Toucam, new eyepieces, money no object??

davidpretorius · #1 06-10-2005, 06:52 PM

Ok guys.

http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=144

Houghy probably has this page burnt into his screen as a screensaver.

For the noobies that are starting not to be noobies, they most probably have a toucam, series 500 or gs ep's. Time to start saving for an upgrade. The also have bought a Williams Optics Digiscope for taking pics thru the eyepieces using the method called digiscoping (link: http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=236#Afocal)

They have prime focus covered for planets etc with their toucam and its 1.25" adapter already. The televue 5x will be in the stable for planets etc imaging

Looking at the televue chart, and given that images are wanting to be taken thru the eyepiece at say 40 or 50x, Which two eyepieces & barlow would be the best combo??? money is of no object in this scenario. I am looking for an optimal combo of two ep's and a barlow. (The televue 5x will also be in the collection, but not for viewing thru so don't worry about including him).

asimov (John) · #2 06-10-2005, 07:11 PM

I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer those questions. However I DO know what I'll be getting one day that I would call 'top shelf' eyepieces for visual use. No idea weather or not they will be any good for photography though. That choice is pentax XWs.

As far as barlows are concerned, are U talking 1.25" or 2"?

davidpretorius · #3 06-10-2005, 07:16 PM

thanks, what ever is most versatile, a 2" that can take the adapter for the 1.25" ep's sounds nice, but may not be the best overall combo!

asimov (John) · #4 06-10-2005, 07:30 PM

Yeah. As you know, I have the 1.25" meade APO barlow that I like a lot. But I still have a nagging thought that I should have gone a 2" instead & been done with it!? Will be interesting to get some comments from the experts here.

gbeal · #5 07-10-2005, 05:09 AM

Davo,
what are you trying to acheive? I reckon for most the 1.25" barlow (or Powermate) is the way, but of late I have had that same nagging, and wonder if I should have tried a 2" instead.
For higher power use, (and that includes eyepiece projection with the ToUcam) I use a set of Zeiss orthos, from 4mm through to 25mm. University Optics orthos would be similar. I have on the odd occasion used them with the 2.5x Powermate, but usually I just use the eyepiece. The Powermates are for imaging (I have the 2.5x and the 5x).
The other eyepieces I have are a 12mm Nagler, and a 22mm Nagler, both obstensively for DSO with any of the scopes I have. Occasionally though I tried the 12mm and the 2.5x and quite like it, albeit it sits a fair way out, and looks/feels ungainly.
Point I make is that with a 2" Barlow (or Powermate) and a 2x at that I could then use both the 12mm, as well as the 22mm. I could also then use the orthos, via a 2" - 12.5" adaptor, and the 1.25" - .96" adaptor.
As an aside, before I got too heavily into imaging, I used a point and shoot, fixed lens digital. It is a Leica Digilux 4.3, and gives good general images. In adapting it to astro use I built an adaptor to fit it behind my scope/eyepiece combo. I tried all manner of eyepieces, and eventually settled on what was the ugliest eyepiece I owned (and still own), a Celestron 20mm Erfle. With a slight amount of optical zoom in the camera, and this eyepiece I gained what I considered very good afocal images, and am still amazed today at what can be acheived, some of these ar at http://www.2fdesign.co.nz/zeissnut/p...un_updates.htm
Hope this rambling helps.
Gary

davidpretorius · #6 07-10-2005, 05:31 AM

Thanks Gary, not rambling, as I am sure every one here is uncertain to the perfect combo

I am thinking this combo is where I am heading eventually:

For viewing:

i would love 2 x 1.25" naglers in say 9mm and also 31mm. coupled with a 2x powermate in 2" (using my current 2" to 1.25" adapter). This gives me 4.5, 9 , 15 , 31 or 300x,150x,80x,40x - a nice spread!

For imaging:

digiscoping with the toucam (i have given up on and sent the eyepiece projection product back to supplier), i could image thru the 31mm for the wider views ie 40x for orion and then by using the 2x barlow, i can image at that 80x odd

prime focus with the toucam for planets I would get the 5x powermate for prime focus and 1500x and a focal reducer so that at prime focus without barlows i might be able to knock back the standard 300x back to 150 - 200

h0ughy (David) · #7 07-10-2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidpretorius

Ok guys.

http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=144

Houghy probably has this page burnt into his screen as a screensaver.

only the bottom of the table Dave

gbeal · #8 07-10-2005, 07:59 AM

Davo,
maybe, and yes everyone has differing ideas.
For viewing I felt that the 31 or so is a bit long, and in a round about sort of way wasted. I would probably opt for nothing longer than the 26mm (and in my case the 22mm).
The the shorter lengths: 17 and 9 maybe, although with a 2x you will eventually double up.
I still feel you need a decent set of planetary eyepieces, orthos or good Plossls, although of late as I said I have warmed to the 12mm Nagler, so maybe I am just being old fashioned.
The imaging at prime and with a 5x is great, but in some case, lunar especially, I find the 5x tooooo much. If the seeing is not conducive as well it is too much. Then I use the 2.5x, or eyepiece project. If I had to I could get by imaging without the Powermates, and just E/P projecting with the orthos, and these allow more freedom of image scale as well. As the Americans have coined though. YMMV.
Gary

beren · #9 08-10-2005, 12:37 AM

If i had to choose i would go for the 17mm 11mm and 7mm nagler and if you didnt have the 30andrews uw the 27 pan

#10 08-10-2005, 05:20 AM

Must be nice spending all that money on Naglers to find the glass isn't made by TV anymore but in Tiawan/China. A bit like buying expensive Nike's that have been made in Vietnam. And I'm starting to see a few general complaints about the t6 series. Especially in the ER which appears to be getting shorter and shorter.

