Celestron Ultima Barlow as good as a powermate?

[toc]

Guys, what is your general feelings on the Celestron Ultima 2x Barlow vs the Teleview Powermates?

The guy at York optical (dont know his name, but he seemed very pleasant) was adam ant that the Ultima was basically the best barlow you can get and every bit as good, if not better than the Powermates. So I ended up getting one, and havent been at all unhappy so far tonight. (Jupiter was pretty good in Melbourne tonight!)

[Miaplacidus]

So – let me get this right – you're basically asking this question to see whether or not you should remain happy???

[Starkler]

I was thinking the same thing :)
No point asking after you have bought it ;)

I have an ultima myself and Im completely satisfied with the views that I get through it. Many will say that the powermate will give a superior view but I also suspect that there isnt a lot in it and they also cost a lot more !

There is a large body of experienced observers posting opinions and reviews on the internet to draw information from, allowing you to conduct your own research before making buying decisions. The trick is to know whos opinions are worth listening to, who is biased, doesnt know what they are talking about, or who is only interested in making a sale of an item that they stock ;)

[matt]

:lol:

I have both a 2.5x Powermate and the 2x Ultima Barlow, and they're both excellent. You won't have any complaints with the Celestron.

[asimov]

Well I'm going to ask this question: wots so good about these powermates!?? I have a APO barlow. Whats the chances of a powermate 'blowing' mine out of the water? Whats the optical design of them...WHY are they apparently "the best" ??

[Miaplacidus]

Sheeshz, I dunno. You never hear much about the Meade Tele(vue copyright-infringement)-Xtenders, although they're meant to be much the same as Powermates, aren't they?

[toc]

Yes. :rofl:

[ving]

I think sirs he wants to asure that he didnt make the wrong decision and also that he isnt missing anything by not getting a powermate...

ultimas are pretty darn good (top grade) as EPs (as good as TV plossls (some argue better somr worse)) so I am guessing that that would carry over to thier barlows

[Robert_T]

There are some difference in optical configuration between powermates and barlows - the TV website explains, but here's also a link to a cloudy nights review http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=86

In short, powermates aren't barlows. Other differences to be aware of are if your use an extension tube on your barlow it will increase it's amplification for imaging. If you do the same with a 2.5x powermate it will actually slightly decrease amplification - but each powermate is unique, the 4x will slightly increase magnification with extension tube and the 5x powermate will act much more like a barlow increasing amplification significantly with an extension tube.

I can't compare with a Celestron Ultima barlow, but confess to being somewhat blown away by the optical quality of the 2.5x powermate the first time I used it, comparing it with cheaper barlow like the GSO 2x barlow and Orion 3x barlow.

In the end the biggest driver for powermates will be when you need to get the higher amplification factors such as 4 x and 5x as I'm not aware of barlows being made at this amplification (expect there'd be serious quality issues if they did). If 2x is what you want, no doubt the ultima barlow will serve you well.

cheers,

[janoskiss]

That barlow is no good. You could of course just throw it in the bin, but I'm sure Striker will take pity on you and give you a couple of bucks for it. Then go out and get yourself a Powermate. It's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Powermate can also be used to cut shapes out of cookie dough. If you get a big 2-incher, you can make great big choc chip cookies with it.
:P

PS. Ultima magnification will be around 2.2-2.3x with most eyepieces

[ving]

very funny steve :rolleyes:

[asimov]

TY for the info Rob. Yeah so it seems the powermates are 4 element as opposed to say, my APO barlow which is 3 element.

[davidpretorius]

the only reason i went for a 5x powermate is that i can use an extension tube to get to 7.7x for imaging purposes only.

TV are great products, but with a huge fan base. In the last 10 months I have watched the pentax products basically kick televue ep's off top of the list on this website.

I love my powermate, one of the best $310 i have spent as there is nothing else that will do what it does for my particuliar purpose.

There are many great eyepieces out there that are closer to TV than you may be lead to believe by the american forums etc

[ausastronomer]

I consider myself reasonably qualified to comment on this, owning both the Orion Shorty Plus (same as Celestron Ultima), a 2.5X TV Powermate, a scope with very sharp optics and a boxfull of premium eyepieces to jam down the throat of both barlows. I have also been doing this looking up thing for a long time and used a truckload of different barlows over the years, from babys not much bigger than a plossl eyepiece, to a 2" 1.75X Parks barlow that has the physical dimensions of a can of tennis balls and weighs about the same as a brick. Heavy enough in fact to unbalance the 16" dob I was using at the time. I will say that we have never been so fortunate with barlows as we are today. They are infinitely superior to what was available even 15 years ago and if you buy something of reasonable reputable quality today, you get a very good product.

In answer to a couple of questions that are foremost in your mind :lol:

1) Did the guy at York Optical sling some at you when he said the Celestron Ultima is about the best barlow on the market ? Absolutely !!! He is either slinging some at you, or has never used the best himself. There are 4 that come quickly to mind that are superior to the Celestron Ultima that I have used. The Televue 2.5X Powermate, the Televue 2X Standard barlow, the Takahashi Extender Q 1.6X which are all more expensive than the Celestron Ultima and the the Orion Ultrascopic 2X which is a little cheaper but only by a couple of $$$.

2) Is there much difference between them? No

3) Is the TV 2.5 X Powermate better than the Celestron Ultima? Yes

4) Is the Celestron Ultima a very good barlow? Yes.

5) Is the 2.5X TV Powermate worth the extra money over the 2X Celestron Ultima ? In my case the answer is yes. It is a little better, but not by much and many people couldn't justify the extra cost.

6) Why is the powermate better ? Thats a hard question to put your finger on the answer specifically, its just a tiny bit nicer IMO. I think it has slightly better contrast and performance off axis and also it preserves exactly the eye-relief of the original eyepiece. It is as close to "not using a barlow" as you can get. It just disappears.

7) Did I get a good barlow and good value for money? Absolutely. You have a great barlow and haven't wasted your money.

Some advice for future reference ? Ask next time before you drop the coin. You didn't get burned in this case but you could have.

CS and enjoy it.
John B

[davidpretorius]

John, please ring al nagler and the pentax company and any other eyepiece manufacturer you can name and ask to be their rep in australia. Their sales will sky rocket!

I for one will buy whatever you shot my way for a stated $$ and performance etc.

Every response you write is thought out, straight forwarded, un biased, and helps immensely. You present the pros and cons, an estimate of how much better per $$.

I can't recommend your advice highly enough to any newbie or oldie.

Thanks a heap!!!

[Starkler]

Excellent post John but I'll add a note about the Orion Shorty Plus vs the Celestron Ultima.

They are very close but not identical. I have had one of each in my possession and the coatings are definately different. The Ultima has reddish coatings and the Shorty plus has a greenish coating.
How that translates to real world performance I will never know, as the Shorty plus got sold as brand new , so I didnt get to pop it in my scope for comparison tests. :shrug:

[ausastronomer]

Geoff,

Yes they are slightly different in the coatings, so obviously not quite 100% identical. I have been advised that the optical configuration and lens elements are the same. I have never pulled them apart to check this for myself, nor have I been able to use both together in the same telescope with the same eyepiece to do a direct A/B comparison.

I have used them both at different times and felt they both performed at the same standard, which is very high BTW.

CS-John B