Pentax XL 40mm Discontinued?! - Why?
Alex Leslie
Does anyone know why Pentax has chosen to discontinue the 40mm and the
5.2mm? The 40mm would have been a great EP for my new 10" f/6.
In case I can't find one in somebodies inventory, what would folks
suggest as a substitute? the 35mm Panoptic? I guess that's about it
with similar parameters.
Thanks,
Alex
Bob May
The 5.2mm could have another reason, probably difficulty in making.
As to a EP to replace the 40mm, I wouldn't go above 25mm with a wide
angle EP anyway as anything much bigger can't provide a real wideangle
view.
--
Bob May
Remember that computers do exactly what you tell them to do, not what
you think that you told them!
Bob May
cassio...@my-deja.com
Alex Leslie <ale...@home.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> Does anyone know why Pentax has chosen to discontinue the 40mm and the
> 5.2mm? The 40mm would have been a great EP for my new 10" f/6.
>
> In case I can't find one in somebodies inventory, what would folks
> suggest as a substitute? the 35mm Panoptic?
Hi Alex;
This comes as news to me ,but these two eyepieces seem
to be the least popular of the set along with the 28mm. There some
information going around that Pentax will come out with a 30mm and I
think something around 3mm in the same series the XL's. I use the
21mm ,14mm, 10.5mm,and the 7mm in a 12" f6 reflector. They all work
well with this focal length. I did own the 40mm but sold it as I used
it the least. The performance of this eyepiece was fine ,showed some
fall off in performance at the evey edge. The 35mm panoptic should be
an excellent replacement but don't hold me to that.
405
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
spud...@my-deja.com
That 40mm eyepiece is a 2" with a 65deg AFOV. By most accounts it's
quite a nice eyepiece.
Alex, how do you know it's discontinued?
Steve
Dave Bush
<spud...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:935fdu$9i5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Alex, how do you know it's discontinued?
That's what I'd like to know. A lot of people have been saying this but no
one has provided and source for this.
Dave
cassio...@my-deja.com
"Bob May" <bob...@nethere.com> wrote:
> If the 40mm was a 1.25" EP then it was basically worthless as an EP.
> The 5.2mm could have another reason, probably difficulty in making.
> --
> Bob May
Hi Bob;
I just must know the answer to this question. What do
you base your opinion on that a 40mm 1.25" eyepiece is worthless ?
405
Norm
entirety:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Norm,
Thanks for contacting Pentax Corporation.
The 5.2mm and 40mm are still in the current Pentax XL Eyepiece line,
although we have not heard of any 30mm or 2.6mm XL products on the horizon.
We hope this helps. If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact our Customer Service Department at (800) 877-0155.
Thanks again,
Steve Tinetti
Pentax Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: Norm Olson [mailto:nol...@azstarnet.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 6:31 PM
To: penta...@pentax.com
Subject: My inquiry is about the XL Eyepiece Product
Form name: email-us
Name
Norm Olson
Email Address
nol...@azstarnet.com
Country
US
Inquiry
My inquiry is about the XL Eyepiece Product
Line. Has the 5.2mm been discontinued? The 40mm?
I had heard that there was going to be two new
XLs: a 30mm and a 2.6mm. Is this true? If yes,
any idea when those products will be available
for purchase?
Thanks,
Norm Olson
nol...@azstarnet.com
Product
Pentax XL Telescope Eyepieces
Purchase Date
December 2000
<ell...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92vq8i$f4s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Does anyone have definitive information on the arrival/specs/price of
> the "rumored" new Pentax 30mm. 2" eyepiece? I have spoken to several
> dealers, without a clear answer. Thanks...
> Elleray
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
"Alex Leslie" <ale...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A5625B5...@home.com...
spud...@my-deja.com
narrower AFOV and the same true FOV as the typcial 30mm or 32mm 1.25"
ep. So why bother. Here's what Al Nagler says about TV's 40mm Plossl
vs. the 32mm Plossl:
http://www.astronomy-mall.com/regular/products/tele-vue-
optics/ask_al/eyepieces/0316.html
I still want to know where Pentax discontinuing the 40mm can be
confirmed. It would make sense to come out with a 2" 30mm and ash can
the 28mm. But eliminating the 40mm makes no sense?
Steve
cassio...@my-deja.com
spud...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I'll help here, the typical 40mm 1.25" ep has lower magnification, a
> narrower AFOV and the same true FOV as the typcial 30mm or 32mm 1.25"
> ep. So why bother.
>
Hi Steve;
Your above statment being true still does not make
a high quality 40mm worthless. A good 40mm tak. or zeiss will still
give a great view even though the field is somewhat less.The future
holds less good 40mm 1.25" eyepieces ,yes but worthless , no.
