Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten (8 Viewers)

[Tbirds2222]

Many thanks to Henry and everyone here for a very informative thread that helped me getting my first scope!

I found a good deal on the Monarch 82EDA and was excited to order it, but got not much more luck than that apparently. Pictures below are from the 2nd unit but its serial number is right next to the 1st one which looked visibly soft and low contrast at and near max magnification with the included eyepiece.

Getting good shots of the star test has proved quite difficult with no good seeing condition outside so far. Even indoor seems to me is full of air turbulence. Pictures below are the best I could get indoor after many tries. With no experience on star tests and having seen no definitive images of prefect samples of the Monarch, my only impression is this scope has some sort of SA. Please let me know how bad it is, as well as any other aberrations present.

Images were with the Baader Hyperion Zoom Mk IV which was fitted with just 2 ring adapters instead of 3. One is a 2" male to T2 male adapter. The other is a T2 to Nikon F mount adapter. Both are generic low cost items. The Baader Zoom gives much more pleasant view, but at max mag, images are still not quite contrasty or as sharp as at lower mag.

(BTW, Henry mentioned of uploading star test images of the Monarch in the Kowa thread, but they somehow have escaped me.)

Thanks,
T.

 

[kabsetz]

These actually look pretty good to me. There is some triangularity to the rings close to centre, but that could come from the camera and alignment of the camera to the eyepiece, as it looks like the orientation is identical on both sides of focus. Most of the "defects" come from spherochromaticism which is always more pronounced in digital photos compared with what the eye sees. There is decent ring separation both sides of focus even close to the centre, and how the centre hole in the inside focus picture and the centre spot in the outside focus image look like is not achievable in a scope with moderate to severe aberrations.

 

[Tbirds2222]

These actually look pretty good to me. There is some triangularity to the rings close to centre, but that could come from the camera and alignment of the camera to the eyepiece, as it looks like the orientation is identical on both sides of focus. Most of the "defects" come from spherochromaticism which is always more pronounced in digital photos compared with what the eye sees. There is decent ring separation both sides of focus even close to the centre, and how the centre hole in the inside focus picture and the centre spot in the outside focus image look like is not achievable in a scope with moderate to severe aberrations.

Thank you for looking through the blurry pictures. It's been very difficult to see or capture the outside of focus and the best I got was still quite blurry compared to the inside of focus. All of the rings were located pretty much in the center of the scope's view as I zoomed all the way in (8x on my Pixel 7) to be able to get some viewable images.

In your experienced opinion, would you keep this sample? Is it possible that there are better samples of this model?

 

[kabsetz]

It is not possible for me to answer that based on just one set of photos. Since every sample is different, there is always going to be a better one somewhere no matter how good a sample you get. I suggest you look at best focus star images with as much magnification you can get, and see if there is a central disc with a reasonably well defined first ring around it, preferably rather thin and not too unsymmetrical. Perfection is very unlikely here but if you see something like this, the scope is at least very good. This will be very hard to impossible to photograph with a smartphone, but you can describe what you see.

 

[henry link]

I agree with Kimmo. This looks good to me for an indoor star test that I assume was done at a short distance (10 meters or less?) It doesn't look like there is that much spherical aberration, especially when you consider that most fast scopes show increasing SA as the distance between the scope and the artificial star gets shorter. Another possible problem at short distance is that the artificial star may become too large to function as a true point source for an 82mm scope and/or if it's a homemade pinhole it may be an odd or ragged shape rather than truly round, not a problem if the distance is long enough.

I've found that it's easier to photograph defects in a star-test than it is to photograph a lack of defects, even when the absence of defects can be easily seen at the eyepiece. I never succeeded in getting photos good enough to capture how well our Nikon Monarch star-tests visually at 30 meters and beyond, but that's easy to describe. The diffraction rings on both sides of focus look almost the same and best focus is a disc with one very dim ring. That's at about 126X using the Baader Zoom's 12mm setting and a Zeiss 3x Tripler behind the eyepiece.

