Over the past several years, I have had the opportunity to test run (by buying and re-selling) approximately 75 eyepieces. In the first three articles, I reviewed Naglers, Panoptics, Pentax XLs, and Meade Superwides, since I had tried just about all of them. Here I will take a quick and dirty look at the approximately 50, 60 or so OTHER eyepieces of various makes and models. Some I have taken a very hard and thorough look at, such as the Ultima 30mm, others just a passing try-out, such as the 6mm Pentax Ortho. A few I have tried in the field, but did not actually own, such as the I3 image intensified eyepiece.

The Incredible Vixen Lanthanums: Although these eyepieces do not sport extremely wide field of views, like the Pentax XLs, they do share one thing with that line of eyepieces: eye relief! Incorporating a barlow into the eyepiece helps to keep the eye relief uniformly at 20mm in their entire line of eyepieces, even the 2.5mm ! The eyepieces are all roughly the same size up through 20mm. The 30mm is 2" I believe. They also make a new zoom lense. I have tried the 2.5, 6, and 9, and 10mm Vixen Lanthanums. All featuring 45 to 50 degree apparent FOVs. Very sharp, with a nice sharp field stop (edge of field), and crisp performance right to th edge of field in all scopes tried down to f/6. Very slight chromatic aberration noted on bright objects like Jupiter..very slight. This eyepiece is great for those that must wear glasses, with one problem..when you fold down the stiff eyeguard, the eye relief is actually a tad too much, making it a tad tough to find the view. Also, using so many elements to get to that magnification w/o losing eye relief, seems to make these eyepieces just a bit "darker" viewing than those with fewer elements, like a straight Plossl. These eyepieces are a bit pricey, all running over $100.

The EASYVIEW eyepieces, currently reaching the market through mainly second hand dealers, are excellent, but are a tad pricey, running over $100. They are very sharp in detail, feature relatively long eye relief, and have some minor problems. The 10mm Easyview that I tried had noticeable chromatic aberration on Jupiter, but sported a good 10-15mm eye relief. The Field size was a good 50 degrees+. 3.1 mm Easyview was about 50 degrees apparent FOV, sharp performance, no chromatic aberration, but a sharp field stop on 1/2 of the view, but a softer field stop on the other (minor point, but irksome) Eye relief an astounding 8-10mm on the 3.1mm, very good (but not as good as the Lanthanum in that regard)

The Takahashi 7.5mm and 5mm ED. Very bright and sharp fields of just over 50 degrees (app. fov). Eye relief about 10mm on both, a bit tight, but good for this focal length. Outstanding eyepieces, and very small. I found them similar in performance on all objects to the Naglers, with perhaps a bit more light throughput. The Takahashi 12.5mm LE is outstanding. While only a 52 degree apparent field of view, and eye relief a bit tight with glasses, this is a very comfortable eyepiece to use, with sharp on-axis and "to the edge" views in most scopes.It is just about my favorite med/high power binoviewer eyepiece. I am currently evaluating the 18mm LE, but it appears to act almost identical in "feel" , although slightly larger and heavier (still small) than the 12.5mm. I am VERY impressed with the 24mm Takahashi LE. On most scopes this offers the sharpest views I have seen on-axis and to the edge with the most contrast of any typical 52 degree apparent fov eyepiece in this fairly low power range. This too is a 1.25" eyepiece. The eye relief is abundant, more than on the 26mm Meade Plossl, in fact, just about perfect. The only trouble I ever had "finding" the view with this eyepiece, like most, is by day when my pupil is small. (ie, solar viewing with filter). I also have the 50mm Takahashi LE 2" eyepiece. Jumbo in size with a broad floppy eyeguard that helps avoid typical low power "blacking out". It is the best 50-60mm 2" eyepiece I have used, but with such a wide exit pupil, my own failing eyes, even with glasses, introduces astigmatism and flare that disqualifies me from making a truly qualified judgement. I will say this, this eyepiece has a more sensible focus position than the 55mm Televue (causes you to rack too far out) and like the 55mm TV, stars are sharp to just about the edge even in the Sky 90 from Takahashi which I would have thought would have some coma to it. In addition with the extender Q and the Sky 90, the 50mm Tak LE did not exhibit vignetting. At this focal length range, this is currently my favorite eyepiece, but it is a bit pricey.

