Does anyone use Takahashi LE eyepieces?

[great_bear]

- if so, how do they compare with the competition?

I'm particularly interested in the 12.5mm - but comments on any FL are welcome...

[TakMan]

I've the 2.8mm, 3.6mm and 5mm LE series and find them comfortable in use and reasonably light and ergonomic - nice rubber grip and solid eye guard also. They appear to be well corrected and sharp to their edges (I should hope so for the money and narrow field!) with plenty of contrast and light throughput - but with a fairly narrow field of view.... nicely made too - which I personally place a 'high value' on. I could have gone down the TeleVue Zoom route, but am not really 'into zoom' eyepieces.... just me - sorry! More fiddly though... you pay your money and make your choices...!

Certainly, when viewing at the higher magnifications, these eyepieces benefit from a solidly mounted scope (my TSA has 2 clamshells fitted to a BT Tech plate), and a quality/heavy mount (yet this is true of any eyepiece/scope combination).

What I would add, is that the 'viewing experience' with such narrow eyepieces is enhanced with a driven mount.... if yours isn't, then I go for the highly regarded Pentax XW, Naglers, Ethos, etc to give you that bit more viewing envelope before having to shift the scope!

Whether they are really any 'better' than my Ethos or viewing friends Naglers is hard (impossible) to discern - as far as I can see.....

Hope that sort of helps!

Regards and clear skies,

Damian

[Heavens Above]

Hi had the 5mm. I bought it to upgrade on a Radian, I liked its more conservative designs and its build quality. I was really surprised and disappointed, it had poor contrast and was easily beaten by the Radian and blown away by an ortho. After all I have heard about Takahashi, it has really made me question if its all hype.

Long sold and still surprised.

Tim

[Marmite]

Tim, I'm surprised too: the only EPs I'd rate up there with the Tak LEs are my Pentax XWs. No issues related to contrast or anything else with my set of LEs.

If they had a wider FoV I probably wouldn't even have the XWs. But then if the the LEs had a wider FoV, they wouldn't be LEs.

Anyway, I'm very happy with my Tak EPs.

[jabeoo1]

I spent a fair bit of time reading up on the LE's.  The user info seems pretty thin on the ground & as on this thread opinions seem quite polarized, a 'Marmite' kind of picture emerges.

It is currently my high power E.P for all my scopes.

So far I have the 7.5mm LE in my f/4.2 (105mm) Astroscan for lunar observing.  No complaints here so far ! Its a nice compact, solid well made EP that will not cause balance issues.

It gives very sharp views with good contrast to the edge.  It seems that some speak highly of them over the Atlantic, however, re-stocking shelves here is an issue.  Just look to buy them new in the UK, it tells a story in itself. 

I will be using it in the bigger dob soon on Jupiter (if I can get up / stay up!).  I have high hopes based on the positive users reviews & stories of it being a favorite planetary E.P for some.  The accounts of regretful sales of the 7.5 with aim to 'upgrade' made me give one a go (nothing to lose if bought secondhand for around the £100 mark).

I also bought it for solar viewing but can't comment yet on that. 

[F15Rules]

My hands on experience of Tak LE eyepieces is limited to the 18mm version. I bought a pair of these in used but excellent condition a while back for binoviewing. I also use one for cyclops viewing from time to time.

I believe the LE's are very similar to the Celestron Ultima range which were discontinued a few years back, made by a Japanese optical house, and quite sought after especially in the USA. I think they are made by the same manufacturer who made the Ultima's, Parks Gold Series, and the still available Baader Eudascopic series.

I say "very similar' to the Ultimas as they are NOT identical. I also have a pair of 12.5mm Ultima's and really like them, but the Taks are definitely better- the contrast is superb, better than the Ultima's (and against normal expectations where higher power eps tend to have better contrast than longer focal length ones).

Also, the field of view is definitely a bit wider in the Taks... I'd estimate c50 degrees in the Ultima's and c52-53degrees in the Taks. They are currently my favourite 1.25" EPs and although not cheap are of very good quality. In my maxbright binoviewers they are brilliant.

Finally I'd say that the coatings on the Taks are better and do seem to make a noticeable improvement to light transmission.

I heartily recommend the Takahashi LEs and hope to get other sizes when funds permit.

Hope that helps.

Dave

[Ibbo!]

I have the 30mm down to the 2,8

I do more imaging than visual

I quite like mine when I use them

They are not ultra wide, the eye relief is not bad -I do take my glasses off

the most used are the 18,12.5 and 7.5mm for solar

if I get the chance I would double up the 12.5 for the bino viewers

Steve

[ollypenrice]

Manufacturers have their specialities. Are Tak eyepiece specialists? Not to my knowledge. If you want a fast astrographic refractor with an insanely large flat field, however, you know where to go. WHen I want an eyepiece I go to TeleVue.

Olly

[F15Rules]

I take your point Olly, but I don't think Takahashi would allow their name on an inferior product. Same for Astro Physics and Tele Vue etc.

I know Celestron,Meade and other mainstream players have done so (probably bitterly regretting it since), but not the premium brands.

You could question the pricing of the LE's but in my mind there is no doubting the optical and build of these fine eyepieces:-)

Dave

[jabeoo1]

The bottom line for me would be to see a 9-6mm zoom come out alongside the 2 current Nagler zooms.  That for me would be a very useful eyepiece.   I am unsure whether there would be a big enough market for it, or whether anyone on here has mentioned it before. Also I have no idea of the issues this E.P could carry.  Sorry to deviate away from the original thread but this 'gap' in the TV range would be a useful addition for all my current scopes. 

[YKSE]

There's some more discussions on Tak LE eyepieces on the other side of pond, e.g. this one

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/475997-tak-le-vs-sterling/

[F15Rules]

There's some more discussions on Tak LE eyepieces on the other side of pond, e.g. this one

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/475997-tak-le-vs-sterling/

Wow, that is an epic thread! And so interesting too. I've owned a couple of Sterling plossls in the past and I must say I was impressed with them for the price. Very simple, cheap construction, but ok, and optically rather impressive.

Regarding the CN reviews, I have read a lot by the author of the report and found his reviews to be very fair minded and well written. From my limited experience with Tak LEs as outlined above, I'd agree with his overall judgement and I guess the real proof of his opinion is that he says he has gone on to acquire a whole set of Tak LEs!.

I noticed that JR Barnett, another active correspondent on CN, does not rate the Taks, and in fact prefers the Celestron Ultimas - which look to me to come out of the same factory. I have a pair of 12.5 Ultimas as well as the 18mm Taks, and my experience is the reverse of Jim's..I prefer the view of the Taks, and find their contrast better - I do rate the Ultimas highly, just that I rate the Taks even higher.

Which only goes to prove that we are all different, and see things differently. And thank goodness we do!

Thanks again for posting the link, it made a really enjoyable link.

Happy New Year!

Dave