Baader Eudiascopic eyepieces?

I'm aware that these are quality Masuyama designed 1.25" Japanese 5
element eyepieces (7 element in the smallest FL's), sold exclusively in
Europe, and distributed via Baader Planetarium of Germany. Does anyone
know if the Eudiascopics are basically in the same quality camp with
Celestron Ultima's, or if they are up the quality scale a bit, as in being
perhaps more comparable with the Takahashi LE sereis of eyepieces (both
the Ultima's and Tak LE's also being Masuyama designed eyepieces)?

Lawrence Sayre
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as
a moral being, with his own happiness as the moral
purpose of his life, with productive achievement as
his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Lawrence Sayre" wrote in message news:opr3hq62f0s5tvhu@news-server...
I'm aware that these are quality Masuyama designed 1.25" Japanese 5
element eyepieces (7 element in the smallest FL's), sold exclusively in
Europe, and distributed via Baader Planetarium of Germany. Does anyone
know if the Eudiascopics are basically in the same quality camp with
Celestron Ultima's, or if they are up the quality scale a bit, as in being
perhaps more comparable with the Takahashi LE sereis of eyepieces (both
the Ultima's and Tak LE's also being Masuyama designed eyepieces)?

Lawrence Sayre

I tried one. IMO, it is the Celestron Ultima re-badged. I've seen a
non-silk screened Ultima right from the Orient, nothing on it, not even
a f.l. indicator. The Taks are different and better. I wouldn't be
surprised if those Eudiascopic eyepieces are in other mfg's lines under
different names, apart from Celestron.
-Rich

"Lawrence Sayre" wrote in message news:opr3hq62f0s5tvhu@news-server...
I'm aware that these are quality Masuyama designed 1.25" Japanese 5
element eyepieces (7 element in the smallest FL's), sold exclusively in
Europe, and distributed via Baader Planetarium of Germany. Does anyone
know if the Eudiascopics are basically in the same quality camp with
Celestron Ultima's, or if they are up the quality scale a bit, as in being
perhaps more comparable with the Takahashi LE sereis of eyepieces (both
the Ultima's and Tak LE's also being Masuyama designed eyepieces)?

Lawrence Sayre

I tried one. IMO, it is the Celestron Ultima re-badged. I've seen a
non-silk screened Ultima right from the Orient, nothing on it, not even
a f.l. indicator. The Taks are different and better. I wouldn't be
surprised if those Eudiascopic eyepieces are in other mfg's lines under
different names, apart from Celestron.
-Rich

Lawrence Sayre wrote:

I'm aware that these are quality Masuyama designed 1.25" Japanese 5
element eyepieces (7 element in the smallest FL's), sold exclusively in
Europe, and distributed via Baader Planetarium of Germany. Does anyone
know if the Eudiascopics are basically in the same quality camp with
Celestron Ultima's, or if they are up the quality scale a bit, as in being
perhaps more comparable with the Takahashi LE sereis of eyepieces (both
the Ultima's and Tak LE's also being Masuyama designed eyepieces)?

Lawrence Sayre

Hi Lawrence,
Baader in its own marketing material for the Eudiascopics claims
that they came up with the "idea" and Celestron asked whether they
could re-badge the series. I'd say this is likely true since
Baader is the main german importer for Celestron scopes and has
done cooperation with them on other products as well; also, the
Ultimas and the Eudiascopics have slightly different focal lengths
so the series don't interfere ...
I don't know how the Eudiascopics and Tak LEs do compare since
I've never used the Tak eyepieces. But I do own some Eudiascopics
(10 and 16mm are what I kept) and I can tell you that they're
available in the US from Orion under the "Ultrascopic" brand.
Orion Ultrascopic and Baader Eudiascopic is definitely the same
eyepiece. In all aspects.
Btw, even the "Eudiascopics" are not exclusively sold in Europe,
Company7 used to list them.

How do those eyepieces compare to others ? Well, Baader started
selling them in the early 90's, that's when I got mine; At that
time, they were good value for money since good Ploessl were
scarce, good orthos expensive and widefields low quality and
horribly expensive. Comparing the Eudiascopics with the Meade
4000 ploessls (a friend of mine has the set), the Eudiascopics
to me give a higher-contrasty and sharper image (clearly
enough noticeable that I didn't ever feel like using a plossl
for planets); Compared to the UO HD Orthos (which I own) they
are a little bit behind in sharpness + contrast. All of them
beat my 80's Celestron Orthos, in all aspects. Field ? All
these three are comparable to me, I wouldn't choose between
those based on +- few degree of apparent field. A Radian,
Pentax XL, Vixen XLW, Panoptic or Celestron Axiom has
significantly larger field. It is true that the Eudiascopics
have more eye relief than Plossls of the same focal length;
To me, they feel like the UO HD Orthos in that aspect, or,
the 16mm that is - like the 16mm Nagler (in "tunnelview").
They're not Vixen LV's.

