A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which planetary eyepiece?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 9th 04, 01:04 AM
Richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Ads
  #2  
Old June 10th 04, 03:58 AM
Edward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 10th 04, 06:55 AM
Chuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 10th 04, 08:41 PM
Richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 11th 04, 08:17 AM
ValeryD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #8  
Old June 24th 04, 09:33 PM
Ratboy99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 24th 04, 09:33 PM
Ratboy99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:14 AM
Bands of Saturn. How many of them can be counted (really!) with 7" scope? ValeryD Amateur Astronomy 294 January 26th 04 09:18 PM
Majority of Planetary Nebulae May Arise from Binary Systems (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 January 9th 04 06:02 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.