Next step up in Eyepieces

[Sandraj]

I still have not bought any new eyepieces, I go around in circles.

Having had great help off of you before regarding my questions, could you help a bit more.

Televue Plossl, they are only £60 odd to £100 odd each, why are they mainly put aside compared to BST and X Cel LX? is it just the FOV? as my impression is that they are a good eyepiece?

The Baarder Classic Ortho, and Hyperion, again not often recommended, why?

Williams Swan and SPL, again I have only seen them recommended a few times.

Vixen NPL and Meade, where do they stand?

I know it is often said it comes down to personal opinion, but I am happy to pay a decent price for the eyepieces, I am just so undecided which brand to buy and try first.

[alan potts]

That's a lot of questions.

Televue Plossl though I do not have any are regarded as about as good as there is on the market albeit with a 50 degree FOV, I am thinking of getting a couple.

BST are highly thought of by site and have a larger FOV. Baader CO are recommended and many people have them though also many prefer the older BGO as the build is a little better and there are more of them.

I have never used Celestron eyepieces but they are often recommended by site members.

Hyperion I have used and in my view are not good in scopes below F7 as for me they show soft edges which gets worse the faster you go.

WO I have not used nore have I ever seen one, but believe the Swan is again soft in faster scopes.

Vixen have many followers on site and are highly thought of by many and that would do for me. There is also a review on these in the pipeline so maybe wait and see what John thinks, his is an opinion worth listerning to.

Meade I have owned almost all of the Series 5000 ranges are are very good eyepieces without being Televues, they are good value second hand as you can get them for about half the price they once were.

Also consider the Maxvision offerings which was a Meade cancelled order.

I wasted a good deal of money buying eyepieces and selling them for a fraction of the new price. I wish I had bought Televue and Pentax from the start and if your are a person that will always wonder if they are worth the extra, buy one and try them, they also hold the secondhand value much better than almost all others do.

Alan

[baggywrinkle]

When I was getting ready to buy some more upmarket EP's on a trip to Japan, I downloaded a copy of 'Choosing and Using Astronomical Eye Pieces' by William Paolini.

Not a cheap book, even on Kindle, but well worth the money as it takes you through the development of EP's, the various types, what they are good at, their construction, and plenty of formula for working out their performance. It also has a section which covers just about every EP manufactured in the last 40 or so years, those which are current and those which are not.

The best way to describe it in a very positive way is an an Anoraks/Trainspotters guide.

I read it cover to cover and still re-read the technical sections in the hope that the info given will penetrate the grey matter.

I ended up buying a couple of Takahashi at the equivalent of GBP120 each.

[John]

All good questions but quite difficult to answer and it will only be my viewpoint of course:

......Televue Plossl, they are only £60 odd to £100 odd each, why are they mainly put aside compared to BST and X Cel LX? is it just the FOV? as my impression is that they are a good eyepiece?

The Baarder Classic Ortho, and Hyperion, again not often recommended, why?

Williams Swan and SPL, again I have only seen them recommended a few times.

Vixen NPL and Meade, where do they stand?

To some extent I think the answer is that the fashion is away from 40 / 50 degree fields of view and towards wider angles of view and longer eye relief. In practical terms the short focal lengths of plossls and orthos are hard or impossible to use if you wear glasses to observe so that is another factor as there are alternatives now.

All the eyepieces you list are very competent and the differences between them are matters of ergonomics and personal preference more than out right performance I reckon (I've owned or used most of them). 

In terms of pure optical performance the Tele Vue plossls and Baader Classic orthos are as good as eyepiece with much, much more exotic price tags on them. They are optically the best of the ones you list in fact. 

[rwilkey]

When I was getting ready to buy some more upmarket EP's on a trip to Japan, I downloaded a copy of 'Choosing and Using Astronomical Eye Pieces' by William Paolini.

Not a cheap book, even on Kindle, but well worth the money as it takes you through the development of EP's, the various types, what they are good at, their construction, and plenty of formula for working out their performance. It also has a section which covers just about every EP manufactured in the last 40 or so years, those which are current and those which are not.

