Andrews Communication Eyepieces

[cjmarsh81]

I just read the review by Dave (47Tuc) on the Unioptics 2x Barlow. It sounds pretty good, but he says it does not come with the 2" - 1.25" adaptor as standard.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

But your focuser does. Just use that.

[Starkler (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by janoskiss

Like I tell everyone, my Shorty-plus was very ordinary compared with another similarly priced Japanese barlow. I would not buy it. Does the job, but it's no keeper. I'd give the meade apo or televue a go in the 1.25" formats.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Steves experiences with the shorty-plus are in use with complex eyepieces such as his panoptic and stratus eyepieces.
I have both a shorty-plus and the 2 inch Japanese barlows that he mentions and I see absolutely no difference in performance using either with plossls or my Pentax XL's.
The only time I bother with the jap 2" barlow is when I want to barlow my 31mm nagler. Its a big beast of a thing and when swapping and changing eyepieces around I find the smaller 1.25' easier to deal with.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Geoff, it would definitely be nicer to use a more compact 1.25" barlow, esp. with tiny orthos and plossls. They look pretty ridiculous in the 2" barlow. Your Celestron Ultima might be a lot better than Orion's version of that barlow.

My Shorty-plus did poorly with all my EPs: panoptic, nagler, Stratus, GS & TV plossls and UO HDs. It was worst with the wide FOV EPs and the TV plossl. There was a yellow discolouration around the edge of the field, in the last 4-5 degrees (so about 8-10 degrees total). This did not occur with the HD orthos, which have the narrowest FOV, 45 degrees.

Excessive light scatter was evident with all EPs, as was internal reflections on bright objects. Actually, this was the case early on when I only had GS plossls. Then the good people of iis were saying it's my crummy EPs: "Put good EPs in the barlow and it will perform well." Then I got the Nagler & the Pan, but I found the same problems when using these EPs. I only found the performance acceptable with the HD orthos. But I'd still get better contrast and no false colour with the UO 2". BTW, the Shorty plus is meant to be an apo, but I'd still get false colour off planets when not centred in the FOV.

[Starkler (Geoff)]

It really sounds like something was wrong with your particular sample Steve.
There are multitudes of experienced observers who have high praise for this barlow.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

You're probably right, Geoff, that I got a dud. I should have sent it back to Bintel, but I was too inexperienced to appreciate the problem. Based on many comments I read here, I just thought this level of performance is as good as barlows can manage and you need to pay big $ for a powermate to get any better. Until I got the 2" barlow which was a revelation.

I guess should have taken it back to Bintel and get Roger to have a look at it before selling it so cheap. Ah well, another $100 down the drain.

[BerzerkerNerd]

Hey Jano was really surprised to here your shorty plus was a dud.. what a shame. Mine works nicely especially with ortho's so maybe i got lucky.

Steve M

[matt]

FWIW

I have the Celestron Ultima 1.25" 2x barlow and it's an absolute beauty!!!!

I paid $180 for it and consider that money very well spent for the performance it delivers.

[ving (David)]

short eps, barlows... it all so confusing!

I tend not to barlow at all (well cept for doubles) but thats because my only barlow is a GS 1.25 and its pretty crapy.

i'd go the ultima , uo, or shorty if at all but that of little help to you
if you want a planetary ep, get something arounf 6-7mm it'll be rare that you can go above that

[cjmarsh81]

Thankyou all for your varied opinions.

At this stage the plan is to get a 6.3mm LV Vixen. Also a Unioptics 1.25" barlow (maybe later not sure yet). Also another purchase coming up is an orion laser collimator.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Sorry for the confusion (but that's the way it is with equipment). It's the UO 2" I was referring to. I would not bother with a laser collimator, unless it's one of the specialised units. I have what Orion sell as their "Deluxe" laser, but I'd say it's for quick rough checks only. Long Cheshire/sighttube or whatever they are called (long tube pinholes one end cross-hairs the other, 45 degree reflective surface in between) is my collimation tool of choice. The "autocollimator" tool might be worth checking out though. I saw it in action once and was very impressed.

[mickoking]

From my own experience any plossl e/p below 7.5mm is going to have short eye relief and be a bit inconvenient to use. I would be tempted to buy Vixen LV's as they maintain decent eye relief as they have a 'barlow group' within the eyepiece.

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by cjmarsh81

Thankyou all for your varied opinions.

At this stage the plan is to get a 6.3mm LV Vixen. Also a Unioptics 1.25" barlow (maybe later not sure yet). Also another purchase coming up is an orion laser collimator.

If you are going to purchase a Vixen LV it is probably pointless to purchase a barlow as well cos the LV's have a 'barlow group' with in it's optics. In effect a LV coupled with a barlow is a hell of a lot of glass (8-9 elements I think). I also have a laser collimator and I never use it, a cheshire does the same thing, cheaper.

[Starkler (Geoff)]

A set of 10, 12.5 and 15mm plossls coupled with a barlow makes a nice range of planetary magnifications whilst having reasonable eye relief and also wider fov than the vixen lv.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

At the price, I would not buy a Vixen LV without having tried it out myself along with the other options. From what I've read on CN, the LVs seem to be regarded as okay but not exactly the best value EPs.

I agree with Geoff's comments: good set of plossls in the 9-15mm range + good barlow make for a nice planetary set. If you don't mind a 45deg FOV then orthos + barlow will do very well too. I'm very happy with the orthos, plossls + barlow I own at the moment, as per my signature.

Still waiting for Asimov to comment on his review about the ED-2 planetary eyepiece (which is supposed to be some sort of clone of the LV but has a wider field of view). Asi, you seem to be for the LV. What's your opinion of the ED-2 now, after having befriended the LV?

[cjmarsh81]

Yes definately something to think about. So many eyepiece combinations. Why don't they just have a zoom eyepiece? lol

[davidpretorius]

Originally Posted by cjmarsh81

Yes definately something to think about. So many eyepiece combinations. Why don't they just have a zoom eyepiece? lol

guess what???

televue do make one and there is a review on cloudy nights!!!!

[asimov (John)]

My opinion on the ED-2 9mm still stands as written in my review, although I'm more critical on the build quality now. I actually owned the Vixen LV a long time before the ED-2.

I can only give my opinion on the 9mm ED-2 of course. Not familiar with shorter FL's in the same range. They are reputed to perform better than the 9mm & above though. Not so prone to black outs apparently. Unfortunately I can't 'compare' the ED-2 9mm & the LV 5mm I own for obvious reasons.

The only thing I have against the ED-2 9mm is the cheap look & feel about it.

If I had the LV & the ED-2 side by side now & I could only choose one, I'd have to go the LV over the ED, just for the fact it looks & feels more like quality. (& the reason below)

Optically the LV is superior to the ED as well....& I would expect it to be looking at the difference in price between the two.

If one was on a REALLY tight budget, the ED-2 is tempting. Try before you buy if possible! Been there done that: Bought an eyepiece based on a review, but didn't like the eyepiece in some way. It's a very personal thing choosing an eyepiece.

See my review in the review section. It's best you read the F8 review before the F5 one.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Pentax have a couple of very attractive looking zoom EPs too!
Pentax Televue

[BerzerkerNerd]

Yes and keep on buying those scratchy tickets or look to the ground for lost money.