembering that the telescopes used are among some of the finest refractors ever made, so these eyepieces gave their best possible performance, with only the seeing conditions and my eyesight being the questionable variables.

 The Zoom was put through all the same paces as the other three, with seemingly endless direct comparisons which meant changing eyepieces dozens of times to get a clear feel for what the zoom could and couldn't do. What it couldn't do was match the Pentax in image brightness, though it was brighter than both the TOE and the HR. When it  came to viewing the Moon it was a joy to watch the invisible detail at 8mm become obvious and highly detailed at 3mm.  Comparing all four eyepieces when observing finer lunar detail the SvBony 3 to 8 zoom kept pace with them all, which considering the pedigree of the competition, was quite something.  Star images in the zoom were also a big surprise, as the zoom even at its maximum magnification in the FS128 of 347X were exquisite. Perfect Airy disc's with perfect diffraction rings possibly equalling that of the Vixen HR, and showing the subtle colour differences between doubles on par with the TOE and HR. 

  It has been implied that the SvBony 3 to 8 Zoom is a poorer version of TeleVue's 3 to 6 zoom, - It is not! If the SvBony 3 to 8 can keep pace with the TOE and Vixen HR, it can easily be considered every bit as good as good optically as anything TV has ever produced. There is no point in trying to compare the Sv to longer focal length eyepieces as some U-Tube reviews have done. As similar as possible is the only meaningful way!

So in conclusion I would say the XW was the one I least enjoyed, as it was the least comfotable due to long eye relief and occasional kidney bean. That however doesn't mean I didn't still love this eyepiece. The XW's are some of my favourite eyepieces! 

The TOE gave great views yet the body of the eyepiece felt like it got in the way as it felt bulky against my eye socket. It was subtle but I was aware of it more than with the others.

The Zoom was a little more comfortable to use than the TOE, or at least that's how I felt. But other than that I'd place these two eyepieces in the same high end category.

My favourite at the end of the evening was still the HR, but for me I felt it was a very close compare. I hope someone buys me a 3.3mm TOE!

 

[JTEC]

Delighted that you’re happy with the Vixen you bought from me Mike - but does this mean I have to buy another SV 3-8? 🙃

[Mumia]

All takahashi eyepieces are wonderful, especially with such an elegant refractor as the FS128. Recently I also added a 4mm TOE to my set. However, my favorite is the abbe series, it seems to give the sharpest and contrastiest images. In combination with BBHS you don't need anything else ;)

[Mr Spock]

I can recommend the 3.3mm TOE. It gives x224 in my Tak and is perfect for lunar. It just has a clarity to it and sense of ease. For that, and compared to my other eyepieces including orthos, I compare it to the LVWs. It isn't something you can put into words, it's just a relaxing view.

Quite stunning in the 12" when conditions allow. Cruising along the moon's surface at x461 and picking up exceptionally sharp fine detail is a sight not easily forgotten.

[John]

Very interesting to read about your experiences with these eyepieces Mike. Thanks for posting them 🙂

I have owned 3 of them (and still have the 2 of those) but, thus far, I've not tried a Vixen HR.

 

 

 

[Mark at Beaufort]

Excellent review Mike. For the money you cannot ignore the SvBony zoom

[Saganite]

Thanks for that Mike, the confirmation that I hoped for as to the excellence of the 3-8 zoom.

I have owned them all in the past , with the exception of the TOE.  Unfortunately I tried to binoview with a pair of HR 3.4's without success so sold them both.

I recently parted with my Pentax 3.5mm feeling that I was perfectly at ease with the Svbony zoom  I have used  for several months , and I am happy with my decision.

Edited February 24 by Saganite

[JTEC]

@Mumia, not including various unobtainable, well-nigh mythological eyepieces that I’ve never had the opportunity to try, my vote also goes to the Tak orthos for sharpness, clarity, colour rendition, contrast, etc - I have pairs of the 6,9 and 12.5mm orthos and a pair of 18mm Tak LE orthos for the binoviewer. My shortest fl is now the 4mm TOE but it looks as though @mikeDnight, with his interesting and persuasive review, might have cornered me into forking out for another SV 3-8 😬

Edited February 23 by JTEC

[John]

46 minutes ago, Saganite said:

...I recently parted with my Pentax 3.5mm feeling that I was perfectly at ease with the Svbony zoom  I have used  for several months now and I am happy with my decision.

