Re: ortho vs. plossl
- From: William McHale <mchale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:54:07 GMT
tedkord@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Thanks for the input, guys. As I said, this is for an 11" f/10 SCT,
> through a binoviewer so the effective f-ratio will probably be a bit
> higher.
> I'm definitely not looking to pay Zeiss prices. I'm looking more at
> Televue plossl versus UO HD ortho. (I'm passing on the Antares orthos
> because pretty much every comparo I read has stated that the Antares
> coatings are noticeably inferior. I'm a big Antares fan - the old style
> 10mm Speers-Waler I have is a great eyepiece, and worked really well in
> my old 8" f/6 dob. It's too much mag for the SCT, unfortunately - so
> it's going on the block to fund sets for the bino.)
Since you are at f/10 then either the plossls or the Orthos would work. I
have rather liked the Televue Plossls I have seen. I would say be careful
about lower budget plossls; they are likley to be a simpler 4 element design
that isn't quite as good. BTW, if it is a 5 element eyepeice, it isn't a
plossl no matter how much Meade claims to the contrary. Eyepieces use to
be neamed after the designer and Plossl never designed Meade's eyepieces.
Orthos are the exception to that rule, that is why you will occasionally
see people referring to them as Abbe's. Technically, Orthoscopic means
free of optical distortions; so technically a good Plossl or in fact many
modern eyepiece designs are actually orthoscopic.
--
Bill
.
- References:
- ortho vs. plossl
- From: tedkord
- Re: ortho vs. plossl
- From: MitchAlsup
- Re: ortho vs. plossl
- From: tedkord
- ortho vs. plossl
- Prev by Date: Re: ortho vs. plossl
- Next by Date: Re: Parkerizing steel parts
- Previous by thread: Re: ortho vs. plossl
- Next by thread: Re: ortho vs. plossl
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|