Has anyone tried this 30mm 2" 80 deg AFOV eyepiece?
Mark Ensley
http://www.astrobuffet.com/ab/30mm.html
Thanks for any info!
-Mark Ensley
Larry Sayre
I have one on the way (I just received the UPS tracking confirmation #
today in fact). I tried two 30mm WideScan II's with my 13.1" F/5.23
Truss Dob before forever abandoning them as purely optical trash, so I
should be a good judge of how this new 30mm ultrawide performs. It is
being offered both by Astrobufet (under the '1rpd' badge) and by
Anacortes (under the 'BW Optik' badge), both for $99. Both are the
exact same eyepiece from the exact same source. I chose Astrobuffet to
support the litle guy. John Hooper (Astrobuffet) is shipping them now,
but Anacortes hasn't even gotten theirs in yet (~2 weeks out or so per
their latest info).
Lawrence Sayre
Jon Isaacs
>I have one on the way (I just received the UPS tracking confirmation #
>today in fact). I tried two 30mm WideScan II's with my 13.1" F/5.23
>Truss Dob before forever abandoning them as purely optical trash, so I
>should be a good judge of how this new 30mm ultrawide performs.
Let us know what the story is when you test it.
jon
Edward
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030502200700...@mb-m11.aol.com...
But email me first if I have to dump my widescan before its price falls on
the used market. ;^)
Ed
ERIC K. CHEU
Hmmm, can't imagine ever selling my widescan. Lightweight 2" eyepeice, and
has the best light throughput of any eyepiece that I have (so that I
can detect DSO's that I cannot in other eyepieces, even at higher magnification). Edge is admittedly bad, but I'm not as picky about it as some poeple.
: "Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
: news:20030502200700...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Edward
> Hmmm, can't imagine ever selling my widescan.
I can't either Erik.
Ed
Stephen Paul
Larry Sayre <lsa...@apk.net> wrote in message
news:b8uott$g4d$1...@plonk.apk.net...
> Mark Ensley wrote:
> > On the liked to page it is compared favorably to a Widescan II:
> >
> > http://www.astrobuffet.com/ab/30mm.html
> >
> > Thanks for any info!
> >
> > -Mark Ensley
>
> I have one on the way (I just received the UPS tracking confirmation #
> today in fact). I tried two 30mm WideScan II's with my 13.1" F/5.23
> Truss Dob before forever abandoning them as purely optical trash, so I
> should be a good judge of how this new 30mm ultrawide performs. It is
I compared the 1rpd to the 30mm WideScan II to the 30mm WideScan III to a
Panoptic 35mm.
There is very little difference in the image quality of the WS2, WS3 and the
1rpd. None of which hold a candle to the Panoptic.
At F5 I found that a Paracorr and precise collimation made a rather large
difference in the on axis performance of the WS/1rpd eyepiece, and the
useful field nearly doubled (still far short of the field stop however, so I
passed them up). Without the Paracorr and precise collimation of the
primary, my 44 year old astigmatic observing eye wasn't able to obtain
decent focus even on axis.
Stephen Paul
Larry Sayre
>
> I compared the 1rpd to the 30mm WideScan II to the 30mm WideScan III to a
> Panoptic 35mm.
>
> There is very little difference in the image quality of the WS2, WS3 and the
> 1rpd. None of which hold a candle to the Panoptic.
>
> At F5 I found that a Paracorr and precise collimation made a rather large
> difference in the on axis performance of the WS/1rpd eyepiece, and the
> useful field nearly doubled (still far short of the field stop however, so I
> passed them up). Without the Paracorr and precise collimation of the
> primary, my 44 year old astigmatic observing eye wasn't able to obtain
> decent focus even on axis.
>
> Stephen Paul
>
I was told that at least the massively horrible (worst I've ever
experienced and then some) blue color perimiter halo of the 'Wide Scan
II' on the moon (in a relatively fast F/5.23 Newtonian scope at least,
where it extends even to the center, destroying any semblance of
contrast, and thus forcing this observer to want sing "Blue Moon" out
loud) is not present in the '1rpd' (or it's sister 'BW Optik'), so (if
true, and I'm about to find out) this in itself would be a great
improvement, all other things being relatively equal to the WS II and
III as described above. Blue fringing and overall horrible contrast
were my two major gripes with the 'Wide Scan II'. I was told that the
multicoating on the '1rpd' is far better than on the 'WS II', and that
it is at least comparable to the 'WS III'. I would never expect any $99
optic to match an optic in the $365 class like the Pan, nor should
anyone else. Even the 40 mm Pentax XL (my upgrade from the UO 40 mm
MK-70) can't hold water to the edge performance of the 35 mm Panoptic.
At $99 if it beats the Wide Scan II (and/or III which is now being
reported to be essentially no better than the WS II, but costing more of
course...), then it is going to be the bargan deal of the century (so
far at least) in the 30 mm ultrawide class. I agree fully with the
above posting in that my two Wide Scan II's did not have good sharpness
on axis when compared to my 40 mm MK-70 or 40 mm Pentax XL, and that off
axis shparness deteriorated much faster than my 40 mm UO MK-70 (and
worlds faster than the Pentax XL), so I will be looking at these
characteristics closely in the '1rpd' also.
Lawrence Sayre
Sol Robbins
I just got one of these eyepieces this week. The previous stated
impressions that are stated in this thread are pretty much true. This
eyepiece provides a 2.15 degree FOV, 37X, with a 4 mm. exit pupil in
my 6" refractor, 1120 mm.length scope.
You really have to ask yourself why you need or want an eyepiece with
basic characteristics like like this. I also have a 30 mm. Clave, that
optically is very hard to beat, but its FOV is around 1.3 or 1.4
degrees. I have tried or owned the 40 mm. Tele Vue Wide Field, 40 mm.
MK70, 35 mm. Panoptic, 31 Nagler, 55 mm. TV Plossl, and a 30 mm.
Leitz. At $99, the ST80 will be just fine for my needs as it turns my
6" hi-res refractor into something like a over-grown finder scope. The
ST80's cost represents 1/2 to 1/12 the cost of the eyepieces I have
previously mentioned. I certainly would select a better eyepiece if my
scopes had a focal length of approaching 3000 mm. or more.
It does have a fair share of lateral color and edge distortion
compared to the others. Light throughput is pretty good, no kidney
beaning, and its physically quite comfortable to observe with. That
said, its price performance ratio is hard to beat. IMO, selecting
eyepieces should be a matter of matching them up with your particular
scope and observing needs/style. The central 50%-70% image sharpness
is comparable with a 32 mm. Sirius Hi Lite Plossl I recently tried
out. Once again, in my scope not much would be "resolved" in objects
that would need a +2 degree FOV at 37x. IMO, a similar eyepiece that
has probably best with overall center of field image clarity vs.
distortion free field is probably the 40 mm. MK70. This is only if
think you would an eyepiece like this often enough.
I basically purchased this eyepiece to fill a niche. Different folks
have different observing styles. For me, the Ultra Wide Field viewing
thing is simply not my style. Generally, I prefer to view objects
starting at 50x-75x with eyepieces that have a 50 degree AFOV is
certainly suitable for framing the +90% of I observe. I mostly use
somewhere between 120x-300x on DSOs. For me, this eyepiece will
perform well enough for observing the few objects that require the +2
degree FOV that the ST80 provides in my scope. The Beehive fit in the
ST80's FOV with room to spare. At $99, I couldn't say no to an
eyepiece that would show me such a small handfull of objects to good
effect.
Just my 2ยข, Sol Robbins
Craig Levine
I have a 13.1" f4.5 dob. I own a 35mm Panoptic. The Widescan III
intrigued me, as it filled a gap between my 22mm Panoptic and the
35mm, and barlowed, it filled the chasm between my 12mm Nagler and
19mm Panoptic. I tried the WSIII before my Paracorr arrived and it was
sharp on axis, but the outer 60% got mushier the further you got from
the center of the field. I put it up for sale after the first night of
testing. Mind you, the next night, I put more care into collimating my
'scope, and barlowed, it showed beautiful views of M53. The images are
very bright, and sharp on axis.
However, the Pan 35 blows the doors off it in terms of sharpness to
the edge, and it was hard justifying keeping it given the similar
field to the Pan 35. I've just bought a 16mm T5 Nagler with the
proceeds from the WSIII, which seems to be a better investment, at
least for my setup.
As for value for the $$, the WSIII *IS* an excellent value. The price
war notwithstanding on the 1RPD (at or below cost. EEEEK!), I would
recommend the WSIII if a Pan 35 or Nagler 31mm is not in your budget.
