Which planetary eyepiece?

B Starr wrote in message ...
(Richard) wrote in
om:

I have not had the opportunity to use either of these products, and
can't
wait long enough until I do to choose. So if my goal is detail on
planets,
which do I use?
Astro-Physics Super Planetary Eyepieces or the TMB Super Monocentric
eypieces?
I've got a decent compliment of orthos, Brandons, Taks, have used
Pentax orthos, etc, etc, and really
want to see if either of these offer an improvement. Maybe both will.
Thanks.

Check the Aug issue of Sky and Telescope for a review of the TMB Super
Monocentrics.

The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow
field of view. Is this a problem with other monocentrics?

Not really, AFAIK, for a 30deg AFOV. The designer says it only has
field curvature (which is bad enough in a 30deg AFOV EP!). Apparently
the issue is about quality control, of four randomly selected EPs
three had noticeable astigmatism (!!!!) and the fourth (the shortest
one) was little used.

Andrea T.

B Starr wrote in message ...
(Richard) wrote in
om:

I have not had the opportunity to use either of these products, and
can't
wait long enough until I do to choose. So if my goal is detail on
planets,
which do I use?
Astro-Physics Super Planetary Eyepieces or the TMB Super Monocentric
eypieces?
I've got a decent compliment of orthos, Brandons, Taks, have used
Pentax orthos, etc, etc, and really
want to see if either of these offer an improvement. Maybe both will.
Thanks.

Check the Aug issue of Sky and Telescope for a review of the TMB Super
Monocentrics.

The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow
field of view. Is this a problem with other monocentrics?

B Starr

That makes sense. I wouldn't expect a three element eyepiece to have
terrific edge definition in any telescope. orthos, despite their central
performance, are known for their astigmatism off axis.
-Rich

B Starr wrote in message ...
(Richard) wrote in
om:

I have not had the opportunity to use either of these products, and
can't
wait long enough until I do to choose. So if my goal is detail on
planets,
which do I use?
Astro-Physics Super Planetary Eyepieces or the TMB Super Monocentric
eypieces?
I've got a decent compliment of orthos, Brandons, Taks, have used
Pentax orthos, etc, etc, and really
want to see if either of these offer an improvement. Maybe both will.
Thanks.

Check the Aug issue of Sky and Telescope for a review of the TMB Super
Monocentrics.

The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow
field of view. Is this a problem with other monocentrics?

B Starr

That makes sense. I wouldn't expect a three element eyepiece to have
terrific edge definition in any telescope. orthos, despite their central
performance, are known for their astigmatism off axis.
-Rich

The TMB Monos are highly fieldcorrected, pin point across the entire
field, fully corrected field is even a touch larger then in many orthos.
Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic
Regards eyerelief. Its correct what valery say, comfort is important and
the TMB Monos have such comfort, more then numbers could tell you.
The shortest 4 mm have same comfort then TV Zoom 3-6 mm which is
specified by 10 mm eyerelief.
The Monos have a far superior eyerelief to orthos.
After the review came out I tried about 100 diffrent eyepieces on the
Questar, all are sharp to the edge , not even a sign of field curvative
and I
tested them in my Starmaster 20"F/4.3, faint stars are sharp near the
edge only bright stars show very little distortion, but hey it is a
F/4.3


Yes we do not pay every month thousands of $$$ to the magazin for adds

Markus


"Richard" wrote in message
om

B Starr wrote in message ...
(Richard) wrote in
om:

I have not had the opportunity to use either of these products, and
can't
wait long enough until I do to choose. So if my goal is detail on
planets,
which do I use?
Astro-Physics Super Planetary Eyepieces or the TMB Super Monocentric
eypieces?
I've got a decent compliment of orthos, Brandons, Taks, have used
Pentax orthos, etc, etc, and really
want to see if either of these offer an improvement. Maybe both will.
Thanks.

Check the Aug issue of Sky and Telescope for a review of the TMB Super
Monocentrics.

The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow
field of view. Is this a problem with other monocentrics?

