Hi Bill- Great review on the Vixen HRs. I was surprised you got such good views at such extreme magnifications. One thing I'm not sure about-- you say the images were very sharp in the small refractors, for example, but were they extremely dim also? Especially the planets. And if so, did this make it hard to see detail?

-Brian

 

Hi Brian. Yes the planets, particularly Saturn as Mars is bright and compact enough to handle the small exit pupil. But since I know I was going to have a big dim Saturn, I prepared for it and let my eyes dark adapt first. Then preserved that dark adaptation by not viewing the planets at lower magnifications so as to ruin the night adaptation. And low and behold it worked like a charm So Saturn did not appear overly dim to my dark adapted eyes. With doing that, could make all the usual details on Saturn, plus some more that did not pop out at the larger exit pupils oddly. But hey, all I cared about is that I was getting a great planetary view and didn't care as to the whys.

 

William,

Nice review but the first table has several columns with the wrong or interchanged units -the FOV should be degrees but you have it labeled mm. Similarly the Eye Relief is labeled degrees but it should be mm. Finally, Lenses/Groups is labeled as having units of mm whereas it should be dimensionless.

Mark Christensen

 

As a writer in many styles and content, I can say with some authority that we all have a quirk, or more, that we take-out for 'walkies' repeatedly whenever our ink hits paper! I know I does.....

One thing is usually responsible for this happening. For me it was (partially) not knowing enough about using Alt.-Codes.' So I remedied that by keeping a link on my desktop to a quick reference guide for these lil' darlins' to dredge-up quickly. There are better ones than the one I chose to link. But the one I did choose had the advantage of clarity and simplicity (in my personal opinion - your mileage may vary). And it does help me polish my posts (somewhat?) So if anyone else has stumbled into the abyss I am referencing - here's my pick-of-the-litter:

Alt. Codes of the World.pdf

As to the business at hand - this was an excellent review/article! Thank you for writing it, Bill! I will be trying to ward-off my desire to go hunting for some excuse to use to go and buy.....

Wish me luck - and keep on writing, please!

Dave

 

Not sure why/how you are seeing this anomaly. In my browser the column headers are correct in the online version as well in the original copy I submitted.

 

The units were mixed up on the web page but they have been fixed.

 

Ahhhh. I didn't notice. Original copy was correct thankfully as I could not imagine making that kind of mistake. Normal typos and such yes as I never seem to be able to catch all those , but not chart headers!

 

Comprehensive and very informative review. The eyepieces look very capable although I'm a bit concerned about the tapered draw tubes as they can deform compression rings. The 2.4mm looks very enticing though.

 

I was not happy to see this conical taper to the undercut, either. It means the eyepieces work best with a setscrew pressing directly on the barrel.
If you are concerned about marks, use a nylon screw or a nylon-tipped metal screw. Keep the compression ring in place to make insertion and removal easier, but rotate it around until the setscrew is between the ends of the compression ring so the screw presses directly on the eyepiece.
That's after changing screws if you're concerned about marks.

 

If it is of an consolation, I had no seating issue with these eyepieces in any of the 1.25" adapters I used. I've had other eyepieces where a stronger taper did cause canting of the eyepiece when tightened, but with these I did not encounter that.

 

Nylon bolts (screws) work well. So will a strip of electrical-tape, the adhesive it leaves can be easily removed with either iso-Propyl Alcohol or Acetone (NO SMOKING!!). Tape will also work to make cut-outs less problematic.

Have fun,

Dave

 

Well, I finally got these out last week to test them on the moon, and loved them (2mm and 2.4mm) in my TV Genesis! The 2mm (250x) was a bit too much magnification, but the 2.4 (208x) was amazing! Sharp and contrasty!

 

Yes...the 2.4mm seems to be more usable most of the time. 2.0mm less often, and the 1.6mm rarely. They are fabulous on the Moon...makes it like you are there!

 

Very well written Bill. Your reviews are excellent as always~!!!!

 

Thank you for the informative review Bill, I have been looking at these since they were released.

 

Just came across this Dave, and wanted to thank you for the link- I printed it for a quick ref. I have a smaller table but this seems more complete.

 

Using the 2.4 HR would be a good test for my 200mm f3.8 dob @ 312x, so far it will take 250x with the Nagler 3-6 zoom sharp on the moon @ 31x aperture. The HR would provide a higher contrast, sharper image I think...

 

Just found this post from the 4th. Regards the alt.codes pdf. I linked, just so you know, there are others available. Some are much, much more complete. But I decided against linking the HUGE one I have, as this one above is much easier to use when 'on-the-fly'and not trying to ace a university-degree or something.

Glad to help -

Dave