Comparison of two budget 2" low power eyepieces

I did a brief comparison of the BW-Optik 30mm Ultrawide with the Orion =
35mm DeepView last night in my Guan Sheng 10" f5 dob. The 30mm Ultrawide =
was purcased from Anacortes Telescopes for $95 and the 35mm DeepView is =
from Orion for $69. In my scope the Ultrawide gave me 40x where the =
DeepView gave me about 34x. Actual fields were similar with the =
Ultrawide showing just a bit more sky. However the higher magnification =
and wider apparent field of the Ultrawide makes the view more =
satisfying. The DeepView did have a bit longer eye relief but it was =
easy to get my eye off-axis and see black kidney bean dropouts. I didn't =
notice the dropouts with the Ultrawide. Both eyepieces in my f5 scope =
are quite poor off center showing pretty bad images just half way from =
center to edge. Stars around the edges were especially bad in the =
Ultrawide. The Ultrawide weighs over 20 oz while the DeepView weighs a =
bit over 13 oz. On my scope there was a slight tendency for the tube to =
tilt downward with the Ultrawide in place. A small sandbag or beanbag =
type weight on the mirror end would correct this easily however. I =
didn't like the safety groove on the DeepView. It kept snagging on the =
set screws when i wanted to remove the eyepiece from the focuser. The =
Ultrawide has a smooth barrel with no safety groove. The coatings on the =
Ultrawide are a deep green and seem better just looking at them in =
daylight. The DeepView in comparison seemed almost uncoated. =20

All in all i preferred the BW-Optik Ultrawide to the Orion DeepView. The =
Ultrawide is a very solid (heavy) eyepiece and since i don't wear =
glasses while observing the closer eye relief is fine for me. Seeing =
2=B0 of sky through a 10" scope is pretty neat!

Since there is nothing wrong with the Orion eyepiece and it does perform =
as advertised i feel a bit sheepish about returning it for a refund. =
It's not Orion's fault i bought another eyepiece i like better. So =
instead of returning it i've decided to offer the eyepiece on eBay. See =
the following link if you're interested...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...D2941233438=20


-Florian
Stargazing.com

I did a brief comparison of the BW-Optik 30mm Ultrawide with the Orion =
35mm DeepView last night in my Guan Sheng 10" f5 dob.

I have also had the opportunity to test two low end eyepieces in a GS 10 inch
F5 dob, the BW-Optik 30mm and the GTO Proxima 31mm 71 Degree eyepiece. I spent
quite a bit of time comparing these, looking at the same FOVs, moving the
bright stars to the edge, just looking at stuff.

Both are passable. Some views are really quite pleasing, some are rather
disappointing. I think the BW is sharper in the center but the edge problems
are worse.

Both eyepieces have noticeable edge distortion. The issue for me is whether
that edge distortion distracts me from the rest of the view. I find edge
performance of the GTO Proxima less distracting but certainly bright stars near
the edge of the FOV are pretty unpleasent to look at.

The FOV of these two eyepiece is quite similar, the BW-Optik is slightly larger
but at that point in this scope, the distortion is bad enough that it makes no
difference.

I have also tried both of them in my 12.5 inch F4.1 DOB. In this scope I can
only say both are quite horrid. Of course there is the nearly 8 mm exit pupil
and then there is the coma inharent in an F4 scope.

I would be interested in seeing how they looked through a Paracorr, might help
clean things up. I find most eyepieces look pretty decent in either scope when
used with a paracorr but my Paracorr is 1.25 inch....

The difference between either of these 2 eyepieces and my old Televue Widefield
24mm with or with Paracorr is large. By comparison with these two, the
Televue, with a FOV of about 63 degrees or so is sharp to the edge without the
Paracorr and with the Paracorr it is really quite sharp even near the edge by
any standards.

Overall, I think it is a tough call between these two eyepieces. The GTO is
better across the FOV but there is something that is not quite right about the
center, it does not seem to be truly sharp in the center. The BW-Optik is
quite sharp in the center but deteriorates quite quickly away from center.

Bottomline is that in a F5 scope, some views are really great, some are really,
ah, really ah... I will leave that to your imagination.

I think I have heard these are quite nice in an F10 scope so you SCT guys
finally have something to be happy about. g

----

While at first one might guess that Televue might be concerned about these
eyepieces taking some of their market share, I think it is more likely that
these eyepieces will only wet the appetite of those who buy them and a good
many will move on to TV stuff sooner or later.

jon

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:06:20 -0700, "Florian"
wrote:

I did a brief comparison of the BW-Optik 30mm Ultrawide with the Orion 35mm DeepView last night in my Guan Sheng 10" f5 dob. The 30mm Ultrawide was purcased from Anacortes Telescopes for $95 and the 35mm DeepView is from Orion for $69. In my scope the Ultrawide gave me 40x where the DeepView gave me about 34x. Actual fields were similar with the Ultrawide showing just a bit more sky. However the higher magnification and wider apparent field of the Ultrawide makes the view more satisfying. The DeepView did have a bit longer eye relief but it was easy to get my eye off-axis and see black kidney bean dropouts. I didn't notice the dropouts with the Ultrawide. Both eyepieces in my f5 scope are quite poor off center showing pretty bad images just half way from center to edge. Stars around the edges were especially bad in the Ultrawide. The Ultrawide weighs over 20 oz while the DeepView weighs a bit over 13 oz. On my scope there was a slight tendency for the tube to tilt downward with the
Ultrawide in place. A small sandbag or beanbag type weight on the mirror end would correct this easily however. I didn't like the safety groove on the DeepView. It kept snagging on the set screws when i wanted to remove the eyepiece from the focuser. The Ultrawide has a smooth barrel with no safety groove. The coatings on the Ultrawide are a deep green and seem better just looking at them in daylight. The DeepView in comparison seemed almost uncoated.

All in all i preferred the BW-Optik Ultrawide to the Orion DeepView. The Ultrawide is a very solid (heavy) eyepiece and since i don't wear glasses while observing the closer eye relief is fine for me. Seeing 2° of sky through a 10" scope is pretty neat!

Since there is nothing wrong with the Orion eyepiece and it does perform as advertised i feel a bit sheepish about returning it for a refund. It's not Orion's fault i bought another eyepiece i like better. So instead of returning it i've decided to offer the eyepiece on eBay. See the following link if you're interested...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=2941233438


-Florian
Stargazing.com


Hey Florian,

I recently purchased the BW 30mm as well, and like it so much I sold
my Pan 35.

At f7.5 it’s sharp out to about 80-90 deg of the way to the field
stop. At f5 *with* *the* *paracorr*, this decreases a little, but
it’s pretty similar. I haven’t used it at f5 without a paracorr yet,
and I'd be interested in hearing your impressions in more detail.
I've found that the field isn’t perfectly flat, but it’s sufficient.
You do need to remember to focus on objects in the center of the fov.
The 80 deg fov is impressive, and in side by sides with the pano 35 I
typically preferred the slightly higher magnification and wider field
- althought the pan was truly sharp to the edge. Haven’t really
checked for pincushion in the BW, but if it’s there I’m thinking it’s
not hugely terrible. I agree that coatings are quite good and
throughput is pretty high.

The gist was for me: I have a $365 eyepeice in the pan 35 that for
the most part stays in my case while I used either the 22 nagler or 22
panoptic for low power views. I sold the pan 35, pocketed the extra
$200 and am quite happy with it.

I had a lingering fear that I was going to be replacing it down the
road with a pan 35 because of it’s performance at f5, but after what
I’ve seen the last couple of nights, I’m not going to be in a rush to
do that. I still may, but then again, I may not.

Fit and finish on mine is very good. Not TV quality, but perhaps
vixen. The edges on the newest ones are blackened, and at least my
optics are clean. The guy who advertises the 1rpd version says he
does some QC on them (if I recall correctly).

I got the BW solely because I’ve done a fair amount of business with
Anacortes and that’s what they carried. From what I’ve heard, either
version is about the same quality wise.

The BW does not come with a box, but it does come with (cheap) endcaps
and a plastic bolt case.

IMO, at $95, it's the steal of the year.

Tom T.

The BW does not come with a box, but it does come with (cheap) endcaps
and a plastic bolt case.


I broke my "bold case" the first time i tried to screw it closed. The =
inner part cracked around the bottom. Weird. I wish i had a 2" diagonal =
for my Celestron-8 so i could try the eyepiece in a higher f-ratio =
scope.

-Florian

I broke my "bold case" the first time i tried to screw it closed. The =
inner part cracked around the bottom. Weird. I wish i had a 2" diagonal =
for my Celestron-8 so i could try the eyepiece in a higher f-ratio =
scope.