Summary, my opinion: Today, I'd prefer the UO HD Orthos
to the Baader's any day, "better bang for the buck". I can
see a difference between Eudiascopic and HD Or on casual
observation but not e.g. between HD Or and Zeiss Jena Or;
But if I'd choose between any Plossl or the Vixen LVs and the
Baader's (i.e. the higher focal lengths where no HD Or are
available), I'd take those since they're sharper, more contrasty
and still by far not as expensive as e.g. a Tak LE. As said,
if you're in the US then try to get them from Orion. You'll
save a bit. The 32mm is probably one of the best 1 1/4"
full-field eyepieces that you can get for the price. Yes,
I don't regret having sold mine for paying the 24 Pan ...

FrankH.

--
Email: You can use hofmann(at)physik.uni-wuerzburg.de; since this address
gets mostly spam due to its long time of existance, it may take some time
before emails sent there are answered. Pls. reply to usenet.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:43:14 +0800, Frank Hofmann
wrote:

Hi Lawrence,
Baader in its own marketing material for the Eudiascopics claims
that they came up with the "idea" and Celestron asked whether they
could re-badge the series. I'd say this is likely true since
Baader is the main german importer for Celestron scopes and has
done cooperation with them on other products as well; also, the
Ultimas and the Eudiascopics have slightly different focal lengths
so the series don't interfere ...
I don't know how the Eudiascopics and Tak LEs do compare since
I've never used the Tak eyepieces. But I do own some Eudiascopics
(10 and 16mm are what I kept) and I can tell you that they're
available in the US from Orion under the "Ultrascopic" brand.
Orion Ultrascopic and Baader Eudiascopic is definitely the same
eyepiece. In all aspects.
Btw, even the "Eudiascopics" are not exclusively sold in Europe,
Company7 used to list them.

How do those eyepieces compare to others ? Well, Baader started
selling them in the early 90's, that's when I got mine; At that
time, they were good value for money since good Ploessl were
scarce, good orthos expensive and widefields low quality and
horribly expensive. Comparing the Eudiascopics with the Meade
4000 ploessls (a friend of mine has the set), the Eudiascopics
to me give a higher-contrasty and sharper image (clearly
enough noticeable that I didn't ever feel like using a plossl
for planets); Compared to the UO HD Orthos (which I own) they
are a little bit behind in sharpness + contrast. All of them
beat my 80's Celestron Orthos, in all aspects. Field ? All
these three are comparable to me, I wouldn't choose between
those based on +- few degree of apparent field. A Radian,
Pentax XL, Vixen XLW, Panoptic or Celestron Axiom has
significantly larger field. It is true that the Eudiascopics
have more eye relief than Plossls of the same focal length;
To me, they feel like the UO HD Orthos in that aspect, or,
the 16mm that is - like the 16mm Nagler (in "tunnelview").
They're not Vixen LV's.

Summary, my opinion: Today, I'd prefer the UO HD Orthos
to the Baader's any day, "better bang for the buck". I can
see a difference between Eudiascopic and HD Or on casual
observation but not e.g. between HD Or and Zeiss Jena Or;
But if I'd choose between any Plossl or the Vixen LVs and the
Baader's (i.e. the higher focal lengths where no HD Or are
available), I'd take those since they're sharper, more contrasty
and still by far not as expensive as e.g. a Tak LE. As said,
if you're in the US then try to get them from Orion. You'll
save a bit. The 32mm is probably one of the best 1 1/4"
full-field eyepieces that you can get for the price. Yes,
I don't regret having sold mine for paying the 24 Pan ...

FrankH.


Frank,

Great info here. Thank you!!!

Lawrence Sayre
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as
a moral being, with his own happiness as the moral
purpose of his life, with productive achievement as
his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:43:14 +0800, Frank Hofmann
wrote:

Hi Lawrence,
Baader in its own marketing material for the Eudiascopics claims
that they came up with the "idea" and Celestron asked whether they
could re-badge the series. I'd say this is likely true since
Baader is the main german importer for Celestron scopes and has
done cooperation with them on other products as well; also, the
Ultimas and the Eudiascopics have slightly different focal lengths
so the series don't interfere ...
I don't know how the Eudiascopics and Tak LEs do compare since
I've never used the Tak eyepieces. But I do own some Eudiascopics
(10 and 16mm are what I kept) and I can tell you that they're
available in the US from Orion under the "Ultrascopic" brand.
Orion Ultrascopic and Baader Eudiascopic is definitely the same
eyepiece. In all aspects.
Btw, even the "Eudiascopics" are not exclusively sold in Europe,
Company7 used to list them.