The best way to describe it in a very positive way is an an Anoraks/Trainspotters guide.

I read it cover to cover and still re-read the technical sections in the hope that the info given will penetrate the grey matter.

I ended up buying a couple of Takahashi at the equivalent of GBP120 each.

Hi Baggy, I too have this book and it is very good, I have the paper version and refer to it often.  Bill is actually a member of this forum and I have chatted with him a couple of times.

[KevUU]

I can't help with most of these, but I started off with Vixen NPL 8mm and 30mm eps. After I got a BST 12mm I immediately also got the 8mm, I prefer it to the NPL by a long way. Bigger eye lens, wider field of view, better eye relief. I would prefer the 25mm BST to my 30mm NPL (same tfov) but having tried them side-by-side recently there's little in it visually...

It does depend what you like, but having bought the vixens for £30 and £40 I now think it would have been better to get BSTs straight away at £47 each (now £49 I gather).

I'm trying to figure all of this out myself for a widefield ep - and there are several threads on here currently on the same question, as there have been in the past and will be in future - so we all have the same issues and know how easy it is to go atound in circles on this! Unfortunately everyone has different combinations of scope(s), priorities, and bank balance so every time the question is asked the conclusion is slightly different...!

Still, "All good fun"

[Sandraj]

I can't help with most of these, but I started off with Vixen NPL 8mm and 30mm eps. After I got a BST 12mm I immediately also got the 8mm, I prefer it to the NPL by a long way. Bigger eye lens, wider field of view, better eye relief. I would prefer the 25mm BST to my 30mm NPL (same tfov) but having tried them side-by-side recently there's little in it visually...

It does depend what you like, but having bought the vixens for £30 and £40 I now think it would have been better to get BSTs straight away at £47 each (now £49 I gather).

I'm trying to figure all of this out myself for a widefield ep - and there are several threads on here currently on the same question, as there have been in the past and will be in future - so we all have the same issues and know how easy it is to go atound in circles on this! Unfortunately everyone has different combinations of scope(s), priorities, and bank balance so every time the question is asked the conclusion is slightly different...!

Still, "All good fun"

Thanks, nice post, when you look through the BST, is the view that much better than the stock and Vixen?

[Sandraj]

All good questions but quite difficult to answer and it will only be my viewpoint of course:

To some extent I think the answer is that the fashion is away from 40 / 50 degree fields of view and towards wider angles of view and longer eye relief. In practical terms the short focal lengths of plossls and orthos are hard or impossible to use if you wear glasses to observe so that is another factor as there are alternatives now.

All the eyepieces you list are very competent and the differences between them are matters of ergonomics and personal preference more than out right performance I reckon (I've owned or used most of them). 

In terms of pure optical performance the Tele Vue plossls and Baader Classic orthos are as good as eyepiece with much, much more exotic price tags on them. They are optically the best of the ones you list in fact. 

Was hoping for an answer like this, clears so much up for me, thank you.

[Reeny]

I started off with a range of Plossls, and moved away once I sampled the 68^o wide screen views.

The difference is only 30% wider.

But add on the extra 30% height to the 30% width and the total view will be around 70% bigger (1.3 x.1.3 = 1.7) 

I still use a 9mm Plossl for occasional use on silly nights at 290-ish magnification.

It's a cheap Revelation, with 52 degrees, and clear un-distorted views when the seeing conditions are perfect.

Observing planets and small objects is always rewarding - you don't need wide view for them.

But with the moon and bigger objects, it can be frustrating.

Also - Plossls don't allow as much light into the eyepiece compared to the wide view lenses with bigger glass.

So the view can be darker on fainter objects.

I eventually replaced my Barlowed 12mm Revelation Plossl with a 6mm Teleview Delos at 72^o

A good Plossl is that good in my opinion.

The 12mm was a hard act to follow.

The TV Plossls will be better again, and a noticeable step up compared to the humble £23 Revelations.

So in summary - Plossls are good for bright, small objects like planets.

Not so good for a wide view or faint objects. 

[John]

......Also - Plossls don't allow as much light into the eyepiece compared to the wide view lenses with bigger glass.