The Takahashi Hi-Ortho planetary eyepieces: (4mm, and 2.8mm) I have tried both the 2.8mm and the 4mm against the 3mm Radian (Televue) and 4mm Radian. They both exhibit fairly small fields apparent fields of view (about 40-45 degrees?) but excellent contrast and resolution, very similar to the 3mm and 4mm radians on-axis. They are small .965 eyepieces and require an adapter. They have BETTER color correction near the edges than the Radians, but that is partially because of the narrow field of view. Unlike some orthos, the image is sharp right to the edge in an f/8 refractor. The down-side of these excellent eyepieces is the eye relief, quite tight on the 2.8mm, but very comfortable in the 4mm withouth glasses. (can't use glasses comfortably on either) April 24, 2001 Update The Hi-Ortho seemed to resolve Mars as well as the famed 3.8 Pentax XP, and with much more eye relief. It also provided more brightness, more than the .2mm should have provided. There was however a bit more light scatter through the field of view, negligible, AND there was vignetting and faster image breakdown AT THE VERY EDGE of the field only. Personally, I still favor this compared to the 3.8XP unless I see even more difference in larger scopes down the line.

The INTES 12mm Widefield. Small, with easily a 70 degree field of view. Poor edge performance, but good on axis.Eye relief was a bit tight. Reminds me of the 12mm University Optics widefield plossl, as described below.
I also got a chance to try the odd 9mm Monocentric eyepiece. This eyepiece is for planetary viewing, and indeed, it seemed to perform, at least on small aperture refractors, as well as the 9mm University Optics Orthoscopic. However, even though it has more eye relief than that eyepiece, any additional gain over the Orthoscopic seemed minimal at best, and it also had an annoying ghost reflection (always) that hovers in the field of view, in fact, you can't view the planet dead-center, or it falls under the ghost. Also it has only a 30degree apparent field of view.

I was able to try one Zeiss Ortho, a 10mm .965", and it was quite good, but had a limited field of view. I didn't spend enough time to see if it lived up to it's reputation. Eye relief was quite short, but still useable without glasses. I hear the 1.25" ones are much better.

I have tried 4 Pentax Orthos, . 965",  6mm, 7mm, 9mm, & one 12mm. All were bright with a roughly 45 deg. apparent field of view. While subtle, the 12mm which I still have, definitely appears to have more contrast than more complex eyepieces, and especially noticeable is it's brightness. For instance, I can resolve globulars more easily in this eyepiece because of the better throughput.Eye relief was quite tight in the 6mm, but about 9mm or so in the 7 and 9mm, which isn't good for glasses, but very passable w/o. The 12mm has ample eye relief, over 10mm without glasses, still too tight with. All four have the problem of needing about 1/4" additional in-focus, or even slightly more, due to the adapter that you need to use with it so that it fits in 1.25" eyepiece holders or diagonals. I have written another, separate article on the PENTAX XLs. April 24, 2001 Update:I got a chance to compare the Pentax 7mm Ortho to the Takahashi 7mm Ortho. The Pentax seemed a tad more contrasty, had a similar apparent fov, and slightly less eye relief. Both eyepieces are fabulous, I need more magnification on planets to judge if there is truly a difference in detection of features within the planet. June 21, 2001 Update: The Pentax 7mm SMC is my pick for my personal planetary eyepiece in this focal length range, despite slightly higher contrast within Mars in the Pentax 8mm XP. The eye relief is just a tad too tight for me on the 8. I would recommend either eyepiece as an ultimate planetary ep. Coatings are exceptional btw on these eyepieces, unlike anything I have ever seen. I was tipped off to this from a friend who paid a visit to Astrophysics, where they are most impressed with the Pentax and Zeiss orthos.

