Sleeper eyepiece

Which eyepiece would you consider to be the "sleeper" in your
collection (i.e. the one that doesn't retail for much money but is one
heck of a performer)? I think the Antares W70 8.6mm is mine.

On 27 Oct 2004 10:42:40 -0700, BigKhat wrote:

Which eyepiece would you consider to be the "sleeper" in your
collection (i.e. the one that doesn't retail for much money but is one
heck of a performer)? I think the Antares W70 8.6mm is mine.

9mm UltraWide from ScopeStuff. . .it is the best value out there.


--
Martin
"Photographs From the Universe of Amateur Astronomy"
http://home.earthlink.net/~martinhowell

I think the Antares W70 8.6mm is mine.

9mm UltraWide from ScopeStuff. . .it is the best value out there.

Mine:

9mm Ultrawide from Adorama. Wide field of view and quite sharp to the edge
even in a fast scope. Some users seem to have diffculties with black out, I
don't.

According to a post here a while back by Jim Henson of Scopestuff, the 66
degree Ultrawide and the W-70 have the same optical specs.

jon

"BigKhat" wrote in message
m...
Which eyepiece would you consider to be the "sleeper" in your
collection (i.e. the one that doesn't retail for much money but is one
heck of a performer)? I think the Antares W70 8.6mm is mine.

The University Optics orthoscopic, in either the original or HD version. I
tested them both against some very big name planetary eyepieces a couple of
months ago and found them to have only a tiny amount more flare, with
comparable resolution and contrast--at 1/3 to 1/4 the price. Their barlow is
also very highly rated, but it's closer in price to the bigger names.

Bob

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...

"BigKhat" wrote in message
m...
Which eyepiece would you consider to be the "sleeper" in your
collection (i.e. the one that doesn't retail for much money but is one
heck of a performer)? I think the Antares W70 8.6mm is mine.

The University Optics orthoscopic, in either the original or HD version. I
tested them both against some very big name planetary eyepieces a couple
of months ago and found them to have only a tiny amount more flare, with
comparable resolution and contrast--at 1/3 to 1/4 the price. Their barlow
is also very highly rated, but it's closer in price to the bigger names.

Bob


Ditto. Best bang for the buck out there.

Tom

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:23:35 -0500, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

The University Optics orthoscopic, in either the original or HD version. I
tested them both against some very big name planetary eyepieces a couple of
months ago and found them to have only a tiny amount more flare, with
comparable resolution and contrast--at 1/3 to 1/4 the price. Their barlow is
also very highly rated, but it's closer in price to the bigger names.

I bet you would be quite surprised yet find the $20 GSO 6mm Plossl a
close rival if not better imager for 1/3 price of UO original. That
makes for a whopping 1/9th price of your comparator models (whichever
they were you did not say)...

Another lunar / planetary eyepiece is the $15 (often sold for close to
$40) Meade 60/70AT Plossl. I've only worked with the 5mm but it can
produce superb resolution, superb contrast and does have superior
color correction to many others Plossls/orthos used in achromat
scopes. The main problem with the model for its common bad rap is
glare with planets. I resolved that by baffling the lens retainer ID.

Pete

"Pete Rasmussen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:23:35 -0500, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

The University Optics orthoscopic, in either the original or HD version. I
tested them both against some very big name planetary eyepieces a couple
of
months ago and found them to have only a tiny amount more flare, with
comparable resolution and contrast--at 1/3 to 1/4 the price. Their barlow
is
also very highly rated, but it's closer in price to the bigger names.

I bet you would be quite surprised yet find the $20 GSO 6mm Plossl a
close rival if not better imager for 1/3 price of UO original. That
makes for a whopping 1/9th price of your comparator models (whichever
they were you did not say)...

Sounds interesting--where can I find a GSO?
I didn't mention the names of the comparison eyepieces because they are very
good in their own right and my purpose was to praise the UO, not downgrade
the others. And this can be a pretty emotional topic for some people...

Bob

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:36:46 -0500, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

I didn't mention the names of the comparison eyepieces because they are very
good in their own right and my purpose was to praise the UO, not downgrade
the others. And this can be a pretty emotional topic for some people...

Whatever you think is fine, Bob. I'm sure the good folks around here
are used to revelation. They often yawn with their skepticism g

Pete

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:31:25 -0500, Pete Rasmussen
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:36:46 -0500, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

I didn't mention the names of the comparison eyepieces because they are very
good in their own right and my purpose was to praise the UO, not downgrade
the others. And this can be a pretty emotional topic for some people...

Whatever you think is fine, Bob. I'm sure the good folks around here
are used to revelation. They often yawn with their skepticism g

Pete

What do you think of the higher power Celestron X-Cels?
The 2.3mm looks like a good eyepiece for fast apos, plus
it only costs about $70.00

I like my UO 16mm Koenig but I think it favours the longer focal length
scopes.(f8? and higher)

Best regards,
Bill
"BigKhat" wrote in message
m...
Which eyepiece would you consider to be the "sleeper" in your
collection (i.e. the one that doesn't retail for much money but is one
heck of a performer)? I think the Antares W70 8.6mm is mine.