So the view can be darker on fainter objects......

.......So in summary - Plossls are good for bright, small objects like planets.

Not so good for a wide view or faint objects. ....

The plossl design uses a 50 or 52 degree apparent field of view so it's not what we term a wide angle eyepiece. The size of the lenses in the eyepiece has nothing to do with the amount of light that enters or exits it though. The exit pupil is the diameter of the bundle of light that exits the eye lens of the eyepiece and is a function of the eyepiece focal length divided by the scope focal ratio. The size of the optical elements and the apparent field of view of the eyepiece don't come into it. I've used dozens of eyepiece designs and I have never come across one where the lens diameter restricted the amount of light that could enter and exit the eyepiece. 

Plossls are just as suitable for viewing deep sky objects as any other eyepiece design. Tele Vue plossls have a higher measured light throughput than practically any other eyepiece type on the market as it happens. Ideal for faint deep sky objects.

Otherwise, we are in full agreement 

[Reeny]

It might just be me making things up (so I can justify these expensive upgrades to myself).

To my eyes, there is less glare with the Plossls.

I assumed it was due to less light getting in - but it could be down to focal lengths, exit pupil, different coatings, or my imagination.

I seem to see a different quality of view at each session.

[bingevader]

Hello Sandra, is it possible for you to try a few different makes and designs before you buy, as personal preference does also play a big part in EP selection?

As John has said, wider fields of view are en vogue at the moment. But there are some good reasons. At higher magnifications the drift time will be longer and so the object will stay in view for longer and the 'scope will need less nudging. The designs sometimes make them comfier EPs to use. At lower magnifications, the larger FOV lets you fit more in. The double cluster is far more impressive through my 24mm 82° Maxvision than through my excellent 25mm 50° TV plossl!

I have several TV plossls and like them a lot. They're even better value second hand! The shortest focal length I have is the 8mm, which I still find comfortable to use, but the eye relief does become tighter the lower you go. This probably does put some people off, the same is true for the BCOs at short focal lengths.

That's why I have my Williams Optics SPL 6mm!  Very comfy to use, slightly wider field of view and sharp, bright and crisp images. Unfortunately, they only do a 3, 6 and 12.5 or I'd have bought some more! There you go, good enough recommendation? 

My meade plossls are fab, very nearly up there, but with slightly less contrast than the TV Plossls. And as Alan has already said I only have the 14mm Meade 5000, but that is excellent and they do come up at very much reduced prices 2nd hand if you're prepared to wait.

Have fun deciding!

[ronin]

TV plossl's are good, never fear on that aspect.

Where they "lose" out is the nature of a plossl.

People seem to be going over towards the wider eyepieces. A plossl has an eye relief that is related to the focal length, usually 65% or 70% being the normal. Say 2/3 for simplicity. Once you get to 10mm you are close to the actual eyepiece and if you wear glasses it can be a problem. TV plossl's stop at 8mm, there is no 5mm wihich seems to be generally the highest magnification eyepiece that is sensible. Plossls are also not par focal, you change plossl and you have to adjust focus.

Not great problems on their own but they add up. TV plossls have I think dropped a little in price. They were around the £45-50 mark for a long time then jumped quite a bit to what was £75-80 in general. Made them suddenly a bit too costly as the next step up for waht was a plossl. I have noticed that there seems to have been offers where the cost dropped a bit, then never really went up.

The BST's came out here and in the US as Astro-Tech's and really appeared at the right time. They are good, they have decent eye relief and are parfocal. No idea if the design was inhouse to Barsta but whoever did it seems to have got it right. They came out initially at £39, which when TV plossls were £75 meant Alan could get enough to sell.

BST's are not as good as the top end TV's or Pentax or ES's but they are a hell of a lot less and the performance is very good. Good enough that people have compared them to £200+ EP and prefer the BST's, or claim no difference.

One reason for TV -plossl's was that at the time you could buy an eyepiece ahnd get disappointed by it, TV's QA was so good that I cannot ever recall reading of a bad TV plossl. It was possibly a question of safety - you didn't get a bad one.

