Review of TMB optical Monocentric eyepieces

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

(Leonard) wrote in message om...
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.

AFAIK the newt had a coma corrector and the issue was with astigmatism
in 3 EPs.

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

Wishful see-ing? I've compared one of the SM to a Pentax SMC ortho and
I couldn't detect any obvious improvement. Maybe you need an 8" APO
and a very large bank account to appreciate the difference.

Andrea T.

(Leonard) wrote in message om...
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.

AFAIK the newt had a coma corrector and the issue was with astigmatism
in 3 EPs.

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

Wishful see-ing? I've compared one of the SM to a Pentax SMC ortho and
I couldn't detect any obvious improvement. Maybe you need an 8" APO
and a very large bank account to appreciate the difference.

Andrea T.

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?

WayneH wrote in message . ..
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.


Hmmmmm....you say that "Note that I have not tried the Monos in short
FL instruments, so I've no opinion in this area.", yet, you also state
that "...the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash". Mr. Seronik
used a short Fl instrument in his review, and your equipment consists
of long focal lengths. On what basis can you claim that portions of
the review are "hogwash"?

Just curious.

- Craig

clevineATnsDOTsympaticoDOTca

WayneH wrote in message . ..
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.


Hmmmmm....you say that "Note that I have not tried the Monos in short
FL instruments, so I've no opinion in this area.", yet, you also state
that "...the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash". Mr. Seronik
used a short Fl instrument in his review, and your equipment consists
of long focal lengths. On what basis can you claim that portions of
the review are "hogwash"?

Just curious.

- Craig

clevineATnsDOTsympaticoDOTca

On 25 Jun 2004 02:09:37 GMT, t (Ratboy99) wrote:

I have four of the TMB Super Monos (2-16's and 2-14's) and I haven't been able
to detect any
astigmatism in them at all. That's using my F8 Tak FS-152 and a Binovuew w/ 2x
barlow. Nice eyepieces actually...
rat
~( );

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


I was loaned a couple for review - No astigmatism in the ones I saw,
but they do have a curved field that becomes fairly noticable on fast
scopes.

Overall, I felt their performance was superior to most orthos, plossls
and other well respected planetary eyepeices - if only by a small
amount.

They aren't really designed for fast, non-tracking scopes tho - that
tiny afov was a killer for me. (I don't have a driven mount at the
moment) If I ever get servocat installed on my dob tho... I'll be
picking up a few of those puppies.

Tom T.

On 25 Jun 2004 02:09:37 GMT, t (Ratboy99) wrote:

I have four of the TMB Super Monos (2-16's and 2-14's) and I haven't been able
to detect any
astigmatism in them at all. That's using my F8 Tak FS-152 and a Binovuew w/ 2x
barlow. Nice eyepieces actually...
rat
~( );

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


I was loaned a couple for review - No astigmatism in the ones I saw,
but they do have a curved field that becomes fairly noticable on fast
scopes.

Overall, I felt their performance was superior to most orthos, plossls
and other well respected planetary eyepeices - if only by a small
amount.

They aren't really designed for fast, non-tracking scopes tho - that
tiny afov was a killer for me. (I don't have a driven mount at the
moment) If I ever get servocat installed on my dob tho... I'll be
picking up a few of those puppies.

Tom T.

"Stephen Pitt" wrote in message news:b7061404ce8795d56ac6cc2edb1bc619.5675@mygate .mailgate.org...
Gary was wrong. It happens when using the wrong tools and asking-or
not asking-the appropriate questions.


Hi Stephen ,

Interesting post , what are the wrong tools and
questions he used and asked ? And in your opinion what are the
appropriate questions and tools ?
It seems to me he did a very competent review , no ?
Leonard