The Pentax 3.8mm XP and Pentax 8mm XP (.965, needs an adapter) are supposedly the best planetary eyepieces around, in hot contest with the Zeiss 1.25" Orthos. I can say that while an excellent eyepiece (with approximately a 45 degree apparent fov, not wide) , this ortho (3.8mm) was similar, if not slightly dimmer in light throughput to a 4mm Takahahashi Hi-Ortho. Eye relief is tight, but although this eyepiece is mainly for photography (eyepiece projection) I had no trouble using it without my glasses once accustomed to the tight eye relief. Objects are absolutely sharp to the edge of the field. Am planning a contest through high quality scopes between this, the 4mm University Optics, and the Takahashi 4mm Hi-Ortho on planets. April 24, 2001 Update: After comparing the above eyepieces, it is a hot and heavy run-down between the 4mm UO and the 3.8 XP. The 4mm Hi-Ortho has a bit more light scatter, but is better on deep sky, both because of the eye relief and the brighter view, easier star detection. However, on planetary performance only, the UO 4mm and the 3.8 XP are almost evenly matched. The 3.8 seems minutely better in terms of performance near the edge (focus breaks down quicker in the UO) and possibly light scatter. However, the difference of around 150.00 between them makes the UO an exceptional buy. Both the UO 4mm and the 3.8XP have very little eye relief and not suited well for deep sky where one tends to look around more toward the outside of the field. June 21, 2001 Update: Big day today with the solar eclipse and all in Africa.. but my contribution today is telling you that the Pentax 8mm XP I compared directly to the Pentax 7mm SMC. Once again, eye relief, like on the 3.8mm is tighter, but quite useable without glasses. The Martian view spectacular. More contrast was discerned, slightly, comparing this eyepiece to the 7mm using a 6" Takahashi working at 1680focal length. (210-240X). I did once again feel that the 7mm SMC was a bit "brighter". I also compared to the 9mm Nagler. Again the XP came out on top as the planetary eyepiece on contrast within the planet itself.

The Televue Plossls that I have tried are all excellent, however, I was able to achieve slightly better performance with the Celestron Ultima series up against them. The edge of field (field stop?) is not as sharp as it could be, at 32, and 8mm. Otherwise this is a great series of eyepieces. The 32mm is very comfortable to view through in eye relief, and gives a maximum real fov for a 1.25" ep. The 55mm that I tried is so much more comfortable to view through than a 56mm Meade Plossl, as it is built with the jumbo eye relief taken into account, so you don't have to fiddle to find the view. the 55 Televue plossl, indeed is sharp to the edge, even at that focal length. The 8mm was quite tight on eye relief.

The Televue widefield32mm is a 2" ep, from what I remember it was somewhat soft towards the edge, but sported a good 65-70 deg field and was comfortable to view through.

The Prooptic40mm eyepiece is excellent, a bit hard to find the view because of jumbo eye relief. Maximum field size for a 1.25" eyepiece, really pushed to it's limit. Excellent price.I have heard this performs just like the Meade Series 3000.

The Vixen 32mm erfle (hard to find) is a 2" eyepiece, low cost, 60-65 degree field of view, not very sharp to the edge but better than some others. A bit tight on eye relief. Not threaded for filters.

The Rini 63mm Plossl is a 2" eyepiece, very inexpensive, using surplus glass, looks terrible, available from second hand dealers. Hey, it works!Threaded for filters.

The Rini 32mm Superwide is hard to find, 75 deg FOV, terrible edge performance, but incredible wide field and great, near perfect eye relief. Threaded for filters.

The Orion Sirius Plossl 17mm was very comfortable, bright, and crisp jupiter views, but a bit soft at the edges.

The Meade series 4000 eyepieces are wonderful. The 40mm has a tiny bit narrower apparent fov than the 3000 series. It is just as hard, or harder to fish around and find the view. I highly recommend the 32mm which does not have this problem, and about the same real field of view in the end. The 32mm has great eye relief, and a sharp edge of field, so does the 26mm. I still found the 30mm Ultima, and 30mm Ultrascopic (Orion) to be slightly crisper, but so minor. I believe I also tried a 9 or 12 series 4000 plossl, I have the 9 illuminated reticle ep, they have quite short eye relief. As mentioned previously, the 56mm Plossl performs well, but even with the eyecup, I found it easier to hold the view in a 55 Televue plossl. In August, 1999, I got a chance to try out the Meade Ultrawide 14mm. I had previously tried the Meade Ultrawide 8.8. The 8.8 that I had was quite nice, very similar in performance to my 9 Nagler. However, there was some sort of vignetting towards one edge, making the field stop indistinct on one side. Probably just a minor flaw in my eyepiece, likely not inherent in the design. The Ultrawide 14mm is quite outstanding. Decent eye relief,  good enough with my ultra-thin pair of glasses, just a tad of kidney bean distortion (blackout areas when you move your head around) barely noticeable at night , and  very little pincushion distortion (bending of objects near the edge), also, suprisingly good sharpness towards the edge of it's huge field of view! I might slightly favor this eyepiece over the Nagler 12, 13, & 16 because of the above attributes, but I have to test it further. I found there is less contrast with this eyepiece than some others I was testing it against, such as the 14mm Radian. In a direct comparison on NGC1023, foreground stars could be discerned more easily with the 14mm Radian, than the 14mm Ultrawide. In addition, on M31, stars appeared a tad more defined and contrasty in the 14mm Radian. Also NGC891 seemed to display it's dark lane a bit more prominently in the 14mm radian, although the difference was very slight. The Meade Ultrawide 6.7mm is one of my favorite eyepieces, showing excellent contrast, a wide field of view evenly illuminated, sharp to almost the edge of field.. it is simply superb. Even the eye relief, although a bit tight, is almost sufficient to be used with my glasses on, slightly more relief than the 7 Nagler type 1. The eyepiece is also small, the size of a typical Meade Series 4000 plossl. CLICK HERE FOR MEADE SUPERWIDE ARTICLE.

