Tele Vue - Starguider, my conclusion!

[Charic]

Tele Vue - Starguider, my conclusion!

Whilst the  Plössl may be the least expensive eyepiece in the tele Vue range, they still undergo the same care and attention to detail as their most expensive  EP range, according to the blurb!

Cheaper still, the BST Starguider range. Does cheaper mean inferior?

I have completed a simple visual test comparing the Tele Vue 8mm against my Starguider 8mm just for personal reference. Remember, this result was obtained from my eyes only! no special or technical set-up used, and my right eye's focal specifications are different to yours! It was mighty windy tonight, and my eyes were watering from the wind, the winds are supposed to be getting stronger tonight and into late Sunday, there were a couple of occasions where the winds affected the steadiness of the telescope

Not one eyepiece is suitable for everyones liking, or focal system, and using the 200P Skyliner, my findings are as follows........

The BST is more comfortable to use with the extra  eye relief and the additional 10°afov just makes a massive difference to me. The BST Wins

The Tele Vue is available retail at £68 GBP, its a good standard eyepiece. I was warned that eye relief will be shorter, but almost unbearable for my use.

The BST Starguider is available at £49 GBP its a great eyepiece. Its my favourite of the two, its my first BST purchased, and if I were to keep just one it would be the 5812151825mm? yeah! all of them.

In my humble opinion the better eyepiece to have  is the 8mm BST Starguider, for its wider afov.

There are many references for  purchasing a Plossl type eyepiece, they are a great standard eyepiece, and in this case made my TeleVue, but the  shortness of eye relief is often noted, but the afov is just too little at 50°. It really feels like looking through a tight narrow tube!

You will always see SgL folk recommend 'X' over 'Z' for their EP's, and for good reasons too, as stated above, were all different, and use different telescopes, and even if we did have the same telescopes, I guarantee they will be set-up / collimated differently, as we see fit for ourselves, unless that is, you set up both telescopes yourself!

My  special thanks to ghostdance in loaning me the Tele Vue for my comparison test.

Such a trusting chap, he sent more than one EP, would you do that with your TV's ? 

[John]

Interesting Charic

Apart from the ergonomics, eye relief and field of view differences, which are real but are part of the specs of the two designs of course, how did the eyepieces actually compare in terms of optical performance, light scatter, contrast on DSO's, planets etc ?

I'm asking this because, if you just consider the comfort / ergonomic factors then a 5mm BST would probably "beat", say, a 5mm Pentax XO but optically the latter is very likely to out perform the former, which would be of interest as well.

[Charic]

Hi John.......yeah, kept it a bit simple to be honest. The optical performance with regards the brightness of the Stars  for example  looking at the Pleiades, the  brightness seemed about the same, to me,  but less of that brightness due to the fov, if that makes sense? also my eyes are not the best quality that they used to be some Years back. and my eyes were watering like a good'un tonight with the winds. Its a pity I didn't have enough time to wait up for Jupiter to re-assess, but it looks like I might have to get up, and take son to work. A few too many sherbets  for him tonight, and he doesn't need a breathalyzer test in the morning rush hour?

Also I bagged M81, M82 tonight after locating with the 32mm, not seen them before from  my back garden, They seemed to me about the same in contrast, but more space  with the BST.

Not very scientific, I know. This is all new to me.  I`ve no doubt the TVs (in brown text in my signature) will blow my BST's away, but I had always wanted to try a Plossl of one brand or another. I'm just glad I didn't invest in them earlier in  my time.

[John]

Thanks for that

Personally I find the TV plossls perform as well optically as the other TV eyepiece lines but with the more constrained field of view and eye relief of course. I agree that the 8mm eye relief seems particularly tight though - the stiffish rubber eye guard does not help with that !

Thanks again for posting the report - the more opinions the better

You also make an interesting point in your signature about whether the Skyliner 8" dob deserves to have expensive eyepieces used with it. One for another thread perhaps 

There is no doubt that the BST eyepieces are very good value for money though !

[Charic]

John....I`m back at work now, but redundancy money  can afford many  good things things in life. One of them is Tele Vue,  but with all the references to the BST's when I first  started, they just seemed too good to be true.  I bought the 8mm BST and was just amazed at the quality over the standard Skywatcher 'Super' 10mm. I just knew then, the  other EP's would have to follow, so 18, 12, 25, 15 then 5 all followed. I have no regrets. I may wonder, If I ever try one of the Big guns that TV offer, but  so far, I`m really happy with my set. I think my newish 6mm WO SPL will take pride of place for my Planetary work, and my 32mm is just the Mutts Nuts when it comes to Browsing the Heavens on my f/6.

Its a toughy, for folk when it comes to choosing their oculars, without the benefits of try them first.  Its been pointed out to me on several occasions now, that the distance selling rules have now changed in our favour, and you can just about return anything you wish if your not happy with it, but I've not tried that yet. Yet my BST retailer, makes that fact up-front, also making my decisions so much easier.  Its always each to their own. I`d love to be able to try many different brands just to be more savvy about EP's. To me expensive, doesn't always mean better. it's what makes you happy that counts.

The Plossl is the de-facto standard eyepiece and still worth investigating to potential buyers. My report is not going to stop world wide sales of the plossl. The 6mm eye relief of the TV is too small for my liking, The BST is twice the eye relief. ED glass included! As you say, great value, especially when compared to the other branded variants of the same EP?

[John]

......... To me expensive, doesn't always mean better. it's what makes you happy that counts.

Absolutely right !!!

[Paul73]

6mm eye relief!! That must be like stabbing yourself in they eye!!!

Some people can cope with that, some can't. I'm with you on this one Charic. If you are looking for an 8mm generalist eyepiece, it has got to be comfortable to use.

It sounds like the f6 / Starguider combination really hits the sweet spot.

A note of caution - When you get to bellow f5, the 8mm BST starts to struggle. This is my view only and I do consider that the £50 price tag still represents excellent value, but I found the BST prone to blackouts, kidney beaning and a bit lacking in contrast. It is still a big step up from the stock 10mm Plossl that came within the scope. It is worth noting that the 8mm is the only one of the range that I have tried. If you want top quality views from a faster scope, it isn't really reasonable to expect a £50 eyepiece to deliver.

Paul

[Charic]

Paul73.......I wanted to get out and check on Jupiter  but  its cloudy again.  I might have seen if there was a better contrast between the two 8mm EPs on a known target, and from my  light polluted observatory.

Your caution is accepted, but I don't have the f/5 ( f/5.91 is closest I get)  Yet  I know a man that has a similar setup to yourself........Skyliner 250px, Heritage 130p; 5 to 18mm BSTs; 30mm Vixen NPL; 28mm Maxvision, 6mm Vixen SLV........and AndyWB  I know, uses his 5mm quite well on the Moon, but  favours the 6mm SLV Vixen.

The 8mm with its  60° field of view is advertised for f/5 or greater focal ratios. Its how the end user copes with that. On axis, there shouldn't be too many issues, but as you get faster, edge distortion can become a major issue for some folk. Again, referring to  AndyWB, he has often said, that although there are some issues at the edge of his 10" reflector, its mainly just ignored for visual use. I can understand for photographers, it could be a major turning point.

I myself will probably favour the 6mm WO SPL, but I seem to have the worst  permanent  weather conditions  this Year for observations, due to cloud cover, and the 6mm is just itching to get some decent conditions with Jupiter.  Its last session through veiled cloud was very good. 

I've been unable to find a certain link on the web, but it mentions 'focal ratios' and' sweet-spots' and 'lowest power EP's' and I have loosely based my EPs using this idea.

My focal ratio (rounded to f/6) gives me my shortest focal length EP,  6mm. Doubling the focal ratio hits the 'sweet-spot' of 12mm, and multiplying the  ratio by 7 gives me my largest    focal length of 42mm favouring the 32mm Panaview, and what a view. The focal ratio has a lot to answer too. I also suggest folk compare their Apertures to magnification, in my case 200P is going to comfortably give me 200x power, push those limits cautiously for acceptable results. I've observed the Moon at 480x  but its not perfect and hard to track the little craters at that power and speed?  The rest of my BSTs literally just fill the gaps, but what I do get is the choice to frame my subject as best as I can. My only intention last night was to compare the two 8mm, but every EP was on the table ready to use, but the winds and watery eyes, and rapidly approaching weather front cut short my 1 hour session, short I know, but the telescope pre-cooled. A note on cooling, the longer the better. I don't think there is a minimum time that is required, but I leave my scope cooling for an hour before I view, and the airy disk is just about static by this time! so 60 mins, if you're needing a minimum time, is good........Its gooooood!

[ronl]

The BST Starguider is recommended for f/5 scopes and above, and as for blackouts I

never get them, because I use the twist up eyecup which is a great feature on the

Starguiders, if you turn the eyecup up to where it suits you, I find two thirds is perfect

for me, then no blackouts and no eyelash marks on the glass, blackouts occur if you 

don't use this feature and many don't, if you have to have spectacles to observe then

you leave it down, as with Charic, the Starguider range suit me and I get wonderful views,

so I am very happy with all of them. 

[alan potts]

Don't have any Starguides and unless I buy one the chances of me making a comparison are rather slim. I will however very soon be getting a couple of TV Plossl's one of which is the 8mm. Personally I do not consider 6mm of eye-relief that bad, it must be more than you get with all of the 5mm, 6mm and 7mm BGO orthos, I find I can use these thought the shortest one is a bit of a battle with the eye-lashes. This is of course is not what many people want and I can accept that.

I am trying the TV Plossl range as someone on site mentioned there was a better colour rendition to be seen with them on the likes of Jupiter and for the cost I thought why not.

The only other thing I would say optically is that F 6 is not a stiff test of an eyepiece though I found the likes of more expensive Hyperions starting to cause edge issue around this speed. If I ever get over to England again I must buy one of the these eyepieces as they clearly punch more than their weight.  

Alan

[Caldwell14]

BST are amazing value for money, no doubt about it, I once owned a set before jumping on the good ship TeleVue. The 25mm is a bit weak. The stated field of view appears to be no bigger than an equivant Plossl. I did have a bit of trouble with blackouts with most of the range and got a little fed up of constantly seeing my own eye lashes, in the end that's what did for them. Obviously the quality between two are worlds apart, but for budget eyepieces they are quite simply the best bang for your buck.

[Space Beagle]

I agree! The BST range of eypieces are very good value for what you pay for them. I too used to own the full set and they seemed to work very well for me in my own f5 200p and f10 Tal 100rs, very easy/comfortable to use and optically fine, to my eyes.

I have since gone on and spent probably way too much on several Naglers, but, my goodness, when the skies allow, they really are wonderful, even in my slightly modest scopes!

Even though I don't have the BSTs any more I would have no hesitation in recommending them for similar scopes to mine.

Like Charic has said before, Alan at 'Skys The Limit', will even let you try them out before making your mind up.......See their website for details.

[Charic]

I'll have to further investigate  kidney beaning, floaters, blackouts, eyelashes,  as I seem to be missing out on some  other forms  of additional annoyances whilst observing that some of you folk often talk about ?

If its there,  like Coma on the fast telescopes, I'm (gladly) not seeing it, or possibly ignoring it without realising.

I'm not knocking the great brand of Televue, their not World famous for nothing. The fact is, If I had  managed to get a set of Meade 3000 plossl [Japan} variants, my first choice, I would still have them today, and be none the wiser about the BSTs. This test would have simply been a measure of how sharper or brighter a TV image could have been over the Meades. Unfortunately, or now rather fortunately, the 3000 [Japan] Plossl,  were hard to come by, and the Celestron eyepieces I had gave me an insight ( or so I thought) to  how bad the Celestron EP's could be?

I`m sure I'd be impressed with  a 35mm Panoptic, 13mm Nagler and a 6mm Delos on my 12" Dobsonian 

[rwilkey]

6mm eye relief!! That must be like stabbing yourself in they eye!!!

Some people can cope with that, some can't. I'm with you on this one Charic. If you are looking for an 8mm generalist eyepiece, it has got to be comfortable to use.

It sounds like the f6 / Starguider combination really hits the sweet spot.

A note of caution - When you get to bellow f5, the 8mm BST starts to struggle. This is my view only and I do consider that the £50 price tag still represents excellent value, but I found the BST prone to blackouts, kidney beaning and a bit lacking in contrast. It is still a big step up from the stock 10mm Plossl that came within the scope. It is worth noting that the 8mm is the only one of the range that I have tried. If you want top quality views from a faster scope, it isn't really reasonable to expect a £50 eyepiece to deliver.

Paul

Hi Paul, I have found that black-outs with the BST's can be averted by winding up the eyecup to its maximum height.  Black-outs only usually occur with the 8mm and the 5mm, so not a problem across the range.

[Dude_with_the_tube]

Lets put it this way, f6 is not a fast scope as such practically any eye piece,even a Kelner design will work perfectly fine,showing you very little to none image degradation on edges or loss of sharpness,any coloration,astigmatism.If you do check the reviews done by astronomers,there are always as a minimum 2 scopes present in review.One is a slow F ratio and other is fast F ratio.I can bet,if i use BST on my F14.4 or F9,i will struggle to see any difference immediately.I will have to look out for them,where in fast scope,in likes of f4.7 or F4.6,you will see the difference immediately.Thats why,i always say: scope with faster F ratio is more demanding to eye pieces.Thats where all these premium eye pieces in likes of televue are aimed for.They always state that they design is guaranteed to work in scopes up to F3 (Depending on EP model and Ethos in this instance as example of Televue range).There is only one review done like this for BST on both scopes and unfortunately it was mediocre/poor for fast F ratio scope,this only meaning,that BST will be a good value EP if you are on slow scope.

As such,to sum up,for a person with a scope with F ratio 6 and slower,and not willing to shell out loads of money(relative statement) for big brands,have a good eye relief and good image,BST is the way to go.

thats my 2p on this

[Charic]

2p well spent.........Is this why the Skyliner is the UK's most popular Dobsonian telescope. It has no vices, easy setup, choose any EP you like and auto collimation! Did I really add that. Ignore that one, just getting carried away.

Its good when you look back and think, maybe Ive made, with a little help from SgL members the right decisions Lol 

My only issue with my present system is the image scale. Bigger scope will cure this.

[Dude_with_the_tube]

My only issue with my present system is the image scale. Bigger scope will cure this.

Unfortunately that will not be cured by a bigger aperture or scope.Biger scope will give you just brighter image of your target.Its magnification you need,but UK skies do not support or very rarely support anything above X250 magnification.Only few targets like moon,saturn and mars will take 250+ and for that you dont need 20" dobsonian,any DSO will not and if will,then on very rare night.For that you need to move to Arizona desert or anywhere else where you get zero light pollution,very dry and stable skies and there you can go to insane 400-800 magnifications. Sorry to drop a bomb in your garden.

[Charic]

Ooooops!........I need a longer scope, with more focal length, giving me the larger image scale, Now I don't need a 12" telescope, thanks for the savings   You're right about the UK weather, especially 57° N at present!

[John]

Ooooops!........I need a longer scope, with more focal length, giving me the larger image scale, Now I don't need a 12" telescope, thanks for the savings   You're right about the UK weather, especially 57° N at present!

The image scale in the eyepiece is provided by the magnification which, as the Dude says, is most often limited to 250x-300x by the viewing conditons. A longer focal length scope helps get high power without having to use short focal length eyepieces but the constraints of the seeing condtiions are still there, unfortunately.

What you need is a high mountain top to get you and your scope above most of the atmosphere

[Charic]

I've  got Ben Rinnes nearby at 841 Mts  or Ben Nevis at 1344 Mtr. 

I`ll skip both and just be happy with what I have.

Cheers Dude &  John. Learning all the time

[Moonshane]

as far as I know, image scale and magnification for visual observing are linked. with more aperture you get the same brightness at higher magnification than in a smaller unit. therefore in a roundabout way you do indeed get more image scale with more aperture. with less aperture, yes the object will be bigger with more magnification but also dimmer than the larger aperture at the same magnification.

[alan potts]

I would not worry too much about magnification, it is often over used at the cost of sharp fine detail being lost to power. My main scope at the moment has a 3 meter and a bit focal length and a foot of aperture. Many many times on this scope less is more, take Jupiter, I can easily use X304 with a number of 10mm eyepieces but  instead used about X170-190 for the sharper view and greater contrast. Much of this is personal taste of course but I really believe magnification is a much over used word in Astronomy.

Of late I have been using a lot of power on the M57 The Ring Nebula, not to see it better but to help me see the centre star, power will affect how deep you can see, as will; more mirror, clean optics and experienced eyes. This is about the only time I go over X300 on a scope that could be pushed in theory to over X600.

When I get my large Dobsonain in a month or so it will be working at about X40 until I learn how to scope nudge, a scope by the same rule that should be able to operate at close to X1000, though not in my skies as good as they are.

Alan..

[bingevader]

When I get my large Dobsonain in a month or so it will be working at about X40 until I learn how to scope nudge,

Just remember, if you need a hand nudging, we're still waiting for the star party! 

Now here's a first! Not in defence, but a few good words from me about Televue, well, the plossls anyway.

I had some concerns over the ER on the 8mm TV plossl, but one came up second hand (cheaper than the BSTs!) and it filled a gap in my collection, so I went for it.

With the fairly poor seeing conditions I've had this year, it's been a bit of regular in the focuser.

I know it's completely personal, but I have no issues with the ER or comfort of the EP and find the views crystal clear.

I know a slightly larger FOV would mean less time nudging, but I only use it on the moon and planets, so it's not really an issue.

With a 2x barlow on the moon it has been rather satisfying too!

Horses for courses I know, as I've had to stop there with regards to ER, which is why I have the X-Cel LXs and the SPL. The WO SPL in particular, being a mighty fine EP.

If the BSTs had been as highly rated at the time when I started out with the dob, I'm sure I'd have bought them.

However, if I was starting again now, I'd be buying the Maxvision EPs.

But, having said that, if you can hang out for the 2nd hand market and can live with the smaller FOV and ER, then you're unlikely to get clearer views than with the TV plossls. 

Just my pennies from a fellow 200p owner purchasing EPs in the budget/mid-range EP market. 

[Charic]

+1 on the SPL Ben. I've only tested mine during difficult seeing (clouds) but a great EP on Jupiter. Time to wait for a better night to capture Jupiter.

If I had started out with the Plossl, I too would have got used to them, prior to trying something else, but going from 60° down to 50° is a mighty jump for my eyes!

[bingevader]

If you have it for a bit longer, I'd be interested in what you thought of it on a better night.