I'm interested in the 1RPD just for the price. It was to be sold for
~$200 until the price tiff began.
My problem is that I'm like Nick Nolte in "Down and Out In Beverly
Hills". He goes from eating out of the garbage cans of the Hollywood
elite to eating at the table. When he leaves in a fit of Pique, he
tries going back to the dumptster. Doesn't matter that it's lobster
patรฉ he digs out: he's found that once accustomed to the good life, he
can't downgrade. Given that your optical train is only as good as the
worst part of it, the old saw rings true: "get the best optics that
you can afford". Mind you, there are some excellent bargains to be
found out there. Take a look at the IRPD or the Antares WA Series -
you may be pleasantly surprised.
Cheers,
- Craig
Craig Levine
Secretary
RASC, Halifax Centre
www.halifax.rasc.ca
Sol Robbins
I finally got to give this eyepiece a thorough workout last night. I
used a 6" f/7.46 refractor @ 37x with Chromacor II, an 18" f/4.5 @ 69x
and 138 w/2x Barlow, and a 12" SCT @ 101x and 64x w/focal reducer.
I feel I have to ammend what I had said earlier about this eyepiece.
At $99, this eyepiece is an unadulterated steal. Light throughtput is
very good and usable sharp field of view is satifyingly large. Though
there is some edge distortion that begins at about the outer 30% on
these scopes, (gets progressively worse with it being most noticeable
usually on the outer 15%-10%).
The Balowed and focal reducer views with the equipment mentioned above
was tack sharp across the entire FOV. On the 12" SCT with the 30 mm.
ST80 did show some field curvature that made its performance a bit
weaker than the other 2 scopes I used it in. I have to say that I
walked away being demonstrably impressed. It shows approximately the
same TFOV, and has pretty much the same attributes and is most
directly comparable with the 40 mm. MK70 in the 6" and 18" scopes.
Will it beat a 35 mm. or 27 mm. Panoptic on sharpness across the
entire field? No.
Is it more comfortable on the eye with no real kidney beaning? Yes.
Is the central 60%-70% of field satisfyingly sharp on golobulars and
DSO's as used in these 3 scopes? Yes.
The downside that stuck out after using the ST80 for about 6 hours is
as follows. The outer 20%-15% of the field is where some false
coloration occurs,(depends on star brightness). This coloration/tint
is like a reddish-purple. Once again the amount of false coloration is
related to how bright the stars are at the edge of field and was
usually not bothersome.
Additionally, my unit's chrome barrel is not threaded for filters. I
was told that future units will ber threaded.
Hope that helps, Sol Robbins
Dave Mitsky
snip
> As for value for the $$, the WSIII *IS* an excellent value. The price
> war notwithstanding on the 1RPD (at or below cost. EEEEK!), I would
> recommend the WSIII if a Pan 35 or Nagler 31mm is not in your budget.
> I'm interested in the 1RPD just for the price. It was to be sold for
> ~$200 until the price tiff began.
snip
> - Craig
While I have not had the opportunity to evaluate the WSIII or the
1RPD, I did briefly own a 30mm WSII and agree for the most part with
what Stephen, Lawrence, Sol, and Craig had to say about this eyepiece.
If the 1RPD performs better than the WSII its low price may just make
any shortcomings rather palatable.
Dave Mitsky
Mike Fitterman
for the 1RPD for 2 reasons and none of them are for the optics: 1. John
Hopper is a great guy and stands by his stuff and 2. Price is unbeatable for
the optics!
I saw Sol's review and I pretty much agree with what he has to say. It's
not a pan but your not paying for one either ;-)
Mike.
"Dave Mitsky" <dj...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:cd372287.03050...@posting.google.com...
Michael McCulloch
wrote:
>However, the Pan 35 blows the doors off it in terms of sharpness to
>the edge ...
I think most of you guys that poop on the Widescan have shorter focal
length scopes. I agree, in my f6 refractor, the Widescan III is pretty
bad at the edges.
However, in my f10 SCT the Widescan III is quite nice. The contrast on
DSOs is just excellent. Some experienced eyes in our local club have
had very good things to say looking thru my scope. For the price, I am
very happy with the EP _in my SCT_ and don't see getting rid of it
anytime soon.
Michael
Edward
"Mike Fitterman" <cut...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vbaslhr...@corp.supernews.com...
> I've compared the WSII to the 1RPD. They are different but close. I'd go
> for the 1RPD for 2 reasons and none of them are for the optics: 1. John
> Hopper is a great guy and stands by his stuff and 2. Price is unbeatable
for
> the optics!
>
> I saw Sol's review and I pretty much agree with what he has to say. It's
> not a pan but your not paying for one either ;-)
>
> Mike.
Hi Mike,
So you're saying the 1RPD is not optically superior to the WSII? How do
they compare? I have an MK70 40mm and a widescan III, but I'm always
looking for a better ep, as long as it doesnt cost $600 and weigh 2 pounds.
Ed
Richard Anderson
"Stephen Paul" <spau...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6452f699c6aba681fec02469a17c45a@TeraNews...
>
> Larry Sayre <lsa...@apk.net> wrote in message
> news:b8uott$g4d$1...@plonk.apk.net...
> > Mark Ensley wrote:
> > > On the liked to page it is compared favorably to a Widescan II:
> > >
> > > http://www.astrobuffet.com/ab/30mm.html
> > >
> > > Thanks for any info!
> > >
> > > -Mark Ensley
> >
> > I have one on the way (I just received the UPS tracking confirmation #
> > today in fact). I tried two 30mm WideScan II's with my 13.1" F/5.23
> > Truss Dob before forever abandoning them as purely optical trash, so I
> > should be a good judge of how this new 30mm ultrawide performs. It is
>
> I compared the 1rpd to the 30mm WideScan II to the 30mm WideScan III to a
> Panoptic 35mm.
>
> There is very little difference in the image quality of the WS2, WS3 and
the
> 1rpd. None of which hold a candle to the Panoptic.
No surprise there. The only inexpensive (relatively)
eyepieces I've seen that can compare to the Nagler or
Meade UW line are:
Speers Waler in the 8-18mm size.
Some inexpensive orthos.
But none compare in all categories.
-Rich
Dave Mitsky
Michael,
When I received my 30mm WSII in early 2000 one of the first telescopes
that I used it with was a 17" f/15 classical Cassegrain. I noticed
some astigmatism even at f/15! And then there was that wonderful
extreme lateral color when looking at bright objects such as the moon
(a literal Blue Moon as a matter of fact) and Jupiter, a fact which I
alerted Lawrence to in future correspondences.
Dave Mitsky
Shneor Sherman
I can't help thinking that my Widescan II must be different from most.
It was one of first batch of 5 that Markus Ludes received several
years ago, the first shipment from Kokusai Khoki. The barrel was not
threaded for filters, and Markus soon sent a replacement barrel.
No lateral color is visible in my eyepiece. In my 18" f/4.5, I see
five stars in the Trapezium. When used with a Visual Paracorr, it
rivals the 31mm Nagler - also used with a Visual Paracorr - in every
respect, now that the edges of the Widescan II are blackened. In a
friend's 12" LX200, it's practically indistinguishable from a 31mm
Nagler, except that it has better light transmission and therefore
produces images that are a bit brighter. Obviously, YMMV.
Clear skies,
Shneor Sherman
Stephen Paul
news:tgvabv443kra2rv70...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
>
> >However, the Pan 35 blows the doors off it in terms of sharpness to
> >the edge ...
>
> I think most of you guys that poop on the Widescan have shorter focal
> length scopes. I agree, in my f6 refractor, the Widescan III is pretty
> bad at the edges.
I will definitely poop on this eyepieces at 10" F5 (1250mm). The Paracorr
boosts me up to F5.75 for 1440mm focal length, and that jump made a lot of
difference, but not enough for my purposes. The happy user's scopes I see
listed in this thread are in the 1500mm and longer focal lengths, so I see a
pattern developing. Seems a fair bet to generalize all of this and say that
it's a good eyepiece for long focal lengths (one dissent with an F15
Cassegrain notwithstanding).
>
> However, in my f10 SCT the Widescan III is quite nice. The contrast on
> DSOs is just excellent. Some experienced eyes in our local club have
> had very good things to say looking thru my scope. For the price, I am
> very happy with the EP _in my SCT_ and don't see getting rid of it
> anytime soon.
That's awesome. If I were a 2" eyepiece user with my 8" SCT, and that were
my only scope, I'm pretty sure I would have come to the same conclusion.
