High fixed-mag option for Swaro scope - advice needed (2 Viewers)

[iporali]

It would be nice to see a side by side comparison between the astro eyepiece and your Zeiss mono.

Steve,

That is my intention - maybe this weekend. The 'spiderweb test' wasn't meant to be too convincing...

And yes, the Zeiss mono is tiny compared to the Swaro doubler. I would guess that the 50-100x power (with the doubler) would be optimal "additional" power, but I really like how easily you can just slip the Zeiss Mono on almost any eyepiece. The same adapter diameter works eg. with the Nikon 8x32SE, old Swaro 20-60x zoom and the 20/30/45xSW.

Ilkka :t:

 

[henry link]

Here's a low cost alternative to the Zeiss. It might work just as well. The booster scope is at the end of the optics train and only a small area of the center of its objective is actually used, so it doesn't really have to be all that good to fully reveal the main scope's resolving power.

http://www.opticron.co.uk/Pages/uta.htm

 

[Sancho]

but still I would rather use this kind of an add-on multiplier than switch eyepieces in the rain and wind.

Ilkka :t:

Yes, that really is the problem. I like this idea of boosters and adapters. Today for giggles I set up my Swaro at 25x and used a Leica Monovid 8x20 as a "booster" to give me 200x! A pointless exercise, but good fun.

 

[Hermann]

Yes, that really is the problem. I like this idea of boosters and adapters. Today for giggles I set up my Swaro at 25x and used a Leica Monovid 8x20 as a "booster" to give me 200x! A pointless exercise, but good fun.

Many moons ago a friend and I did a similar sort of thing - we used the Zeiss 7x42 as a booster with the Leica Apo 77. With the zoom set to 20x we got 140x, a bit much for the Leica Apo. But it was fun.

Hermann

 

[SteveClifton]

I took the 5mm Nagler out today, just to remind myself of how useable it really is compared to the 20-60x zoom. It must be at least a year since I last used it.

It will focus to infinity quite easily, but only if seated at the base of the eyepiece opening, or at most, if it is raised by no more than about 2mm above it.

I set the zoom to 50x, to give a more realistic comparison to the 92x of the Nagler.

It wasn't as dim at 92x as I remembered. To give a rough idea, by viewing through the scope, and then looking at the same view without the scope, it seemed ever so slightly darker through the scope. The Swaro zoom at 50x always seems a little brighter to my eyes, even on a dark day.

Sharp focus was quite tricky, and once focussed the view looked slightly, but noticeably less crisp and contrasty than the zoom (no wonder, as it is almost twice the power!) I think this was partly due to the 'seeing' being a little wavy due to air movement/turbulence. It's amazing how easy this is to see at this power compared to 50x, when none can be detected at all. Still, it was clear enough to see that on a brighter day, the image would even clearer and more contrasty, giving a greater impression of sharpness.

Does the Nagler give any real benefit over the 50x of the zoom? Well it's marginal, but there is a slight difference.

The best example I could find of it was a Pink-footed Goose feeding about 1/2-3/4 of a mile away in a field. Through the zoom its bill just looked dark, but through the Nagler I could clearly see the paler subterminal bill band, though I couldn't detect whether it was pink or orange-it just looked an indeterminate colour, but clearly it was there.

Likewise, I could see the pale edges to the other geese's scapulars slightly more clearly through the Nagler, but there wasn't a huge difference. If I zoomed up to 60x then the difference was even less.

The last time I remember using the Nagler was when looking at Geese in Norfolk. There were both white morph Snow & Ross's geese in the area, and the eyepiece allowed be to see the bills well enough to know which was which at a similar range.

I'll have to try again in better light, but for know, I realise why it's been so long since I last used it.

 

[kabsetz]

I've had the Zeiss tripler for several years now, and used it much the same way as Ilkka showed above. Since my scope already reaches 75x without a booster, I have had less real need for it in birding situations but have used it extensively for testing and evaluation of numerous scopes and other optics. A booster really makes very apparent the quality differences between scope specimen, with low-aberrations samples taking ridiculously high magnifications (150x+) surprisingly well and high-aberration samples falling apart even before exceeding their 50-60x zoom max. I would love it if the Zeiss tripler were fully multi-coated, since its primary weakness is loss of contrast and brightness that comes from its old coating technology. In its intended use as a 3x pocket monocular, the image is plenty bright enough but when used as a booster the exit pupil is so small that the extra light loss becomes an issue.

However, the Zeiss 3x12 is still the best option I have tried. The Opticron UTA that Henry linked in his poste above would be fine and Henry is right that the ultimate optical quality of the booster is not that important, but in all the samples (not a high number, perhaps three or so) that I have tried, the prism has had a pretty prominent roof line that forms a diagonal through the image where the image quality is visibly compromised. This means that when viewing I have to place the object of interest away from the dead center of the fov which is a hassle I was not willing to deal with. And in astronomical viewing the light scatter around the prism edge was also quite annoying. So, even though the UTA is brighter, cheaper and has a more sensible magnification factor I decided that the Zeiss gives better overall performance.

If Zeiss would come out with a new 3x12 with larger field of view and the best coatings Zeiss has I would buy it in a heartbeat. As it stands, I'm pretty happy with the current 3x12.

Kimmo

 

[henry link]

OK, scratch the Opticron. Here's another one. Maybe one of the regular posters from Eagle Optics could try this on a scope and tell us how well it works. AFOV would also be nice to know.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binocular-accessories/vortex/vortex-2x-doubler-for-vortex-binoculars

 

[Sancho]

OK, scratch the Opticron. Here's another one. Maybe one of the regular posters from Eagle Optics could try this on a scope and tell us how well it works. AFOV would also be nice to know.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binocular-accessories/vortex/vortex-2x-doubler-for-vortex-binoculars

Interesting, and a more useable power at 2x. It´s available from Cameraland NYC at a very good price. If I knew if it pops over the 25-50 Swaro eyepiece, I´d take a punt on it.