[ronin]

Oops forgot the others mentioned.

Ortho's tend to be a bit specialist. Generally a narrower field of view and the fewer bits of glass can deliver a better contrast, which on planets the narrow FoV is fine and the higher contrast is a plus.

Hyperons seems to have reports of very nice but lose out when in a fast (f/5) scope.

The WO SWANS are nice but only 3 in the set, also WO have been honest and say they are not recommended that used in less then f/6. I have the set they are nice and make a good small set to use with a Mak or similar.

Vixen NPL are good, close to TV plossls, never used them and the one downside appears to be the housing is "plasticy" in feel and look. People like a nice solid eyepiece.

The WO SPL is said to be a good 6mm eyepiece, I have heard little about the others. Actually not sure there are others, that is how little the others (if any) are mentioned.

One problem - not in this post - is that people ask how does X compare to Y. Which means they want someone that has both to come forward, and really you buy say the BST's that you like and there is then no reason to buy the Celestron X-Cels just to see what they are like or compare.

Another problem is some like Ortho's, and some like Hyperons and immaterial of any problems there may be that is it. They just like them, and if they are happy then great.

Why have the BST/Paradigm become so popular - I have no idea, long before them there wre some good 70 degree eyepieces from Antares that were pretty good. Just never caught on. I have 3 or 4 somewhere.

ES do a nice 68 degree eyepiece that is also little heard of, but I suspect very good and a fair price I think.

Not sure where in Wales you are but if yoiu can get to the IAS and look at the eyepieces on display and available there. Loads of the damn things. That will really confuse the situation.

[AlexB67]

It also depends largely what you want from an eyepiece, and some if these things take a lot of observing time to begin to appreciate the differences, and if you want to get the best of everything the cost goes up exponentially. Factors coming into it:

transmission how much light is let through, less elements better but restricted to smaller FOV, otherwise optical aberrations or distortions become obvious - eg, orthos, plossls

contrast - argument often similar to  previous but multi element eyepieces can be very good in that regard also, but very costly.

consistent performance  across the FOV, more elements needed, especially for wider angle eyepieces and faster F ratio scopes, again cost.

eye relief - gives extra comfort, a must if you wear glasses but more elements needed, again cost goes up.

Just some things that come to mind as I type quickly waiting for my scope to cool waiting for Mars.

IMO, the reason the BSTs are so popular is that they are fairly decent all-rounders for their cost, without looking through one, but going by others, they would not beat the contrast and sharpness of a TV plossl for example, but do have a bigger FOV and are very comfortable to use, great for beginners or if you wear glasses.

In a nutshell, BSTs are great all rounder upgrades to starter eyepieces to provide a good improvement overall when all the above factors are considered, without being the best in anything. They are certainly not poor in anything compared to premium eyepieces that cost a lot more, arguably amongst the best bang for the buck, along with maxvision eyepieces right now in the longer focal length where they are available. I won both Maxvision and BSTs eyeieces and still feel they a very competent eyepieces now owning some others that are more costly considering their cost. In a slow Dob such as the 150p the BSTs should perform excellently.

[jetstream]

Alex,nicely put.

[KevUU]

Thanks, nice post, when you look through the BST, is the view that much better than the stock and Vixen?

I think it's definitely better than the stock. I'm not sure it's really that the view is better than the vixen, just that the field-of-view and eye relief and so on are better suited to how I like to view. I wrote a review of my impressions of the BSTs when I got them (http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/183444-impressions-of-a-bst-starguider/) if it is of any help.

[YKSE]

The Baarder Classic Ortho, and Hyperion, again not often recommended, why?

One reason I can think of about Baader Classic ortho is that these EPs came out in the end of 2012, proper reviews done by John, Hernando and others got out first in spring

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/blog/baader-classic-ortho-plossl-review.html

http://hyperionzoomlover.blogspot.se/2013/04/baader-classic-ortho-6-10-1832-plosslq.html#!/2013/04/baader-classic-ortho-6-10-1832-plosslq.html

as shown in this lengthy thread

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5602836/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/1

[Pete Presland]

i went through a few different makes of eyepieces when i started but have settled for the Televue Plossl's. other maybe upgrading to another type TV eyepiece these will be staying for good! they are pin sharp across the field of view, i know this is a little to small for some but its never bothered myself. i could not see any difference when comparing my old 8mm ortho to my 8mm TV plossl when looking at planets.

good luck with choosing, at least if you do go for TV's and change your mind you will not have any trouble reselling them.