My favorite series of mid priced eyepieces is the Celestron Ultima series which seems to be similar in make to the Orion Ultrascopics (seems they are related to the Masayuma line). Everything from 15mm and above sport decent eye relief. (The focal lengths vary a bit between the 2 lines) The 12.5 is a bit tight, and the 7.5 is very tight on relief. They all feature good light throughput, great contrast, great sharpness to the edge of field. I have tried the 7.5, 12.5, 30, 35, 42 and  60. The 60 is apparently no longer made. There is an 80 still available (as of 1996), but note it will have a small apparent field of view, as the maximum is reached between 55 and 60mm focal length that a 2" ep can offer. The 35 is somewhat hard to view through as the high eye relief is going to be a bit hard to hold (blackout of field happens if you get too close) The 30 does NOT suffer from this at all.The 42 does, big time, (and has only a 38 degree apparent fov) These eye pieces come with winged eyeguards rather than fold down eyecups, which is very convenient for binoviewing. For one-eyed viewing I have replaced these with Orion circular eyeguards, which work great, but may not breath as well. I also noted some instrusion of stray light into the Orion's but not the Ultimas, which are blackened better. 2001 note.. I have finally received an "Axiom" eyepiece which is basically an Ultima on steroids. Sporting what appears to be greater than a 70 degree apparent fov, the Axiom looks very similar to the Ultima line. The 23mm (1.25") Axiom has tight, but not impossible eye relief. I can just barely take in the whole field of view at night with my glasses on. This eyepiece is about as heavy as the Meade 24.5" superwide, and is a bit longer, but a bit thinner. This is an important eyepiece, like the 24.5" superwide, in that it offers the widest possible field for a 1.25" eyepiece, and yet is fairly magnified, reaching towards the mid-range focal lengths. The 22mm Panoptic from Televue is its other competitor, but Televue has not yet made that eyepiece into a small 1.25" one, instead leaving it as a 1.25"/2" hybrid. I expect they will toy with that down the line. Performance report on the 23mm Axiom on the way....

I got bold and ordered from TEC a 500.00 DOCTER 10-25mm zoom. This eyepiece was great in that it held an apparent field of 45 degrees or so, maybe a bit more... as it click stopped down to the various focal lengths. It was sharp, but it was fairly large, awfully expensive, and again the field size was constant but fairly small. It also required a fair bit of in-travel. The Docter 12.5mm 90 degree widefield is reputed to be one of the best eyepieces around, but I found the combination of huge in-travel required to reach focus, and poor performance at the edge of field, to keep it from being the "best of the best". However, I must say, the contrast and resolution on-axis appears to be superior to just about anything I have tried, at least matching the Televue Radians on-axis. Still testing as of 8/24/99. Pin-cushion distortion is low, NO KIDNEY BEAN distortion noted at all, eye relief is tight, but okay without glasses. The eyecup doesn't want to fold down. The Docter 16.5mm 60 degree widefields work well in the Televue binoviewer. Again, too much in-travel for some scopes. Small and lightweight, very sharp on-axis.. a bit soft towards the edge, but not much.  Nice eye relief, just enough with the eyecup folded down for (thin) glasses use. This is a superb binoviewer eyepiece, even more convenient than the 14mm Radians (and you know how I feel about my pair of radians!)  Both the 12.5 and 16.5 seem to be very good planetary eyepieces as well, still checking that out.

