TMB Planetary and contrast

Kieken · #1 03-11-2006, 03:30 AM

I have a question for the TMB planetary owners here. I'm already doing some Christmas shopping (it's never too early

) and these EP's seem pretty good compared to other brands and designs.

Would it make sense to get myself 2 or 3 TMB's (9-7-5) instead of 2 or 3 Baader Genuine ortho's (same as UO HD)? The 5mm might be replaced by a WO 4mm but I'm going to do a bit more research on this EP before I can say wether it's worth the money.

My main interest is DSO (galaxy and PN) so the higher the contrast an EP can give, the better. I'm using a 12" F/5 GSO dob for the moment.

iceman (Mike) · #2 03-11-2006, 08:53 AM

I've got the 5mm TMB planetary, and love it for lunar/planetary views. It's very comfortable to use, with plenty of eye relief and a big lens.

I was looking at using an Ortho as well, but for the same price, there's no question the TMB is more comfortable to use.. no squashing your eye up against it.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #3 03-11-2006, 10:45 AM

The Burgess EPs are excellent value and would recommend those over the orthos. I don't think a marginal (if any) improvement in contrast is worth trading a comfortable eyepiece for a pinhole lens - esp true in the case of the 5mm.

Kieken · #4 03-11-2006, 10:47 AM

Well, sharpness and lack of other distortions is also important for me but now I'm searching for an EP that can deliver me the most light and still be pleasant to use.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #5 03-11-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieken

Well, sharpness and lack of other distortions is also important for me ...

The Burgess are as good as the orthos in these respects. You cannot go wrong IMO. (I have not used the Baader orthos, but I have UO HDs which are very similar, if not exactly the same, afaik.)

casstony · #6 03-11-2006, 05:16 PM

They are very good for the price, but just to be picky on a couple of points:
1. internal reflection of light is not as well controlled as it could be, though this shouldn't be a problem on deep sky.
2. eye relief is comfortable but it is 12mm, not the claimed 16mm.

Starkler (Geoff) · #7 03-11-2006, 06:37 PM

I find mine to perform very well, with a nice flat field free of obvious abberations at f5.

Certainly best bang for the buck in the price class and well ahead of short focal length orthos for fov and viewing comfort. Possibly a small step behind a good ortho for scatter but just as sharp AFAICT.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #8 03-11-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casstony

...eye relief is comfortable but it is 12mm, not the claimed 16mm.

Yes, eye relief does seem quite a bit shorter than other long eye relief EPs, e.g., Pentax XF at 18mm. At least half the travel in the adjustable eyecup is only for show. There is no way you will see anything with the eyecup anywhere near fully extended.