Are orthoscopic eyepieces really that good? - Baader Q-Turret Ortho Set Full Review

[@janomacko5764]

Thank you for the review. I am considering getting one for the following fall, when both Jupiter and Mars will be very attractive targets.

[@k.h.1587]

It is actually a testament to televue, that it can be as bright and sharp as an ortho, while giving a wider field as well as much longer eye relief. It is much easier to make a good ortho, hence they cost less. I used to have a mixed/matched set of the flat top type orthos, from 5mm to 18mm, all the same manufacturer but a few were different brands. The first one I got was an Antares branded 7mm, then I gradually completed the set, mostly UO HD branded ones. I did end up selling them before doing a little research about the current going rates, and I sold them for almost half of what they were going for, and they sold on cloudy nights in less than a minute with a ton of inquiries pouring in after. DOH! Realistically, I rarely used them due to the FOV and eye relief, though they were extremely sharp. They were 40-45deg afov, badder is pushing it going to 52deg in that design, that is if they are true abbe orthos, but then again, orthoscopic is a characteristic , not an eyepiece design. The design is technically an Abbe, or abbe ortho, as other eyepiece designs have been categorized as orthoscopic as well, that have nothing to do with the abbe design. Iirc they were 5, 6,7,9,12.5 and 18mm and I sold the set for $300 and probably could have gotten $5-600 as they were not available new anymore. Another similar (and I think made in the same factory) eyepiece design is the 5 element celestron ultima, which was an answer to the original 5 element meade series 4000 super plossl. These were also sold as Orion ultrascopic, parks Gold series GS-5, and Antares elite plossls. I also had one branded Omcon plossl that appeared and performed identical to the others, so I assume it was the same. And there may have been other brands, I forgot if UO also sold that design or not. Personally, I think they perform as well as orthos, but are wider at 52deg, like the newer baaders which are definitely not made in the same japanese factory that made the orthos and ultimas. It would be splitting hairs to compare them as the 5th element (leeloo) added negligible light loss. A true test would be to compare them to the older Japanese ones. And maybe to televue plossls, and ultima types. Televue plossls are nice, but I found on axis performance better in the ultimas and true super plossls. Televue plossls are modified to fix the edge performance, and the trade off was a slight loss in on axis performance.

[@MarkMphonoman]

Love my Fujiyma Orthos. Small, sharp, and lightweight. Great for bino viewers.

[@BogdanDamian]

@MarkMphonoman Good to hear that about the Fujiyama orthos. I'll have to give them a rey someday.

[@aroxchannel]

Thanks Bogdan. I enjoy all of your gear reviews very much.

[@tranquil_axolotl]

18-10-6 is my favorite binoviewer experience:) 18mm is my favorite. 6mm in binoviewer is not that bad if you use OCA as eye relief is extended. As for the turret it works nice with Nagler T6, as they are nice compact eyepieces. Perfect for grab and go setup.

[@thisissparta3965]

Yeah the lack of compression rings on the EP holders is off putting for me. A slight scratch on the barrels won't affect performance but if you are one of these people for example that not only buy high quality EPs (TeleVue for example) then pride in those collected items may not have you want to scratch them and keep them pristine. If I want to change magnification then I'll just use my mk IV Hyperion zoom in a diagonal that has a compression ring. Would have expected more from Baader to include compression rings in the turret. As dedicated EPs would be better to use than the zoom then I will not be faffing around changing EPs every few minutes in a diagonal with a compression ring. Either I use the zoom in a single frac or I would have twin mounted fracs with a dedicated EP for differing focal lengths on each one.

[@k.h.1587]

I love televue eyepieces with set screw marks on the barrels. They are always cheaper :)

[@thisissparta3965]

@@k.h.1587 😂 yes that is normally the case but with patience I have found that unmarked ones can be won on eBay auctions just as cheap. It's waiting for them to pop up that seems to be the trick 👍

[@PauI__]

The turret sure looks nice and can be configured to fit any purpuse. For me personally it would be interested more in the praised svbony 3-8mm zoom and how this would compare to the ortho design eyepieces for high power view.

[@BogdanDamian]

@PauI__ Both the 6 and the 10 Ortho are a bit brighter and sharper especially around the edges of the FOV. Contrast is similar on both the Orthos and the SV215. The viewing experience of the SV215 is better then with the 6mm Ortho thanks to the longer eye relief.

[@MountainFisher]

I search out and observe multiple star systems or double stars and use Baader, Fujiyama Orthos plus TeleVue Plossls. One thing about the quality of the polishing of TeleVue Plossls is they're spaced perfectly with a better polish than a standard eyepiece. If the edges of your fov have stars that are stretched it most likely is your telescope than the ortho eyepiece. A 32mm Plossl though might be the exception. My smallest is my Baader 6mm Ortho, but it tends to dim the fov from too much magnification. Looking at the 11 magnitude stars of a quadruple system is often best done with a 11mm TV Plossl in a 2x TV Barlow, still dim and easier on the eye relief.

[@BogdanDamian]

@MountainFisher Thanks for your input. Interesting to read about your experience with orthos. How would you say the ones from Baader compare to the other ones from Fujiyama and the Tele Vue Plössls?

[@MountainFisher]

@@BogdanDamian The Baader orthos are very very good being the Abbe-Zeiss build and it really is hard to tell, but the Fuji does not have the field of view of the Baader or TeleVue EPs. My 6mm Baader is really exceptional, just hard to use. Where the TV 11mm showed a 12 magnitude star as a bit spiky the 6mm shows it as an airy disc like it is supposed to. So I would give the edge to the Baader except for my 18mm Takahashi Ortho is a little better than the Baader 18mm, just a brightness the Baader doesn't have. It is an old Takahashi Ortho though and has no coatings. Go figure, but under 25x magnification I can see no scratches at all. I bought it at an estate sale of a club member. I bought a 9mm 100 degree 2" eyepiece as well..

[@AmatureAstronomer]

Interesting.

[@edufau815]

I own one of these sets and I agree with everything said. The design problems that the Q turret presents are real and annoying, I think it is the weakest link in the chain, its construction is not up to the quality of the rest. In terms of visualization, these ortho eyepieces are a 10, something that can be verified by comparing them with other eyepieces of different designs in their price range or even higher. The low eye relief of the 6mm is not particularly bothersome to me, although it requires keeping the eye very close to the lens and should be considered especially if you use glasses when observing. Another issue is that in most tubes it offers small exit pupils of less than 1mm, so it is easy that it presents eye floaters when observing bright objects, although this is not strictly a problem with the eyepiece..

[@BogdanDamian]

@edufau815 Thanks for your input. Glad to see that you have made a similar experience with these eyepieces.

[@bill5982]

So if Orthos are 4 element lens and relatively cheap to make, why has almost everyone switched to making Plossls?

[@freeman10000]

Plössl's have a wider field of view typically 50°. Ortho's are closer to 40°. People generally prefer a wider field and A well made plössl is almost as good as an orthoscopic eyepiece.I own a 6mm Fujiyama ortho and it has a 42° FOV.