The Televue Zoom eyepiece is smaller than the Docter zoom has a smooth 8 to 24mm zoom, whose focus stays closer to perfect than the Docter eyepiece as you increase magnification. Unfortunately, the TELEVUE ZOOM steps down to a 40 degree apparent FOV when going to the 24mm focal length, but it is a nice wide 55 degrees apparent FOV when used at the 8mm point. Contrast was not as high as on the Televue Radians, but still it was sharp and contrasty, and a darn good eyepiece in itself, not to mention the convenience of the smooth zoom function. Eye relief was ample throughout the range. My initial test with this eyepiece was indoors, I have since bought it, and found it is quite sharp for general observing. I particularly like it when it falls within roughly the 8-15mm range. It's performance on deep sky is quite good, as well as it's general planetary performance, although I did not give it a very critical planetary run-through.

I had the chance to try out two Speers-Waler eyepieces, from Antares in Canada. I intentionally chose the 10mm and the 5-8mm semi-zoom, which are reputed to be two of the better performing ones in terms of edge performance. I have to say I was most impressed. On the 10mm....The field of view is around 75 degree (apparent fov) which is larger than the Panoptic and Superwide series. There was some dust lodged inside the eyepiece, but it was negligible near the edge. I have heard of similar problems from other users. The eye relief was okay, but not nearly as good as I was told by users. To take in the full field of view, one had to get to within 10-12mm from the eyepiece. My (thin) glasses barely made it. The resolution was extremely sharp, on par with a 19mm Panoptic barlowed to 9.5mm. The stars in my fast f/4.6 scope were indeed sharp right to the edge of the huge field. The price is substantially less than a 9 or 12mm Nagler for this eyepiece, but a couple of more quirks were noted. Firstly, the eyepiece, even though a 1.25" eyepiece, is almost 6" long, although lighter than 9 and 12mm Naglers. Secondly, the focus position is just a bit inside of most eyepieces, such as the Ultima series. This did NOT pose a problem for any of my scopes, but might for a select few. There was slight "kidney bean" blackouting with this eyepiece, similar to that which occurs on a 9 Nagler. (see Nagler article) Lastly, I noted that the edge of field was brighter than on axis..so weak galaxies, for instance, were not as contrasty near the edge. This happened to me on the Pentax 10mm XL as well, and is noted on Naglers when you are not taking in the full field of view. Lastly, this eyepiece somehow is able to achieve a great deal of coma-correction and sharp edge performance WITHOUT any pin-cushion distortion. (that is, bending straight objects near the edge of field like Panoptics) This makes it an ideal daytime eyepiece. The eyepiece was so much better than the Intes 12mm Superwide it wasn't even close in terms of edge performance. It also is thin enough to use in binoviewers, but perhaps annoying long. Overall, the Speers-Waler is a winner. I understand the 5-8mm zoom is also outstanding.

As for the 4.7-7.9mm Zoom from Speers-Waler, I did a very close comparison with a 7mm Nagler. Unlike the rumours, this eyepiece is NOT sharper than a 7mm Nagler on the edge of field, and is very close to it's performance on-axis, although I am stil testing. The sharpness does fall off slightly in an F/6 refractor, after 75 degrees or so out. HOWEVER, the field of view is DEFINITELY slightly larger on the Speers - Waler compared to the 7mm Nagler, which is astrounding. Like the Nagler, in order to take in the entire field, the eye relief is ridiculously little..but for a comfortable 65 degree apparent field of view, you are looking at around 10mm for the eye relief. The eyepiece is like the 10mm, about 6" long, and has a sliding option by unlocking a screw, so you can vary the distance from a built-in barlow, thus enabling you to vary focal length from approx. 4.7 to 7.9mm. This can replace at least two of your eyepieces, plus the price is just a tad higher than a 7mm Nagler in the first place, so it is a good buy. Very sharp on detail and good on light throughput. The big difference with this eyepiece is again, the lack of pin cushion distortion..which the Nagler's do exhibit (a tree was bent towards the edge of field in the Nagler) but the Nagler's do not exhibit this quality as much as the Panoptic line. I like this eyepiece more than the 4.8mm Nagler, with more comfortable eye relief (not saying much) but it is much, much larger, and does not have a true eyecup, just an "Ultima-style" one that pops onto the top, (shoehorn style). It is a heavy eyepiece too, heavier than the 10mm, I'd say almost as heavy as a 9 Nagler. Great buy. Also we have this report on the S-W eyepieces: Speers-Waler/Televue Radian review ... by Greg Granville

