New Version University Optics HD Abbe Ortho
Jeff Kurtz
Orthos. They have broad band anti-reflictive coatings and sell for
$79.95. Anyone have one of these and are they truly an improvement
over the original versions (which will still be sold).
gibbonsc
Hi Jeff.
If both designs are Abbe ortho, I wonder what the "high definition"
refers to?
If it's upgraded coatings, that alone won't visibly improve definition.
Abbe orthos will give excellent definition, whether MgF2 coated,
multi-coated, "broad-band coated" or whatever.
$20 more for the extra coatings wouldn't tempt me, in this case.
Clive.
Chris1011
orthos will give excellent definition, whether MgF2 coated,
wouldn't tempt me, in this case.>>
An uncoated Abbe will give the same definition as a fully multicoated one. The
main difference will be an increase in light gain for the fully coated version.
Compared to a single layer coated, a fully multi-coated will gain you about 4%
light grasp, hardly noticeable. Abbes have inherent freedom from ghost images,
so coating them does not eliminate ghosts - they aren't there to begin with.
There are ways to make eyepieces higher definition vs. the run of the mill
stuff, and that is in the quality of the surface polish, and the clarity of the
glass used (i.e. freedom from inclusions and microbubbles). I don't think you
can get either one of these upgrades in a $79 eyepiece.
Roland Christen
Bill Foley
>Abbe orthos will give excellent definition, whether MgF2 coated,
>multi-coated, "broad-band coated" or whatever.
There are coatings which reduce reflection but scatter, and coatings which do
not. Scatter spreads the light over the FOV reducing contrast and therefore
definition. I have not used these new Orthos, but feel it is possible that
they have started using a better grade of coating.
Incidentally, when I use my old formula UO Orthos, after my Plossls, it is like
someone cleaned a dirty window. And visually, the UO's seem to have a smoother
surface, though this might just be bias on my part.
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)
Chris1011
not.>>
I have never seen an example of anti-reflection coatings that scatter light.
Aluminum mirror coatings can have more or less scatter, but anti-reflection
coatings are not of the same type. They are hundreds of times thinner and are
made up of homogeneous layers. Even the simplest and least expensive AR
coatings do not scatter light. They may reflect more or less light depending on
the quality and type of materials used, perhaps that is what you meant.
Roland Christen
Darian
Jeff, I didn't see anything about this on their website. Where did you
see this information? It'd be interesting to make a side by side
comparison. Darian Rachal
Tom T.
Clive, it's my understanding (but I may be mistaken) that these are
the same design as the older ones, only with new coatings (which may
or may not be worth the extra $20). This is an improvement which was
batted around for a while. I had also heard they were considering
adding eyeguards - does anyone know if they did? (Of course you could
always purchase them seperately and add them on...)
Tom T.
Chuck Taylor
explanation there seems to say they are basing the "High Definition" claim
on "latest in broadband anti reflective coatings on all air to glass
surfaces." They also note they are parfocal and do have eyeguard wings.
Clear Skies
Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
(Archives now open to public)
"Jeff Kurtz" <jku...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:d790403e.0303...@posting.google.com...
ralphjunius
I really enjoyed your essay some time ago on coatings. I liked your
explanation and examples with simple tests on the basics of
distinguishing good eyepiece coatings from not good coatings.
It now appears from your current post that coatings make no
significant differnece in an orthoscopic eyepiece, all things
otherwise being equal. Sorry to hear this. It would appear that UO
orthos hypothetically moving to the left in your group eyepiece photo
is irrelevant. Is my take on this correct?
Very confused,
Ralph Junius
chri...@aol.com (Chris1011) wrote in message news:<20030328125313...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
Mel Robinson
surfaces, have a winged eyeguard, and have a channel cut into the
barrel for retaining the set screw. When I ordered them, I was told
they are not yet mentioned on the web site or in the print ads. I
was also told that they are coated by the same people that put the
coating on the UO MK70 and assembled at a different plant than the
circle T assembly plant. They are available in 5, 6, 7, 9 12 and 18mm.
I don't have any UO circle T's for comparison so I can't comment on
there relative merits.
Mel
Tom T.
> I just go a pair of the UO HDs. They are multicoated on all lens
> surfaces, have a winged eyeguard, and have a channel cut into the
> barrel for retaining the set screw. When I ordered them, I was told
> they are not yet mentioned on the web site or in the print ads. I
> was also told that they are coated by the same people that put the
> coating on the UO MK70 and assembled at a different plant than the
> circle T assembly plant. They are available in 5, 6, 7, 9 12 and 18mm.
>
> I don't have any UO circle T's for comparison so I can't comment on
> there relative merits.
>
>
> Mel
>
They sound like a totally different animal - I'll be very curious on
how they perform. The KK, Circle-T or UO orthos are simply superb
performers - it would be nice to see them one up it for only a little
more.
I guess I had the wrong impression. I thought the KK made *BOTH* the
MK70 and the Circle-T orthos. Evidently they don't?
Tom T.
Edward
"Tom T." <ttru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe35d4da.03032...@posting.google.com...
