Speers-Waler eyepieces. Review?
Chris
sheet. Does anyone have experience with this ep? I recall reading
that their 10mm was a good ep.
I don't see Speers-Waler mentioned very often here in SAA is there a
known problem or is the cost/performance just not there?
Thanks Chris
Ruud Schmeitz
On Todd's site, 2 brief reviews (10mm and 5-8mm zoom):
http://www.weatherman.com/ep30.htm
============================================================
"Live Long and Prosper" - Spock
"And let Wisdom be your Guide" - Spock's brother
Ruud Schmeitz
Universiteit Maastricht
Matt Leo
and had a wide fov. It filled the bill, and I've had a blast with it.
I've tried it in an experimental very fast scope I built (f3.2) and of
course edge performance made it unusuable. Supposedly its good for f4 or
slower; I suspect it might be dicey down around f4, but it looks great in
my f10 refractor. The field lens is a dust collector, so you may find it
annoying if you're using it during the daytime for spotting scope duty.
Eye relief is really poor for a ep of this focal length, but bearable if
you don't use glasses. I don't see much if any difference in sharpness
with a plossl of the same f.l. when used on my refractor, but admittedly
I'm not the most discriminating of viewers.
I really don't know what to compare the longer SW eps to. I guess at this
kind of f.l. you'd have to look at something like a Televue Panoptic, but
at the price differential (141 for the 24mm SW vs 299 for the 22mm
Panoptic) the Panotpic'd better knock your socks off , whiten your teeth
and enhance your sex appeal. Hell, I even got my SW 24 used from Tom at
Island eyepiece and paid about $119 for a certified good as new used
eyepiece. (Are you getting the picture here? I'm cheap -- I have to hide
my astro expenditures from my wife).
Paul Rini is making a 2" erfles in 35mm, 38mm and 40mm; these have got to
be a steal at 39.50. These have 60 degreee fovs vs. 67 for the SWs; but
at less than the cost of a 1.25" name brand plossl, who's going to argue?
You can get these at surplus shed (www.surplusshed.com).
Maybe you should check out
http://excelsis.netgate.net/vote/astro/eyepieces/index.html for eyepiece
reviews. People are a tad less enthusiastic about the SWs than the
Panoptics. The Rini Erfle was reviewed by one person, who noted some
mechanical defects, but was generally upbeat about its optical
performance.
Greg Granville
>I'm looking at the SW30. A 2" 30mm 72 degree AF according to the spec
>sheet. Does anyone have experience with this ep? I recall reading
>that their 10mm was a good ep.
>
>I don't see Speers-Waler mentioned very often here in SAA is there a
>known problem or is the cost/performance just not there?
>
>Thanks Chris
Chris,
I've owned the 30mm Speers-Waler - the word "owned" should be a clue
as to what I though about it :^) Actually I've owned every Speers-Waler except
the 5-8 zoom (which has been frequently reviewed by many others), and the
14mm which I've tested on several occasions.
The end result was that I've kept just two - the 7mm, and the 10mm. The
12mm is also quite good, but requires much more inward focus travel than the
others - it also shows just a tiny, tiny bit of field curvature, whereas
the 7 and 10 have none. The 14 is also fairly good, and is an excellent value -
just like the 10mm.
I've run into lots of people who swear the 18mm, 24mm, and 30mm are also
excellent. But, that was not my experience. In the case of the 18mm, I tried
several samples becasue I couldn't believe how horrendous the field curvature
was. The 24mm is the cheapest of the line, and has somewhat more acceptable
performance than the 18mm, or the 30mm. I'd say it is roughly equivalent to a
Konig or the same approx FL. It definitely shows astigmatism in faster optical
systems.
As for the 30mm itself... I found the edge performance dismal in a fast dob; no
better than an run-of-the-mill Erfle. Worst of all, it had *terrible* eye
relief! I found this completely unacceptable in such a long FL ocular.
My overall favorite S-W is the 10mm. I think it is a factastic value for the
$$$. Performance as good or better than a 9mm Nagler for $100 less. The 10
degree smaller field of the S-W vs. the Nagler was much less noticable than
you might think.
In a comparison of the 10mm S-W vs the 10mm Radian I'd have to give
the Radian a very slight edge in the contrast department. The Radian also
has perfect color correction, which the 10mm S-W has a very tiny
bit of lateral color. However, the S-W is enormously less expensive and has a
substantially wider AFOV. Eye relief isn't as long as the Radian, but it is
still quite comfortable for non-eyeglass wearers. It's a winner in my book.
The 7mm S-W is an absolutely fantastic high power wide-field (84 deg)
eyepiece. The eyepiece is quite huge, but the performance exceeds that of
7mm Naglers I've compared it to, and it has slightly better eye relief to boot.
-Greg
Thierry Lombry
Matt Leo <Ma...@acrcorp.com> wrote:
> I really don't know what to compare the longer SW eps to. I guess at
this kind of f.l. you'd have to look at something like a Televue
Panoptic, but at the price differential (141 for the 24mm SW vs 299 for
the 22mm Panoptic) the Panotpic'd better knock your socks off ,
> Paul Rini is making a 2" erfles in 35mm, 38mm and 40mm; these have
got to be a steal at 39.50. These have 60 degreee fovs vs. 67 for the
SWs;
Hi,
How can you compare low-low end EP's with high-end ones ? Of course the
first are "disqualified" if you check the aberrations, corrections, etc
!
I'm not convinced you can compare an EP like the Speers-Waler (Antares)
of 8 lenses-elements, 66-72° AFOV, probably dimer than many other wide
field EP due to its numerous lenses/groups to a TeleVue optic, famous
for its quality and appreciation in the field.
Nor to compare Rini's to others, as their Plossl for example (and may
be Erfles, but not sure) are even not full coated and cannot compete
against Meade Super Plossl or Celestron Ultima (Plossl enhanced),etc.
Please compare with is comparable, for example all "plossl modidfied" :
Optilux FMC Plossl and Sirius Plossl from Orion telescopes vs Carl
Zeiss Abbe Plossl or Meade Plossl 3000, Meade Super Plossl 4000, Vixen
Plossl, Tele-Vue Plossl, Celestron Ultima, ST Plossl from Scopetronix,
Lichtenknecker ES Plossl plus the new Carl Ziess 25mm which are (they
are 5 models) probably Plossl's too (data are secrets except these have
42 to 54 AFOV), among others. Even here a true comparison is not easy
as the designs are not all similar.
For the widest field the list is really huge, between Takahashi LE, LV
Vixen Lanthanum, Tele-Vue Panoptic, Nagler2,4, Meade SWA/UWA, etc. The
worksheet I compiled gathers more than 310 EP's... and is not completed
yet !
I do not know many brands having Erfles nowadays except Paul Rini and
Pocono. Their design is by far replaced by better ones.
At best you can compare the Rini's Erfle to Pocono Erfle or University
Optics Konig Erfle. In that category, for me the Poccono series of
Erfle stay the best. But note if the Rini cost around $40, the Pocono's
reach $70-90.
The "quality", (long) work of optical designers and the support explain
that.
Thierry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Matt Leo
Hi Thierry!
Thierry Lombry wrote:
>
> Hi,
> How can you compare low-low end EP's with high-end ones ?
Easy as pie. In one case I'm out 300 hundred bucks, another I'm out 120
bucks, and in another I'm out 40 bucks. That's what I meant by not
knowing what to compare to. If the SW cost the same as the Panoptic, then
we'd have a better basis for comparison. On a log plot of cost they're
almost in a straight line, but is each exponentially better than the
other? Beats me, it probably depends on the obsever _and_ the scope.
> Of course the
> first are "disqualified" if you check the aberrations, corrections, etc
> !
Sure, and the others are disqualified if I check my bank account. I'm
guessing a lot depends on how fast your scope is. At f 4.5 or so, the SW
is probably a worthless piece of crap, but if you have an F6 or F8 scope,
it may be that you're wasting your money on a fancier eyepiece.
>
> I'm not convinced you can compare an EP like the Speers-Waler (Antares)
> of 8 lenses-elements, 66-72° AFOV, probably dimer than many other wide
> field EP due to its numerous lenses/groups to a TeleVue optic, famous
> for its quality and appreciation in the field.
Well, I dunno. Have you ever looked through a SW? Somebody ought to set
up a blind test with several scopes.
> Nor to compare Rini's to others, as their Plossl for example (and may
> be Erfles, but not sure) are even not full coated and cannot compete
> against Meade Super Plossl or Celestron Ultima (Plossl enhanced),etc.
Sure. Like anything else you get a big bang for going from cheap to
moderately expensive. The question is do you get more than a little
whimper when going from moderately expensive to very expensive?
>
> Please compare with is comparable, for example all "plossl modidfied" :
> Optilux FMC Plossl and Sirius Plossl from Orion telescopes vs Carl
> Zeiss Abbe Plossl or Meade Plossl 3000, Meade Super Plossl 4000, Vixen
> Plossl, Tele-Vue Plossl, Celestron Ultima, ST Plossl from Scopetronix,
> Lichtenknecker ES Plossl plus the new Carl Ziess 25mm which are (they
> are 5 models) probably Plossl's too (data are secrets except these have
> 42 to 54 AFOV), among others.
Will do. Send me a sample of each and I'll tell you what I think.
-Matt
JMc
I use the SW 30 in an F/10 system and it is a good value for the price.
The Naglers have better edge correction, but the optics and construction
are very good. I was looking at M13 Sunday night with the SW30, and the
wide apparent field really makes the point that there are a lot of stars
packed into that cluster.
Jim McSheehy
Shneor Sherman
Greg Granville <gr...@argus.arl.psu.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Chris wrote:
> >I'm looking at the SW30. A 2" 30mm 72 degree AF according to the
spec
> >sheet. Does anyone have experience with this ep? I recall reading
> >that their 10mm was a good ep.
> >
> >I don't see Speers-Waler mentioned very often here in SAA is there a
> >known problem or is the cost/performance just not there?
> >
> >Thanks Chris
>
>
I owned a SW30mm - the true AFOV is 67.7 degrees. Bright, contrasty
images, sharp almost to the edge in my 18" f/4.5. Sold it in favor of
UO's 40mm MK-70, for it's wider field. The SW30 is an excellent value.
Shneor Sherman
mag...@arnprior.com
(Chris) wrote:
>I'm looking at the SW30. A 2" 30mm 72 degree AF according to the spec
>sheet. Does anyone have experience with this ep? I recall reading
>that their 10mm was a good ep.
I haven't used expensive eps in this size range, like Panoptics, so
perhaps better viewing awaits me, but I enjoy the SW30 in an 8-inch,
f/6 dob, and 4-inch f/6.4 achromat. Contrast is better than a
mid-range 1 1/4 inch 30mm plossl, so it's great for finding faint
nebulae. Sharpness is good across the field--not perfect--but
certainly not bothersome. The eye relief works well, I find. My
glasses almost touch, but without glasses, my eye is a normal distance
away, so the image fills your vision without having to hover six
inches above the ep (like a Meade 55mm I have). Depends on what you're
used to, I guess.
>I don't see Speers-Waler mentioned very often here in SAA is there a
>known problem or is the cost/performance just not there?
No, the bang per buck is high, but it's not American, Japanese, or
German, and they haven't invested a lot in marketing, so it has an
uphill battle. I have the zoom, and love it, although it does have
reflections with bright planets, and any dust shows up on the focal
plane. I'm also trying the 14mm, and it has more field curvature, but
for $120 US, you get a wide, bright, sharp image. If that's not enough
there are always better-known brands.