 

[dnogin]

Hello everyone,

I've thoroughly read through the discussion but couldn't find any specific information about using high magnification astronomical eyepieces with the 82ED scope. Has anyone experimented with a 4mm or 2.4mm 1.25" astro eyepiece on this particular scope? If so, how well does it focus?

Regards,
Dime.

 

[Binastro]

I am not sure if the scope takes 1.25 inch eyepieces.

If it does a 4mm eyepiece would give about 125x, which should be fine.

The 2.4mm would give 210x, which may be too high.

If it doesn't take 1.25 inch eyepieces, one could try removing the front barrel, so long as the eyepiece elements don't fall out.

One could try using 24.5mm fit eyepieces. 4mm are common.
There is a good Clave 3mm, but these older eyepieces have short eye relief and may be unusable with glasses.
Some of them also contain thorium glass.
They may need cleaning, and some may have fungus.

Microscope eyepieces are 23.2mm standard fit.

Regards,
B.

 

[dnogin]

Racuuna mentioned that the Baader Morpheus eyepieces function well in the scope; specifically, the 12.5mm, 14mm, and 17.5mm models seem to work effectively. Additionally, the APM HDC 13mm and 5mm are compatible as well (#115, #131).

Henry has successfully used the Baader Mark IV with this scope (#139).

Therefore, I am confident that the 82ED is compatible with 1.25" eyepieces.

However, the above discussion primarily revolves around achieving 100x magnification. I am looking for someone who has pushed the boundaries to achieve 125x or 210x magnification.

As for 1.25" eyepieces - the 2.4mm, 3mm, and 4mm are readily available on the market. Takahashi TOE, Siebert, and BST Explorer all offer approximately 2.4mm eyepieces. TeleVue have even produced a 3-6mm zoom eyepiece. So I don’t see the need to resort to vintage optics, although I am open to using discontinued models, provided they are in good condition.

There is also the possibility of using a 1.25" to 2" adapter to use 2" astronomical eyepieces, which would increase the choice of EPs and probably the FOV. These are general reasons not to go beyond 1" eyepieces without a compelling reason.

 

[DRodrigues]

... high magnification astronomical eyepieces with the 82ED scope. Has anyone experimented with a 4mm or 2.4mm 1.25" astro eyepiece on this particular scope? If so, how well does it focus?...

Don't know what zoom you have/plan to use, but for birding I recommend the use of a barlow cell with a zoom, instead of a fixed ep with high resulting magnification - see 1.6x barlow cell with Baader Zoom and Baader vs APM SZ - the APM SZ sould not reach focus on the Nikon but you can search for the use of various barlow cells with it - with the Baader zoom should increase less...

 

[dnogin]

Don't know what zoom you have/plan to use, but for birding I recommend the use of a barlow cell with a zoom, instead of a fixed ep with high resulting magnification - see 1.6x barlow cell with Baader Zoom and Baader vs APM SZ - the APM SZ sould not reach focus on the Nikon but you can search for the use of various barlow cells with it - with the Baader zoom should increase less...

Thanks for the links, DRodrigues.

The detailed accounts of the use of the ED82 and the experiments with extenders were interesting.
I still believe that the ED82 is not much worse than the 82ED, but to cut a long story short, as I haven't found any information to clarify the feasibility of using 2.5mm/4mm eyepieces, I've decided to buy the 82ED and test it by myself.
Already ordered. Fingers crossed for a cherry one.

Best regards,
Dime.

 

[jring]

There is also the possibility of using a 1.25" to 2" adapter to use 2" astronomical eyepieces, which would increase the choice of EPs and probably the FOV.

Hi,

I have some doubts that 2" EPs with an adapter will come to infinity focus. Spotting scopes tend to have very short focus travel as compared to most astro scopes.

Joachim

 

[henry link]

Hi Dime,

I'm a little confused about what scope you are buying. Is it the old 82mm Fieldscope or the current Monarch 82mm?