> They sound like a totally different animal - I'll be very curious on
> how they perform. The KK, Circle-T or UO orthos are simply superb
> performers - it would be nice to see them one up it for only a little
> more.
>
> I guess I had the wrong impression. I thought the KK made *BOTH* the
> MK70 and the Circle-T orthos. Evidently they don't?
>
> Tom T.
>
K. Kohki makes the Widescan eyepieces. The MK70, or "Extra Wide" is from
Kasai Trading.
Ed
Mel Robinson
night. The pair were mounted in a TV binovue on a TV101 scope.
Seeing was stable, transparency was good after a thin cloud cover
passed over, and the air was cold. Location was a dark sky site about
75 or 80 miles west of Chicago.
Star clusters were spectacular, planets were finely detailed, contrast
was very good. I noticed no artificial color and did not detect any
field distortion.
The longer eye relief compared to my 6 and 9mm non-UO orthos make eye
placement more tricky in the binovue. Until I got the spacing of the
eyepieces just right, the view in one or the other eye would fade out.
With the 9mm non-UO orthos, I have no problem with eye placement.
Mel
Tom T.
<snip>
> K. Kohki makes the Widescan eyepieces. The MK70, or "Extra Wide" is from
> Kasai Trading.
>
> Ed
Thanks Ed!
Tom T.
Stephen Sherrod
or eye relief?
Steve Sherrod.
"Mel Robinson" <melrob...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:6n4e8vod8qmurel47...@4ax.com...
Chris1011
I really enjoyed your essay some time ago on coatings. I liked your
explanation and examples with simple tests on the basics of
distinguishing good eyepiece coatings from not good coatings.
It now appears from your current post that coatings make no
significant differnece in an orthoscopic eyepiece, all things
otherwise being equal. Sorry to hear this. It would appear that UO
orthos hypothetically moving to the left in your group eyepiece photo
is irrelevant. Is my take on this correct?
>>
Coatings do not change the "definition" or sharpness of an eyepiece, thus the
term "high definition" has no meaning. If they claim "extended light
transmission", that would be another matter. Coatings will affect the total
light transmission, although in a 4 air-glass design the effect is only about
4% going from single layer 1.5% per surface to multi-layer 0.5% per surface. In
a more advanced multi-element eyepiece, a single layer coating can result in
fairly high total reflection loss just by virtue of the number of surfaces
involved. Proper multi-coating can reduce this significantly. Light loss by
internal reflection due to poor coatings (and how to spot it easily) was the
main point of my short writeup.
The amount of internal scatter is not materially affected by the coating.
Scatter is more related to the quality of the glass, the surface polish, and
the internal cleaniness. A lot of premium multi-element eyepieces have
significant dirt and crud on the internal surfaces, which can cause scatter and
reduce contrast. Thus, planetery observers tend to favor eyepieces with minimum
number of surfaces, best glass and surface polish over wide field oculars.
Orthos certainly qualify as excellent planetary eyepieces, assuming that they
are made with these parameters in mind.
Roland Christen
Scribe2b
>significant dirt and crud on the internal surfaces, which can cause scatter
>and
>reduce contrast
RC,
so, if one purchases a cheap scope like a synta 150, some dirty film and smeary
dust inside the objective cell glassshould come as no surprise? is it worth
the trouble optically to clean the cell interior?
thanks for your many illuminating posts
jc
Chris1011
smeary
dust inside the objective cell glassshould come as no surprise? is it worth
the trouble optically to clean the cell interior?
thanks for your many illuminating posts>>
I doubt that you would gain anything cleaning an objective lens. Some dust or
dirt there is inevitable, and will cause no harm to the image. Even a largish
spot will not degrade the image much at all. Remember, a typical reflector
telescope has a huge spot in the middle, and many will argue that it does not
change the performance at all. Eyepieces are a different story. Here, some dust
and dirt will significantly affect the contrast of the image. Same is true of a
diagonal mirror. Any optic which is close to the focal plane will be much more
affected by dust and crud because this is where the light beams converge and
the image is much more comcentrated.
Roland Christen
Scribe2b
>dirt there is inevitable, and will cause no harm to the image.
RC
many thanks. i will stop anal-izing over motes of dust, and search the skies
more instead
clear seeing to you
jere cunningham
Gary Hand
You, we all actually, have to separate performance improvement from the
Advertising Dept. vs the Engineering Dept. I am pretty sure that the
HD, is just a catchy moniker. But taking the already high contrast
Ortho design and adding better coatings, is indeed an improvement.
These Orthos, sold under about 5 different brand names are a great
bargain. If you are one a budget, with Mars coming around, they are a
good choice.
IMHO, HD belongs belongs in the PR graveyard with "Research Grade",
"Professional", "Enhanced Coating", "High Res", "Super Plossl" and my
favorite, "Semi APO". None have any technical definition.
Gary
Curtis Croulet
I've been out of the room. What are the other brand names?
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27' 59"N, 117° 05' 53"W
Jeff Kurtz
> IMHO, HD belongs belongs in the PR graveyard with "Research Grade",
> "Professional", "Enhanced Coating", "High Res", "Super Plossl" and my
> favorite, "Semi APO". None have any technical definition.
