MaxVision 24mm and 16mm - first use on 200p Dob

[Reeny]

I am not sure what a first light is - but this report is probably close enough.

I got the 68 degree 16mm and 24mm from Explore Scientific on Thursday.

Last night (Saturday) was my first opportunity to test them out.

The 16mm was good - but the 24mm was even better.

The 16mm was barlowed by 2.1x from 75x mag up to 157x mag.

The focus was good. Coming in OK, but with a quite narrow sweet spot at that magnification.

The view was crystal clear on the stars, and variable on Jupiter which was low on the horizon (drifting in and out of focus with air turbulence)

The 16mm performed much better than the 52-degree Revelation Plossls I have been using for far  - so I can see why they are heavily recomended here on the forum.

A big thank you to all those who steered me in the right direction (Avocette / Moonshane / Qualia / and others)

The 16mm was good, but the 24mm was in a different league - much better than expected.

Maybe because it wasn't Barlowed, or possibly due to the more tolerant magnification of 50x.

Either way - the stars shone and really sparkled.

I saw the core of Andromeda in more detail than ever before - with the adjacent galaxies M32, and M110 shown clearly in the same framed view.

And I also saw the triangulum galaxy very very faintly after 2-years of trying (it had no structure - but it was definitely there)

So 3-new galaxies in 2-easy hits

The two Eyepieces are used on the 1200 focal length 200p Dob,

It means I can go straight from 50x mag to 157x mag very easliy, and see everything I need to see.

I was expecting to use a 100x intermediate lens - but don't really need anything else at the moment.

Little and Large will be sufficient for now.

Eventually I may need to find a usable wide view eyepiece for Peades etc - 42mm or 50mm at 2-inch)

Or funds permitting - I may upgrade to Teleview EP's if/when I want to go beyond the 160x magnification of the 16mm MaxVision)

In summary - the 24mm is probaly the best EP out of the Maxvision 68-degree range.

Both eyepieces have wider / brighter / sharper views than the Revelation Plossls I was using previously.

The lunar views are still pending - but I expect those to be a breathtaking improvement as well.

Thanks again to the forum members and forum admin for providing the help and advice.

[Lee M]

The Moon's very nice in the 16mm. Just about fills the frame.

[YKSE]

I'm glad that you're happy with your EPs.

[Space Beagle]

Wowzer!

These eps are great value seeing as we all know what they really are or were!!

I already have the 16 and 20 and have just sent for the 24, so I think I should stop now and be happy with what ive managed to assemble!

Did you see the massive 40mm that Russ.Will has, on another thread, he he!

Doc

[Reeny]

Wowzer!

These eps are great value seeing as we all know what they really are or were!!

I already have the 16 and 20 and have just sent for the 24, so I think I should stop now and be happy with what ive managed to assemble!

Did you see the massive 40mm that Russ.Will has, on another thread, he he!

Doc

I noticed that.

If anyone dropped on their foot it would break a toe.

It's the biggest in the range, and weighs in at 1.250kg.

[alan potts]

First light means nothing more than the first time you saw something through them. A very nice report and I see you did go for both after all, I've had the Meade version of both of these and they were not cheap, you did the right thing, striking while the iron was hot.

Well done,

Alan

[Reeny]

First light means nothing more than the first time you saw something through them. A very nice report and I see you did go for both after all, I've had the Meade version of both of these and they were not cheap, you did the right thing, striking while the iron was hot.

Well done,

Alan

Loads of first light opportunities then.

I got both components of the double cluster framed last night using the 24mm.

It's really weird - I seem to get a wider view at 68o and 50x mag than the Plossls at 35x magnification .

Loads of good advice from yourself Alan,

and others including YKSE (Yong)

Too many to mention here, but you know who you are.

Thanks.

[TwoPi]

Only just seen this and your previous thread - great choices with the Maxvisions!

Regarding the size of the view, according to my calcs I think both the 68° / 50x combination and the 52° / 35x combination actually exceed the max field of view for a 1.25" eyepiece (about 1.31°) so I guess any difference in field of view would be down to either differences in the designs or usability of the apparent field of view of the eyepieces.

In any event, the double cluster is a fab sight when you can get it all in one view isn't it!

Enjoy the views...

[Jase_v2]

I finally got to use the new 24mm maxvision also the other night, for a brief period between clouds. I didnt expect to be as amazed as I was with the view through it. It really is a class EP. I too saw the triangulum galaxy and all the other usual suspects looked fantastic  - Perseus double cluster and M13 were truly stunning. Thanks from me too on all the advice on the other thread.

[Reeny]

I can't wait for the moon to come into view.

Now that I have been spoilt with the excellent MaxVision results,  I am sceptical about obtaining a good enough image quality at high magnifications.

I can see some better quality gear arriving soon for 200x plus magnifications.

I will have to:

A) get the barlowed Plossls working well in good seeing conditions = 12mm / 9mm (at 210x / 280x magnification)

or save up for 1x quality 240ish magnification eyepiece (Barlowed 10mm, or a 5mm)

I already have a short list ranging from £100 to £250.