Have you decided on Nagler's because of the name? the Pentax XW's have superoir coating to that of the TV's plus you can get a universal camera adaptor that screws directly onto the ep.

Have you tried either of these ep brands?

regards,CS

#11 08-10-2005, 05:25 AM

If you like extended periods observing at the ep I'd go for the XW's on axis they're sharper, alot more contrasty which helps bring out finer detail. And the difference in 70 - 82 degrees is debatable besides in that outer 6 degrees either side in the TV's fall apart anyway.

regards,CS

davidpretorius · #12 08-10-2005, 08:38 AM

thanks rob and guys,

Using nagler as a starting point due to name, have no reason to buy them just on name if the performance is not there!

I have no allegances!

mick pinner · #13 08-10-2005, 10:44 AM

is there a pentax distributor in Oz.

iceman (Mike) · #14 08-10-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

to find the glass isn't made by TV anymore but in Tiawan/China

I don't think that matters at all. It's still made to TV's specifications and is QC'd by TV in the states.

Quote:

If you like extended periods observing at the ep I'd go for the XW's on axis they're sharper, alot more contrasty which helps bring out finer detail. And the difference in 70 - 82 degrees is debatable besides in that outer 6 degrees either side in the TV's fall apart anyway

What focal length are you referring to? In my experience testing the 13mm NagT6 vs the 14mm Pentax XW, yes the Pentax was a *tad* sharper on-axis, but the nagler was overall the better eyepiece (full and comprehensive review coming soon), sharp all the way to the edge, and no field curvature like the Pentax.

I know the 7mm and 10mm Pentax's are superior to the 14mm Pentax, but I don't think it's fair to generalise that Naglers fall apart at the edge because it's just not true from the ones I've looked through. And in terms of contrast, it's fairly subjective IMO - all of the eyepieces I tested were fairly equivalent when it came to contrast and the difference was negligible.

Both EP's are comfortable to use, no blackouts or kidney beaning in either of them, obviously the Pentax has more ER which is a plus if you wear glasses (I don't).

Just my thoughts.

In the coming months i'm hoping to do a shootout between the shorter focal length Naglers and Pentax's as well.

iceman (Mike) · #15 08-10-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

is there a pentax distributor in Oz

Not that I'm aware of - I think you'll have to import them.

#16 08-10-2005, 10:47 AM

Davo,

I suggest, if you can see if you have look through an XW or two, However I do intend getting a 20mm t5 as the 20mm XW does come in 2" format. I figure I would use that FL more for larger Nebula and such. So I dont want to be swapping out 1.25" adaptors to go to 2" 30mm & 40mm XW's, also I'm intending on going to 2" filters. Still later I will get the 20mm XW. As I love the cool crisp views you get through the XW's

regards,CS

davidpretorius · #17 08-10-2005, 10:53 AM

http://www.astro-optical.com.au/ have them on their website

beren · #18 08-10-2005, 10:54 AM

Dont know about China but if my Televue eyepieces are sourced from there hell they do a good job .Im relucant to comment on comparisions because unfortunately ive never had the good fortune to try a Pentax eyepiece but from your description theres seems to be a wider difference then what i would think.Good luck Davo best to get along to a gathering and see for yourself on how different brands perform .

Starkler (Geoff) · #19 08-10-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick pinner

is there a pentax distributor in Oz.

John B ( ausastronomer ) can point you in the right direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

Both EP's are comfortable to use, no blackouts or kidney beaning in either of them, obviously the Pentax has more ER which is a plus if you wear glasses (I don't).

I dont wear glasses at the eyepiece, but I love the extra eye relief of the pentax's for the comfort factor. Whether this is an important factor for you is a personal thing.
For a long time my set consisted of 10.5 and 14mm pentaxs, a 2x Ultima barlow, and a 27mm panoptic. I have no hesitation recommending any of the above for use with a gso dob as they are all great.

#20 08-10-2005, 11:14 AM

Star Optics up on the Gold Coast stock them too, it where I source mine from

http://www.staroptics.com.au/

Beren,

Al Nagler out sourced the grinding of the glass sometime back he then tests them to see if they reach a certain level, I wonder if that level is compromised from his original level of perfection. Pentax has been in the business for quite a few years more. Alot of high definition TV is shot through Pentax lenses, when I was working on movie sets you would see them being used. Their coating are world famous, same coatings on their ep's I believe SMC. I've had the chance now to look through a few TV's the only one that has impressed me is the 20mm t5 Houghy has.

All I'm suggesting is before you go out and buy what you read or hear about as being the best try a couple of others, Dont get me wrong I'm not putting down TV's but the say the are the only top of the line ep is not true and you would be a fool to say it. Actually when I hear people expressing that I donr ever believe what they have to say again. The proof is in the pudding. besides the warm fuzzy feeling Naglers give you they have a slightly wider FOV. I think the Pentax XW have an overall better design and are slighty better optical, comfortability, and construction, designed to be weather proof.

regards,CS