DeLite 1st Light Review

[WilliamPaolini]

I just completed my evaluation of these new Tele Vue eyepieces. In a word...Impressive! Actually thoroughly impressive. And best of all, zero eye placement sensitivity. On par if not exceeding the comfort of the XWs.

The review is up on a new site by Agena Astro. The site is not fully functional yet, most likely tomorrow, but my DeLite review page is up and running

http://astronomyconnect.com/forums/a...light-review.1

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

A very comprehensive review.
Thank You William.

Col.

[MortonH]

Great report, and good to see that they compare well with Tak LE and Abbe eyepieces.

Thanks for posting!

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Just read it-a very comprehensive report.

[Profiler (Profiler)]

Does anyone know whether there is anyone akin to Wolfgang Rohr who assess eyepieces?

http://astro-foren.de/index.php/Thre...-Berichte=&l=2

[Wavytone]

Sorry I laughed out loud when I saw the image of shingles and Paolini claimed distortion was "minimal". The amount of pincushion distortion was shocking for a 62 degree eyepiece, and frankly the rest of Paoloni's review is superficial unquantified rubbish, ie worthless.


At least a side by side comparison with established premium eyepieces should have been provided that looks into th following with actual measurements from an optical bench:

A) sharpness off axis as a result of field curvature, spherical, coma and astigmatism, given the field curvature and distortion of the test telescope which also matters; Paolini didn't bother to mention the scope used;

B) lateral chromatic error near the edge of the field of view,

C) spherical aberration at the exit pupil, aka the "jellybean" or blackout problem affected certain eyepieces, notably Naglers;

D) eye relief as measured on an optical bench; Paolini clearly just takes the Televue data without any attempt to verify it by direct measurements.


Anyone with XW's, LVW's or nikons should keep them. No reason to switch.

[MortonH]

I'm confused, Wavy. I've read lots of eyepiece reviews and don't remember an optical bench being a requirement. Aside from that, the review addresses all your points.

Three scopes are mentioned thoughout the review, as are three comparison eyepieces: a Pentax XW, Tak LE and Tak Abbe.

All the aberrations mentioned are essentially absent or on par with the other eyepieces.

There was no blackout issue.

Eye relief not measured but nothing to suggest it isn't the claimed amount.

Seems fairly complete and thorough to me?

[WilliamPaolini]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Sorry I laughed out loud when I saw the image of shingles and Paolini claimed distortion was "minimal". The amount of pincushion distortion was shocking for a 62 degree eyepiece, and frankly the rest of Paoloni's review is superficial unquantified rubbish, ie worthless.

Sorry for your demeanor. The pincushion shown in that image equaled the pincushion observed in a Takahashi Abbe and a ZAO. So was at the typical minimal level that today's orthoscopics have.

On your other points I think you are confusing matters. This was not an optical bench test, but a field performance test...hence the common title of "First Light". If you want a bench test on optical measuring equipment I would encourage you to conduct this, or solicit others who do this to take up the task. Look forward to you posting us some of your bench tests!

btw, I mentioned the scopes I used...three different ones as specified is the article, as is the correct spelling of my name: "Paolini" and not "Paoloni".

[WilliamPaolini]

Originally Posted by MortonH

Great report, and good to see that they compare well with Tak LE and Abbe eyepieces.

Thanks for posting!

Actually the Tak LEs took the bottom rung in the field testing. I love my LEs but their off-axis was not as well controlled and on-axis they simply did not have the level of contrast and sharpness that DeLites were exhibiting in their ability to pull in the smallest and lowest contrast planetary and lunar features.

[WilliamPaolini]

Originally Posted by Profiler

Does anyone know whether there is anyone akin to Wolfgang Rohr who assess eyepieces?

http://astro-foren.de/index.php/Thre...-Berichte=&l=2

There is a group in France. If you recall they did a rather large bench test of several wide fields last year I believe.

http://www.cieletespace.fr/files/Ins...aires_10mm.pdf

[dreamstation (James)]

Originally Posted by WilliamPaolini

There is a group in France. If you recall they did a rather large bench test of several wide fields last year I believe.

http://www.cieletespace.fr/files/Ins...aires_10mm.pdf

Is there an English version or any way to convert that PDF to English?

