TheSkySearchers

The replacement line for the HD-60 is coming soon:

https://agenaastro.com/meade-1-25-wide- ... 07002.html

I don't know how I should feel about this.

Why wait for the Meade eyepieces when you can buy the same 62º wide-angle 3-piece set for only $22.74 with free shipping from Svbony:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SVBONY1-25-62- ... SwH2RcT6pc

At that price ... maybe I'll buy 3 or 4 sets!

Sky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:21 pm Why wait for the Meade eyepieces when you can buy the same 62º wide-angle 3-piece set for only $22.74 with free shipping from Svbony:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SVBONY1-25-62- ... SwH2RcT6pc

At that price ... maybe I'll buy 3 or 4 sets!

Extra $10 is for the fancy box.

Bigzmey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:49 pm

Sky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:21 pm Why wait for the Meade eyepieces when you can buy the same 62º wide-angle 3-piece set for only $22.74 with free shipping from Svbony:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SVBONY1-25-62- ... SwH2RcT6pc

At that price ... maybe I'll buy 3 or 4 sets!

Extra $10 is for the fancy box.

I do like my fancy boxes.....

Bigzmey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:49 pm

Sky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:21 pm Why wait for the Meade eyepieces when you can buy the same 62º wide-angle 3-piece set for only $22.74 with free shipping from Svbony:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SVBONY1-25-62- ... SwH2RcT6pc

At that price ... maybe I'll buy 3 or 4 sets!

Extra $10 is for the fancy box.

And the blue band that says Meade.

At that price, I would pay 10 bucks extra for that.

Yes, that is pretty sad. I see them on the Meade site as already available. However, they don't explicitly say they are intended to replace the HD-60 line.

It seems they are a Plossl and two Kellner? Aspheric though should be nice.
Besides you can always buy the Celestron X-Cel LX if you want the Meade HD anyways.

AntennaGuy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:08 am Yes, that is pretty sad. I see them on the Meade site as already available. However, they don't explicitly say they are intended to replace the HD-60 line.

No not explicitly, but I see this as a step down in their product lines, and one I don't understand. If the HD-60's were really tanked because they couldn't compete with Celestron over price concerns, why would your next product offering be with a series SVBony is already entrenched with at a price you couldn't hope to compete? Not unless I totally underestimate how many people are willing to pay that extra just for a blue band and a name.

The glass and coatings quality could be considerably better with the Meade depending on what QC level they are paying for.
When are you buying one of each to let us know how they work?

Lady Fraktor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:16 pm The glass and coatings quality could be considerably better with the Meade depending on what QC level they are paying for.
When are you buying one of each to let us know how they work?

Well, I know this is addressed to Don Alvarez, but aspheric optics are interesting to me and I'm slightly tempted. One could even dissect to find which lens is plastic and aspheric.

I don't know why they advertise them as "wide angle" at 62degree field of view. I have 3 University Optics Konig II's and they are 65degree field of view but were never advertised that way. At the time I bought them, TeleVue was coming out with their 82degree field of view eyepieces and they were advertised as wide field. Seems to be a little deception? Maybe, maybe not. I guess if you put them up against the old Orthoscopics, Ramsden, Huygens and other 45degree field of view eyepieces they would be wide field, but in todays plethoria of eyepieces available I would call 62 degree field of view as average. Nothing special. Just my 2 cents worth...your mileage may vary.

Rob

515bonner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:12 pm I don't know why they advertise them as "wide angle" at 62degree field of view. I have 3 University Optics Konig II's and they are 65degree field of view but were never advertised that way. At the time I bought them, TeleVue was coming out with their 82degree field of view eyepieces and they were advertised as wide field. Seems to be a little deception? Maybe, maybe not. I guess if you put them up against the old Orthoscopics, Ramsden, Huygens and other 45degree field of view eyepieces they would be wide field, but in todays plethoria of eyepieces available I would call 62 degree field of view as average. Nothing special. Just my 2 cents worth...your mileage may vary.

My mileage does indeed vary. Anything wider than a Plossl at 50 degrees can be advertised as wide angle without deception. I always thought of my UO Konigs as wide angle for instance.

