Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Alan W. Craft's Avatar
    Alan W. Craft Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow




    Whilst observing the Moon's terminator,
    the view through the 4mm was superb, as usual,
    while the 12mm in conjunction with the barlow
    was just as sharp, but lacking in some way, and I
    can't put my finger upon it...

    I suppose that's good.

    And O! what a wider field!

    Though, the eye relief, surprisingly, didn't seem to
    increase that much at all upon my having switched
    from the 4mm to the 12mm w/barlow.

    So far, I'm quite happy with my Klee.

    As I observed a large central crater along the
    terminator, eventually two tiny dots of light appeared
    within its jet black bowl.

    Now, that was a nice surprise.

    Alan

  2. #2
    Engineer Scott's Avatar
    Engineer Scott Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow


    On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:56:13 -0600, Alan W. Craft
    <mauritius4@hotmail.com> wrote:


    It was probably just a slight loss of light through all that extra
    glass.

    scotty


  3. #3
    Frank Bov's Avatar
    Frank Bov Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow

    Alan,
    Scotty's got a point about the added glass, plus when looking at the Moon, I
    think a smaller but uniform field looks better than a wider field that gets
    fuzzy at the edge. Star fields I don't notice as much, but the Moon has so
    much detail beyond where you focus your attention that the overall
    impression off-axis makes a difference to me.
    HAve fun,
    Frank

    "Alan W. Craft" <mauritius4@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:dcllsvkcbg0k8256ai68jfscqhhg5qhkic@4ax.com...



  4. #4
    Alan W. Craft's Avatar
    Alan W. Craft Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow

    On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:56:38 GMT, Engineer Scott <scotty@starfleet.mil> ...reflected:


    Yes, I took that into account, but no, it's something else,
    like a slight graying effect coupled with my having to concen-
    trate a bit harder, but not as much as that would seem to imply.
    Again, the difference was slight, yet one to be expected given
    a dedicated magnification versus one arrived at in conjunction
    with a barlow.

    However, the increased field of view just compensated for the
    slight image deterioration, so I'm pleased.

    Alan

  5. #5
    Alan W. Craft's Avatar
    Alan W. Craft Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow

    On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:45:56 GMT, "Frank Bov" <frankbov@rochester.rr.comic> ...reflected:


    I didn't notice any fuzziness at the edges when looking at the Moon,
    and I did make it a point to look.



  6. #6
    Frank Bov's Avatar
    Frank Bov Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow

    Alan,
    Could be partially due to the combination of the fact that the Klee
    vignettes the field a bit with the Konig behaving better at longer effective
    focal ratios. In my f/5.6, all the Konigs are fuzzy at the edge of the
    field, but I've never been a Barlow kind of guy. The UO Orthos aren't fuzzy
    to my eyes, but they're also missing 20* of apparent FOV.

    Maybe it's something else, but you did notice a difference . . .

    Have fun,
    Frank

    "Alan W. Craft" <mauritius4@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:rpmssvoo83tbip5nb766du9opvjul3pb8p@4ax.com...
    <frankbov@rochester.rr.comic> ...reflected:
    Moon, I
    gets



  7. #7
    Alan W. Craft's Avatar
    Alan W. Craft Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 05:13:03 GMT, "Frank Bov" <frankbov@rochester.rr.comic> ...reflected:


    Overall, it just wasn't as comfortable a view, but wider nonetheless,
    and just as sharp.


    I have the 12mm and the 16mm Konigs, though I've yet to see how
    they'll perform in my f/5 Newtonian; fuzzier still, I expect.


    Alan

  8. #8
    JWalkerMI's Avatar
    JWalkerMI Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow

    >I have the 12mm and the 16mm Konigs, though I've yet to see how they'll
    perform in my f/5 Newtonian;

    My 16mm Konig is sharp edge to edge in my f/6 Mak Newt and I love my Klee
    barlow except the thumbscrew has become loose.

    Jack

  9. #9
    Frank Bov's Avatar
    Frank Bov Guest

    Default 4mm UO ortho vs. 12mm UO Konig w/2.8x Klee Barlow

    To be fair, I should note that the 16mm Konig is one of my favorites,
    unmatched at it's price. I did some comparisons on cloudynight.com if you
    want to read more.
    Frank

    "Alan W. Craft" <mauritius4@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:538usvsbtua86f350ka3dqsas05rgmnqqj@4ax.com...
    <frankbov@rochester.rr.comic> ...reflected:
    effective
    nonetheless,
    never



 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Ortho+barlow
    By Alex_S in forum Telescope Eyepieces Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 08:15 PM
  2. 12mm T2 Nagler vs 12mm T4 Nagler
    By JDFlood in forum Telescope Eyepieces Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-17-2009, 12:55 PM
  3. Nagler 11mm t6 VS 12mm t4
    By Francesco Verardi in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-13-2004, 12:04 PM
  4. HELP selecting eyepiece - UO Konig or Orion Lanthanum & Klee ?
    By Ken Martin in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-03-2003, 09:51 PM
  5. Kellner, Konig and Ortho
    By ultralightbackpacker@IHATESPAMyahoo.com in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-29-2003, 05:07 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin« Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin«
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 PM.