If you can find a good will make kellner with good coatings
at 40mm's check it out ,lots of light through put for faint extended
objects. Works well at F8 and above. 405
Alex Leslie
Alex Leslie
On Sunday, I'm calling Adorama to see if I can still get a Pentax 40mm from
them.
later,
Alex
spud
If someone gave me one then sure, I could see your point. But too
spend the fruits of my labor on a 40mm vs. 32mm 1.25", I can't see it.
...to each his own.
--
Steve
http://www.rvi.net/~yovw
Danny & Donna
thanks for grabbing the bull by the horns and going straight to the horse's
mouth.
I can sure understand replacing the 55 deg 28mm ep with a 2", 65 deg 30mm ep.
And I'd sure like to see f.l.'s shorter than 5.2.
I wonder how this rumor got started, or if Pentax is actually remaining tight
lipped until an official announcement.
My TV-85 should be cool by now. I think I'll go see how the views are through
the 5.2mm and 7mm XLs!
Danny Cobb
Michael A. Covington
> at 40mm's check it out ,lots of light through put for faint extended
> objects. Works well at F8 and above. 405
Yes -- good point -- if you need only a 40-degree field, not 50 or 60, you
can get good results with a much less expensive design, with only 3
elements, one of them quite thin -- not much glass to absorb light.
Michael A. Covington
<spud...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:935lg2$f5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I'll help here, the typical 40mm 1.25" ep has lower magnification, a
> narrower AFOV and the same true FOV as the typcial 30mm or 32mm 1.25"
> ep. So why bother.
Because the 40mm Tele Vue Plössl has better edge sharpness than the 32mm.
Also, the image is 56% brighter, which may help you see deep-sky objects
better.
Field-of-view does not have to be gigantic in order for an eyepiece to be
useful!
spud
>Because the 40mm Tele Vue Plössl has better edge sharpness than the 32mm.
>Also, the image is 56% brighter, which may help you see deep-sky objects
>better.
Wow that's sounds significant on the face of it. But I don't think
it works that way in every case Michael. I'm 43 and use an f/4.5 Dob.
If my eyes only open up to 5mm then I wouldn't see a difference in
brightness with any scope faster than f/6.4.
In fact at the standard 7mm exit pupil any scope faster than f/5.7 the
40mm begins to lose gound because the ep exit pupil is over 7mm and
the outer portion is wasted.
Couldn't the slight increase in magnification of the 32mm or
subsequent increased contrast from a darker background be just as
advantagous on DSO's?
I've never looked through a 40mm Plossl, but with a narrower 43deg
AFOV than a 50deg AFOVin the 32mm Plossl I would agree that the edge
is likely sharper.
>Field-of-view does not have to be gigantic in order for an eyepiece to be
>useful!
You don't have to convince me of that. I own and use TV Plossls and
UO Ortho's. I have a 9mm Nagler that rarely sees any time in the
hole.
I appreciate your discussion, but I still don't see the point. Even
in a f/10 SCT I think I'd rather have the 3.2mm exit pupil and higher
magnifaction than a 4mm exit pupil and lower magnifactaion each having
the same true FOV. Now a 2" 40mm with a 65deg FOV would be a
different animal.
--
Steve
http://www.rvi.net/~yovw
Norm
confident in the information I got in this e-mail response.
I have a feeling that I might have got just some sort of first-level
marketing droid, who answers e-mail queries, and he just looked in a paper
catalogue and wrote back, "oh, yes, the 40mm is still in production and
there is no 30mm in the works, etc..."
Anyway, I'd be sad to see the 40mm go, I still need to buy one, but I'd be
delighted to see a 30mm 65 degree EP.
I was told by a local astronomy dealer that he could no longer order the
5.2mm Pentax, which lends credibility to the rumor of the discontinuing of
the 5.2 and the 40mm.
-Norm
"Danny & Donna" <dnd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3A567966...@bellsouth.net...
Michael A. Covington
> >Also, the image is 56% brighter, which may help you see deep-sky objects
> >better.
>
> Wow that's sounds significant on the face of it. But I don't think
> it works that way in every case Michael. I'm 43 and use an f/4.5 Dob.
> If my eyes only open up to 5mm then I wouldn't see a difference in
> brightness with any scope faster than f/6.4.
Right; I use an f/10 telescope. With an f/4.5 telescope there's no point in
using such long eyepieces.
> In fact at the standard 7mm exit pupil any scope faster than f/5.7 the
> 40mm begins to lose gound because the ep exit pupil is over 7mm and
> the outer portion is wasted.
In fact I think you lose ground when you go past 5mm.
> Couldn't the slight increase in magnification of the 32mm or
> subsequent increased contrast from a darker background be just as
> advantagous on DSO's?
