At 4:06 PM -0400 6/20/99, Doug Kranz wrote:
>Eyepiece question...
>I am the proud owner of a LX200 10" f10.
>I have a good assortment of Wide Angle and Ultra Wideangle 2" and 1 1/4"
>eyepieces. Recently I was informed by a fellow astronmer that the simple
>Plossls do a far better job on clarity and definiton, that the wide
>angles suffer in order to gain the wide field.
>Any comments?
>Should I replace my wide angles with standard plossls?
>What have you experienced?
>Doug

My *opinion* is that there is very little to be gained and much to be
lost by switching from Naglers (and their copy-cats) to simpler
eyepieces. I've done a few informal comparisons and *I* can't see
any difference in clarity or definition. The theory says that more
glass must be worse but it must be by an awfully small amount. Of
course, I'm not doing these comparisons with a fancy refractor at the
top of Mauna Kea, either. Maybe in the best of circumstances the
small differences become more evident. OTOH, the wide fields are
obviously good.

Bill Arnett
http://www.seds.org/billa/
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -- Richard Feynman

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Maxim vs. CCDSoft, Paul Goelz
Next message: [M]: List Server, Joe Torelli
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: Plossls vs Wide Angle, Doug Kranz
Previous message in thread: [M]: Plossls vs Wide Angle, Doug Kranz