This hobby is dangerously addictive.

[Reeny]

Good news - I don't need to spend £100 to £250 on eyepieces just yet.

The 12mm / 9mm Revelation plossls are OK on the 200P (barlowed up to 210x and 280x magnification)

Bad news - I'm not clever enough to use my new nebula filter.

The OIII filter is very very dark, and it doesn't help me to find new Nebulas.

The Ring and Dumbell are a little bit sharper, with less glare.

But a blurry dust cloud, still looks like a blurry grey dust cloud.

[YKSE]

Reeny, OIII filter is anarrow-band filter, very suitable for some specific nebulae, it has most prominent effect on the Veil in Cygnus, e.g. many other nebulae are just not right objects for OIII, you can have a look at this filter review:

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/

[John]

Yong is correct. I rarely use my O-III filter but when I do it's on the few objects that really benefit from it and the improvement in visibility and contrast in those make the filter easily earn it's place in my kit. 

The Veil and Owl nebulae are examples where without the filter you will see virtually nothing of the object but with it they are clearly and rather beautifully defined.

[Reeny]

Maybe I need darker skies.

Going back to the Maxvision eyepieces,

Without the barlow, the 24mm and 16mm allowed just enough light in though the filter to star hop.

With the barlow, I needed to locate the nebula first, then re-fit the filter.

The additional light capture was significantly greater compared to a 52 degree Plossl.

Yong - I have that filter review saved in my favorites.

I will write myself a list, and start looking for the best nebulas.

[AlexB67]

From what I read (but I should add I own neither, well actually I do own a UHC, just not received it yet ), but get a UHC filter at some point, A UHC is a bit more useful in general I feel, it can help with LP  a bit, handy sometimes under moonlit skies too.  Anyway, I was torn but after researching somewhat I feel the UHC is a better starter filter, plus in my smaller scope it will cut out a bit less aggressively, where I'd want to use it too on occasion, that is certainly  a bonus in a smaller aperture instrument. No doubt the O-III will be added at some stage.

[John]

I wonder if Reeny has the Baader O-III filter ?.

They have a narrower band pass width than most O-III's so they do dim the background stars to a greater extent than other O-III's. 

[Reeny]

Sorry I should have mentioned - I have the Castell OIII.

Basically - If I could see the nebula, I could look at a dim but clearer view through the filter (Ring and Dumbell)

I could not see a lot of the targets. Regardless whether the eyepieces were used with or without the OIII filter.

No shows include: C19 Cocoon / C27 Crescent / Heart & Soul / plus a few others

I fear that the problem is my poor technique, and light pollution.

Both can be fixed.

[John]

I believe the Cocoon Nebula is a target more for an H-Beta filter rather than an O-III. I've tried a few times for it with my 12" dob and an H-Beta filter with no luck so you are not alone in not seeing that one. 

The Crescent Nebula is also a tough target under less than very dark skies - it's harder to see than the Veil Nebula. 

[acr_astro]

Hi all,

thanks to all of you providing info about these EP.

I recently purchased the 24mm and the 16mm and I'm happy with them at my 10" f/5.
 
Achim

 

[Paul73]

Hi all,

thanks to all of you providing info about these EP.

I recently purchased the 24mm and the 16mm and I'm happy with them at my 10" f/5.

Achim

A popular choice. Me too. I was so impressed that the 28mm (2") is on the way as well (and a UHC filter). I have got a horrid feeling that getting the same image quality at the shorter focal lengths will be really expensive.....

Paul

[acr_astro]

Hi Paul,

I didn't step up to 2" EP (yet  ). I have the fear that this would mean further investment (getting a hand ful of 2" filters and a 2" diagonal for the 102/500). So meanwhile I "restrict myself" to 1.25"

Achim

[Paul73]

Hi Paul,

I didn't step up to 2" EP (yet  ). I have the fear that this would mean further investment (getting a hand ful of 2" filters and a 2" diagonal for the 102/500). So meanwhile I "restrict myself" to 1.25"

Achim

What a coincidence. I said exactly the same thing until .....

The filter is for the 1.25" eyepieces. The 2" will have to do without for a while.

Paul

[acr_astro]

Hi Paul,

I hope that I can resist a bit longer ...

For larger FOV, I can still use the 24mm/68° in the 102/500 refractor which gives me a bit more than 3° FOV and an AP of about 5mm. And I have CLS, UHC, OIII for it.

Achim

[Paul73]

Hi Paul,

I hope that I can resist a bit longer ...

For larger FOV, I can still use the 24mm/68° in the 102/500 refractor which gives me a bit more than 3° FOV and an AP of about 5mm. And I have CLS, UHC, OIII for it.

Achim

Ahh! There is the difference. It was field of vision that I was after. My scope is F4.7 so I get about 1/2 of what you get.

Enjoy the view.

Paul

[acr_astro]

Hi Paul,

only drawback for me is that I have to choose prior to observing whether I take the 10" f/5 (250/1250) or the 4" f/5 (102/500). Or take both to the backyard.

Achim