Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Question for Mewlon users

Expand Messages
  • John O'Neill
    Vahe: I don t know, I haven t looked through a TV 55mm Plossel but I would assume it would be comparable. John ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Vahe:
      I don't know, I haven't looked through a TV 55mm Plossel but I would
      assume it would be comparable.
      John
      On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:02 PM, vahe352 wrote:

      > The 50mm gives unbelievable views (like looking
      > > through a high end refractor) but is somewhat pricey.
      >
      > By way of comparison how does the Tak 50mm compare to a TV 55mm
      > Plossl?
      >
      > Vahe
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • astronomer_c
      ... Serge, My current most-used eyepiece on the Mewlon 250 is the 26mm Nagler Type 5. Second is the Nagler 16mm Type 5. Both do well at those magnifications
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Serge Damien Lalonde"
        <serge.damien.lalonde@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > I would really like peoples opinions on which brand and design of
        > eyepiece to use for a Mewlon scope.
        >
        > From my location, seeing is usually 3.5 out of 5, so I am limited in
        > using powers of 200x, maybe 250x.
        >
        > I'm presently using a Mewlon 300.


        Serge,

        My current most-used eyepiece on the Mewlon 250 is
        the 26mm Nagler Type 5. Second is the Nagler 16mm
        Type 5. Both do well at those magnifications in
        somewhat taming the coma/field curvature aspects
        of the visual image; both have somewhat tight
        eye-relief considering their focal lengths and
        wide-field categorisation (especially the 16mm,
        which really cannot be used with glasses).

        The Nagler Type 5 design seems to be a good match
        in general for the Dall-Kirkham aberrations, so the
        20mm T5, as others have remarked, may also be a
        worthwhile investment, although I have not tried
        one yet in the M250.

        Gregory
      • Steve Ramey
        Serge, I believe someone raised this same question a couple months ago. If my memory serves me, I believe the consensus of those responding seemed to be that
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Serge,

          I believe someone raised this same question a couple months ago. If my memory serves me, I believe the consensus of those responding seemed to be that they preferred either the Tak eyepieces or Pentax eyepieces.

          I don't yet have my M-210 tuned up, so I can't offer any valid personal experience with it yet.

          Hope this helps a little.

          Steve

          astronomer_c <astronomer_c@...> wrote:
          --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Serge Damien Lalonde"
          <serge.damien.lalonde@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > I would really like peoples opinions on which brand and design of
          > eyepiece to use for a Mewlon scope.
          >
          > From my location, seeing is usually 3.5 out of 5, so I am limited in
          > using powers of 200x, maybe 250x.
          >
          > I'm presently using a Mewlon 300.

          Serge,

          My current most-used eyepiece on the Mewlon 250 is
          the 26mm Nagler Type 5. Second is the Nagler 16mm
          Type 5. Both do well at those magnifications in
          somewhat taming the coma/field curvature aspects
          of the visual image; both have somewhat tight
          eye-relief considering their focal lengths and
          wide-field categorisation (especially the 16mm,
          which really cannot be used with glasses).

          The Nagler Type 5 design seems to be a good match
          in general for the Dall-Kirkham aberrations, so the
          20mm T5, as others have remarked, may also be a
          worthwhile investment, although I have not tried
          one yet in the M250.

          Gregory






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • astronomer_c
          ... I do also use the Pentax 40mm XW and Pentax 10mm XW with the Mewlon 250. The 10mm XW is outside of the magnification range requested, but performs quite
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In UncensoredTakGroup@yahoogroups.com, Steve Ramey
            <blacksheep772001@...> wrote:
            >
            > Serge,
            >
            > I believe someone raised this same question a couple months
            > ago. If my memory serves me, I believe the consensus of those
            > responding seemed to be that they preferred either the Tak
            > eyepieces or Pentax eyepieces.

            I do also use the Pentax 40mm XW and Pentax 10mm XW with
            the Mewlon 250. The 10mm XW is outside of the magnification
            range requested, but performs quite well.

            The 40mm XW has superb on-axis images in the Mewlon 250
            (and in several other scopes in which I have used and
            tested it), and does make a wonderful lower-power field-sweeper.
            The contrast in this eyepiece is also impeccable.

            I have not tried the Tak eyepieces, but it would make sense
            that they would be evaluated to have good performance at
            equivalent magnifications to the Naglers, since their
            True Fields of View are smaller, and would therefore make
            aberrations less obvious. At equivalent true fields,
            their magnifications would be lower, and would again make
            aberrations less obvious.

            Gregory
          • pandrolmb@aol.com
            Serge, I typically used a Baader Mk5 binoviewer and high-end orthos with my M300. Even the 34 s revealed well corrected star points close to the very edge.
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Serge,

              I typically used a Baader Mk5 binoviewer and high-end orthos with my M300.
              Even the 34's revealed well corrected star points close to the very edge.
              Now the reason was primarily the limited 42 deg FOV, but they DID eliminate
              offensive distortions seen around the edges of virtually all WF EPs in the M300.
              I used a pair of 34s for DSOs, and usually 10s (seeing permitting of
              course) for most planetary observing. If you DO choose to go the ortho route, (I)
              recommend in the following order:

              ZAOs (Zeiss Abbe Orthos) $$$
              SPLs (Astro-Physics) just as hard to find as above, but approx 1/2 the cost
              Pentax SMC orthos
              TMB Supermonos
              Zeiss .965 (coated only) orthos with 1-1/4" adapters (most bang for the buck
              for certain).
              Tak 1-1/4" orthos
              * Avoid the Vixen orthos (for M300 anyway) as the edges still distort with
              those :-(

              Note that above recommendations include EPs between 7mm and 34mm. Higher
              powers are available from all of these suppliers, but, between the ridiculously
              short eye relief and "silly power" that accompanies all 4-6mm orthos when
              used with a Mewlon 300, they just won't get used :-(.

              Good luck!

              Mark



              ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
              http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.