[ronin]

i went through a few different makes of eyepieces when i started but have settled for the Televue Plossl's. other maybe upgrading to another type TV eyepiece these will be staying for good! they are pin sharp across the field of view, i know this is a little to small for some but its never bothered myself. i could not see any difference when comparing my old 8mm ortho to my 8mm TV plossl when looking at planets.

good luck with choosing, at least if you do go for TV's and change your mind you will not have any trouble reselling them.

There was a report I think from CN where someone at NEAF about 2 years ago asked Al Nagler why he didn't make an Ortho.

His reply was "Buy the plossl's they perform the same!"

[AlexB67]

There was a report I think from CN where someone at NEAF about 2 years ago asked Al Nagler why he didn't make an Ortho.

His reply was "Buy the plossl's they perform the same!"

Of course he would, he's selling them after all

On a more serious note, there is divided opinion on this, the orthos get a cult following , and especially higher end orthos saying they are the best for contrast and swear by them for planetary work for example. There are some others on the side of the fence that are less fussed about the less neutral tones and say the TV plossls  are right there compared to say some orthos.

On the other hand there are even some that claim considering their cost the TVs plossls are somewhat overrated. Only recently I came across this interesting study. comparing them to GSO plossls where many preferred them in some cases in some focal lengths.  I forgot where I got the article just will just attach it here for anyone interested to read it, how valid/robust  the study  is I leave up to the reader to decide, but it has quite  bit of info.

My gut feeling is little bit is when you buy a TV plossl you invest in build quality, and most of all you are pretty much guaranteed to get the same consistency from whichever batch you buy due to their superb  levels of QA, but you pay for that of course.

I Hope I did  not offend any TV plossls users ( prepared to get coat on and run fast   ) but it is interesting to read the various opinions and keep an open mind, that way we can make up or own minds a bit more.

Of course trying one can't be beaten to see for yourself. I still would not mind looking  through one of those TV plossls one day to see what they are like, but I am in no rush since they are not on my shopping list for now.

Comparison test of TVPlossl vs Brandon.pdf

[John]

I think for practically any eyepiece type you can find examples of those who really rate them and also those who feel they are not so good even on this forum and even more so if you go trawling the net. Brandons included, which seem to attract a wider mix of views than most brands I've followed.

TV plossls were the 1st 1.25" eyepieces I ever owned back in the 1980's and I've owned a few sets since then. If I decided that I could do without my wide and ultrawide eyepieces I could happilly live with a set of TV plossls for the rest of my astronomy days without feeling I was missing out on anything other than the additional FoV and a few mm of eye relief.

[AlexB67]

John, Personally I think I would really like the TV plossls somehow without having tried them.  If I ever broke the 8mm BST I'd probably replace it with one, though no rush for now, eventually I think I will own one or two at some point. I like the idea of a mix of a few tight eyerlief, small FOV versus the longer eyerlief wider FOVs. I think if I can live with a 5mm BGO now,  I can survive most things probably. May be be not a 4mm Ortho, the ultimate challenge,  but I don't think I'll go there

[bingevader]

 If I decided that I could do without my wide and ultrawide eyepieces I could happilly live with a set of TV plossls for the rest of my astronomy days without feeling I was missing out on anything other than the additional FoV and a few mm of eye relief.

John has summed it up quite nicely as usual. And if they were 2nd hand to boot, you'd be laughing!

[ronin]

Of course he would, he's selling them after all

You got the question wrong, it was why he did not make Ortho's.

Not which would he recommend.

Yes, Brandons.

One good way to get half the US astronomers up in arms.

Occasionally someone does post a "controversial" question about them over on CN.

Actually haven't seen one for a few months, must be about due one. :grin: