If you could have only one kind of eyepiece....

I know, we don't have to choose, but if you could only have
one kind of eyepiece, for all focal lengths, which would you
pick? We should probably divide the Naglers up according to
their type numbers, 1, 2, 4, etc and consider them as different
from each other.
From what I've seen, I'd probably pick either Radians or the new Pentax
XL type. Best combinations of field, resolution, contrast, eye relief,
etc.
Despite this, I don't currently own either of the two above given that
individual specifications are better on different eyepieces.
-Rich

On 6 Mar 2004 12:08:45 -0800, Richard wrote:

I know, we don't have to choose, but if you could only have
one kind of eyepiece, for all focal lengths, which would you
pick? We should probably divide the Naglers up according to
their type numbers, 1, 2, 4, etc and consider them as different
from each other.
From what I've seen, I'd probably pick either Radians or the new Pentax
XL type. Best combinations of field, resolution, contrast, eye relief,
etc.
Despite this, I don't currently own either of the two above given that
individual specifications are better on different eyepieces.
-Rich

I'm not sure if this must be simply brand specific, or more loosely design
specific, so I'll look at this from the optical design perspective. If
all other eyepiece designs absolutely had to go, I would keep Masuyama's
(while taking the full liberty to include all of the Masuyama design
eyepieces I'm aware of here). The true Cadillacs of the Masuyamas would
have to be the Takahashi LE's, but the other (far lower cost) alternatives
are also spectacular. There is no eyepiece on the list below that I would
arbitrarily toss out of my eyepiece case, based on ownership, sample
viewing, friends owning them, or the testamonies of a select few people
I've learned to trust over the years on forums such as this one...).

My Masuyama 'design' eyepiece list includes:

Masuyama's (Very hard to find, and "perhaps" nearing collectable status,
at least among a small few.)
Takahashi LE's
Meade Super Plossls (the original 5 element ones, not available for a good
number of years now, since ~94 was it???)
Parks Gold Series
Celestron Ultima's
Antares Elites (formerly known as Antares 5 element Plossl's, Antates
Ultimas, etc...)
Baader Eudiascopics
Orion Ultrascopics
Tuthill Premiums (Tuthill is out of business, but some of these might
still be around)

There has been much speculation that all of the above are actually Mfg'd
in the same factory in Japan, but I can not verify this. A good friend
owns a real 30mm Masuyama (which he acquired through a friend in Japan).
I currently own a mixed collection of Antares Elites, Celestron Ultimas,
and Orion Ultrascopics. My Antares and Ultrascopics are truly 100%
parafocal right across brand names. My 30mm Ultima is not parafocal with
the others. I'll have to see if this one is parafocal with the real 30mm
Masuyama the next chance I get. I have 15mm's in both Antares and
Ultrascopic, and aside from a bit of a difference in the multi-coating
hue, I can detect no difference at all on sky objects (or any other
difference for that mater). I can only assume that quality differences
may exist across the various brands in the form of the level and type of
multi-coatings applied, whether the barrel is fitted with nicely knurled
rubber or just left in plain anodized metal, perhaps the level of polish
on the lens elements, overall fit and finish, and in the case (only and
specifically) of the Tak LE 7.5mm and 5mm, the use of at least one 'ED
glass' element. Low cost generally favors the Antares. The Tak's cost
nearly 3 times more than the Antares. The others line up between these
two extremes.

As to why I would choose these: They offer exceptional sharpness (center
to edge, even in fast optics) and excellent contrast in a not too
compromizing 52 degree AFOV format, plus spectacular color purity, and a
lack of lateral color fringing which I have not overall experienced in any
other designs, plus general affordability (yes, even the TAK's can be said
to fit this last category) . They also barlow (or Powermate)
exceptionally well, which can not be said of all designs. They are thus
not the widest or narowest FOV, the lowest priced or the highest, but they
are optically among the best overall, so if restricted to only one design
for all types of viewing (with emphasis on the word ALL), these are my
choice.

Lawrence Sayre
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a
moral being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose
of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest
activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I know, we don't have to choose, but if you could only have
one kind of eyepiece, for all focal lengths, which would you
pick?

Pretty much have one kind: R...........

john

I know, we don't have to choose, but if you could only have
one kind of eyepiece, for all focal lengths, which would you
pick?


Round eyepieces. The square eyepieces I have tried tend to have edge
distortions...

Jon

Jon Isaacs wrote:
I know, we don't have to choose, but if you could only have
one kind of eyepiece, for all focal lengths, which would you
pick?


Round eyepieces. The square eyepieces I have tried tend to have edge
distortions...

Jon

My wife says she "hates you"! I was up early this morning and ended up
waking her because I was laughing so hard after reading your eyepiece
"selection"...........

Wayne Howell
Photon Phlats Observatory
Port Townsend, WA

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
I know, we don't have to choose, but if you could only have
one kind of eyepiece, for all focal lengths, which would you
pick?


Round eyepieces. The square eyepieces I have tried tend to have edge
distortions...

You need a square focuser to use them properly. Everyone knows you can't put
a square eyepiece in a round hole.

Jon

You need a square focuser to use them properly. Everyone knows you can't put
a square eyepiece in a round hole.

Jon

The focuser already is square, afterall, everyone knows the first step in
collimating a Newtonian is "Squaring the focuser"..... Kerchunk

Jon

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
You need a square focuser to use them properly. Everyone knows you can't
put
a square eyepiece in a round hole.

Jon

The focuser already is square, afterall, everyone knows the first step in
collimating a Newtonian is "Squaring the focuser"..... Kerchunk

http://w1.411.telia.com/~u41105032/myths/myths.htm
I never knew that was what he meant by "squaring!"

;-)

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/
************************************


Jon

On 07 Mar 2004 14:28:06 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
I know, we don't have to choose, but if you could only have
one kind of eyepiece, for all focal lengths, which would you
pick?


Round eyepieces. The square eyepieces I have tried tend to have edge
distortions...

Ahah! So _that's_ what a "good all round eyepiece" means?
************************************************** ** sorry

..........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Spike....Spike? Hello?

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:43:01 -0800, "CLT" not@thisaddress wrote:

You need a square focuser to use them properly. Everyone knows you can't put
a square eyepiece in a round hole.

If brute force isn't working then you're not using enough!