However, for me, the realm of the 2" eyepiece is best suited to my 10" F5
Dob. The 35mm Panoptic will give me a marginally abberated 1.8 degrees
without Paracorr and a largely abberation free 1.5 degrees with. I know to
some people that's not worth the extra cost. And, the price is handsome.
Retail, we're talking $365 for the 35mm and $295 for the Paracorr. Total
cost then, including the XT10, is roughly $1300. Then again, what cheaper
solutions are there to get a virtually abberation free 1.5 degree field from
a 10" aperture?
-Stephen Paul
Sol Robbins
> that I used it with was a 17" f/15 classical Cassegrain. I noticed
> some astigmatism even at f/15! And then there was that wonderful
> extreme lateral color when looking at bright objects such as the moon
> (a literal Blue Moon as a matter of fact) and Jupiter, a fact which I
> alerted Lawrence to in future correspondences.
>
> Dave Mitsky
Hi Dave,
I read what you had to say about the blue/LC before my second take on
this eyepiece so I looked for it. When I centered the Moon in my 6"
refractor w/Chromacor, I could detect no color. Lots of detail in the
Earthshine. Anyway, when moving the Moon the outer edge of field,
there was red-violet, (rasberry), on the 15% percent or so.
Addionally, there was no flaring occuring from bright stars near or
just outside
the FOV edge. I find that kind of flaring had occurred in my 6"
refractor and my old 8" SCT when using the old TV Wide Fields and
newer Panoptics in the 40mm. to 24mm. range. Eye positioning is also
very lenient.
IMO, I don't think anyone could be unhappy with this eyepiece for the
price unless the kind of scope one uses needs highly corrected
eyepieces. I am curious as to how this e.p. behaves, say in a TV
NP101. From past experience, my 18mm. and 25mm. Orthos and some other
very good Plossls I have just crap out in the NP101.
Sol Robbins
ERIC K. CHEU
and used to own a tak sky 90. Also owned a few other scopes for brief
periods of time. But the Widescan that I own is not a poor performer at such a
low focal length. In fact, other people have been amazed at the performance
of his eyepiece at star parties as well. It might not have the field flatness
of the Nagler 31mm, but it seems to have better light throughput. And is sharp
in the center. One of my favorite eyepieces.
I guess it depends on how picky you are with edge performance, as well as which
particular manifacturer (and this might relate to quality control) you got as to how
the eyepiece performs.
: news:tgvabv443kra2rv70...@4ax.com...
Larry Sayre
> Actually I own the apogee version of the Widescan and have a Teleport (F/5)
> and used to own a tak sky 90. Also owned a few other scopes for brief
> periods of time. But the Widescan that I own is not a poor performer at such a
> low focal length. In fact, other people have been amazed at the performance
> of his eyepiece at star parties as well. It might not have the field flatness
> of the Nagler 31mm, but it seems to have better light throughput. And is sharp
> in the center. One of my favorite eyepieces.
> I guess it depends on how picky you are with edge performance, as well as which
> particular manifacturer (and this might relate to quality control) you got as to how
> the eyepiece performs.
>
>
One of my 2 Wide Scan II's was badged "Kokusai Kohki", and the other was
badged "Apogee". I acquired them somewhere around a year appart (the
Kokusai one coming very soon after these first hit the market). Neither
was a bit different from the other, and both were dogs for me at F/5.23.
Lawrence Sayre
Stephen Paul
will see much difference with the 1rpd from Astrobuffet. I am the "other guy
that hadn't been met before", and what John says is accurate about how the
1rpd compared, and I do (obviously) prefer the 35mm Panoptic. Not that I
have mine yet.
If you like the Widescan, then you're going to love the 1rpd for $99. The
performance is virtually indistinguishable.
I have opted to go with the TeleVue 35mm and 24mm Panoptics. A far more
expensive solution for sure, but one that I can live with. I just got the
24mm and it's awesome. The 35 is on hold while the budget regenerates.
Best wishes,
--
-Stephen Paul
"ERIC K. CHEU" <ekc...@nospam.supernova.edu> wrote in message
news:b96eee$1hv$1...@hypatia.uncg.edu...
Stephen Paul
> One of my 2 Wide Scan II's was badged "Kokusai Kohki", and the other was
> badged "Apogee". I acquired them somewhere around a year appart (the
> Kokusai one coming very soon after these first hit the market). Neither
> was a bit different from the other, and both were dogs for me at F/5.23.
Honestly Larry, I don't think you'll see any difference.
Can't wait to hear your opinion.
-Stephen
Markus Ludes
news:ed6b052.03050...@posting.google.com
>
> Additionally, my unit's chrome barrel is not threaded for filters. I
> was told that future units will ber threaded.
>
> Hope that helps, Sol Robbins
Customers who wants to have the eyepiece with filterthreadet barrel can
buy it for same money from Anacortes, no exchange necassary
Markus
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Dave Mitsky
> dj...@psu.edu (Dave Mitsky) wrote in message news:<cd372287.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > When I received my 30mm WSII in early 2000 one of the first telescopes
> > that I used it with was a 17" f/15 classical Cassegrain. I noticed
> > some astigmatism even at f/15! And then there was that wonderful
> > extreme lateral color when looking at bright objects such as the moon
> > (a literal Blue Moon as a matter of fact) and Jupiter, a fact which I
> > alerted Lawrence to in future correspondences.
> >
> > Dave Mitsky
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I read what you had to say about the blue/LC before my second take on
> this eyepiece so I looked for it. When I centered the Moon in my 6"
> refractor w/Chromacor, I could detect no color. Lots of detail in the
> Earthshine. Anyway, when moving the Moon the outer edge of field,
> there was red-violet, (rasberry), on the 15% percent or so.
>
> Addionally, there was no flaring occuring from bright stars near or
> just outside
> the FOV edge. I find that kind of flaring had occurred in my 6"
> refractor and my old 8" SCT when using the old TV Wide Fields and
> newer Panoptics in the 40mm. to 24mm. range. Eye positioning is also
> very lenient.
snip
> Sol Robbins
Sol,
I did mention lateral color I believe. Consider the fact that the
blue lunar perimeter hue was seen with my KK 30mm WSII using a 17"
f/15 classical Cassegrain, a telescope with a focal length of 6477mm,
yielding a magnification of 209x. Jupiter, when placed at the field
edge through a number of different scopes including a 12.5" f/6.5 Cave
Newtonian produced a full color spectrum, something that I had never
seen before or since.
Dave Mitsky
Dave Mitsky
snip
> I have opted to go with the TeleVue 35mm and 24mm Panoptics. A far more
> expensive solution for sure, but one that I can live with. I just got the
> 24mm and it's awesome. The 35 is on hold while the budget regenerates.
>
> Best wishes,
> --
> -Stephen Paul
Stephen,
I eventually replaced my 32mm Meade SWA, the eyepiece that I had
planned on surplanting with the 30mm KK WSII, with a used 35mm
Panoptic. I am very happy with the Panoptic but often wish (for a
number of reasons) that the WSII had performed within my expectations.
Dave Mitsky
Edward
Ed
Stephen Paul
> Panoptic. I am very happy with the Panoptic but often wish (for a
> number of reasons) that the WSII had performed within my expectations.
You and me and everyone else <g>. I thought the price was reasonable even at
$249 had it performed better out to the edge. The 2 degree field these gave
in my 10" F5 was simply huge.
I find it curious that there are differing reports on the acceptability of
its performance. I can only attribute that to the same phenomenon where
people report good results with the 30mm Ultima. Comparing those reports to
my own experience with the 30mm Ultima, I've concluded that I must have
trouble with high levels of field curvature in an eyepiece/telescope system.
Flattening the field a bit in the SCT with the R/C helps, but then the exit
pupil increases to the point that the astigmatism in my eye flares up
(literally).
My brother use to sing an old blues tune with the lyric "if the washing
don't get you, the rinsing sure will". That seems apropos for the 30mm
WideScan where my eye's accommodation response to field curvature and
astigmatism response to large exit pupils really seems to have gone through
the roof. As if it weren't enough to have to study the predictable physics
of light and mirrors to understand optics, there's also the pesky
unpredictable human factor that influences our individual experiences.
I now know from experience that, however it is accomplished, the Pans
satisfactorily resolve this for me. I don't need my astigmatism correcting
glasses in the 24mm, and that's great news. With the 35mm Pan the astig.
correction helps, but even there I can get by without it as long as I stay
away from light sources brighter than mag 4 or so. Of course I'm getting
that eyepiece specifically for objects such as M44, M45 and the Double
Cluster, which have some pretty bright members. I can't wait to see M31 in
the 1.8 degree field of the 35mm Pan in the 10" F5 under truly dark skies.