 

[John Russell]

Henry, Sancho,

I have a Vortex Doubler and tried it out on my Zeiss Diascope 65 with 23x eyepiece.
It doesn't fit over the eyecup but still works in a sense. However, I could detect no benefits from the use of the Doubler and at 46x it does not compare to a 9 mm Vixen LV for 43x.
The AFOV is rather limited (I estimated 38°) and the eye relief too large, requiring extension of the rather loose eyecup when wearing glasses.
BTW, it is NOT phase-coated.

John

 

[Sancho]

Thanks John!

 

[benm]

I've been following this thread as I have the ATM 80 HD with 25-50x eyepiece. The zoom eyepiece definitely covers the sweet spot for my observing and gives a wide field which is very important to me and why I passed on 60 and 75x options (with other scopes). However, I'm interested in higher magnification for observing planets and binaries. This is maybe only 10% of my observing at the most. In this work, a very narrow field is totally acceptable although transit times can become problematic with a manual alt-az mount over 200x, but we're not going there with an 80mm spotter.

I'm going to compare a Tele Vue eyepiece, maybe more than one, and the Zeiss tripler as I am fairly certain they can each be made to work. I would like to try a Swarovski doubler as well unless someone can tell me it won't work in which case I won't waste the effort.

Also, the Zeiss 3x12 is sold with a wide variety of different binocular adapters. Any hints on which one might work best or need the least amount of tape?

 

[henry link]

Thanks John, scratch the Vortex.

benm, I don't think the Zeiss Tripler will make a very a very good substitute for a high quality eyepiece for planetary observing. I have one and I can tell you it's not optically competitive with good eyepieces. Remember you're adding an entire additional telescope behind the main scope. It cuts the light transmission by probably at least 25% and reduces contrast considerably compared to a good eyepiece. It makes some sense for birders who need a very fast way to put high magnification on a bird before it flies away, but it would be a very expensive way to make a very mediocre planetary scope out of your Swarovski spotter. The Televue 6-3mm zoom might be a good option.

Henry

 

[benm]

Thanks for the advice. That makes sense. I thought I might appreciate the simplicity of use, not needing to change eyepieces, but it stands to reason that the performance is compromised and for my purpose that's not helpful at all.

I do have the Nagler zoom on my list to try. I'm hoping to try a Radian and a fixed Nagler. Maybe a Pentax. I'll have to see what comes to focus and what magnification my particular specimen can deal with. I can be picky about eye relief hence the Radian and Pentax.

I'm not too anxious about this because obviously it's not the scope's best purpose, but I'll probably try these in the next few weeks.

 

[Sancho]

Thanks for the advice. That makes sense. I thought I might appreciate the simplicity of use, not needing to change eyepieces, but it stands to reason that the performance is compromised and for my purpose that's not helpful at all.

I do have the Nagler zoom on my list to try. I'm hoping to try a Radian and a fixed Nagler. Maybe a Pentax. I'll have to see what comes to focus and what magnification my particular specimen can deal with. I can be picky about eye relief hence the Radian and Pentax.

I'm not too anxious about this because obviously it's not the scope's best purpose, but I'll probably try these in the next few weeks.

Can you tell us how you get on with this, benm? I´d be very interested. Also, does anyone know if Swarovski ever produced a 75xw eyepiece for the ATS scopes? The only fixed mag ep listed on their site now is the 30x, although I´m pretty sure there was a 45x some years ago.

 

[henry link]

Sancho,

Long ago Swarovski marketed a rebadged Vixen eyepiece with a Swarovski bayonet mount for their AT/ST series scopes. It would also fit the current scopes. As I recall it was a 5mm eyepiece for 92x.

There was a 45 XW. It's been discontinued?

Henry

 

[Sancho]

Sancho,

Long ago Swarovski marketed a rebadged Vixen eyepiece with a Swarovski bayonet mount for their AT/ST series scopes. It would also fit the current scopes. As I recall it was a 5mm eyepiece for 92x.

There was a 45 XW. It's been discontinued?

Henry

Thanks Henry, that sounds interesting, even if 92x is pushing it a bit. The Swaro 45x ep isn´t listed on their site anymore, and doesn´t seem to be at any dealers, except secondhand.

 

[John Russell]

The 77x eyepiece in the thumbnail of Ikka's post #19 looks like a rebadged 6 mm Vixen LV.

John

 

[Parker]

Thanks Henry, that sounds interesting, even if 92x is pushing it a bit. The Swaro 45x ep isn´t listed on their site anymore, and doesn´t seem to be at any dealers, except secondhand.

Sancho,

I managed to pick up a Swaro 45x EP last Autumn, second hand, it's an excellent EP & good for digiscoping. Worth keeping an eye out for.

ps, I've seen them for sale second hand on the net.

 

[Sancho]

Sancho,

I managed to pick up a Swaro 45x EP last Autumn, second hand, it's an excellent EP & good for digiscoping. Worth keeping an eye out for.

ps, I've seen them for sale second hand on the net.

Thanks Neil. SW optics has one. I´m happy enough with the 25-50 zoom for general use, all I wanted is an ep that would give an extra whack, maybe 70x or so, for those unusual situations when high-mag is handy.

 

[henry link]

The 77x eyepiece in the thumbnail of Ikka's post #19 looks like a rebadged 6 mm Vixen LV.

John

Thanks John. That's the one I was thinking of. I couldn't quite remember whether it was 6mm or 5mm and picked the wrong one.

Henry