Sunday, May 17, 2015
What’s in MY Eyepiece Box?
The A Team
There are three eyepieces that get used more than any of the
others I own, or, really, have ever owned:
the 13mm TeleVue Ethos, the 8mm TeleVue Ethos, and the 16mm Zhumell 100.
The 13mm TeleVue
Ethos
My Ethos story began in 2007, which started out in rather
ho-hum fashion eyepiece-wise for me and everybody else. TeleVue was still the king
of the hill with their Naglers, which were much the same (despite incremental
upgrades) as always but as good as they ever had been. One thing had changed: the 82 degree AFOV wonders
were increasingly being challenged by imported eyepieces (the Naglers were and are
made in the Far East but are designed/QAed here). Not just by Meade’s recently
updated 82-degree series, but by upstarts like the William Optics Uwans. Was TV
going down?
Not hardly. In early 2007, at NEAF,
the world of amateur astronomy, visual amateur astronomy anyhow, was rocked by TeleVue’s
announcement of a new line of oculars, the Ethoses,
which would feature 100-degree apparent
fields, besting even the legendary Leica 90-degree ocular. We were further
told these eyepieces would do that with panache, matching any wide field on the
market for control of aberrations.
Lots of folks were skeptical. Especially the usual suspects
on Cloudy Nights. You know, the types who can review (and condemn) a new piece
of equipment without ever having laid eyes on it. Even trusting little old me
was skeptical. Was any eyepiece worth over 600 bucks? You can read the full
story here, the story of my conversion down
at the Chiefland Astronomy Village on a night when Pat Rochford and I were able
to borrow a 13mm Ethos for a couple of hours, but a quote may suffice:
What do I remember next? Pat took a look and started squawking. At first I thought [he’d] aspirated a pork rind. It soon became clear from his wild gesticulations, however, that he wanted me to look through the eyepiece. I did. And I was a goner.
(W)hat struck me first was not the 100 degrees. No, that was the last thing I noticed. The first thing that hit me was M43’s dark lanes. There is no doubt that Chiefland is dark, has great transparency, and has stable seeing, but I have rarely seen the dust lanes criss-crossing M42’s little comma-shaped companion stand out [better] than they did in this eyepiece on this evening. What else? The high contrast all across the field. And the tiny, sharp stars edge to edge. The incredible sharpness, as a matter of fact, of everything in the field. There was no point in ruminating further. I was sold.
Once I had the 13mm, I was surprised at how little I needed
anything else. With a Barlow, the TeleVue Big Barlow, in Old Betsy, my 12-inch
Dobsonian, or with the Denkmeier Power Switch diagonal in the SCTs, I could
cover most observing situations with a single eyepiece. Nevertheless, I thought
it would be nice to have a shorter focal length ocular, and, let’s face it, I
was in the grip of Ethos MANIA.
The TeleVue 8mm Ethos
The natural next acquisition was the 8mm, which, other than
being a little smaller and a little lighter than the 13 (.95 pounds vice 1.3
pounds), was every bit as impressive to both look at and look through. I have
rarely had more fun “just” observing visually than I did at the 2008 Chiefland Star Party. Again, you can get the full
story at the link, but here’s the gist:
I’m sure I’ll take some flak from the Ethos nay-sayers, but at the risk of being dubbed an “Ethos Elitist,” yes, swapping back and forth between the 13 Ethos and 13 Nagler, I was slapped in the face AFOV-wise. Going back to a “mere” Nagler was very similar to my first experience with Naglers: the Nagler ruined my Erfles and Plossls for me, and the Ethos has ruined Naglers for me. Both Tom [Clark] and I commented that, alas, the wonderful Nagler spacewalk just wasn’t so wonderful no more. Some of you won’t like me saying this, but there it is. You may think different or think you’ll think different, but that’s what I experienced on this night.
On yet another Chiefland expedition, I had the opportunity
to test the Ethos 21mm, and, better, do a shootout between it and an Explore
20mm. Not only was the ES less than half the price of the Ethos, if there were any differences in the views it presented and those of the real deal, my middle-aged
eyes weren't able to detect them. So I abandoned my plans to purchase the genuine article.
Given the observing I do, which is mostly from less than
pristine skies where I don’t much use longer focal lengths, I wasn't sure I could
justify even the lower priced ES 20. In fact, I haven’t got around to buying it
yet, though I may someday.