I have always heard that the UNIVERSITY OPTICS ORTHOSCOPICS (1.25", takes filters)were superb, indeed I found that to be the case, for planetary viewing. As sharp, if not sharper than any other eyepiece on-axis, with only moderate fall-off in sharpness towards the edge. Eye relief on the 12.5mm was very good, but not great, and the field of view was tiny, maybe 45 degrees at most. I tested against the 12.5mm UNIVERSITY OPTICS PLOSSL which sported a huge 60 degree field (no kidding!) but fell off dramatically towards the edges in sharpness, and did not have quite as much contrast, and was much dimmer in view than the Ortho. In fact, like the Pentax Orthos, these are very high in light transmission, to the point of being quite noticeable over multielement eyepieces. I also tried the UNIVERSITY OPTICS 55mm 2" Plossl. It is sharp to the edge, with a bit too much eye relief, hard to hold the view. (blackout areas when you move your head) However, it is very similar to more expensive units. I still like the Televue 55mm plossl the best in this category. I later went back to test some UO Orthoscopics.. the 9mm was short on eye relief, but still comfortable without glasses (or almost) and the 18mm was comfortable, even with my thin glasses on. Both were just as sharp as the 12.5mm. I then tried the 32mm University Optics Konig which was wonderful, but had a bit more "black out" areas (like kidney bean distortion) than a 30mm Ultima eyepiece. It had ample eye relief, no false color and sharp optics, but it's apparent field of view was somewhere between 45 and 50 degrees, making the real field of view slightly smaller than the 30mm Ultima. It was otherwise much the same as that fine eyepiece. I recently (June, 2001) had the opportunity to match the 4mm UO orthoscopic against fierce competitors.. the 4mm Radian (televue), the 3.8mm Pentax XP, and the Takahashi 4mm Hi-Ortho. The hi-ortho had the best eye relief, and the XP was perhaps ever so slightly better, the Televue had more off axis color. Overall, the 4mm UO ortho is the best buy! Detail on Mars was fabulous using a 6" Takahashi.

The CELESTRON SMA 25mm eyepiece is actually a Kellner. It does not have perfect edge performance, but does have a big 52 degree apparent field of view. Throughput and on-axis sharpness are quite good, and make this a great low cost alternative. I saw someone post an ad for this eyepiece for an amazing $20 recently. Eye relief is just a tad tight for a 25mm.

The TELEVUE RADIAN eyepieces are pretty much designed to be the best off all worlds. From eye relief, to field size, to planetary performance, to size, to performance across the field, they may prove to be the best overall eyepieces ever. In addition to  MY REPORT on the Radians... Here is a preliminary look at the 10mm Radian courtesy of Dave Mitsky. Dave recently (5/99) bought my 8mm Radian (I liked both the 7mm naglers and the 8mm radians, but the 7mm naglers are lighter for my binoviewer) and he loves it. I did test the 8mm Radian on planetary views, and it seemed slightly contrastier than the nagler, but seeing conditions didn't allow me to evaluate the full extent of this.

I had a rare opportunity to try the pricey but rather effective I3 image intensifying eyepiece. I tried it on a C8, and my Starmaster 7". I'll cut through all the hype for you... it's great if you are using it on clusters or globulars, or perhaps bright, compact deep sky objects. It is not meant for dim, extended nebula. Parts of M51 for example were brought out well against the sky background, but in suburban skies anyway, the rest of it was even more lost to the background sky than usual. However, completely without dark adaptation, making out M13, especially with the excellent 7" zambuto optics, (more than the C8), was fabulous. Easy resolution and reminiscent of much larger aperture, M13 was quite resolved. A scintillating, greenish background make the view kind of odd, but it is amazing to see so deeply out of such small aperture. I expected to have the feeling that I wasn't really looking at the object, but I was more looking at a television picture of one, and I was pleasantly surprised that I did maintain a feeling of looking at it as if it were a regular eyepiece. Offhand, I'd say the eyepiece was around 12-15mm f/l, I forgot to check.

The 30mm Leitz 88 degree eyepiece (2") is extremely expensive. It also performs wonderfully. Nice eye relief, not too much, not too little, usable with glasses. Sharp towards the edge, even more than the 22 Nagler, and similar to the 35mm panoptic (tried in a few scopes) . High contrast, very sharp images. Large, but not terribly heavy, about the same or an ounce or two less than the 22 Nagler 4. Much lighter than the 35mm panoptic. What is so unusual about this eyepiece is that it is giving you close to the the maximum possible real field of view, and yet magnifying the field much more than let's say a 55mm plossl. Also, at 30mm you can use this eyepiece with virtually any scope, as the exit pupil will not be too large. Even an f/4 scope can be used with it perfectly, in conjunction with a Televue Parrcorr. No eyecup, so you may have to search around a bit for the field of view, but once you've got it, you'll keep it in place. The ultimate in "space-walk" feel. Very little pincushion distortion.

