Brandons in C9.25

[Greenswale]

Does anyone have direct experience and opinion with Brandon eyepieces in a C 9.25, at f10 (ie no focal reducer)?

[casstony]

They're a fine eyepiece but I'm not sure they're any better than a Tele Vue Plossl.
They are very nice binoviewer eyepieces courtesy of the small size and lack of recessed eyelens. I'd have a 24mm pair if they weren't so expensive. I currently use Fujiyama Ortho's in my binoviewer - lots cheaper and quite good.

[Greenswale]

Thanks Tony. There is a lot of opinion around on the Brandons, but it can be difficult to relate the opinion to focal length, as it is not always mentioned.

One lives in hope that someone has tried them in an SCT and can give opinion!

[casstony]

I had a full set at one stage and I've always owned one or two SCT's :)
For the price you might as well buy TV Delites or good quality widefields.

[Greenswale]

Aha, that solves that! Thanks Tony.

[brian nordstrom]

:D I dont have these but I do have a set of TV Plossl's and they perform very well in my C9.25 , especially the 20 and 32mm ones , very sharp .

As said the Brandons are similar in quality to the TelVue's but very rare her in OZ .

Brian.

[Wavytone]

Brandon's are a modified plossl design dating back to the 1950's, with a field of view of 45 degrees - not the advertised 50 degrees. They were chosen specifically to match Questars which at f/13 or so are primarily for lunary & planetary visual observers and in that role, with that scope, Brandons are very good as they were free of internal ghosts and with only 4 air-glass surfaces transmission was high.

But at f/13 is that you could use almost any eyepiece and get an excellent image anyway. Even a Ramsden or Huygens.

In wide field faster newtonian scopes they are nothing special and you would get better value for money on something else starting with quite ordinary plossls, Edmund RKE's or Vixen LV's from 30 years ago, or even the cheap chinese eyepieces from various sources.