![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Actually if you can get a copy of the Sky and Telescope eyepiece test from April 1996, you will find they made some statements very much like that. They said that most all the Plossl eyepieces were decent but that the TV's and Celestron Ultimas were noticeably better. And that test included the Meade 4000's series. So, while I agree with you one needs to be cautious, at times they do some serious work. jon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Meade LX Series or Celestron Advanced Series | Dave | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | September 11th 03 11:39 PM |
Meade series 4000 wratten color filter sets- are they parfocal? | Jacob Jackson | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | July 27th 03 09:55 PM |