Be well,
Stephen Paul
Zane
(snip)
>I find it curious that there are differing reports on the acceptability of
>its performance. I can only attribute that to the same phenomenon where
>people report good results with the 30mm Ultima. Comparing those reports to
>my own experience with the 30mm Ultima, I've concluded that I must have
>trouble with high levels of field curvature in an eyepiece/telescope system.
>Flattening the field a bit in the SCT with the R/C helps, but then the exit
>pupil increases to the point that the astigmatism in my eye flares up
>(literally).
(snip)
I notice the same thing with my judgement on things versus other people's,
especially with binoculars. On occasion, other people will comment on how
sharp they are in the edges, when they look pretty not-so-good to me. I
think I only have about 1.5 diopters of accomodation left at my age, which
probably accounts for it.
Same with some longer focal length eyepieces with short focal ratio scopes
-- someone will judge that things look OK at f/5 when it again doesn't look
good to me. (Was that this thread where this same thing was noted?) In
that case, I think my pupils still open up pretty wide but they're pretty
ratty at the edges. My assessment of 7x50 binoculars, relative to some
young punk, can also be a lot different depending on whether it's in the
sunlight or at night on the sky.
This is probably a good example of how it's hard to make accurate
subjective scope comparisons without _every_ parameter being the same in
the two, and all observers being the same. Two people can legitimately
come to two different conclusions.
Zane
Sol Robbins
>
> I did mention lateral color I believe. Consider the fact that the
> blue lunar perimeter hue was seen with my KK 30mm WSII using a 17"
> f/15 classical Cassegrain, a telescope with a focal length of 6477mm,
> yielding a magnification of 209x. Jupiter, when placed at the field
> edge through a number of different scopes including a 12.5" f/6.5 Cave
> Newtonian produced a full color spectrum, something that I had never
> seen before or since.
>
> Dave Mitsky
>
In your 17" this 30mm. focal length is definitely on the verge on
being used as a planetary e.p. There may be some kind of slight
difference between the 30mm. ST80 and the Widescan that most of the
folks here are referring to. I have not seen a "real" Widescan in
several years, though this ST80 certainly seems to be "mighty
close".;)
BTW, thanks for being honest & precise in throughout your evaluation
in this thread.
In a SCT, I believe that this scope design produced optically a
slightly weaker image with the ST80 possibly due to SCT's generally
having some inherrant field curvature. Most longer focal length
eyepiece designs show this to some degree.
Fortunately for me, I don't usually observe planets or other bright
objects at the 37x with a 2.15 degree field this eyepiece delivers in
my scope.
Thanks again, Sol Robbins
Nigel Burge
>I find it curious that there are differing reports on the acceptability of
>its performance. I can only attribute that to the same phenomenon where
>people report good results with the 30mm Ultima. Comparing those reports to
>my own experience with the 30mm Ultima, I've concluded that I must have
>trouble with high levels of field curvature in an eyepiece/telescope system.
>Flattening the field a bit in the SCT with the R/C helps, but then the exit
>pupil increases to the point that the astigmatism in my eye flares up
>(literally).
>
Astigmatism and field curvature cannot both be eliminated together in the WSII
(Astroplanocular 2-1-2) design since they are interdependent. The WSII shows
virtually no astigmatism even at the extreme edge in my F10 SCT, so the designer
clearly adjusted for very low astigmatism resulting in higher field curvature.
If you have young eyes and your accommodation is good, then this field curvature
will not be too noticeable. If you have to wear reading glasses (like me!) then
it is quite noticeable. I find that focussing on the inner third of the field
results in most of the easily visible field being sharp.
The fact that the SCT also has a curved focal plane does not help since the two
curvatures add together. This, together with the variability of observers'
accommodation could account for the very widely differing opinions of this
eyepiece.
Contrast and internal reflections are greatly improved when the lens edges of
the WSII are blackened. This is an easy job and well worth doing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:- Nigel D.R. Burge - Isle of Skye - Scotland
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McCulloch
<nigel.re...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Contrast and internal reflections are greatly improved when the lens edges of
>the WSII are blackened. This is an easy job and well worth doing.
The edges are blackened at the factory with the WSIII.
Dave Mitsky
snip
> Stephen,
>
> I eventually replaced my 32mm Meade SWA, the eyepiece that I had
> planned on surplanting with the 30mm KK WSII, with a used 35mm
> Panoptic. I am very happy with the Panoptic but often wish (for a
> number of reasons) that the WSII had performed within my expectations.
>
> Dave Mitsky
I believe that word is spelled supplanting. <g>
Dave Mitsky
Rich McMahon
I have the 30mm widescan II also.. I got a chance to compare it to the
31 nagler at the texas star party and I found t he widescan to be be
superior.. I did pick up the university optics 2" barlow. What a
combination. One of the best moves for this eyepiece. Overall the
widescan is a great buy. I will be blacking the edges to see if I get
any further imporvemnt.
Rich
On 5 May 2003 07:36:03 -0700, shn...@my-deja.com (Shneor Sherman)
wrote:
Nigel Burge
>I have the 30mm widescan II also.. I got a chance to compare it to the
>31 nagler at the texas star party and I found t he widescan to be be
>superior.. I did pick up the university optics 2" barlow. What a
>combination. One of the best moves for this eyepiece. Overall the
>widescan is a great buy. I will be blacking the edges to see if I get
>any further imporvemnt.
While you have got the WSII apart, it is also well worthwhile painting the
inside of the field lens spacer ring with flat/matte black paint (also the
bottom part of the eye lens spacer ring but not half so important). There is
quite a bit of internal reflection off this shiny anodised surface which you can
see in daylight at the extreme edge of the field.
This removes the last of the internal light scattering and results in only a
faint yellow ring at the edge of the field with greatly improved contrast. All
the blue scattered light is removed.
It is about a 50% improvement compared with blackening the lens edges which is a
must.
Think of the WSII as a "finish it off yourself" eyepiece - these two things turn
it from a good eyepiece into an excellent one.
Nigel
Shneor Sherman
You'll find it's well worth it in terms of increased contrast.
Clear skies,
Shneor
rhm...@yahoo.com (Rich McMahon) wrote in message news:<3ebb6cb0...@news.us.dell.com>...
Shneor Sherman
Again, these comments lead me to believe that either there are
different varieties of the WSII or that quality control was poor.
Clear skies,
Shneor
Rich McMahon
Having never done this do you just buy a can of paint and a brush and
carefully apply the paint.. I have a permanent black marker that I
was thinking of using? How did you darken the edges on yours?
Rich
Rich McMahon
Thanks Im going to blacken the edges and barrel..
Rich
On 9 May 2003 07:08:44 -0700, shn...@my-deja.com (Shneor Sherman)
Nigel Burge
Basically, yes.
I used a Sharpie black ink marker (Felt Tip Pens in the UK!) to blacken the lens
edges and gave them two coats.
I used matte black paint to paint the inside of the lens spacer rings with a
fine brush. I left the rings on my central heating boiler all night to
thoroughly dry and harden and then reassembled the eyepiece.
As long as you make a careful sketch of the way everything fits together, all
will be well. Be aware though that the central bi-convex lens only goes one way
round - bigger side to the bottom - it only fits one way round anyway so you
can't get it wrong.
I recommend wearing white cotton gloves which you can get very cheaply from any
photographic store and also using a lenspen to remove any dust and marks.
I got my WSII out last night on the moon and even with the moon half in and half
out of the edge of the field of view there was no internal refection or glare.
The field was black which was a huge difference from before with the blue haze.
Best of luck,
Nigel
Craig Levine
> On 3 May 2003 19:48:13 -0700, dob...@hfx.eastlink.ca (Craig Levine)
> wrote:
>
> >However, the Pan 35 blows the doors off it in terms of sharpness to
> >the edge ...
>
> I think most of you guys that poop on the Widescan have shorter focal
> length scopes. I agree, in my f6 refractor, the Widescan III is pretty
> bad at the edges.
>
...I didn't poop on it at all. I indicated that it is a great value
for the dollar. If I say a BMW Z4 3.0i has nicer interior
fit-and-finish and a peppier engine than a Chevy Malibu, am I pooping
on the Malibu? Nope. Just comparing them and giving an honest report
of the comparison. By getting a Malibu instead of the Beemer, I bought
some Panoptics, and a Blazer to haul the scope and border collies.