>
> Gary
>
I don't disagree with your comments but I wanted to use UO's own
designation for these EP's. I have a couple of the older Orthos and
think they're a great value.
I was hoping someone here could provide first person experience as to
wether these new versions are worth the extra money.
Although UO produces some great products their advertising borders on
the sublime (on occasion).
Jeff Kurtz
Chris1011
They don't produce anything. All their products are produced by independent
subcontractors, fully fitted and installed in a box, ready for shipment.
RC
Darian
I bought my first 1.25" ocular from UO(40mm Kellner), way back in the
early 70's for $9.95 ppd. After using only .965" oculars, it looked
huge. I believe their Orthos were selling for $14.95. Basically, their
catalog is pretty much unchanged since then. It's been awhile since
I've ordered from them, but if perhaps for only sentimental reasons,
I've always viewed them favorably. DR
Ron B[ee]
"Chris1011" <chri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030328125313...@mb-fh.aol.com...
> There are ways to make eyepieces higher definition vs. the run of the mill
> stuff, and that is in the quality of the surface polish, and the clarity
of the
> glass used (i.e. freedom from inclusions and microbubbles). I don't think
you
> can get either one of these upgrades in a $79 eyepiece.
>
> Roland Christen
Always learning from your post, Roland - thanks.
In your opinion, using the eyepiece on the same APO, how close would the
view be to you (estimate or guesstimate) between the UO ortho and your
Zeiss Abbe orthos?
Thanks,
Ron B[ee]
Chris1011
view be to you (estimate or guesstimate) between the UO ortho and your
Zeiss Abbe orthos?
>>
We did such a test down in Florida at the Winter Star Party. All I can say is
that the Zeiss is unbeatable at this time - the opinion of all of us who
compared.
Roland Christen
Tom T.
> I bought my first 1.25" ocular from UO(40mm Kellner), way back in the
> early 70's for $9.95 ppd. After using only .965" oculars, it looked
> huge. I believe their Orthos were selling for $14.95. Basically, their
> catalog is pretty much unchanged since then. It's been awhile since
> I've ordered from them, but if perhaps for only sentimental reasons,
> I've always viewed them favorably. DR
Ahhh, anyone for time travel? I'd love to pick up a couple of sets at
those prices. :)
OT: Darian - how the heck are you? How's the Stampede running?
Tom T.
Darian
Roland, Did the people know which ocular they were looking through
when making this test? DR
Chris1011
when making this test? DR>>
Probably, but the difference was unmistakeable.
RC
Darian
Tom, I dropped you a message at your hatchet address. DR
Curtis Croulet
> 12mm
> Pocono Mtn Optics, Celestron, Orion, Cave, Starliner, Jaegers, Ross and
> a few others have sold the same under their names.
I have three orthos that I bought from Cave with my 8-inch scope in 1973. T.C.
told me at the time that they were made by Nikon. It's hard to tell because
they have no brand name or logo anywhere on them.
Tom T.
Yeah, not to mention the price!
:)
Tom T.
Chris1011
The price for the Zeiss Abbes was reasonable at the time they were originally
sold. Their time has passed, and several manufacturers are now looking at
making high contrast planetary oculars.
Roland Christen
rande...@rogers.com
Which mfgs and what kind of eyepieces would they be?
-Rich
TMBack
>>be?
>>-Rich
>>
>
TMB/APM
AP/Aries
TEC
Thomas Back
Stephen Sherrod
rande...@rogers.com
Ah then its a race to the finish! Should be
interesting and I would guess that if they
can sell re-badged German spotting and microscope
eyepieces as planetary eyepieces, then American
or German firms should be able to mfg. simple
but high quality planetary eyepieces at prices
that match those of mid-line Naglers.
-Rich
Dave Werner
If the weather ever clears and any one in Southern Wisconsin wants to
drop by on a clear night with a Zeiss, Pentax, Tak or ?, Ortho to
compare, contact me and I'll set up the Mewlon...
Dave
Middleton, Wisconsin
w2...@chorus.net
Markus Ludes
>
> Ah then its a race to the finish! Should be
> interesting and I would guess that if they
> can sell re-badged German spotting and microscope
> eyepieces as planetary eyepieces, then American
> or German firms should be able to mfg. simple
> but high quality planetary eyepieces at prices
> that match those of mid-line Naglers.
> -Rich
Rich ,
whats wrong with selling spotting scope and microscope eyepieces as
planetary eyepiece, if they have a better quality than many
astronomical eyepieces ?
Markus
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
rande...@rogers.com
<apm_tel...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah then its a race to the finish! Should be
>> interesting and I would guess that if they
>> can sell re-badged German spotting and microscope
>> eyepieces as planetary eyepieces, then American
>> or German firms should be able to mfg. simple
>> but high quality planetary eyepieces at prices
>> that match those of mid-line Naglers.
>> -Rich
>
>
>Rich ,
>
>whats wrong with selling spotting scope and microscope eyepieces as
>planetary eyepiece, if they have a better quality than many
>astronomical eyepieces ?
>
>Markus
Nothing.
-Rich