|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
"Richard" wrote in message 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. Richard, On paper, the SPL's look like the way to go, but there is very little feedback available online. Only a hand full of these eyepieces are out in service and no one yet is inclined to post a review. I'd love to see one. There are some comments by Roland on the AP-UG (which I put more stock in than the average manufacturer review because Roland hasn't been one to overstate the performance of his goods). I plan to throw a few in the eyepiece case once Valery gets things running. The TMB's by all accounts are first rate if you can tolerate the narrow FOV. Ed T. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
I have a 12mm and 10mm SPL on order, expect them in either late June or
early July. I've been waiting to sell my 12mm Radian so I can do an A/B comparison -- Clear Skies, Chuck "Edward" wrote in message ink.net... "Richard" wrote in message 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. Richard, On paper, the SPL's look like the way to go, but there is very little feedback available online. Only a hand full of these eyepieces are out in service and no one yet is inclined to post a review. I'd love to see one. There are some comments by Roland on the AP-UG (which I put more stock in than the average manufacturer review because Roland hasn't been one to overstate the performance of his goods). I plan to throw a few in the eyepiece case once Valery gets things running. The TMB's by all accounts are first rate if you can tolerate the narrow FOV. Ed T. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
"Edward" wrote in message link.net...
"Richard" wrote in message 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. Richard, On paper, the SPL's look like the way to go, but there is very little feedback available online. Only a hand full of these eyepieces are out in service and no one yet is inclined to post a review. I'd love to see one. There are some comments by Roland on the AP-UG (which I put more stock in than the average manufacturer review because Roland hasn't been one to overstate the performance of his goods). I plan to throw a few in the eyepiece case once Valery gets things running. The TMB's by all accounts are first rate if you can tolerate the narrow FOV. Ed T. That will confine them (the narrow field) to the hard-core planetary viewer, based on opinions I've heard. Most people seem to go for Naglers or other WFs when they spend real money because they seem to think wide fields are a needed quantity in an expensive eyepiece. It's a pity in a way because other objects (more than a few deepsky objects) can benefit from superior contrast and definition. Planetary nebula and double stars have always interested me and they are prime targets. -Rich |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
"Edward" wrote in message news:%6Qxc.19908
The TMB's by all accounts are first rate if you can tolerate the narrow FOV. Ed T. Hi Ed, Note, please, that SPL eyepieces also have about 1.5x longer eye relief in the case 42 degree vs 30 degree. If only 30 dgree field in use, SPL eyepieces have at least 2x longer eye relief. Needless to say, that comfortable eye relief is one of the most important factor for strainless observing of planets. When eye works in comfortable conditions, without strain, it will see MORE, then in the case of strain due to short eyerelief. Long eyerelief and small number of lenses and excellent field correction was three decided factors to choose present in SPLs design vs any another. We also spent a lot of efforts to develop a new coatings to maintain reflections at less than 0.1% level for eye lens and about 0.12%-0.15% for lesser important field lens. Valery Deryuzhin. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow
field of view. Is this a problem with other monocentrics? I have four of the TMB Super Monos and I haven't been able to detect any astigmatism in them at all. rat ~( ); email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow
field of view. Is this a problem with other monocentrics? I have four of the TMB Super Monos and I haven't been able to detect any astigmatism in them at all. rat ~( ); email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt | hermesnines | Astronomy Misc | 10 | February 27th 04 02:14 AM |
Bands of Saturn. How many of them can be counted (really!) with 7" scope? | ValeryD | Amateur Astronomy | 294 | January 26th 04 08:18 PM |
Majority of Planetary Nebulae May Arise from Binary Systems (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 9th 04 05:02 AM |
Chiral gravity of the Solar system | Aleksandr Timofeev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 13th 03 04:14 PM |
*Review: Astrosystems 30mm WIDE SCAN III Eyepiece | David Knisely | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | August 8th 03 05:53 AM |