:-)
Cheers,
- Craig
eye_...@arkansas.net
<nigel.re...@pobox.com> wrote:
Very, very true bits of information here, thanks. It actually would
be great if someone would add an on-line article of proven
step-by-step procedures with associated pictures. Seems to me there
would be a significant benefit especially referencing this model and
the numerous "potential" users.
One critical aspect not mentioned is the problem with dust attracted
by static electricity to exposed lenses. There goes the neighborhood
if looking for speck-free lunar views. Contrast can also be affected
especially by microscopic layers that sometimes get "poofed" onto lens
surfaces.
One reasonable solution could be a working enclosure (cardboard box?)
with filter trap on one side, draw fan on the opposite, and access
with rubber work gloves on the third side. Clear plastic wrap could
be draped across the top to view a sealed chamber.
Pete
eye_...@arkansas.net
wrote:
>Michael McCulloch <mich...@nospam.invalid.net> wrote in message news:<tgvabv443kra2rv70...@4ax.com>...
>> On 3 May 2003 19:48:13 -0700, dob...@hfx.eastlink.ca (Craig Levine)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >However, the Pan 35 blows the doors off it in terms of sharpness to
>> >the edge ...
>>
>> I think most of you guys that poop on the Widescan have shorter focal
>> length scopes. I agree, in my f6 refractor, the Widescan III is pretty
>> bad at the edges.
The 30mm Widescan is a computer optimized 5-element Erfle. Seller
comments to the contrary are incorrect. The model actually seems to
optically perform quite well for true angular field even with an f-5
Chinese achromat. This compared to most anything else similarly or
lesser priced including the University Konig Mk-70 (by a small
margin).
Pete
Nigel Burge
surface (old vest!) and before reassembling each lens in order, I used a lenspen
to remove any surface muck and then the lenspen brush to remove all visible
dust.
I cannot see any trace of anything in practice, even on views of the moon. The
only flaw that there is is a small slight blemish in the cement between the
elements of the eye lens. This is invisible in practice.
Nigel
Larry Sayre
It's raining cats and dogs here so I won't be out under the skies for
awhile with it, but I just got my 30 mm 1rpd ST-80 ultrawide eyepiece
today (from Astrobuffet), and here is my first take: Having owned 2
"real" Wide Scan II's in the past, I can say that this eyepiece looks
and feels outwardly to be very much a $99 spitting image clone of the
more expensive Wide Scan II. It visibly lacks only the highly polished
(as in shining black) anodized aluminum finish, and the recessed focuser
set screw retaining groove on the barrel. The anodized aluminum on the
1rpd is a dull matt black instead. This is not to denigrate it, but
only to point out that it is different. If anything, it should help to
hold down reflections, and it looks nice overall, just not quite as nice
as the Wide Scan II or III. The barrel below is nicely chromed to a
high level of shine. The knurled rubber grip is just about 100%
identical to that found on the Wide Scan II, and is nicely made. The
1rpd is made in China, whereas the Wide Scan III is made in Japan (and
for the life of me I can't remember where the Wide Scan II's were made).
The 1rpd is likewise a 5 element (claimed to be not an Erfle)
eyepiece, but I never took apart my Wide Scan II's, and I won't be
taking the 1rpd appart either to see if they are true clones under the
skin. One slight optical difference up front is that the Wide Scan II
and III both have 44mm field stops, and the 1rpd has a more conservative
41mm field stop. This means the Wide Scan's are true 84 degree AFOV
eyepieces, whereas the 1rpd is only a true 80 degree AFOV eyepiece. I
will have to take this into consideration when I compare them for
extreme edge of field performance. The 1rpd (or at least the 2nd
generation 1rpd's, as well as the upcoming and 100% identical 30 mm "BW
Optik" badged eyepiece which will be available exclusively in a few
weeks from Anacortes) do have certain enhancements which make them
actually more akin to the new Wide Scan III than the older Wide Scan II.
Mine is apparently from the second batch that John Hooper
(Astrobuffet) received, as mine is threaded for 48mm filters. I tried a
few filters in it and they worked fine. It is also claimed by
Astrobuffet (in an E-Mail to me from John Hooper) to have fully
blackened lens edges (as opposed I assume to the 1st generation of
1rpd's not having this feature, as it is not mentioned 'yet' on the web
site), and it came from the factory in a plastic "bolt case", which is
something I had to buy for my Wide Scan II's (and again was apparently
lacking on the generation one 1rpd's). The top and bottom protective
caps both fit snugly, and in fact fit much better than I recall for the
Wide Scan II caps. There is no rubber eyeguard for the 1rpd, but the
supplied rubber eyeguard was an ungainly and totally useless throw away
clunker on my Apogee badged Wide Scan II, and my earlier Kokusai Kohki
badged Wide Scan II did not have a rubber eyeguard at all. The rubber
eyeguard has been dropped on the new Wide Scan III's. The multicoating
of the 1rpd is a pronounced green in color, as opposed to my
recollection of a purple/blue multicoating on the Wide Scan II's (I
don't know about the Wide Scan III's multicoating hue). Everything
appears solid. I can't wait to try it out in my 13.1" F/5.23 Truss Dob.
PS: John Hooper (Astrobuffet) worked hard to pioneer the ground
breaking importation of this eyepiece into the USA, and (due, I can only
assume to perhaps a lack of the financing required to gain an exclusive
on it) he is now soon to be faced with strong competition from the
aformentioned "BW Optik" badged identical twin. John was far more than
cordial in all of his responses to my (sometimes pestering) inquiries
regarding this eyepiece, and he shipped it promptly via UPS when I
finally ordered it. I truly consider him one of the good guys in the
amateur telescope market, and I would encourage others considering this
eyepiece to give Astrobuffet and the "30mm 1rpd ST-80" eyepiece a
chance, as opposed to going with a virtual giant and yet "Johnny come
lately". I have no business (or other) relation to John Hooper or
Astrobuffet. I'm only a very satisfied customer.
Lawrence Sayre
th...@thadlabs.com
[...]
| PS: John Hooper (Astrobuffet) worked hard to pioneer the ground
| breaking importation of this eyepiece into the USA, and (due, I can only
| assume to perhaps a lack of the financing required to gain an exclusive
| on it) he is now soon to be faced with strong competition from the
| aformentioned "BW Optik" badged identical twin. John was far more than
| cordial in all of his responses to my (sometimes pestering) inquiries
| regarding this eyepiece, and he shipped it promptly via UPS when I
| finally ordered it. I truly consider him one of the good guys in the
| amateur telescope market, and I would encourage others considering this
| eyepiece to give Astrobuffet and the "30mm 1rpd ST-80" eyepiece a
| chance, as opposed to going with a virtual giant and yet "Johnny come
| lately". I have no business (or other) relation to John Hooper or
| Astrobuffet. I'm only a very satisfied customer.
Ditto all the good things about John and Astrobuffet; their customer
service is exemplary and I've been dealing with him for over a year.
One correction: John's last name is "Hopper" and not "Hooper". He also
(co-)runs MAPUG (Meade Advanced Products Users' Group, www.mapug.com)
along with histing a bunch of other astro-related activities. He's
definitely one of the "Good Guys" and I'll continue patronizing his
operation.
eye_...@arkansas.net
<snip>
>He's
>definitely one of the "Good Guys" and I'll continue patronizing his
>operation.
I'll definitely second that remark! I bought some fantastic fully
multicoated 2" color filters from him a long while back for a
pittance. He fortunately has many more still in stock, I'm told, so
he is the perfect source for those seeking large premium quality
eyepiece filters at a bargain price.
Pete
eye_...@arkansas.net
wrote:
<snip worthy preliminary report>
Nice job Lawrence, thanks! If the lens edges are pre-blackened that
is super news! A person should also be sure the barrel I.D. is well
deadened or do that part, too, themselves. It would be extremely easy
to accomplish and will help as much again improving contrast. Those
planning to remove the barrel for this simple task might best keep
barrel end straight up on a table in case lenses would fall loose.
Also to place a cover over open end to prevent dust entry while
working.
This new EP sounds like an unsurpassed optics deal on something
especially nice to own. I look forward to your comments on that
chromatism issue you noted on the earlier Japanese WideScans. Wish
you had an old vs. new comparo match going, oh well. Let us know!
Pete
eye_...@arkansas.net
<nigel.re...@pobox.com> wrote:
>When I painted/blackened my WSII, I worked with cotton gloves on a lint free
>surface (old vest!) and before reassembling each lens in order, I used a lenspen
>to remove any surface muck and then the lenspen brush to remove all visible
>dust.