How do those eyepieces compare to others ? Well, Baader started
selling them in the early 90's, that's when I got mine; At that
time, they were good value for money since good Ploessl were
scarce, good orthos expensive and widefields low quality and
horribly expensive. Comparing the Eudiascopics with the Meade
4000 ploessls (a friend of mine has the set), the Eudiascopics
to me give a higher-contrasty and sharper image (clearly
enough noticeable that I didn't ever feel like using a plossl
for planets); Compared to the UO HD Orthos (which I own) they
are a little bit behind in sharpness + contrast. All of them
beat my 80's Celestron Orthos, in all aspects. Field ? All
these three are comparable to me, I wouldn't choose between
those based on +- few degree of apparent field. A Radian,
Pentax XL, Vixen XLW, Panoptic or Celestron Axiom has
significantly larger field. It is true that the Eudiascopics
have more eye relief than Plossls of the same focal length;
To me, they feel like the UO HD Orthos in that aspect, or,
the 16mm that is - like the 16mm Nagler (in "tunnelview").
They're not Vixen LV's.

Summary, my opinion: Today, I'd prefer the UO HD Orthos
to the Baader's any day, "better bang for the buck". I can
see a difference between Eudiascopic and HD Or on casual
observation but not e.g. between HD Or and Zeiss Jena Or;
But if I'd choose between any Plossl or the Vixen LVs and the
Baader's (i.e. the higher focal lengths where no HD Or are
available), I'd take those since they're sharper, more contrasty
and still by far not as expensive as e.g. a Tak LE. As said,
if you're in the US then try to get them from Orion. You'll
save a bit. The 32mm is probably one of the best 1 1/4"
full-field eyepieces that you can get for the price. Yes,
I don't regret having sold mine for paying the 24 Pan ...

FrankH.


Frank,

Great info here. Thank you!!!

Lawrence Sayre
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as
a moral being, with his own happiness as the moral
purpose of his life, with productive achievement as
his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawrence Sayre wrote:

I'm aware that these are quality Masuyama designed 1.25" Japanese 5
element eyepieces (7 element in the smallest FL's), sold exclusively in
Europe, and distributed via Baader Planetarium of Germany. Does anyone
know if the Eudiascopics are basically in the same quality camp with
Celestron Ultima's, or if they are up the quality scale a bit, as in being
perhaps more comparable with the Takahashi LE sereis of eyepieces (both
the Ultima's and Tak LE's also being Masuyama designed eyepieces)?

Lawrence Sayre

Hi Lawrence,
Baader in its own marketing material for the Eudiascopics claims
that they came up with the "idea" and Celestron asked whether they
could re-badge the series. I'd say this is likely true since
Baader is the main german importer for Celestron scopes and has
done cooperation with them on other products as well; also, the
Ultimas and the Eudiascopics have slightly different focal lengths
so the series don't interfere ...
I don't know how the Eudiascopics and Tak LEs do compare since
I've never used the Tak eyepieces. But I do own some Eudiascopics
(10 and 16mm are what I kept) and I can tell you that they're
available in the US from Orion under the "Ultrascopic" brand.
Orion Ultrascopic and Baader Eudiascopic is definitely the same
eyepiece. In all aspects.
Btw, even the "Eudiascopics" are not exclusively sold in Europe,
Company7 used to list them.

How do those eyepieces compare to others ? Well, Baader started
selling them in the early 90's, that's when I got mine; At that
time, they were good value for money since good Ploessl were
scarce, good orthos expensive and widefields low quality and
horribly expensive. Comparing the Eudiascopics with the Meade
4000 ploessls (a friend of mine has the set), the Eudiascopics
to me give a higher-contrasty and sharper image (clearly
enough noticeable that I didn't ever feel like using a plossl
for planets); Compared to the UO HD Orthos (which I own) they
are a little bit behind in sharpness + contrast. All of them
beat my 80's Celestron Orthos, in all aspects. Field ? All
these three are comparable to me, I wouldn't choose between
those based on +- few degree of apparent field. A Radian,
Pentax XL, Vixen XLW, Panoptic or Celestron Axiom has
significantly larger field. It is true that the Eudiascopics
have more eye relief than Plossls of the same focal length;
To me, they feel like the UO HD Orthos in that aspect, or,
the 16mm that is - like the 16mm Nagler (in "tunnelview").
They're not Vixen LV's.

Summary, my opinion: Today, I'd prefer the UO HD Orthos
to the Baader's any day, "better bang for the buck". I can
see a difference between Eudiascopic and HD Or on casual
observation but not e.g. between HD Or and Zeiss Jena Or;
But if I'd choose between any Plossl or the Vixen LVs and the
Baader's (i.e. the higher focal lengths where no HD Or are
available), I'd take those since they're sharper, more contrasty
and still by far not as expensive as e.g. a Tak LE. As said,
if you're in the US then try to get them from Orion. You'll
save a bit. The 32mm is probably one of the best 1 1/4"
full-field eyepieces that you can get for the price. Yes,
I don't regret having sold mine for paying the 24 Pan ...

FrankH.

--
Email: You can use hofmann(at)physik.uni-wuerzburg.de; since this address
gets mostly spam due to its long time of existance, it may take some time
before emails sent there are answered. Pls. reply to usenet.