Thanks.

[PlanetMan]

Originally Posted by WilliamPaolini

Actually the Tak LEs took the bottom rung in the field testing. I love my LEs but their off-axis was not as well controlled and on-axis they simply did not have the level of contrast and sharpness that DeLites were exhibiting in their ability to pull in the smallest and lowest contrast planetary and lunar features.

Sounds like Bill is pretty determined to make it clear that he is giving a big thumbs down to the venerable Takahashi LE

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by PlanetMan

Sounds like Bill is pretty determined to make it clear that he is giving a big thumbs down to the venerable Takahashi LE

Just because a newer 'slightly' better thing comes along doesn't make the old thing rubbish.

Besides, Tele Vue fans in Australia have a horrible exchange rate to deal with, so I don't expect the classifieds to be flooded with LEs.

I still think I'd like to look through a Tak LE to see how good they are.

[Profiler (Profiler)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Sorry I laughed out loud when I saw the image of shingles and Paolini claimed distortion was "minimal". The amount of pincushion distortion was shocking for a 62 degree eyepiece, and frankly the rest of Paoloni's review is superficial unquantified rubbish, ie worthless.


At least a side by side comparison with established premium eyepieces should have been provided that looks into th following with actual measurements from an optical bench:

A) sharpness off axis as a result of field curvature, spherical, coma and astigmatism, given the field curvature and distortion of the test telescope which also matters; Paolini didn't bother to mention the scope used;

B) lateral chromatic error near the edge of the field of view,

C) spherical aberration at the exit pupil, aka the "jellybean" or blackout problem affected certain eyepieces, notably Naglers;

D) eye relief as measured on an optical bench; Paolini clearly just takes the Televue data without any attempt to verify it by direct measurements.


Anyone with XW's, LVW's or nikons should keep them. No reason to switch.

Sorry Wavytone but I must disagree with you in the strongest possible terms

In my opinion this review of the Televue DeLite is, from my own perspective, the best thing to come along in the past two years!!!

I earnestly hope everyone in the Australian AA community reads this review and start buying DeLites and selling their old eyepieces.

I am especially hoping this will extend to folks who own Takahashi LE's and Takahashi Orthos as I would love to get my hands on a Takahashi LE12.5mm and LE24mm:rofl :

[WilliamPaolini]

Originally Posted by MortonH

I still think I'd like to look through a Tak LE to see how good they are.

Just because one eyepiece line may be better for a specific range of criteria than another does not mean it is better overall. There are numerous factors that each of us prefer and do not prefer. So it becomes a very personal decision. As example, optically the DeLite in my 2 Apos and 1 Dob soundly beat my Tak LEs. But there is more than simply optics. I doubt I will be getting rid of my LEs because I love their very small form factor...I can put 4 in one hand! So the many times I just go out for short quick views I prefer the small package of the LEs. Plus I like the LEs for their very high quality build...better than any other Plossl out there for sure. Optically they are certainly very good, but some have light control issues with lunar observing. But even with faults, I still like them a lot because they satisfy other areas for me.

I have never viewed through the 50mm or 30mm or 10mm, but have thru the 24mm, 18mm, 12.5mm, 7.5mm, and 5mm. I think the 7.5mm is my favorite.

[Don Pensack]

Originally Posted by Profiler

Does anyone know whether there is anyone akin to Wolfgang Rohr who assess eyepieces?

http://astro-foren.de/index.php/Thre...-Berichte=&l=2

Yes, see the Ciel et Espace website. Not many eyepieces reviewed, though.
here are some samples (use Google Translate if you don't read French):
http://www.cieletespace.fr/files/Ins...aires_10mm.pdf
http://www.cieletespace.fr/files/Ins..._oculaires.pdf

[Profiler (Profiler)]

Thanks Don

With the benefit of a wife who speaks French the reviews are very interesting.

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by Profiler

I earnestly hope everyone in the Australian AA community reads this review and start buying DeLites and selling their old eyepieces.

Looking at the classifieds that may already be happening.

[dreamstation (James)]

Originally Posted by N1

Looking at the classifieds that may already be happening.

None of the right ones though

[Slawomir (Suavi)]

Interesting review, thank you William for taking time to share your experiences with these new eyepieces.