>
>I cannot see any trace of anything in practice, even on views of the moon. The
>only flaw that there is is a small slight blemish in the cement between the
>elements of the eye lens. This is invisible in practice.
Nigel,
That sound as a winning approach. I've found that many eyepiece
reassemblies suffered from a drawn in dust orb or 3 requiring
disassembly and a try at it again. A light source being used to
examine progress with single elements and then final lens line up.
Though not having tried the lenspen, all the other various lens brush
products never seemed to remove dust to my satisfaction. What has
worked OK for me is huffing a static discharging bit of breath moisure
onto a lens surface while swiping across it once with lint free
tissue.
Pete
Dave Mitsky
snip
> It's raining cats and dogs here so I won't be out under the skies for
> awhile with it, but I just got my 30 mm 1rpd ST-80 ultrawide eyepiece
> today (from Astrobuffet), and here is my first take: Having owned 2
> "real" Wide Scan II's in the past, I can say that this eyepiece looks
> and feels outwardly to be very much a $99 spitting image clone of the
> more expensive Wide Scan II.
snip
Larry,
That was a fine report. I'm wondering if you know what 1rpd means?
Dave Mitsky
Larry Sayre
Dave,
1rpd = "One revolution per day".
Lawrence Sayre
Markus Ludes
>
> PS: John Hooper (Astrobuffet) worked hard to pioneer the ground
> breaking importation of this eyepiece into the USA, and (due, I can only
> assume to perhaps a lack of the financing required to gain an exclusive
> on it)
can you repead that again ? He worked hard to pioneer it ? Did I read
that correctly ?
The eyepiece was made with a exclusiv gentlenmen agreement to me,
APM-Telescopes.
I started the idea when the Widescan was discontinued and nothing was
know about the future.
The manufactor used my idea and my optics to make this eyepiece.
Our partner told us , me and John, he is the manufactor, but he isn't.
He break his word and our gentlemen agreement, becuas ehe saw he can
make some money with John too
thats seems to be a typical chinese style. he charged us a 100% profit,
so he made real big money on
John and me, but now the original and real manufactor contacted us and
sold us the eyepiece for half price
thats the reason why you can get it now for $ 99.
John simply took away my work with that eyepiece, as he did before with
the
Aries Chromacorr, where I also made the investment with Aries , until my
friend Valery saw, hey there is more
money in the world than only from markus, same thing, John did not made
somthing ,
than taking others work to make money with our product and our ideas.
Did he tell that to you ? I don't think so.
But no problem. All future ideas are safet by strongest contracts with
biggest peneltys in case same
thing will happens again
regards
Markus
he is now soon to be faced with strong competition from the
> aformentioned "BW Optik" badged identical twin. John was far more than
> cordial in all of his responses to my (sometimes pestering) inquiries
> regarding this eyepiece, and he shipped it promptly via UPS when I
> finally ordered it. I truly consider him one of the good guys in the
> amateur telescope market, and I would encourage others considering this
> eyepiece to give Astrobuffet and the "30mm 1rpd ST-80" eyepiece a
> chance, as opposed to going with a virtual giant and yet "Johnny come
> lately". I have no business (or other) relation to John Hooper or
> Astrobuffet. I'm only a very satisfied customer.
>
> Lawrence Sayre
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Jon Isaacs
>can you repead that again ? He worked hard to pioneer it ? Did I read
>that correctly ?
>The eyepiece was made with a exclusiv gentlenmen agreement to me,
>APM-Telescopes.
>I started the idea when the Widescan was discontinued and nothing was
>know about the future.
I vaguely remembered something about this so I did a google search in SAA for
"Markus Ludes Widescan" This is what it turned up and note the date, July 16,
2002:
--------------------------------
"Search Result 1
From: Markus Ludes (apm_tel...@web.de)
Subject: Need Widescan 30 mm to bring it back
View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: 2002-07-16 05:31:32 PST
Many customers asking for the widescan 30 mm. Its definitly discontinued
a, but with some luck it will come back from another japanese maker with
same specs.
In the mean time I found a optical shop who is willing to make it again,
but he does not have an optical design or layout, so he requires to get
a used sample.
I have no more stock of new or used, but if somebody here is willing to
give his sample away on loan for some time and is not worried, that the
optical shop will disassemble it, than he is welcome to help us all to
get it back in production rather quickly.
In case somebody like to help, please contact me by email under
apm_tel...@web.de
best wishes
Markus Ludes"
------------------
Just some information to consider for anyone interested.
Jon Isaacs
Larry Sayre
>
> can you repead that again ? He worked hard to pioneer it ? Did I read
> that correctly ?
> The eyepiece was made with a exclusiv gentlenmen agreement to me,
> APM-Telescopes.
> I started the idea when the Widescan was discontinued and nothing was
> know about the future.
> The manufactor used my idea and my optics to make this eyepiece.
> Our partner told us , me and John, he is the manufactor, but he isn't.
> He break his word and our gentlemen agreement, becuas ehe saw he can
> make some money with John too
> thats seems to be a typical chinese style. he charged us a 100% profit,
Marcus,
Please forgive me if I have offended you, but (right or wrong) please
step back and look at this from my perspective. As a simple consumer I
have (and had) absolutely no means whatever to reveal what may be going
on behind the scenes to bring any form of astro equipment to the
public. Since clearly John Hopper (Astrobuffet) has been shipping these
eyepieces to the USA and Canadian public since March, and he was the
first and only person I was aware of doing so (and technically he still
is as far as I can tell, until Anacortes begins actually shipping them,
or unless they have in fact already been on the market and "available
for shipment" via other distributors in the USA or anywhere else in the
world for that matter other than through Astrobuffet to this day), it
was obviously quite natural for me to "assume" nothing less than that he
had pioneered the importation of this eyepiece, at least into the USA.
As this thread has been ongoing in this public newsgroup forum for quite
some time now, and you have remained silent regarding any statments
whatever regarding this eyepiece until today, and knowing only what I
knew up until today, what other conclusion was I likely to draw until
"after" reading the statement of your sudden revalation (to us all)
above? I don't know if John Hopper frequents this newsgroup or not, but
if he does, perhaps we will hear his side of the story. I believe this
to be one of those cases where both sides need to be heard. John Hopper
did not tell me the things that I speculated in my posting. He only
stated the facts that I presented regarding the eyepiece.
Lawrence Sayre
eye_...@arkansas.net
wrote:
<snip>
>Since clearly John Hopper (Astrobuffet) has been shipping these
>eyepieces to the USA and Canadian public since March, and he was the
>first and only person I was aware of doing so (and technically he still
>is as far as I can tell, until Anacortes begins actually shipping them,
>or unless they have in fact already been on the market and "available
>for shipment" via other distributors in the USA or anywhere else in the
>world for that matter other than through Astrobuffet to this day), it
>was obviously quite natural for me to "assume" nothing less than that he
>had pioneered the importation of this eyepiece, at least into the USA.
And that John Hopper apparently did. Pioneering *import*, just like
you said it. Nothing can be deduced from your commentary that John
Hopper pioneered the design, development, etc. Only the feat of
import and lead sales. I think Markus has misunderstood the English
translation of your remark. And his comment later about what John
Hopper says or does not say about his (Markus') role in design,
development, etc. is totally irrelevant. There is nothing to whine
about this since there was only choice of verbal agreements made in
the past regarding distribution. Markus putting a plug in for his own
inventive "pioneering" efforts would have been positive, and far more
appropriate, IMHO.
Pete
Jon Isaacs
>you said it. Nothing can be deduced from your commentary that John
>Hopper pioneered the design, development, etc. >Only the feat of
>import and lead sales. I think Markus has misunderstood the English
>translation of your remark.
I don't think he misunderstood anything. It seems to me he is just setting the
record straight, who did what in this deal.
Looks to me like it is basically Markus's baby.
Jon Isaacs
Jon Isaacs
Larry Sayre
It's now obvious Marcus was the one who was in on the ground floor of
the design end of it, and that it is essentially a true clone of the
Wide Scan II, seeing that he actually asked for someone to forward him a
Wide Scan II eyepiece to use for this purpose, based on my reading of
his old post, which you convieniently re-posted in this thread. This
should end years of potential speculation regarding the optical quality
of the new Chinese '30 mm 1rpd ST 80', and '30 mm BW Optik' eyepieces.
My take on last nights brief session of viewing with it will follow
later today.