Doug Hoy
Mike McIsaac
> I'm looking at the SW30. A 2" 30mm 72 degree AF according to the spec
> sheet.
>
>
Greetings from Alaska, Chris!
I have used the SW 30mm in F8 refractors and F10 SCTs/MCTs with great
pleasure. Others have reported optical aberrations in fast reflectors
that I have not seen in the longer focal lengths I have used. It is my
favorite low power eyepiece and is great for extended objects. When
used with a nebula filter, it is a great "Oh wow!" eyepiece for showing
inexperienced observers M42 or the Pleiades. When used at 60x in a Mak-
Cassegrain, the entire full moon fits in the view and is extremely
sharp (and so bright it HURTS!).
Eye relief is adequate and I have never experienced any "kidney bean"
blackouts (which really bug me - I have sold other eyepieces that
exhibited this effect). Eye position when viewing thru this eyepiece
seems irrelevant - the view is everywhere you position your eye. And
its a beautiful, wide field of view!
If you have a scope with a focal length greater than F8, I'd highly
recommend this eyepiece.
Mike McIsaac
--
***************************************************
Any government big enough to provide everything you
want is big enough to take everything you've got.
***************************************************
RAnder3127
writes:
>I have used the SW 30mm in F8 refractors and F10 SCTs/MCTs with great
>pleasure. Others have reported optical aberrations in fast reflectors
>that I have not seen in the longer focal lengths I have used.
So you contend the edge of field view with eyepiece is
without aberration? I've used it and it's field edge is no
better than the old 32mm 2" Erfle or Konigs I used to
use. Centre field performance and contrast is fine though.
-Rich
"Doesn't the house chosen by the Clintons
look like the one in "The Amityville Horror?"
Strange, but somehow appropriate."
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > pleasure. Others have reported optical aberrations in fast reflectors
> > that I have not seen in the longer focal lengths I have used.
>
> So you contend the edge of field view with eyepiece is
> without aberration? I've used it and it's field edge is no
> better than the old 32mm 2" Erfle or Konigs I used to
> use. Centre field performance and contrast is fine though.
> -Rich
Rich, point of information: With what type(s) and focal ratio(s)
of telescopes did you notice these aberrations?
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
Matt Leo
> So you contend the edge of field view with eyepiece is
> without aberration? I've used it and it's field edge is no
> better than the old 32mm 2" Erfle or Konigs I used to
> use. Centre field performance and contrast is fine though.
> -Rich
Is there such a thing as a piece of optics without aberration? In any case,
my own experiments with the SW24 lead me to believe that SW edge performance
is probably really objectionable near f4. I have some vague recollection
that you have a large and probably fast dob. At f10 it's plenty good enough
for me, and I suspect most people would not detect any edge problems. I was
interested in Doug's review, because he views at f6, where I'd suspect many
people would be able to detect edge problems, but might not find them
problematic.
mag...@arnprior.com
>So you contend the edge of field view with eyepiece is
>without aberration? I've used it and it's field edge is no
>better than the old 32mm 2" Erfle or Konigs I used to
>use. Centre field performance and contrast is fine though.
Yes, that's entirely possible. My long-suffering telescope dealer let
me try the Omcon 52 and 35 erfles, and I ended up keeping the SW30
because overall sharpness and eye relief seemed better. I only have a
16mm Konig, but it is very sharp at the centre, and has great
contrast. Slower scopes undoubtedly would let these older designs
perform better, just as an f/4.5 scope would find them wanting.
If I get a big SCT, I'd stick with them, but for a big dob, I'd
probably be looking at the Panoptics. With a small f/6 dob, I'm
unfortunately in the middle, where more expensive eyepieces wouldn't
give as much advantage as spending the money on a bigger scope.
Doug Hoy