The 16mm Zhumell 100-degree “Happy Hand Grenade”
It would still have been nice to have something a smidge longer than the 13, however. Enter the inexpensive 16mm Zhumell 100, a.k.a. “The Happy Hand Grenade.” It’s funny how amateur
astronomy has changed in recent years, how we spoiled amateurs now
consider two-hundred-dollar eyepieces “inexpensive,” but that is the way of the
world. Compared to the $735.00 the Ethos 16 commands, I guess the $200.00 Zhumell is
cheap, though. Maybe too cheap.
The results of which were? About 70% out from field center,
the stars looked bloated in f/5 Old Betsy. At the edge they were Real Bloated. However,
I tend to focus on the field center, not the edge, and the expansive AFOV still
made for a breathtaking view. In my f/10 SCTs, the eyepiece is still not as
good as the TeleVues or Explores by any stretch of the imagination, but it is
good and I love it.
To be clear, I use the 16mm on every visual observing run
and it is the best 200 clams I have spent in a long while. Might an HHG be for
you? That depends. If you obsess about eyepiece field edges to the degree some
of the CN Eyepiece Forum worthies do (they are currently at sixes and
sevens due to something they call "EOFB," which appears to be a minor brightening
at the edge of the field they think they detect in some eyepieces), the Zhumell
is definitely not for you. You might
not be able to find a Happy Hand Grenade to buy, anyway. It seems to have
disappeared from vendors inventories of late.
Prices for considerably better longer focal length 100 AFOV
eyepieces are continuing to fall, with those of new players like William Optics
(XWA) and SkyWatcher (Myriad) dropping below the $300.00 mark now. So, you
might want to hold off even if you can find a 16 Zhumell for sale.
The B Team
The William Optics UWANs
I
liked Naglers, you liked Naglers, we all liked Naglers. Well, except for their prices, which were always up there and always painful. Oh, like you, I still paid
those prices. The 12mm Type II was one of the best oculars I've ever owned. The
Nags were expensive, though, no denying it. So, I was immediately drawn to a series of eyepieces that undercut
the prices of the TeleVue 82s by 1/3rd or more, but promised quality
that was essentially the same.
The
William Optics UWANs (not the name of a city in China; it stands for “ultra
wide angle”) were not the first bargain 82s to hit these shores. That had begun
to happen not long after the start of this new century. By then, you could get
an 82-degree AFOV Mainland Chinese made eyepiece for just a smidge over one
C-note, but you might not be overly happy with what you got.
The
prototypical el cheapo 82 of this time was represented by the 30mm 1RPD, which
was also sold under the “Bird’s Eye” and “Knight Owl” and “Moonfish” monikers.
Some people were actually quite fond of this big 2-inch ocular, and some still
are. Mostly people with long focal length telescopes. In an f/5 Dob? The edge
of your field, and I mean the field farther out that 50% from the center,
appeared to be crowded with planetary nebulae.
There had to be a better way and there was, in the form of the aforementioned UWANs, which were made in Taiwan (and were also sold under Orion and SkyWatcher brand names for a while). These oculars, which included a 28mm, a 16mm, a 7mm, and a 4mm, were a revelation, which is why I titled my review of them “The Night Everything Changed.” Even in this day of Ethoses, when I've sold off my Naglers, I hold onto the UWANs and use them frequently.
28mm UWAN
This was the big boy. Back in the day when we all thought the
bigger and heavier the eyepiece, the better it must be, this was one impressive
mutha. It was possessed of a huge 2-inch barrel and weighed in at an awesome
2.2 pounds. If all there’d been to this thing was heft, though, it would have
stayed in the drawer with the 1RPD, but that was not all; its views were equally
impressive. As I found out when I arranged a shootout between the 28 and the
Nagler 26 one long ago night in Chiefland:
I needn't have worried about the 28mm holding its own. There was general agreement that the 28 was “as good or a little better” than the 26 Nagler in the areas of field flatness, sharpness, and edge-quality. This was on a variety of objects, including monstrous Omega Centauri with its countless tiny, tiny stars. In fact, the only time our informal panel of testers felt that the 26 Nagler pulled ahead was in (an) f/3.26 scope, and everybody agreed that its advantage, even there, was relatively slight.
The eyepiece stacked up nearly as well against the legendary
31mm Nagler. Save for a millimeter less eye relief (18mm vice 19mm for the Nag)
it was pretty much a dead heat. This is probably a good time to say that if you
need to wear glasses to observe, few of the ultra wide eyepieces old or new are
likely to make you very happy. Things have improved of late, but the best bet
is still to remove your glasses and use the scope as your “glasses” if
possible.Unfortunately, the 28mm UWAN is no longer available. Mostly because it was a relatively expensive eyepiece to produce and couldn't be sold for as much as a similar TeleVue. Today, few people would want to spend what it really needs to sell for to get an overly heavy eyepiece with an 82-degree field when they can get a lighter 100-degree for the same money. I’ll admit I don’t use it often, but when I need low power and a wide field, it can still be my goto eyepiece.