The 14mm Leica 68 degree eyepiece (1.25", comes from their Televid spotting scope line) is one of the best I have ever tried in that focal length range. Completely color-free, you can move a bright object anywhere in it's huge field of view, and it will remain color pure. The eyepiece is relatively small and lightweight for a premium widefield, just a bit larger than the Televue Radian 14mm, which I tested against. It's a tad too large for binoviewer use in my opinion. I used various reflectors and a refractor to test this eyepiece. Here's the scoop: On-axis, (and through most of the field of view) resolution was excellent, perhaps just a tad short of the Radian. The field size was much larger than the Radian's 60 degrees, and this made a difference when framing some objects. As mentioned, false color was absent. No ghost reflections were noted, and very slight to minimal scatter around planets. Eye relief and pop up eyeguard were fabulous, plenty for all eyeglass weareres. No kidney bean distortion noted, very easy to hold the field of view, just as easy if not easier than the Radian. No Pincushion distortion. The one big drawback to this eyepiece is it requires a great deal of in-travel. I could make it easily in the A/P Traveler and C9.25" .. but barely in my reflector, which is already set for abundant in-travel capability.

Markus Ludes has searched world-wide for various specialty eyepieces, those that sometimes are lifted from spotting scopes and then used in telescopes. The 2" 30mm Widescan Type II is an excellent eyepiece that may become available from a variety of sources. It weighs 1.1 lbs, affords approximately an 85 degree apparent fov, is very sharp on-axis with high light throughput, 5-elements, fully multicoated.  Eye relief 21mm, 1.1 lb. Good focus position (10mm in from the 20mm nagler). I am planning on having some other friends test this against other 30mm super widefields, such as the Leitz and Nagler (31). The problem with this eyepiece is that it becomes soft beginning 70% or so from center, and in fact, the last 1-2% a sudden drop off in chromatic purity, and light indicates a soft field stop. It is much more affordable than other super-widefields, but does have those edge problems. I have also loaned out the 8mm Nikon Eyepiece for testing against a Brandon and TV Radian. This eyepiece did not seem as sharp on-axis in my preliminary test as other eyepieces approximately this focal length. However, it has perfect eye relief (18mm, just a tad short for some glasses) a wide 72 degree apparent fov (I verified this) is sharp to the edge, and has excellent chromatic purity through the field. It is plagued by a bad focus position, requiring a good 1/2" of in-travel or more compared to many other eyepieces. More on this one later.. Markus also loaned me two Czechoslavakian (sp?) eyepieces that are outstanding, one at 4mm focal length, and the other at 5.5mm. Tiny, with a wide 70 degree apparent fov, sharp to the edge, and decent eye relief (about 8mm and 12mm respectively) - these two planetary eyepieces are apparently rare and not for sale (??), available at European starparties. The 4mm is plagued by glare in the field as bright objects approach, but has more chromatic purity (at the edge) than the 5.5mm, although both are decent in that regard. The Zeiss 25mm with a 23mm field stop that Markus Ludes offers on his web page is truly the best binoviewer eyepiece I have ever seen. Unfortunately the barrels are machined too wide, and it barely fits in my Televue binoviewer. It has a great focus position, far out, and yet has smooth INTERNAL FOCUS so that it can fall virtually anywhere you would like focus-wise, and for binoviewing this also means that you can focus for different eyes. I tried very hard to guestimate the apparent fov, and came up with 54 degrees, THIS WAS CONFIRMED when I read the specs. Sharp to just about the edge of field with great contrast, and very large eye relief, yet easy to view. (In other words, despite the wide eye relief, no blacking out whatsoever as you move far away-really amazing) Real field of view is somewhat less than the Meade 24.5 Superwide, and a bit more than the 26mm Series 4000 plossl from Meade which I tested against. On-axis performance was about the same as both of those. Small, lightweight, superb eyepiece.. but hey!! - let's get that barrel diamter fixed Markus.. I had to force fit it into some of my scopes!