I'm afraid a stone I left unturned in my review of the Monarch 82 was testing how well eyepieces other than the Baader MK IV zoom and the Nikon zooms work with it. Mostly that's because none of my short focal length eyepieces could reach focus in the Monarch using the short Baader 1.25" adapter, so my preferred method to reach high magnifications has been to place a Zeiss Tripler behind the Baader zoom, which allows a maximum magnification of about 240x, much higher than I ever use.

I did some 10 meter indoor star-tests today with various eyepieces and found something unexpected. Many of my eyepieces (zoom and fixed) do not allow the Monarch to achieve the excellent 10 meter star-test that it does with the Baader MK4 and Nikon zooms and surprisingly even with the Pentax XF zoom. The alarming result is clearly inferior resolution in the Monarch with some eyepieces that don't have problems at 10 meters when used in my Stowaway and other astronomical refractors. I'll keep investigating this at longer distances, but I can say now that I've never seen such a significant eyepiece influence on an axial star-test before. Beware of assuming that all eyepieces that can reach focus will work equally well in the Monarch.

Henry

 

[dnogin]

Hi Henry,

Thank you for sharing your experiences with short zoom eyepieces. There is not a lot of information on the net about real user experience.

To clarify what scope I am talking about, I use the following convention: ED82 for an old one. 82ED for Monarch 82ED.
It seems to be a pretty clear naming convention to distinguish these two scopes.

I have ordered a new one 82ED-A and some other stuff, including Vixen HR 2.0mm and Baader T-2 to 1.25" adapter.

After reading your post yesterday, I've come to understand that the Baader ultrashort adapter will not be usefull with a 2mm eyepiece. In #139 You wrote that the Baader adapter is about 12mm long plus some extra for the threaded part. Perhaps it is possible to make a DIY adapter with a shorter length to catch the focus on such short focal length eyepieces. All will be clear when all the equipment arrives.

The Zeiss Tripler is a nice toy. But first I will try to get a focus with a custom adapter and a short focal length eyepiece. If it works, it will be a much more compact setup that will be easy to travel with. If not, it will probably be the good reason to switch from Nikon to Swaro or Zeiss. The Swaro is lighter. The Zeiss will definitely work with eyepieces up to 1.6mm focal length. Despite the price I'd be happy to try each of them.


Kind regards,
Dime.

 

[DRodrigues]

Hi,

I have some doubts that 2" EPs with an adapter will come to infinity focus. Spotting scopes tend to have very short focus travel as compared to most astro scopes.

Joachim

For obtaining widest FOV is possible to use some 2" that don't have lenses on the 2" barrel and is accomplished by removing the 2" section and use a T2 adapter to the ep thread - varies with the brand... I can use 2" eps on my Optplyth 100 like this but you can see another example use at Using 2" eps on 1.25" BinoV

 

[Binastro]

With 80mm to 88mm spotting scopes with a focal length of about 500mm, 1.6m or 2mm eyepieces seem pointless to me.

The magnifications of 300x and 250x will not be supported by even the best quality spotting scopes.

A very high quality astro scope, preferably without prism or diagonal will take 250x if the atmospheric conditions are good enough.

I have used 300x on an essentially perfect Pentax 100mm f/12 demonstrator telescope in actual planetary use, but 250x was probably better.

I have also used 250x terrestrially at 7.5km with three identical 120mm refractors at 3 am from an elevated position looking at a clock tower 25m high.

At 120m in late afternoon with a bright sun behind me I have used 190x on a very good Skywatcher 90mm Maksutov, but the best view of a crow, particularly its eye was at 135x. My position elevated and the chimney pot 25m above the ground.

If you want to use high magnifications then nightime is probably best at high elevations in superior Seeing.
Astro scopes will be better than short focus complex spotting scopes.
Additionally many spotting scopes are not very good, and daytime Seeing is often poor.

I have used 600x and 700x with a 317mm custom f/3.5/14.7 thin edge mirror windowed Dall Kirkham on Jupiter's moons.

Regards,
B.