Meade Series 4000 Super Plossls VS. TeleVue Plossl..??

I have not had any of the SPs for a LONG time (since they are now the
4 element design), how do they compare to my TeleVue Plossls???
Thanks,
David
PS. I posted this question yesterday, but it must of self-nuked off
Google??..oh well...

I have not had any of the SPs for a LONG time (since they are now the
4 element design), how do they compare to my TeleVue Plossls???
Thanks,

Hi:

I belive the TV plossls are considerably better now. From what I can tell, the
SPs are no better than any other Chinese import plossls. That is, fine, good,
but not what they used to be.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

(Rod Mollise) wrote in message ...
I have not had any of the SPs for a LONG time (since they are now the
4 element design), how do they compare to my TeleVue Plossls???
Thanks,

Hi:

I belive the TV plossls are considerably better now. From what I can tell, the
SPs are no better than any other Chinese import plossls. That is, fine, good,
but not what they used to be.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

I'll second Rod's opinion on that - the meade's are now just typical
chinese plossls. Certainly not as good as the TV's or the Ultimas.

Tom T.

Rod, I agree.
The original "Super Plossls" (5 elements) were made by Carton in Japan, as were
the Televues. The SP were great and second to none. About a year later, the 5
element went to a Japanese 4 element traditional Plossls design with little
fanfare, but kept the SP logo. About 5 years later the factory was changed to
Taiwan, staying at 4 elements. Then around 2000, the manufacturer was changed to
China. IMHO, although still a nice eyepiece, each time the origin/ design changed,
the SP series became a less of a premium ocular. The original 5 element were as
good as the Ultimas and Televues. The new SP's sometimes did not compete with
the Series 3000, made in Japan the were recently discontinued.

I think it is a tribute to Televue and Celestron that they did not cheapen their
designs.
But as for a Bargain, the Meade SPs at the current 7/$99 = $14.14 each, are a
great value.

Gary Hand



Rod Mollise wrote:

I have not had any of the SPs for a LONG time (since they are now the
4 element design), how do they compare to my TeleVue Plossls???
Thanks,

Hi:

I belive the TV plossls are considerably better now. From what I can tell, the
SPs are no better than any other Chinese import plossls. That is, fine, good,
but not what they used to be.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

"Gary Hand" wrote in message
...
Rod, I agree.
The original "Super Plossls" (5 elements) were made by Carton in Japan, as
were
the Televues. The SP were great and second to none. About a year later,
the 5
element went to a Japanese 4 element traditional Plossls design with
little
fanfare, but kept the SP logo. About 5 years later the factory was
changed to
Taiwan, staying at 4 elements. Then around 2000, the manufacturer was
changed to
China. IMHO, although still a nice eyepiece, each time the origin/ design
changed,
the SP series became a less of a premium ocular. The original 5 element
were as
good as the Ultimas and Televues. The new SP's sometimes did not compete
with
the Series 3000, made in Japan the were recently discontinued.

I think it is a tribute to Televue and Celestron that they did not cheapen
their
designs.
But as for a Bargain, the Meade SPs at the current 7/$99 = $14.14 each,
are a
great value.

Gary Hand

So are the Ultimas and Televues 5 or 4 element design and is it the design
that makes the most difference or the
maker and coatings used?

Victor Hall

TV = 4 element
Ultima = 5 element


What makes a good Eyepiece?
The design
The quality of the glass
The quality of the coatings
The speed of the polishing
The quality of the edge blackening if any
The design of the internal baffling if any
The accuracy of the machining
The quality of the assembly
The adherence to the QA procedures.
The latitude given to the final quality inspectors

Once that is done then you can evaluate an eyepeice by
Contrast - most important
Center Resolution- most important
Edge Resolution
Eye Relief
Field of view
Size of the "sweet spot" -kidney beaning
Curvature of field
Chromatic resolution
Compatability with a particular scope focal ratio
Internal reflections
Transmission
Eyecup, rubber grip, etc.

Frankly I wouldn't get hung up on what's inside.

Gary Hand



Vic wrote:


So are the Ultimas and Televues 5 or 4 element design and is it the design
that makes the most difference or the maker and coatings used?

Victor Hall

I have some of both. The Meade SP's aren't bad, but you can notice a
difference and I always prefer the TV. I think the TV Plossls are one of
the best values in astronomy hardware.
Doc

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 03:34:33 GMT, "Doc" wrote:

I have some of both. The Meade SP's aren't bad, but you can notice a
difference and I always prefer the TV. I think the TV Plossls are one of
the best values in astronomy hardware.
Doc

Save the standard 11mm, as the eye relief is virtually nonexistent,
and measurably worse than a 4mm UO orthoscopic, the shortest of its
series.

I do like my 40mm 1.25" TeleVue Plossl, however, but just.

Alan

I have not had any of the SPs for a LONG time (since they are now the
4 element design), how do they compare to my TeleVue Plossls???
Thanks,
David


Sky and Telescope tested quite a number of Plossls including the Televue, Meade
4000's, the Celestron Ultimas and several others. This was published in the
April 1996 edition, I would guess that at that time Super Plossls were still
Super.

Anyway, they liked most all of them but the top rankings were given to the
Ultima's and the TeleVues.

For what its worth.

jon

While I love Sky and Telescope, I have to take their product comparisons of
two of their biggest advertisers with a grain of salt. Informative, but
never definitive. The info on this and other newsgroups is much more
objective in that regard. In other words, you'll never see Sky and Telescope
publish a statement like:

The Meade SP's aren't bad, but you can notice a difference and I always
prefer the TV. I think the TV Plossls are one of the best values in
astronomy hardware.

--Eric