I have not quite reached that position yet but I can see the logic of it. I parted with the XW 10mm last year then missed it quite soon after so I had to acquire another - that experience is probably holding me back from moving on the XW 3.5mm 🙄

[Mr Spock]

If you have more than one, you can use whatever takes your fancy.

With high end eyepieces there isn't a right or wrong choice, it's down to whichever you enjoy using 

[Stu]

Nice report Mike. The SvBony is certainly an excellent eyepiece and if it was your only high power eyepiece I don’t think you would be missing out on much, if anything. I’ve not seen a difference between it and the Nag Zooms which is a fine achievement. Need to try under really excellent conditions though, I suspect any small differences would need this to show up.

I currently have 2.4mm and 3.4mm Vixen HRs, the 2 to 4 and 3 to 6mm Nag zooms and the SvBony, aswell as 3.5mm XW and a set of BGOs. With some decent seeing I’ll give them all a run out at similar mags and see what happens.

So far, as I’ve reported elsewhere, I still think the BGO 6mm and 7mm have a small advantage vs the SvBony, but it is small. Given the BGOs legendary reputation that’s good going.

[Mumia]

1 hour ago, JTEC said:

@Mumia, not including various unobtainable, well-nigh mythological eyepieces that I’ve never had the opportunity to try, my vote also goes to the Tak orthos for sharpness, clarity, colour rendition, contrast, etc - I have pairs of the 6,9 and 12.5mm orthos and a pair of 18mm Tak LE orthos for the binoviewer. My shortest fl is now the 4mm TOE but it looks as though @mikeDnight, with his interesting and persuasive review, might have cornered me into forking out for another SV 3-8 😬

From what I tested and know personally, only Zeiss ortho can compete with them. I really like ortho and eyepieces with as little glass as possible. I've been collecting some of them lately

After this review, I think I'll actually have to buy these SVBons and see for myself how they compare to the Tele Vue Zoom.

The filters they make are very good, I recently bought SVB OIII and checked it with a friend's spectrometer and it works really well.

[mikeDnight]

Clear again for a while this evening, and used nothing but the SvBony 3-8 zoom. In the FS128 the Moon, despite being near full, was an absolute joy to observe with this eyepiece.  The view was clean of any CA around the limb and sharp to the edge at any power. It was only right at the edge of the field against the field stop did the eyepiece show any hint of colour. Moving my eye to the opposite side of the eye lens countered the colour. 

The relatively large eye lens made observing at the 3mm (347X) setting very comfortable and without eye strain.  I don't normally wear glasses to observe though I need them for sketching. So I tried observing with them on to see how the eyepiece would feel from a spectacle wearers point of view. I could see the entire field once I'd folder the rubber eye cup down and the view remained sharp.

[John]

How do you think a couple of the Svbony zooms would fare in a binoviewer Mike ?

[Mr Spock]

More modest magnifications for me. I did compare the 3.3mm TOE against the 3.5mm LVW. Very little in it; on the moon detail was the same, the LVW slightly brighter and cleaner, but subject to blackouts if my eye wasn't in the right place (you don't get that with the others). Both produced nice airy discs on Castor, with the LVW image being 'whiter'.

[mikeDnight]

23 minutes ago, John said:

How do you think a couple of the Svbony zooms would fare in a binoviewer Mike ?

Well you wouldn't need a barlow John. I suppose the problem that some binoviewers may face would be rotation of the diopter's.

[Ratlet]

I remain convinced from first using the svbony zoom that it's the defacto choice for a beginner looking for a planetary eyepiece, if you don't wear glasses.

I picked up an 8mm BST and Barlow for my high power option and whilst I still use the 8mm for DSO as I find it a hair brighter and the increased eye relief more comfortable the Barlow is now only used for collimation.  

It's just so convenient for lunar and planetary.  The chonky bit you twist to adjust the zoom level is pretty solid and thick and I mount my move shoot move phone holder to it for some quick imaging.  Just remember to adjust the spacing of the phone when you adjust the zoom or it'll pop the phone clean out of the holder.

Edited February 24 by Ratlet

[Stu]

7 hours ago, John said:

How do you think a couple of the Svbony zooms would fare in a binoviewer Mike ?