Lawrence Sayre
Jon Isaacs
>later today.
>
>Lawrence Sayre
I am definitely interested in reading your experiences as well as an evaluation
of how you think this eyepiece might work in a Pronto at 70mm F 6.9 as well as
in a 10 inch F5 DOB.
My guess is that it work nicely in the Pronto, not so well in the DOB.
jon
Michael McCulloch
wrote:
>It's now obvious Marcus was the one who was in on the ground floor of
>the design end of it, and that it is essentially a true clone of the
>Wide Scan II ...
I guess I don't understand why Marcus would be upset when he
admittedly copied a design. The "pioneer" was the original designer of
the EP. The copier gets copied...
Jon Isaacs
>admittedly copied a design. The "pioneer" was the original designer of
>the EP. The copier gets copied...
He didn't design this eyepiece, but getting it back to the marketplace was his
idea and his effort. He made it happen and I imagine was a bit miffed that his
efforts were not recognized.
Reading the Astrobuffet website paints an interesting picture, but for me,
remembering Markes request for a WideScan II eyepiece put things back in
perspective.
I am curious if he had made any sort of arrangement with the original
manufacturer of the Widescan II.
jon isaacs
eye_...@arkansas.net
<snip>
>He made it happen and I imagine was a bit miffed that his
>efforts were not recognized.
Unfortunately, that's his problem, not necesarily someone else's.
Let's get it straight, John Hopper is the person who currently has
"made it happen" as far as placing this item on the current market.
In reality, all other matters are colored and speculative at this
point.
Pete
eye_...@arkansas.net
>I don't think he misunderstood anything. It seems to me he is just setting the
>record straight, who did what in this deal.
>
>Looks to me like it is basically Markus's baby.
>
>Jon Isaacs
Jon,
Unless my own translation is flawed, I see it as Markus thinking the
"ground breaking" mentioned was development ground work that he,
himself, did. We know those are two different things, but he doesn't
seem to, and it looks like turning against John, in vengence, because
of his own failure to set out a working contract. And there was no
mention of supplying John with a direct buyer's link so that's out.
John could have known that already and simply took up offer by the
supplier for his U.S. sales.
Let's remember, it's risky dealing with China and reputations are
delicate. We might actually should assure John receives fair share of
credit for any involvement instead of facing damage for little more
than choosing to legitimately sell a product in his home country.
Pete
Jon Isaacs
>Unfortunately, that's his problem, not necesarily someone else's.
>Let's get it straight, John Hopper is the person who currently has
>"made it happen" as far as placing this item on the current market.
>In reality, all other matters are colored and speculative at this
>point.
>
>Pete
It seems to me that Markes had the idea, found the eyepiece, found the
manufacturer to produce the eyepiece, initiated the process of fabrication and
contracted for some eyepieces complete with filter threads.
I am curious exactly where John Hopper fits into this.
Would these eyepieces be available if there were no Markes Ludes?
Would these eyepieces be available if there were no John Hopper?
Jon Isaacs
Mike Fitterman
Manufacturer told each of these guys they would be the "sole" importer of
the goods. It turns out that John was able to make it happen first, but
each was doing it independently of the other.
Of course the one who wins in this is us and the manufacturer.
Lastly, I gladly deal with John because he wants you to be satisfied with
what you get. He stands by his word and you can return your goods, no
problem if your not happy. I've done this a few times with John when things
didn't quite work out the way I expected and he was great. The fact that
we can get these for $99 is from the competition between John (the little
guy) and the big guys (Markus and Anacortes) is because John keeps driving
down the price and forces the big guys to compete. Otherwise we'd be
getting these for $199.
Mike.
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030514155846...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Herb York
Herb
ATWB
"Mike Fitterman" <cut...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vc5cski...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
Larry Sayre
(which should apply equally to the forthcoming 30mm BW Optik twin):
As a baseline for comparison, I will try to see if this new eyepiece has
rectified my complaints regarding the eyepiece that it is derived from,
I.E. the Wide Scan II. Most of you already know the three issues that
drove me away from two different Wide Scan II eyepieces, but I repeat
them here for those just coming across this issue:
1) Worst blue color fringing on the moon at the edge of the field I've
ever seen.
2) Sharpness a great dissapointment, even directly on axis.
3) Terrible contrast.
Last night the close to full moon, Arcturus, and Jupiter offered up a
great opportunity to test the new eyepiece and see how it stacks up
against the Wide Scan II in these categories. The test bed was my home
built (including the primary mirror) 13.1" F/5.23 Truss Dob, as it was
with the Wide Scan's. The benchmark standard used for optical quality
was my trusty 30mm Ultima eyepiece. A secondary benchmark of comparison
being my home made 2" 40mm 5 element Super Plossl (Erfle). Disclamer:
Since both of my Wide Scan II's are long gone by roughly a year or so, I
must state that I am going on memory here when I comment regarding how
the 1rpd compares to the Wide Scan II.
Category 1, Fringing (lateral color):
There has been some definite improvement here, but a blue perimiter on
the moons edges is still present. If the moon was kept dead centered,
the effect was just barely perceptable, and was not deemed harmfull to
the view. The moon was a nice neutral color while centered. As the
moon drifted (or was positioned) to the edge of the field this lateral
blue (sort of aquamarine actually, likely as a result of the green
multicoating mixing with the blue) lateral fringing problem became more
pronounced, but the performance was still easily better than in the Wide
Scan II. However, with the moon at the edge of the field, if my eye
drifted off of the optical center axis of the eyepiece even a wee bit
(as it tended to do as I looked around), the giant blue halo (no longer
blue/green, as we are talking "big blue" here) flared its ugly head,
thus bringing back instant flashbacks to the nightmare that was the Wide
Scan II. If I kept my eye very well centered, the problem was greatly
minimized, and the moon retained a fairly decent color neutrality on
edge (except at the very edge which was BLUE). By comparison, the 30mm
Ultima exhibited zero lateral color, no matter where the moon was placed
in the field of view. My home built 2" 40mm Super Plossl (with a 44mm
field stop, so actually having a wider TFOV than the 1rpd) gave the moon
a blue edge even when centered, but it didn't appear to grow as much as
the moon moved to the edge. The moon was neutral colored with this
eyepiece as well. I must regress here to comment regarding my 5 element
40mm (2 cemented achromats and a double convex). Its optics are not
coated at all! Also, no mathematics were used to optimize it for
literally anything sans the final focal length. Given this, I was
overall happier with the 1rpd only at dead center. Compared to the Wide
Scan II, I give the big edge here to the 1rpd (if my eye is held on dead
center of the optical axis only). Compared to any other eyepiece I've
ever looked through this is simply not saying much.
Category 2, Sharpness:
On the moon I was actually happy with the initial sharpness of the 1rpd
on axis, that is until I slipped the 30mm Ultima in for comparison.
After doing so, I could not again regain my happiness. The moon focused
softly to its best image in the 1rpd, but crisply to a great image in
the Ultima. I felt that I could make relatively large movements of the
focuser knob before truly noticing that I was changing anything I was
seeing on the moons surface with the 1rpd, but the Ultima has a narrow
and defined sharpness point of focus. On to Jupiter. Even accounting
for the low magnification (58X) I could easily see the 2 major bands on
Jupiter with the 1rpd, but they were soft and begged for more, and the
moons looked a bit bloated in size. So out went the 1rpd, and in went
the 30mm Ultima. Wow, I was not loosing my eyesight. Major improvement
on Jupiter. I also noticed that the moons snapped to far tighter points
with the Ultima. All of these comments being well on axis to this
point. When the moon was permitted to drift off axis the sharpness of
the 1rpd began to degrade rapidly, and by the time any given part of the
moon was within ~25% of the edge it was nothing but a soft blur. The
sweet spot of usability could be said to extend roughly to the FOV
offered by the Ultima, but beyond about 50 degrees AFOV there is nothing
to be desired. I used Arcturus to check this degridation of the image
as it approached the edge, and what I saw was a rapidly developing
diffraction ring ladened seagull which was truly massive in size by the
extreme edge. The star had no recognizable shape sans for that of a
flying bird with spread wings as it left the central 2/3 of the FOV.
Admittedly there was no Paracorr to assist here, but I suspect that much
of this is astigmatism (although I clearly recall that my old 40mm MK-70
did less seagull winging and more of turning stars into nice very
elongated sticks on edge, and if this latter is astigmatism, while
seagulls are coma, then perhaps the Paracorr would help tremendously
with the 1rpd) . In went the Ultima, and althugh it did exhibit the
same sort of error, it was significantly less, even on the extreme edge.
