Televue: 12mm Radian vs 11mm Plossl

davidpretorius · #1 19-11-2005, 10:05 AM

Starting to reduce down the contenders. Basically, from snake valley, I can safely say that the naglers and other televues that I was fortunate to look through were 4 to 5 times better than my series 500 and 2 to 3 times better than my andrews ultrawide 80 degree. This is an overall "feel" after reading reviews, actually looking thru the scope etc.

I know my series 500 were free, so lets say they belong to the $50 and under club. I can justify to myself and wife that If i can get an eyepiece at $250 that performed like the naglers, i will be very happy. For wide field, 3 x $150 = $450.

Which brings me to TV radians @ 12mm ($385) & TV plossls @ 11mm ($145).

Now both of these fall into my target price range (well $385 is close enough).

I have read the stats on the TV website, but what are peoples overall impressions on one over the other???

iceman (Mike) · #2 19-11-2005, 10:15 AM

What is your purpose for these eyepieces? Planetary? DSO's?

In your scope, 10/11mm is a bit of an inbetween focal length as they're too long for planetary observing unless you plan to barlow them.

The 12mm Radian would be a great eyepiece for medium power DSO viewing.

davidpretorius · #3 19-11-2005, 10:24 AM

sorry, i am thinking planetary mainly. I would barlow the 12mm eventually with a 2.5x powermate, or go the 6mm or 7mm if that is better than the powermate combo.

I am looking to get a stable of 3 very good eyepieces to cover low, med & high

I will get a 2.5x & 5x powermate as well

iceman (Mike) · #4 19-11-2005, 10:27 AM

The 12mm would be a good dual purpose eyepiece, stand alone for medium power DSO's and 2 or 2.5x barlowed for planetary.. however the seeing will have to be quite good.

I can't comment on how good the Radian is though, as I haven't used them.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #5 19-11-2005, 10:33 AM

Meade 5000 Plossls have a 60 degree FOV (same as the Radian), cost the same as the TV Plossls, and even the 5.5mm has plenty of eye relief if you don't need glasses.

Starkler (Geoff) · #6 19-11-2005, 10:56 AM

Just be aware that some complex design eyepieces dont barlow well eg 24mm panoptic is one of them. The radians already have a built in barlow as part of their design.
The tv plossl is just a very good quality plossl, with similar characteristics re eye relief and fov to any other plossl.

For a long time I was very happy with the following :
10.5mm pentax xl
14mm pentax xl
27mm panoptic
celestron ultima barlow ( Orion shorty plus)

Perhaps at your price point the Orion Stratus line might be worth a look?
I have seen Stu's Meade 5000 plossls and the shorter focal length ones do suffer short eye relief. Also the focus is soft at the edge at f5.
If you want to save money there are always comprimises to be made and when there are performance comprimises you will likely sell later and loose money on the deal.

My advice is to buy one quality ep in the 12-14 range and a good barlow.
This ep is the one you will use most for dso viewing, and barlowed will give a useful planetary magnification.

As a dedicated planetary eyepiece I would love to try a 6mm radian.
P.S. using a substandard barlow is like buying a Ferrari and driving it on retreads.

Stu · #7 24-11-2005, 01:20 PM

I think the TV plossl will barlow better. But it would end up cheaper if you just bought the 5 or 6mm radian. As geoff said, there is not much point if you get a crappy barlow.

Where is Dave47Tuc in this conversation??? Dave just when we need you....

Well, I'll have to fill in for Dave...
If you are looking at planets you will never need the outer few percent of the FOV so there will not be any difference between a TeleVue or a Meade or a Pentax or even a GS plossl for that matter. - Or something along the lines of that....

But having listened very carefully to Dave I have decided to resist all logic and look for a radian anyway!!!
These young people never listen......

dhumpie · #8 24-11-2005, 01:50 PM

I have a used 6mm Radian that I got off Astromart for cheap. It is a great planetary ep as it is pinpoint right to the edges (you can let the planet drift through the FOV) and its transmission is almost equal to that of an Ortho. My only gripe with it is that the views are considerably warmer (many have noticed this in the TV line).

Hope that helps.

Darren

davidpretorius · #9 24-11-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhumpie

My only gripe with it is that the views are considerably warmer (many have noticed this in the TV line).

thanks.

now i have heard the expression many times, but what is "warmer" mean

Is it easy to explain?

janoskiss (Steve H) · #10 24-11-2005, 02:04 PM

Warm means slightly red tinge. Cooler has slightly bluer tinge. Most monitors (and probably your projector too) have a temperature adjustment setting from warm to cool.
(The convention is actually the opposite of what the physics of colour dictates. Blue stars are much hotter than red stars.)

davidpretorius · #11 24-11-2005, 02:06 PM

thanks steve, so the planet has a red tinge or the background???

xstream (John) · #12 24-11-2005, 02:07 PM

Dave, why don't you go for Steve's 13mm Nag it's in your price range, plus you have the added advantage of longer viewing before push and shove so to speak.
And when you do come to get that powermate you'll have a perfectly mated optical train.

davidpretorius · #13 24-11-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xstream

Dave, why don't you go for Steve's 13mm Nag it's in your price range, plus you have the added advantage of longer viewing before push and shove so to speak.
And when you do come to get that powermate you'll have a perfectly mated optical train.

i know i know, i do not want to rush it. $300 - $400 on an eyepiece is a lot to spend, so i will keep "tyre kicking" as they say and at the end of al this eyepiece merry go round, i may still talk to steve.

xstream (John) · #14 24-11-2005, 02:29 PM

In the true scheme of things Dave, it's not really because at that price you'll always get your money back.

iceman (Mike) · #15 24-11-2005, 02:51 PM

But why would you sell it, once you own one?

I can't imagine Dave selling it if he bought it..

ving (David) · #16 24-11-2005, 03:10 PM

cause thats what you do with naglers aparently mike!

yeah doesnt make sense to me either

xstream (John) · #17 24-11-2005, 03:24 PM

I don't see the point of selling a Nagler either, but I'm just pointing out he would get his money back to get the Radian if he wasn't happy.
But you would have to be happy with it, $370 is a cheap premium wide field eyepiece.

acropolite (Phil) · #18 24-11-2005, 06:02 PM

Dave, I suggest you try my 14mm s5000 and see what you think. $145 @ Bintel and 60 degree FOV, I'm failrly impressed with mine, as seem to be others that have these shorter f/l plossls.

Stu · #19 24-11-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acropolite

Dave, I suggest you try my 14mm s5000 and see what you think. $145 @ Bintel and 60 degree FOV, I'm failrly impressed with mine, as seem to be others that have these shorter f/l plossls.

The 5.5mm six element is excellent. I have the 5.5, 9, 14 and 20. In scopes greater than f6 they are almost identical to a nagler in sharpness. In fact the closest eyepiece to them I have seen so far is the old TeleVue wide fields (pre-panoptic). In almost every way they are identical, except they are more comfortable to use. The panoptics are in fraction sharper though.

Under f6 they lose a bit around the other 5% of the FOV (the same amount as the TeleVue wide fields) but it's much better than GS superview.

davidpretorius · #20 24-11-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acropolite

Dave, I suggest you try my 14mm s5000 and see what you think. $145 @ Bintel and 60 degree FOV, I'm failrly impressed with mine, as seem to be others that have these shorter f/l plossls.

thanks, i should have asimovs ep's to play with as well by that sunday morning