Technically anything over a 50° AFOV is a wideangle eyepiece.
Most likely a hold over from when eyepieces were between 15° and 50°
I still prefer ones less than 50°

Lady Fraktor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:16 pm The glass and coatings quality could be considerably better with the Meade depending on what QC level they are paying for.

I've heard this theory before in reference to the Orion Expanse vs. their goldline counterparts. I'm not sure how much I buy into it, I'd like to think it was the case but I'm sure if inquiries were made we'll never get to the truth of it.

When are you buying one of each to let us know how they work?

Lol I am DONE buying EP's for a long while with one exception: if I see any more Meade smoothies for sale I'm chasing them. I'm actually unloading some EP's right now to fund a new OTA.

notFritzArgelander wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:49 pm Well, I know this is addressed to Don Alvarez, but aspheric optics are interesting to me and I'm slightly tempted. One could even dissect to find which lens is plastic and aspheric.

I'll likely pass on these. Though, there were a couple threads dedicated to the SVBony version over at CN, and they seem to be well received but that assessment is usually tied with a qualifying statement that goes something like: "for the cost..." So I take that with a grain of salt. The prospect of any trio of EP's that can be had for under $25 and functions to any degree of clarity I'd consider a rousing success as well.

The use of polymers instead of glass for the elements is interesting to me - is this the future? Optics cast from warm oooeygooey?

Don Alvarez wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:38 pm

notFritzArgelander wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:49 pm Well, I know this is addressed to Don Alvarez, but aspheric optics are interesting to me and I'm slightly tempted. One could even dissect to find which lens is plastic and aspheric.

I'll likely pass on these. Though, there were a couple threads dedicated to the SVBony version over at CN, and they seem to be well received but that assessment is usually tied with a qualifying statement that goes something like: "for the cost..." So I take that with a grain of salt. The prospect of any trio of EP's that can be had for under $25 and functions to any degree of clarity I'd consider a rousing success as well.

The use of polymers instead of glass for the elements is interesting to me - is this the future? Optics cast from warm oooeygooey?

The use of plastics for lenses is only the future for low cost optics that perform well for the price. I don't see these becoming as good as glass in my or my grandkids lifetimes.

The Meade site says:
"If you're looking for an affordable way to enhance your observing experience, these eyepieces will not disappoint." Really? How can they possibly know that? It would be helpful if they were to explain the technology in some detail. What makes these better, and what exactly are they better than? After all, for example, Celestron has a nice whitepaper available about why they consider their Edge HD optical design to be superior to Meade's ACF, supported by various graphs, etc. Whether you believe it or not, at least it presents their argument. I also remember way back when Edmunds Scientific bragged about their RKEs and why they considered them to offer good performance and that they were a good buy. If Meade thinks these latest aspherical eyepieces are so great, they ought to tell us where this product stands performance-wise in comparison to (at least) their own alternative products, especially their HD-60 eyepieces. But also they should compare them to their "super" plossls. If they consider these new eyepieces to be a performance/price breakthrough that makes higher priced eyepieces obsolete, they should say so outright, and with confidence. It seems to me that Meade doesn't even want to appear as if they care a whit about providing the customer with meaningful information about this product, even if the customer had already decided to buy eyepieces from Meade and simply wanted to compare the specs among the Meade products, let alone compare them to competitors. Sigh. If you are proud of your product's performance, brag about it quantitatively. Otherwise, I am going to be skeptical. And don't just tell me "these eyepieces will not disappoint."

notFritzArgelander wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:44 pm The use of plastics for lenses is only the future for low cost optics that perform well for the price. I don't see these becoming as good as glass in my or my grandkids lifetimes.

Never say never notFritz. (Is that a triple negative?)

One might speculate that with advances in polymer science, ooeygooeys might one day give glass a run for the money. I'm inclined to think that day isn't here yet though.

Don Alvarez wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:51 pm

notFritzArgelander wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:44 pm The use of plastics for lenses is only the future for low cost optics that perform well for the price. I don't see these becoming as good as glass in my or my grandkids lifetimes.

Never say never notFritz. (Is that a triple negative?)

But... but... I DIDN'T SAY NEVER. I specified a long but finite time.

A triple negative would be an odd eyepiece design though....