Review of TMB optical Monocentric eyepieces

Hello Group ,

In the August issue of Sky and Telescope Mr Gary Seronik
does a review of the TMB Optical monocentric eyepiece and in my
reading of it comes to the conclusion that there is very little
difference (or none)in contrast and light scatter between the mono.
and two well known Plossls and a symmetrical . Three high quality
eyepieces to be sure but I would have thought more of a difference
would be seen between them and the mono. Mr Seronik did what appears
to be a very complete review . It comes as no surprise that in an F4.5
newtonian off-axis performance was less than excellent with the mono.
What do you all think about this review after such glowing
reviews from other people over the last few months ?
Leonard

On 24 Jun 2004 16:15:28 -0700, (Leonard) wrote:

mention of GS review of TMB SuperMono EPs snipped

What do you all think about this review after such glowing
reviews from other people over the last few months ?

I hope this isn't just a troll, but here goes - From my personal
experience, the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash. I've
compared SuperMonos to Pentax SMC orthos, Tak orthos, and Televue
Plössls of similar focal lengths, in my 10" SCT, a 90mm F11 refractor,
and a 12½" F8 Newt (of exceptional quality), and the Monos won in
every category except FOV.

Note that I have not tried the Monos in short FL instruments, so I've
no opinion in this area.

Wayne Hoffman
33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
"Don't Look Down"

http://users.adelphia.net/~w6wlr/

From my personal
experience, the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash

Now, understand, I don't have any stake one way or the other and don't really
have an opinion on whether the Mono's are good, bad or indifferent... but isn't
it just a bit funny that S&T, which routinely gets panned by many on here for
their glowing reviews of products is now going to get panned for a negative (to
a degree, of course) review?

Bettrel wrote:
Now, understand, I don't have any stake one way or the other and don't
really have an opinion on whether the Mono's are good, bad or
indifferent... but isn't it just a bit funny that S&T, which routinely
gets panned by many on here for their glowing reviews of products is
now going to get panned for a negative (to a degree, of course) review?

Well, they're different people panning them now. :-o

It's a tough crowd.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Bettrel wrote:
Now, understand, I don't have any stake one way or the other and don't
really have an opinion on whether the Mono's are good, bad or
indifferent... but isn't it just a bit funny that S&T, which routinely
gets panned by many on here for their glowing reviews of products is
now going to get panned for a negative (to a degree, of course) review?

Well, they're different people panning them now. :-o

It's a tough crowd.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

It's called a sliding scale differential opinion.

Dusty
"Bettrel" wrote in message
...
From my personal
experience, the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash

Now, understand, I don't have any stake one way or the other and don't
really
have an opinion on whether the Mono's are good, bad or indifferent... but
isn't
it just a bit funny that S&T, which routinely gets panned by many on here
for
their glowing reviews of products is now going to get panned for a
negative (to
a degree, of course) review?

It's called a sliding scale differential opinion.

Dusty
"Bettrel" wrote in message
...
From my personal
experience, the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash

Now, understand, I don't have any stake one way or the other and don't
really
have an opinion on whether the Mono's are good, bad or indifferent... but
isn't
it just a bit funny that S&T, which routinely gets panned by many on here
for
their glowing reviews of products is now going to get panned for a
negative (to
a degree, of course) review?

(Bettrel) wrote:
From my personal experience, the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash
Now, understand, I don't have any stake one way or the other and don't really
have an opinion on whether the Mono's are good, bad or indifferent... but isn't
it just a bit funny that S&T, which routinely gets panned by many on here for
their glowing reviews of products is now going to get panned for a negative (to
a degree, of course) review?

AFAIK, (from the yahoo tmb group) two of the eyepieces were found to be
defective (astigmatic) at TMB upon return from S&T.

The eyepieces were sent to S&T from general inventory and purposely not
hand-picked, a commendable act.

Had Thomas Back done otherwise, and had S&T contacted TMB about possible
problems, I am sure that Gary Seronik's findings would have been more in
line with the general concensus.

I have not received my August issue of S&T yet, but this is what has
apparently happened.

I am glad that S&T has adopted a policy of pointing out flaws, a gutsy move.
However, it's always difficult to read between the lines w.r.t.
motive, integrity, and competence.

-Gavin

I am glad that S&T has adopted a policy of pointing out flaws, a gutsy move.
However, it's always difficult to read between the lines w.r.t.
motive, integrity, and competence.

You know, the more I think about it, I tend to disagree. I think the best thing
that S&T could do with its reviews would be to do everything they can to
**understand** the product that they are reviewing.

This is not Consumer Reports. And understanding optics is not strictly a casual
endeavor.

There is no reason that interviewing and working with the manufacturer on a
review could not be included as part of the review process. This would have
helped to mitigate the situation with TMB, and both the reviewer and the
readers might have come away with a bit more actual understanding of what these
eyepieces are really all about.



rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

t (Ratboy99) wrote in message ...
I am glad that S&T has adopted a policy of pointing out flaws, a gutsy move.
However, it's always difficult to read between the lines w.r.t.
motive, integrity, and competence.

You know, the more I think about it, I tend to disagree. I think the best thing
that S&T could do with its reviews would be to do everything they can to
**understand** the product that they are reviewing.

This is not Consumer Reports. And understanding optics is not strictly a casual
endeavor.

There is no reason that interviewing and working with the manufacturer on a
review could not be included as part of the review process. This would have
helped to mitigate the situation with TMB, and both the reviewer and the
readers might have come away with a bit more actual understanding of what these
eyepieces are really all about.


But given the fact bad ones were even seen, you'll never be able to
prove that more won't come out, unless the magazine (not likely) would
be willing to test a whole production run. A new set should be reviewed by
the magazine and the results summarized. This would at least give
the people out there who didn't know about these eyepieces some
piece of mind. That some bad ones slipped through is the company's error.
If they aren't typical of the quality of the product, they never should have
let them go out the door. But, the fact that they got produced at all
is no surprise since this happens at all levels of production on all
products made.
-Rich