View Single Post
  #4  
Old June 10th 04, 08:41 PM
Richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which planetary eyepiece?

"Edward" wrote in message link.net...
"Richard" wrote in message
I have not had the opportunity to use either of these products, and
can't
wait long enough until I do to choose. So if my goal is detail on
planets,
which do I use?
Astro-Physics Super Planetary Eyepieces or the TMB Super Monocentric
eypieces?
I've got a decent compliment of orthos, Brandons, Taks, have used
Pentax orthos, etc, etc, and really
want to see if either of these offer an improvement. Maybe both will.
Thanks.


Richard,

On paper, the SPL's look like the way to go, but there is very little
feedback available online. Only a hand full of these eyepieces are out in
service and no one yet is inclined to post a review. I'd love to see one.
There are some comments by Roland on the AP-UG (which I put more stock in
than the average manufacturer review because Roland hasn't been one to
overstate the performance of his goods). I plan to throw a few in the
eyepiece case once Valery gets things running.

The TMB's by all accounts are first rate if you can tolerate the narrow FOV.

Ed T.


That will confine them (the narrow field) to the hard-core planetary viewer,
based on opinions I've heard. Most people seem to go for Naglers or other
WFs when they spend real money because they seem to think wide fields are
a needed quantity in an expensive eyepiece. It's a pity in a way because other
objects (more than a few deepsky objects) can benefit from superior contrast
and definition. Planetary nebula and double stars have always interested me
and they are prime targets.
-Rich