Dismiss Notice
New Cookie Policy
On May 24, 2018, we published revised versions of our Terms and Rules and Cookie Policy. Your use of AstronomyConnect.com’s services is subject to these revised terms.

class="prefix prefixSilver">Discussion Field Test of the Vixen HR Eyepieces by William A. Paolini

Discussion in 'Eyepieces, Barlows, and Filters' started by AstronomyConnect, Oct 8, 2016.

Field Test of the Vixen HR Eyepieces by William A. Paolini

Started by AstronomyConnect on Oct 8, 2016 at 4:08 AM

19 Replies 4777 Views 0 Likes

Reply to Thread Post New Thread
  1. AstronomyConnect

    AstronomyConnect Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    Posts:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    We recently released William A. Paolini's article, Field Test of the Vixen HR Eyepieces. Read it by clicking here.
     
  2. bventrudo

    bventrudo Staff

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2015
    Posts:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bethesda, Maryland
    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
     
  3. BillP

    BillP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Posts:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    343
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    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 :D 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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2016
    TheLookingGlass and bventrudo like this.
  4. MJC2

    MJC2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Posts:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    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
     
  5. Dave In Vermont

    Dave In Vermont Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    Posts:
    3,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Oct 15, 2016
    Zigarro likes this.
  6. BillP

    BillP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Posts:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    343
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    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. :confused:

    Table.jpg
     
    TheLookingGlass likes this.
  7. bventrudo

    bventrudo Staff

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2015
    Posts:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bethesda, Maryland
    The units were mixed up on the web page but they have been fixed.
     
  8. BillP

    BillP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Posts:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    343
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    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 :oops:, but not chart headers!
     
  9. StaringAtStars

    StaringAtStars Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Posts:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Yes, sorry there were some errors when converting the article to html format. They've been fixed now as stated above.
     
  10. Mak the Night

    Mak the Night Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2016
    Posts:
    4,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  11. Don Pensack

    Don Pensack Vendor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Posts:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    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.
     
  12. BillP

    BillP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Posts:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    343
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    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.
     
    TheLookingGlass likes this.
  13. Dave In Vermont

    Dave In Vermont Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    Posts:
    3,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  14. bill-lee

    bill-lee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Posts:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    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!
     
  15. BillP

    BillP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Posts:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    343
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    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!
     
  16. TheLookingGlass

    TheLookingGlass Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Posts:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Very well written Bill. Your reviews are excellent as always~!!!!

    :)
     
    Dave In Vermont likes this.
  17. Gabby76

    Gabby76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2016
    Posts:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Slovakia
    Thank you for the informative review Bill, I have been looking at these since they were released.
     
  18. Zigarro

    Zigarro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2016
    Posts:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  19. jetstream

    jetstream Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Posts:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    3
    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...
     
  20. Dave In Vermont

    Dave In Vermont Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    Posts:
    3,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
    Zigarro likes this.

Share This Page