Yes, definitely.
> I've never looked through a 40mm Plossl, but with a narrower 43deg
> AFOV than a 50deg AFOVin the 32mm Plossl I would agree that the edge
> is likely sharper.
> I appreciate your discussion, but I still don't see the point. Even
> in a f/10 SCT I think I'd rather have the 3.2mm exit pupil and higher
> magnifaction than a 4mm exit pupil and lower magnifactaion each having
> the same true FOV. Now a 2" 40mm with a 65deg FOV would be a
> different animal.
Well, all I was doing was pointing out one significant advantage, and one
possible advantage, of the 40mm. I actually use the 32mm myself, and will
be selling my 40mm soon when I've gotten a 2-inch 50mm. But the edge
sharpness is undeniably better.
Frank Bov
1.25" applications, at a higher magnification than 30-32mm eyepieces, with more
true FOV than the next contender, the 22mm Panoptic. A 2" 30mm would be a
complement, not a replacement.
HAve fun,
Frank, who'd prefer they don't discontinue any part of this line.
"Danny & Donna" <dnd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3A567966...@bellsouth.net...
<snip>
gary...@my-deja.com
over the phone for the 5.2, and I was told that this piece was being
discontinued.
I recall some discussion here a couple months ago about Pentax
introducing a 2.8 mm in the XL line. I believe (but I may be wrong) this
was listed as an upcoming introduction in the news/rumors section on
Markus Ludes web site - I cannot confirm now because Markus is doing some
maintenence and his web site is temporarily down. As I recall the
discussion, I believe Markus said he listed this point as a result of a
conversation he had with a Pentax rep.
Gary Weber
In article <9Rw56.20522$Hi4.6...@news.uswest.net>,
"Norm" <nol...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
> On the rumors, well, yes, I did go straight to Pentax, but I'm not totally
> confident in the information I got in this e-mail response.
>
> I have a feeling that I might have got just some sort of first-level
> marketing droid, who answers e-mail queries, and he just looked in a paper
> catalogue and wrote back, "oh, yes, the 40mm is still in production and
> there is no 30mm in the works, etc..."
>
> Anyway, I'd be sad to see the 40mm go, I still need to buy one, but I'd be
> delighted to see a 30mm 65 degree EP.
>
> I was told by a local astronomy dealer that he could no longer order the
> 5.2mm Pentax, which lends credibility to the rumor of the discontinuing of
> the 5.2 and the 40mm.
>
> -Norm
lude...@my-deja.com
calling our european Pentax Importer, he told me, your information is
incorrect. The XL40 and XL5.2 are not discontinued, they are continued
and still available
Markus
In article <3A5625B5...@home.com>,
Alex Leslie <ale...@home.com> wrote:
spud
> when I've gotten a 2-inch 50mm.
Have you made your mind up on what you wanted?
--
Steve
http://www.rvi.net/~yovw
Michael A. Covington
>
> Have you made your mind up on what you wanted?
I chose Orion's Optiluxe 50mm. It's a 5-element design. I'll see how I
like it. I might have chosen their 40mm but they are out of it.
Alex Leslie
Well that is certainly good news if true but there are still odd rumours
swirling around.
Alex
Bob Berta
quickly found to be incorrect. This probably is just a resurfacing of
that original misinformation by someone. In any case...I have the 40,
21, 14, 10.5 and 7mm. I don't intend to get the 28 due to its 55 degree
FOV...but will probably get the 5.2mm. I suspect that if anything they
will come out with an even shorter version to compete with the Radians
which do go a little shorter. The Pentax goes longer with the 21, 28
and 40 which Radians don't cover. Panoptics are TVs longer versions but
I don't find them to my taste...too short eye relief, more color, more
coma at edges on some scopes. I really like the adjustable eyepiece
hood design on the Pentax...had a Radian and its colapsed everytime I
bumped it with my glasses or face. Currently I switched almost 100% to
the Pentax XLs...only other eyepieces in use are the Universtiy Optics
Abbe ORTHO in 5mm. Great buy and good planetary performance...not a
Zeis, Pentax Ortho or Tak but not too far off.
Many lament the end of the Pentax Orthos which were wonderful
eyepieces...think they may come out with the again in 1 1/4"
barrels...hey Markus...any rumors on that one?
Bob Berta
Ratboy99
rat
~( );>
PhotoKing
Go to Todd Gross' site, and look at my review comparing the 40mm Optiluxe
and the 40mm Pentax.
Andre
Michael A. Covington <for.addr...@www.covingtoninnovations.com> wrote
in message news:HiL56.6282$Iu.15...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
PhotoKing
eyepiece.
Andre
<lude...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:937iaf$r7b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...