I did try this John, when I had both @Zermelo’s eyepiece and mine had just arrived. Personally I didn’t get on with the combination. I think that’s because somehow barlowing lower power eyepieces tends to work better and be more comfortable than using high power eyepieces. Others may find it works for them.

[The60mmKid]

29 minutes ago, Stu said:

I did try this John, when I had both @Zermelo’s eyepiece and mine had just arrived. Personally I didn’t get on with the combination. I think that’s because somehow barlowing lower power eyepieces tends to work better and be more comfortable than using high power eyepieces. Others may find it works for them.

And different binoviewers perform differently in this regard. I couldn't use dual short-FL eyepieces in a Binotron because the compression ring eyepiece holders wouldn't allow for sufficiently precise alignment. That causes merging problems. But I'm able to with a Baader Maxbright because the clicklock eyepiece holders make it easier to fully seat and precisely align both eyepieces. So, I'm able to use shorter-FL eyepieces (e.g., 5mm) without merging problems, as long as I take care to seat them fully.

[Saganite]

13 minutes ago, The60mmKid said:

And different binoviewers perform differently in this regard. I couldn't use dual short-FL eyepieces in a Binotron because the compression ring eyepiece holders wouldn't allow for sufficiently precise alignment. That causes merging problems. But I'm able to with a Baader Maxbright because the clicklock eyepiece holders make it easier to fully seat and precisely align both eyepieces. So, I'm able to use shorter-FL eyepieces (e.g., 5mm) without merging problems, as long as I take care to seat them fully.

Precisely, and  why I could not binoview with a pair of HR 3.4mm eyepieces.  I too had merging/alignment problems and  I should imagine that a pair of 3-8 Svbony zooms would be worse with the slight play/movement inevitable in a zoom eyepiece...

[JTEC]

Roland Christen’s advice with regard to binoviewers, choice of eyepieces, GPCs, etc may be of interest - it’s mostly further down the page: http://www.darksights.com/Binoviewers.htm

Personally, I don’t go shorter than Tak 6mms.  I haven’t got a pair of anything shorter. I think merging anything much shorter might become problematic but also there’s little need - the 6mms with 1.7(more like 1.5) GPC produce about x240 in my refractor which, for almost every application, including lunar and planetary, is enough.  I can get more by using a 2x Powermate ahead of the prism with or without the GPC in place, but never feel the need. FWIW, my ‘favourite’ eyepieces in the TEC + Baader Mk V are the 9mm Tak orthos and the 18mm Tak LEs.

Edited February 24 by JTEC

[Saganite]

I agree to a point, but my previous 5" f15 refractor and my ED152 have  shortened tubes to accommodate binoviewers at native focus .  With Andromeda aka the 5" f15 and a 1905mm focal length, but shortened tube, a GPC/Barlow was not necessary  and a pair of 6mm eyepieces at native was as far as I went or needed.  With my ED152 and 1200mm focal length and using my MB II 's I would certainly use a pair of sub 5mm eyepieces at native if I had such eyepieces, just to remove the extra glass.  As the SV zoom is so inexpensive I perhaps should pick up another and at least try.   My view of Lunar a few nights ago with the SV at 400x could only have been  bettered with binocular vision .

[John]

Another issue to throw into these comparisons is that I've noticed that some eyepieces excel at one type of target whereas others show an edge on another. Double stars, lunar observing, the planets (which have their own differences), small galaxies and planetary nebulae all seem to present slightly differing challenges. Depending on what has been observed, the "winner" from one session might be a runner up on another occasion.

Is it any wonder that we end up with such crowded eyepiece cases ? 🙄

 

[Mr Spock]

3 minutes ago, John said:

Is it any wonder that we end up with such crowded eyepiece cases ?

That's why I have more than one type! Plus there are others I would be happy with - I can't justify having one of each brand though much as I'd like to 

[Don Pensack]

22 hours ago, Mumia said:

From what I tested and know personally, only Zeiss ortho can compete with them. I really like ortho and eyepieces with as little glass as possible. I've been collecting some of them lately

After this review, I think I'll actually have to buy these SVBons and see for myself how they compare to the Tele Vue Zoom.

The filters they make are very good, I recently bought SVB OIII and checked it with a friend's spectrometer and it works really well.

That single line O-III transmission is fine for astrophotography, but not good for visual, since about 25% of the O-III light is lost and the field is very very dark.

An 11-12.5nm O-III filter that picks up both O-III lines would be better for visual.