It's amazing they can get such quality in an 85* afov with only 5 elements. The original 5 element 'super-plossls' had a 55* afov. The wonders of modern glass??
Hi Col,
Congrats nice looking eyepiece, I had been looking at the masuyama as well but ended up ordering the nagler 31. It would be good to compare the two if you've tried them both.
I had a Parks Gold Series 10mm which I think is a Masuyama copy. Really nice eyepiece but I think it was 52* FOV. Cheers Richard
I bought a 10mm Parks Gold recently and it is simply superb, especially in the A-P Star 12ED. I paid peanuts for it.
Not only are they a Masuyama "clone" but apparently so are the Tak LE's. There is even conjecture that Masuyama MAKES the Tak LE's and made the Parks Gold series EP's. Interesting if they did!
A friend has the exact same Masuyama Col shows - will bug him to let me try it.
Hi Col,
Congrats nice looking eyepiece, I had been looking at the masuyama as well but ended up ordering the nagler 31. It would be good to compare the two if you've tried them both.
Yes...that would be a good ' shoot out ' to compare each other.
The Aussie $ is now pushing the 80c mark ... very tempted to obtain the Masuyama 26mm 85* degree also.
I bought a 10mm Parks Gold recently and it is simply superb, especially in the A-P Star 12ED. I paid peanuts for it.
Not only are they a Masuyama "clone" but apparently so are the Tak LE's. There is even conjecture that Masuyama MAKES the Tak LE's
Hi Lewis,
The same eyepieces were sold as:-
Parks Gold Series
Antares Elite
Celestron Ultima
Orion Ultrascopic
They were essentially identical except for some slightly different coating specs. They all seemed to perform the same to me in the field. Optically they are excellent performers, outside of the 50~ degree fov and tighter eye relief in the shorter focal lengths. I like them a lot, really nice sharp contrasty images.
Meade also did a 5 element Series 4000 super plossl for a few years which was very similar and performed at the same level.
The Tak LE's use a similar optical design with a different housing. I am fairly sure they have fractionally longer eye relief (by about 1mm) for a given focal length than the others.
Masuyama 2" inch 32mm 85*degree .... Outstanding fov and the views are spectacular using my TAK f/8.
When wifey took a look .... her immediate response was OMG ' your not getting rid of this one ' .... don't you dare
We were looking at ' Star and Globular Clusters ' most of the evening
I had to admit this is an outstanding Eyepiece and well worth the money.
Col....
Hi Col
Have you tried it in the Portaball?
I am curious to see how it goes in scopes faster than F8. I think as David mentioned, it might struggle at faster than F6 due to only 5 elements and 85 degrees.
In those slower scopes I am sure it will perform really well with sharp contrasty images.
The Masuyama line was designed for refractors - that is where the Japanese market is concentrated on.
If you use the Masuyama eyepieces on Newtonians, you will find few perform well edge to edge. Pop them into a refractor, as Col did, and here they excel.
Same for the other Masuyama copies. Great in refractors, and mediocre in Newtonians.
"Fast" vs "Slow" focal ratio has nothing to do with it. What has everything to do with it is matching the shape of the focal plane of the scope with the eyepiece you are using. No use putting an eyepiece designed to work with a convex focal plane in a scope with a concave focal plane.
With the complex nature of contemporary eyepiece design, there will be a couple of the Masuyma line that will perform well in a Newtonian. But that does not mean that the others are crap. They are not. What is crap is expecting an eyepiece designed for a refractor to perform the same in a Newtonian.
Col's experience of this monster new Masuyama is in a refractor, and it performs as expected - brilliantly. Will it perform just as well in a Newtonian - who cares! It may or may not. A Newtonian is not the right scope for this eyepiece. A refractor is.
I am curious to see how it goes in scopes faster than F8. I think as David mentioned, it might struggle at faster than F6 due to only 5 elements and 85 degrees.
In those slower scopes I am sure it will perform really well with sharp contrasty images.
Cheers
John B
John ..... my PortaBall only takes 1.25 Eyepieces and is of a ' Helical ' Design.
Superb in ' Fluorite ' TAK f/8.... I haven't got around to using it in my f/15 Refractor .
Excellent in ' slow ' f Ratio instruments.... more so Refractors
Cheers Col....
Last edited by FlashDrive; 20-07-2017 at 03:22 PM.
The Masuyama line was designed for refractors - that is where the Japanese market is concentrated on.
If you use the Masuyama eyepieces on Newtonians, you will find few perform well edge to edge. Pop them into a refractor, as Col did, and here they excel.
Same for the other Masuyama copies. Great in refractors, and mediocre in Newtonians.
"Fast" vs "Slow" focal ratio has nothing to do with it. What has everything to do with it is matching the shape of the focal plane of the scope with the eyepiece you are using. No use putting an eyepiece designed to work with a convex focal plane in a scope with a concave focal plane.
With the complex nature of contemporary eyepiece design, there will be a couple of the Masuyma line that will perform well in a Newtonian. But that does not mean that the others are crap. They are not. What is crap is expecting an eyepiece designed for a refractor to perform the same in a Newtonian.
Col's experience of this monster new Masuyama is in a refractor, and it performs as expected - brilliantly. Will it perform just as well in a Newtonian - who cares! It may or may not. A Newtonian is not the right scope for this eyepiece. A refractor is.
Electric.
A good point, though I can't imagine that the f-ratio counts for nothing. For one thing, it will affect the radius of curvature of the focal plain. I also note that people who appear to know far more than I (which is little enough) do specify a minimum usable f-ratio for different eyepieces.
So how do SCTs, Mak, and RCs fit into this picture? Are they curved similar to newts of fracs?