The rest of the UWAN crew is thankfully still in business,
including what may be the standout of the lot, the 16mm. At the reasonable price of $198.00 and at one
of my favorite focal lengths (Explore has a 14 and an 18 but not a 16), it is
a perennial winner. Not least because of its outstanding performance in almost
any telescope. The same is true of the 7mm (also $198.00), which is my
preferred planetary eyepiece for Dobs. It is preternaturally sharp and the nice
AFOV means I don’t have to do much nudging. I've never owned the 4mm, but I
understand it is equally impressive and a good bet if you have need of such a
short fl.
The C Team
The Televue Panoptics
I really hate to refer to the Pans as the “C team,” since,
in most respects, they are wonderful eyepieces. They are in that category
simply because I don't use them as much as my other oculars. There is a simple
reason for that: I am addicted to wide AFOVs, and 68-degrees just doesn't light my fire these days. What do I have? The 35, the 27, and the 22—I've always been
more impressed by the longer focal length versions of the Pans than the shorter
ones.
35mm TeleVue Panoptic
Optically? Sharp, very sharp. The only problem is that it's
got a lot of eye relief, 24mm, which can make eye placement a little harrowing
till you get used to the ocular. This eyepiece, coupled with an OIII filter in an f/6.5 4-inch Explore Scientific achromat, recently gave me the best view of
the North America Nebula I have had in my life.
27mm Panoptic
I don’t use it nearly as much as the 35, but the 27 is maybe even
better. Again, dead sharp and a little more comfortable to use than the 35 with
eye relief of a more “normal” (for me) 19mm. Some of my fondest memories of
deep sky observing concern the 27 in my friend Pat’s old 24-inch Dob. Down-check?
You can get an ES 20mm 100 AFOV ocular that is an outstanding performer for
$329.00, so I’m not sure there is much motivation to spend $340.00 on a 27mm
Panoptic any more.
22mm Panoptic
The 22 Pan is a good eyepiece if, in my opinion, maybe not quite the equal optically of the other two. Not quite as sharp, not quite as good
field edge performance in faster scopes, but still nice enough. Why do I hang
onto it, then? The everything else. It is light and has a hybrid
2-inch/1.25-inch barrel so I can use it in almost any scope, even my f/4 StarBlast
(where it does OK, not great). While the 22 is no longer made, it is fairly
easy to get used, if not overly common.
The eyepiece box's lid closed with a thud and I did some
thinking. What did I really need, what more glass would I really use? I couldn't
think of anything. If I just had to
spend money, it would be on the 20mm ES 100 (or one of the new WO or SkyWatcher
equivalents). That would likely replace the Happy Hand Grenade, and that might
be a good thing. I’ll see how well I tolerate using that eyepiece a lot in the
fast Dobsonians that are my main instruments now, and will perhaps come to a decision this fall/winter.
When maybe, just maybe,
the weather will improve enough for me to actually see something. What’s got my
observing stopped in its tracks has nothing to do with eyepieces, telescopes,
or my desire to get out under the stars; it is the freaking clouds. But if you
live in the U.S.A., I don’t have to tell you that. It looks like this Saturday at the club dark site will be a wash, but if I get any time in, you will hear about the first of several
new visual observing projects.
Comments:
<< Home
I guess I have the "D team" ... TeleVue plossels.
No way I can afford $600+ eyepieces for my ol orange C8 !!!
But I enjoy what I do have.
No way I can afford $600+ eyepieces for my ol orange C8 !!!
But I enjoy what I do have.
I have the 22 Pantopic Rod and find it very crisp although I don't have other Pans to compare it to. I was not really impressed with the only Ethos I have used, the 13 mm. I compared it with an old 20 mm Nagler, my most favourite ocular, and although the field was similar with the Ethos, of course, at higher magnification, I preferred the view through the 20 mm. This was done using a C 14 at native F11. Another cas of YMMV....Dwight
C-Team maybe, but you'll pry my 24mm, 27mm, and 41mm Panoptics out of my cold dead hands!
It's interesting how everyone's eyes are a little different. For me, I have trouble with the ultrawide eyepieces. 68 degrees seems to be the sweet spot for my eyes.
Post a Comment
It's interesting how everyone's eyes are a little different. For me, I have trouble with the ultrawide eyepieces. 68 degrees seems to be the sweet spot for my eyes.
# posted by 
: 7:18 PM
: 7:18 PM << Home