-Florian

For what its worth, mine also did exactly the same thing when I tried to screw
it closed....

Jon

"Tom T." wrote in message
s.com...

I recently purchased the BW 30mm as well, and like it so much I sold
my Pan 35.

While you go on to later explain that you really sold the Pan because you
also have a 22mm Nagler and 22mm Panoptic, you must realize that, taken
alone, the above comment threatens your credibility. :-)

Compared to the 35mm Panoptic the 30mm WideScans and clones are complete
crap. This discussion was had a while ago and the overall consensus is that
the $95 WideScans are decent, if not spectacular in scopes at F10 and above,
but are quick to end up in the crapper at faster ratios (where TV excels).

Compared to the 35mm Panoptic the 30mm WideScans and clones are complete
crap.

Complete crap is a 4 mm 0.965 inch eyepiece with all plastic optics. I have
one I can send you if you want to try one out for comparison.

At the other end of the scale, different people seem to have different opinions
of how well the BW-Optik 30 mm eyepiece works.

Tom T. seems to be more than satisfied.

It may be that he happens to have gotten one that works quite well and maybe
the one you looked through was not one of the better ones.

If Tom liked the 30 mm BK-Optik better than the Panoptic in his F7.5 scope, I
think that is one data point and one that that you and I (and others) should
respect.

jon isaacs

On 18 Jul 2003 03:52:25 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

Compared to the 35mm Panoptic the 30mm WideScans and clones are complete
crap.

Complete crap is a 4 mm 0.965 inch eyepiece with all plastic optics. I have
one I can send you if you want to try one out for comparison.

At the other end of the scale, different people seem to have different opinions
of how well the BW-Optik 30 mm eyepiece works.

Tom T. seems to be more than satisfied.

It may be that he happens to have gotten one that works quite well and maybe
the one you looked through was not one of the better ones.

If Tom liked the 30 mm BK-Optik better than the Panoptic in his F7.5 scope, I
think that is one data point and one that that you and I (and others) should
respect.

jon isaacs




Thank you Jon.

Eyepeices are an extremely individual thing. What one person finds
acceptable, I can't stand, what I think works for me, someone else may
hate.

I think you nailed it when you said different folks have different
opinions about how well it works.

IMO, the only way to *really* see how an eyepeice performs is to use
it at your site in your scopes.

Untill then, I think folks should try to keep an open mind.

Tom T.

Actually, Stephen,

I no longer have the 22 nagler either. Traded it back in on a 22
panoptic (what I had before I had the 22 nagler). It's a great
eyepeice, but just too much money for what it is for my current
situation. And the Pan 22 is really only a slight step back.

Fact of the matter is:

At f7.5 without the paracorr,* I* liked it enough to replace the pan
35 and put the extra $200 I got from the Pan 35 elsewhere.

I thought I would have to replace it in my f5 scope, (and with a pan
35) but *with* *the* *paracorr* in place, it's quite acceptable, and I
see no need to replace it at this time - not even really tempted
actually. I'd much rather replace my 22 pano with a pair of 24's, get
another small scope, etc...

No, it's not a nagler 31, it's you are correct - it's not even a pan
35 (although it does have a couple of obvious points over it - 1)
higher magnification, 2) wider field, 3) much cheaper, and 4) lighter)
BUT:

For a wide field finder eyepeice (or to occasionally look at large
objects) it's fantastic. IMO, $365 or (god forbid) $620 is too much
for me to spend on an eyepeice that only spends 10--20% of the time in
my focuser.

It's an individual choice. Having used both - side by side - I made
my choice, and I'm happy with it.

Tom T.



On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:24:26 -0400, "Stephen Paul"
wrote:


"Tom T." wrote in message
ws.com...

I recently purchased the BW 30mm as well, and like it so much I sold
my Pan 35.

While you go on to later explain that you really sold the Pan because you
also have a 22mm Nagler and 22mm Panoptic, you must realize that, taken
alone, the above comment threatens your credibility. :-)

Compared to the 35mm Panoptic the 30mm WideScans and clones are complete
crap. This discussion was had a while ago and the overall consensus is that
the $95 WideScans are decent, if not spectacular in scopes at F10 and above,
but are quick to end up in the crapper at faster ratios (where TV excels).