| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Re: vote by PJBilotta By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.245.202) In Reply to: PJBilotta (Original Vote) Date: 12/13/2004 01:30:32 pm PST >I purchased this eyepiece as a longer eye relief alternative to my venerable 5mm ortho (which practically puts my eye out). Eye relief was luxurious compared most 5mm's and I was impressed with its sharp and contrasty views of globulars, Saturn and Jupiter at 150x. Sharpness and contrast was not as good as the ortho, but very nice. > >However, when I turned it to the moon I was shocked! Internal reflections and ghosting were so severe that they rendered the eyepiece completely useless for lunar observation. Images and the sky background were severely fogged, with a pronounced ghost ring about 5 degrees from the edge of the field of view. > >This was by far the worst performance of any premium ocular I have ever seen. I'm being generous with a 6 because of its nice eye relief and planetary views, but I cannot recommend it. I've gone back to my 5mm ortho and a 9mm U.O. ortho barlowed instead. Impossible! You must have an defective one! Mine is tack sharp, gives extremely good contrast, tack sharp to the edge, flat fields, never any ghosting detected, good for moon and DSO that can take high mag. Tested on F/5 and F4.7 Newton scopes. Subject: Re: vote by PJBilotta By: PJBilotta In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.245.202) (Original Message) Date: 05/25/2005 09:38:06 am PST Impossible or not, it nonetheless occurred in both my f/5 and f/10 scopes. If it was a defect, then quality control is quite poor on this particular unit, for I know that the rest of the Ultrascopic line performs extrememly well. Page 1 of 1 | ||||||||