How did the lowly unoptomized home made 40mm eyepice perform here
(with its wider TFOV no less)? It seagulled big time also, but even at
the extreme edge of the field it was demonstrably better than the 1rpd.
How does all of this compare to my memory of the real Wide Scan II. A
dead heat tie here!
Category 3, Contrast:
On the moon, a degree of my sharpness dissapointment was clearly due to
lack of contrast. The craters on the terminator line did not offer the
great range of shading from white to gray to black as seen in the Ultima
(and even my 40), but rather trended from white to only dark gray, thus
telling me that high contrast is not going to be a selling point for
this eyepiece. A dead heat tie with the Wide Scan II here also.
Now for some other (minor?) observations with the 1rpd:
While sweeping the sky for dim stars, and swapping back and forth
between the 1rpd nd the ultima, I found that I could see faint stars
with ease in the Ultima that I had to use much effort to see in the
1rpd. Based on this, either the transmission is not good, or the
contrast is just that bad, or perhaps both, with central and edge
sharpness obviously contributing here also.
With the moon at the edge, I saw 2 plainly visible pieces of dirt in the
1rpd at about 90% toward the edge on one side, leading me to believe
that quality control of assembly is not high regarding maintaining a
dust free atmosphere. My home built 40 doesn't even have dirt in the
view field.
Jupiter actually grew another moon, but this one was GREEN! A small but
fairly bright and compact green ghost of Jupiter appeared in line with
the moons and persisted to annoy me while viewing Jupiter. Fortunately
it was off to the side and not right on Jupiter, but.... enough said.
Field flatness was actually very good in the 1rpd. In some eyepieces,
when I focus to sharpness on the center of the moon, I have to re focus
a bit to regain sharpness on the moons edge (or visa versa) due to field
flatness problems. I didn't notice much of this problem in the 1rpd.
We're talking moon in the center of the FOV only here, but this is a
plus for the 1rpd. Or was it just that sweepingly broad focus range
where I couldn't change or improve sharpness covering for flatness here?
Conclusion:
The Wide San II lives on with the coming of the 1rpd. Improved lateral
color issues to a moderate degree, but the same eyepiece otherwise.
Lower quality control in assembly than the Wide Scan II. At $99 it is
clearly a hands down better buy than the Wide Sacn II, but I have a hard
time imagining that it was optimized for anything, as my clearly not
coated or optomized 40mm eyepiece is better overall in all categories.
I want a 31mm Nagler!
Lawrence Sayre
rande...@rogers.com
<cut...@charter.net> wrote:
>Well if this helps, John had them first. My understanding is the
>Manufacturer told each of these guys they would be the "sole" importer of
>the goods. It turns out that John was able to make it happen first, but
>each was doing it independently of the other.
>
>Of course the one who wins in this is us and the manufacturer.
>
>Lastly, I gladly deal with John because he wants you to be satisfied with
>what you get. He stands by his word and you can return your goods, no
>problem if your not happy. I've done this a few times with John when things
>didn't quite work out the way I expected and he was great. The fact that
>we can get these for $99 is from the competition between John (the little
>guy) and the big guys (Markus and Anacortes) is because John keeps driving
>down the price and forces the big guys to compete. Otherwise we'd be
>getting these for $199.
>
>Mike.
Noble, considering the "raw" cost of those things (before
silkscreening, branding) is probably less than $40 U.S. out
of the Orient. I've been approached more than once by
Chinese optical houses offering all manner of predone
astronomical optics. I'll never forget seeing a 24mm Ultima
(Celestron) unmarked, 100 piece price = $22.00.
-Rich
Sol Robbins
Must confess that I have known about this eyepiece for a very long
time. Last April, 2002 I purchased a prototype SAFIX direct from the
Ukraine. Within a short period of time this SAFIX made to John for his
appraisal. I figure why not? He's going to be a dealer of this thing,
so he might as well get to check one out as serial production units
were delayed for a time.
Anyway, amateur astronomy seems to be a very small world and I find
out that John is friend of one of my main observing buddies. This
buddy sends me a URL that John had e-mailed to him with a note that
John was going to be dealing what was shown on this URL. This site
showed a 30 mm. eyepiece with an 80 degree AFOV. Of course everything
on this web page is written in Chinese. That was back around May-June,
2002.
I don't mean to stir up the pot even though I am aparrently doing so.
Its just that maybe "there's nothing new under the sun".
Additionally, in my years in business and as a consumer, price wars
usually are put into place not just to spur buyers, but to squeeze
competitors.
Just 2ยข more, Sol Robbins
Stephen Paul
> Conclusion:
>
> The Wide San II lives on with the coming of the 1rpd. Improved lateral
> color issues to a moderate degree, but the same eyepiece otherwise.
> Lower quality control in assembly than the Wide Scan II. At $99 it is
> clearly a hands down better buy than the Wide Sacn II, but I have a hard
> time imagining that it was optimized for anything, as my clearly not
> coated or optomized 40mm eyepiece is better overall in all categories.
> I want a 31mm Nagler!
>
> Lawrence Sayre
Amen brother. I wish nothing but the best for the widescan user, but if
you're in your mid-40's or older and you really want a wide field eyepiece
that's useful to the edge of field in a fast parabola, then you might have
to look elsewhere.
Mike Fitterman
Can you offer your side of the story? I'm willing to listen...
Mike.
"Herb York" <he...@buytelescopes.com> wrote in message
news:a163a744bb2e511bc915f3707234c31f@TeraNews...
Herb York
sell them for to begin with.
That is my side of the story.
Thanks
Herb
ATWB
"Mike Fitterman" <cut...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vc5s0vi...@corp.supernews.com...
Michael McCulloch
wrote:
>Here is my promised viewing report on the "30mm 1rpd ST 80" eyepiece
>(which should apply equally to the forthcoming 30mm BW Optik twin):
...
>Last night the close to full moon, Arcturus, and Jupiter offered up a
>great opportunity to test the new eyepiece ...
Good grief. It has already been stated before... Most people are not
buying this EP for use on the planets and moon. I never use my
Widescan III on those objects.
A much more useful review IMO would also include the performance
relative to other EPs on DSOs. Also, your review is in a short focal
length dob -- longer focal length scopes will show better results
especially with the edge performance.
Michael
Dave Mitsky
EDIT
> Good grief. It has already been stated before... Most people are not
> buying this EP for use on the planets and moon. I never use my
> Widescan III on those objects.
>
> A much more useful review IMO would also include the performance
> relative to other EPs on DSOs. Also, your review is in a short focal
> length dob -- longer focal length scopes will show better results
> especially with the edge performance.
>
> Michael
Michael,
Well, it was a 13 day old moon afterall.
The 30mm WS II that I owned for a very short while was astigmatic, to
my utter amazement, in an f/15 classical Cassegrain with a focal
length of 6477mm.
Dave Mitsky
Michael McCulloch
>The 30mm WS II that I owned for a very short while was astigmatic, to
>my utter amazement, in an f/15 classical Cassegrain with a focal
>length of 6477mm.
I don't doubt you, but I can't duplicate it here with my f10 SCT. In
my opinion, the Widescan III (and possibly the 1rpd if comparable) is
a great value for most casual SCT owners. Combine it with a William
Optics 2" diagonal and you've got a great upgrade for $240 to $350.
The same in Televue diag and EP will cost double or more.
Michael
Stephen Paul
> On 15 May 2003 21:42:54 -0700, dj...@psu.edu (Dave Mitsky) wrote:
>
> >The 30mm WS II that I owned for a very short while was astigmatic, to
> >my utter amazement, in an f/15 classical Cassegrain with a focal
> >length of 6477mm.
>
> I don't doubt you, but I can't duplicate it here with my f10 SCT. In
> my opinion, the Widescan III (and possibly the 1rpd if comparable) is
> a great value for most casual SCT owners.
Well, I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes, but
the 1rpd is an awesome eyepiece in an F11 scope. HUGE improvement over its
performance in an F5.
If you have an F10, get one while they can be had for $99!! It's a wicked
bargain for a 2" 80 degree eyepiece.
-Stephen Paul
Dave Mitsky
EDIT
> If you have an F10, get one while they can be had for $99!! It's a wicked
> bargain for a 2" 80 degree eyepiece.
>
> -Stephen Paul
I saw the 1rpd at the NEAF on Saturday and heard John Hopper's side of
the story. He was selling them for only $95. If I hadn't spent more
at the Tele Vue booth than I intended I might have purchased one.
Dave Mitsky