B Starr

That makes sense. I wouldn't expect a three element eyepiece to have
terrific edge definition in any telescope. orthos, despite their central
performance, are known for their astigmatism off axis.
-Rich




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

The TMB Monos are highly fieldcorrected, pin point across the entire
field, fully corrected field is even a touch larger then in many orthos.
Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic
Regards eyerelief. Its correct what valery say, comfort is important and
the TMB Monos have such comfort, more then numbers could tell you.
The shortest 4 mm have same comfort then TV Zoom 3-6 mm which is
specified by 10 mm eyerelief.
The Monos have a far superior eyerelief to orthos.
After the review came out I tried about 100 diffrent eyepieces on the
Questar, all are sharp to the edge , not even a sign of field curvative
and I
tested them in my Starmaster 20"F/4.3, faint stars are sharp near the
edge only bright stars show very little distortion, but hey it is a
F/4.3


Yes we do not pay every month thousands of $$$ to the magazin for adds

Markus


"Richard" wrote in message
om

B Starr wrote in message ...
(Richard) wrote in
om:

I have not had the opportunity to use either of these products, and
can't
wait long enough until I do to choose. So if my goal is detail on
planets,
which do I use?
Astro-Physics Super Planetary Eyepieces or the TMB Super Monocentric
eypieces?
I've got a decent compliment of orthos, Brandons, Taks, have used
Pentax orthos, etc, etc, and really
want to see if either of these offer an improvement. Maybe both will.
Thanks.

Check the Aug issue of Sky and Telescope for a review of the TMB Super
Monocentrics.

The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow
field of view. Is this a problem with other monocentrics?

B Starr

That makes sense. I wouldn't expect a three element eyepiece to have
terrific edge definition in any telescope. orthos, despite their central
performance, are known for their astigmatism off axis.
-Rich




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:

Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic

Markus if 3 random selected eyepieces have astigmatism - it is not a
mystery, but a possibly manufacturer problem of that particular run,
and you should drive to Berlin asap to find out what was wrong.

Gary gave 5 stars for these eyepieces and revue sounds positive in
most acounts, what makes you write following:

Yes we do not pay every month thousands of $$$ to the magazin for adds
Markus

Are you trying to say that if you would be a magazine, the APM /
Astro Potential Magazine, for example, you would do reviews based not
of product quality, but on amount paid for adds?

regards, Yuri

"Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:

Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic

Markus if 3 random selected eyepieces have astigmatism - it is not a
mystery, but a possibly manufacturer problem of that particular run,
and you should drive to Berlin asap to find out what was wrong.

Gary gave 5 stars for these eyepieces and revue sounds positive in
most acounts, what makes you write following:

Yes we do not pay every month thousands of $$$ to the magazin for adds
Markus

Are you trying to say that if you would be a magazine, the APM /
Astro Potential Magazine, for example, you would do reviews based not
of product quality, but on amount paid for adds?

regards, Yuri

"Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:395377e1fed02501e56034fdbc66313d.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...

Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic

This may answer your own question .

Of the four TMB
Super Mono eyepieces (as you know, I did not test these, they
were taken from a large stack of untested units, figuring what
could be more honest from a manufacturer than to do that -- not
hand pick a set like I'm sure so many do. Markus assured me that
the second run was flawless -- it certainly was not.

Leonard

"Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:395377e1fed02501e56034fdbc66313d.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...

Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic

This may answer your own question .

Of the four TMB
Super Mono eyepieces (as you know, I did not test these, they
were taken from a large stack of untested units, figuring what
could be more honest from a manufacturer than to do that -- not
hand pick a set like I'm sure so many do. Markus assured me that
the second run was flawless -- it certainly was not.

Leonard

But why on earth would TMB not test each one before it left their shop?
Truly a mystery.

Phil

Leonard wrote:

"Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:395377e1fed02501e56034fdbc66313d.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...


Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic


This may answer your own question .

Of the four TMB
Super Mono eyepieces (as you know, I did not test these, they
were taken from a large stack of untested units, figuring what
could be more honest from a manufacturer than to do that -- not
hand pick a set like I'm sure so many do. Markus assured me that
the second run was flawless -- it certainly was not.

Leonard