Quote:
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.
|
I don't believe either TeleVue or BillP claimed these eyepieces were orthoscopic, just sharp.
At 62 degrees of field, there will either be rectilinear distortion (RD) or Angular magnification distortion (AMD) at field edge, or both. TeleVue produces eyepieces with as little AMD as possible, which guarantees there would be RD at the edge of the field.
Perhaps that makes these less than ideal for purely daylight use, but it has very little bearing on how they perform at night.
Had they solved for RD instead of AMD, they wouldn't have been as good at night.
"Ya pays yer money, and ya makes yer choice" when it comes to distortion.
If what you want is an eyepiece as close to distortion free as possible, don't go much over a 40 degree apparent field.