Log in

View Full Version here: : Meade s4000 6.7mm UWA


iceman
11-10-2005, 06:51 AM
Anyone used these?

I've already got the 14mm in this s4000 range, and figure that for my premium planetary eyepiece, the 6.7mm would be a good addition, giving me 186x in my 10" f/5 scope.

It could potentially be barlowed @ 2x for nights of exceptional seeing.

If anyone has any comments on this EP, i'd like to hear them.

iceman
11-10-2005, 07:19 AM
Also interested in any comments of this eyepiece, versus a 7mm nagler or a 7mm UO HD.

Thanks

ving
11-10-2005, 09:19 AM
if they are anything like the rest of the range it should be a good purchase mike :)

Dave47tuc
11-10-2005, 12:14 PM
I used this Ep a long time ago and found the ER to small for me. The 4.7 is worse. I would prefer the 7 mm Pentax or Nagler.

But if you can stand the small ER the EP was pretty sharp. :D

square_peg114GT
11-10-2005, 12:30 PM
Lawrence Sayer over on CN has said several times that this one is the best of the bunch (4K UWAs). I haven't had the pleasure, but if it's anything like the 8.8mm or 14mm it's gotta be fantastic. Bill Grass sold his 7mm Nagler after getting one. I suppose it's a personal preference thing, but I'd sure love one myself.

I was actually thinking about this EP just recently as a potential Mars EP. In the end I elected to buy 5mm & 7mm UO HD Orthos. One day I'll get that 6.7mm, though.

:iwantit: :D

Starkler
11-10-2005, 06:33 PM
I find 7mm a bit on the low side in mag for 1250mm fl and might possibly invest in a good 6mm if I can find one that beats the 14mm pentax barlowed.

Wish I knew someone with a 6mm radian :whistle:

dhumpie
19-10-2005, 02:51 PM
I have one but I am Brissie :)

Darren

shredder
25-10-2005, 08:44 PM
Well Mike,

I have one (6.7 UWA), along with the 8.8UWA and the SWAs in the longer focal lengths (13.8, 18, 24.5). So I can give you a reasonable comparison. For my money they are all great. I do find the 6.7 needs a really good night to be useful as it gives me approx x300 mag on a 8" SCT F10. But when the seeing is good, it is good.

And while I don't plan to change it I did have some thoughts after getting it.

Basically they went along this line, is a UWA at such a low focal length the right choice? While I am very happy with the eyepeice I believe that the design to get any UWA must produce slightly less sharp images than a comparable Plossl (or similar quality EP) as there must be compromises made to get the extra angle. Since this is a low focal length, you are talking about high magnification (probably planets, splitting doubles etc) and in this case do you really want / need the wider angle or would the sharper image be better? While it is great and I cant fault the EP, it doesnt produce the "out in space" feel of the longer focal length eps as you simply dont have a huge FOV anyway.

Well hope this make sense. I do plan to come to one of your nights out so you / others are welcome to give it a go.

Anyway if you can find one for the right price (as I did) you wont regret it, otherwise I suggest just getting a good quality low focal length ep from a reputable make and enjoy that in stead.

Oh, and I don't experience any problems with the eye relief, it is short and not for someone with glasses, but it is better than my celestron 7mm plossl.

Any questions just PM me.

shredder
25-10-2005, 08:47 PM
Ahh and a last comment, it is no where near as big as the other UWA's no bigger than a standard plossl

atalas
25-10-2005, 09:02 PM
Hi Michael , I was wondering If you would come and tell us about the 6.7mm UWA !
Thanks for the write up on the Meade's mate much appreciated and I know your enjoying them to the max ! Michael let me know If you want to join us this Saturday night at Kulnura I would love to chat with you again.

shredder
25-10-2005, 10:23 PM
Would have told everyone about them sooner had I realised people were interested. I'm a slow reader and didnt see the post till just now......