Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Richard's Avatar
    Richard Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?



    I have not had the opportunity to use either of these products, and
    can't
    wait long enough until I do to choose. So if my goal is detail on
    planets,
    which do I use?
    Astro-Physics Super Planetary Eyepieces or the TMB Super Monocentric
    eypieces?
    I've got a decent compliment of orthos, Brandons, Taks, have used
    Pentax orthos, etc, etc, and really
    want to see if either of these offer an improvement. Maybe both will.
    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Edward's Avatar
    Edward Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?


    "Richard" <rander3127@rogers.com> wrote in message

    Richard,

    On paper, the SPL's look like the way to go, but there is very little
    feedback available online. Only a hand full of these eyepieces are out in
    service and no one yet is inclined to post a review. I'd love to see one.
    There are some comments by Roland on the AP-UG (which I put more stock in
    than the average manufacturer review because Roland hasn't been one to
    overstate the performance of his goods). I plan to throw a few in the
    eyepiece case once Valery gets things running.

    The TMB's by all accounts are first rate if you can tolerate the narrow FOV.

    Ed T.



  3. #3
    Chuck's Avatar
    Chuck Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?

    I have a 12mm and 10mm SPL on order, expect them in either late June or
    early July. I've been waiting to sell my 12mm Radian so I can do an A/B
    comparison

    --

    Clear Skies,

    Chuck

    "Edward" <reply@thegropup.thx> wrote in message
    news:%6Qxc.19908$Yd3.434@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
    one.
    FOV.



  4. #4
    Richard's Avatar
    Richard Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?

    "Edward" <reply@thegropup.thx> wrote in message news:<%6Qxc.19908$Yd3.434@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net>...

    That will confine them (the narrow field) to the hard-core planetary viewer,
    based on opinions I've heard. Most people seem to go for Naglers or other
    WFs when they spend real money because they seem to think wide fields are
    a needed quantity in an expensive eyepiece. It's a pity in a way because other
    objects (more than a few deepsky objects) can benefit from superior contrast
    and definition. Planetary nebula and double stars have always interested me
    and they are prime targets.
    -Rich

  5. #5
    ValeryD's Avatar
    ValeryD Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?

    "Edward" <reply@thegropup.thx> wrote in message news:<%6Qxc.19908

    Hi Ed,

    Note, please, that SPL eyepieces also have about 1.5x longer eye
    relief in the case 42 degree vs 30 degree. If only 30 dgree field
    in use, SPL eyepieces have at least 2x longer eye relief.
    Needless to say, that comfortable eye relief is one of the most
    important factor for strainless observing of planets. When eye works
    in comfortable conditions, without strain, it will see MORE, then in
    the case of strain due to short eyerelief.
    Long eyerelief and small number of lenses and excellent field correction
    was three decided factors to choose present in SPLs design vs any another.
    We also spent a lot of efforts to develop a new coatings to maintain
    reflections at less than 0.1% level for eye lens and about 0.12%-0.15% for
    lesser important field lens.


    Valery Deryuzhin.

  6. #6
    B Starr's Avatar
    B Starr Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?

    rander3127@rogers.com (Richard) wrote in
    news:ec75e55a.0406081604.73b41d4d@posting.google.c om:


    Check the Aug issue of Sky and Telescope for a review of the TMB Super
    Monocentrics.

    The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow
    field of view. Is this a problem with other monocentrics?

    B Starr

  7. #7
    Ratboy99's Avatar
    Ratboy99 Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?

    >The reviewer noted astigmatism in the TMB's. Strange for such a narrow

    I have four of the TMB Super Monos and I haven't been able to detect any
    astigmatism in them at all.
    rat
    ~( );>

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

  8. #8
    andrea tasselli's Avatar
    andrea tasselli Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?

    B Starr <Starr@nwh.edu> wrote in message news:<10dlvk8pg3v1572@corp.supernews.com>...

    Not really, AFAIK, for a 30deg AFOV. The designer says it only has
    field curvature (which is bad enough in a 30deg AFOV EP!). Apparently
    the issue is about quality control, of four randomly selected EPs
    three had noticeable astigmatism (!!!!) and the fourth (the shortest
    one) was little used.

    Andrea T.

  9. #9
    Richard's Avatar
    Richard Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?

    B Starr <Starr@nwh.edu> wrote in message news:<10dlvk8pg3v1572@corp.supernews.com>...

    That makes sense. I wouldn't expect a three element eyepiece to have
    terrific edge definition in any telescope. orthos, despite their central
    performance, are known for their astigmatism off axis.
    -Rich

  10. #10
    Markus Ludes's Avatar
    Markus Ludes Guest

    Default Which planetary eyepiece?

    The TMB Monos are highly fieldcorrected, pin point across the entire
    field, fully corrected field is even a touch larger then in many orthos.
    Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
    pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
    Mystic, Mystic
    Regards eyerelief. Its correct what valery say, comfort is important and
    the TMB Monos have such comfort, more then numbers could tell you.
    The shortest 4 mm have same comfort then TV Zoom 3-6 mm which is
    specified by 10 mm eyerelief.
    The Monos have a far superior eyerelief to orthos.
    After the review came out I tried about 100 diffrent eyepieces on the
    Questar, all are sharp to the edge , not even a sign of field curvative
    and I
    tested them in my Starmaster 20"F/4.3, faint stars are sharp near the
    edge only bright stars show very little distortion, but hey it is a
    F/4.3


    Yes we do not pay every month thousands of $$$ to the magazin for adds

    Markus


    "Richard" <rander3127@rogers.com> wrote in message
    news:ec75e55a.0406250546.6988fdaa@posting.google.c om





    --
    Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Planetary eyepiece for dobson
    By Super Robin in forum Telescope Eyepieces Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 07:32 AM
  2. TS HR Planetary 4mm Eyepiece
    By gfletcher in forum Telescope Eyepieces Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-01-2010, 10:28 AM
  3. planetary eyepiece for skyquest xt 4.5
    By smetalman2006@yahoo.com in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-12-2006, 10:09 PM
  4. Planetary Eyepiece Advise
    By atasselli@hotmail.com in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-04-2006, 11:07 AM
  5. Planetary Eyepiece Advise
    By Chuck Taylor in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-04-2006, 11:07 AM

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 07:00 AM.