|
Hi Steve,
For viewing the planets at high mags I think the orthoscopic design is far better than a plossl. They provide excellent contrast and very sharp images. Uranus at 6mm in my 16" F4.5 Newt is a small greenish disc and Neptune appears to me as a small grey disc about half the diameter as Uranus. The detail through the 4mm and 6mm otho's, depending on the seeing, is stunning sharp as a tack.
The field of view when observing a planet is irrelevant. My shortest F/L eyepieces are 4mm & 6mm orthoscopic's then I go to a 9mm Nagler.
There is no comparison to the quality of image the otho's give compared to the Nagler. If the seeing is good enough for better than 6mm I would always go to my 4mm otho rather than the 9mm Nagler in my triplet 2 x Barlow.
I actually find the 9mm Nagler of greatest use when I am Imaging Saturn and Jupiter with my DMK and a 2 x or 3 x barlow. I slip the 9mm in to initially align the field, this is where the wide field of the Nagler excels, then I very gently swap back to the DMK and the planet will appear on the screen of my Laptop in the IC Capture field.
Don't get me wrong regarding the quality of Nagler eyepieces, my 31mm Nagler is just in a league of its own. I also have a 14mm Meade series 4000 Ultra wide which is also a stunning eyepiece, the one I do about 80% of my observing with. But for high magnification I think the orthoscopic design stands alone.
My 6mm and 4mm orthoscopics are at least 20 yrs old, I have heard good reports about a Japanese brand, not sure but think they were Abbe or similar name.
I am sure you will get other opinions on this subject, but these are my thoughts.
Regards
Trevor
|