Meade vs Televue barlows

[milkyjoe]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could tell me if there is any difference between a Meade #126 x2 barlow ( this one: http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/meade-126-x2-barlow-lens-125.html) and the Televue x2 barlow ( this one: http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/TeleVue_2x_Barlow_1_25__.html )

There is a quite a difference in price between the 2!?

Thanks.

[Gutross]

usually it falls on the quality of the optics, Generally the higher the price the better the optics, but not always the case

[RT65CB-SWL]

I would go with the TeleVue...

When I was shopping for a Barlow lens about four light-years ago I was in the same dilemma. I saw the Meade #126 and thought that would do as at the time I owned a small Konus Maksutov, [i did a p/x to fund my TeleVue Ranger two Earth years later], and tested/tried one in-store and at AstroFest on the BC&F stall. To be honest I was not very impressed. I ended up purchasing a Klee 2.8x Barlow lens instead from BC&F.

For comparison, the Klee is/was about the same size as the Meade.

[milkyjoe]

I currently own a x2 and a x3 meade barlow, but have seen a TV x2 barlow for sale and was wondering if this might be any better.  Would it be worth purchasing an ED barlow perhaps?

[kurtz9]

Well, everything that says Televue on it is crazy expensive...

I doubt there's a huge difference between regular barlows... where they will be a difference is between a regular barlow and a telecentric focal extender (which unlike a barlow preserves eye relief)

Televue, confusingly, makes both...(their telecentric ones are called powermates)....   but if one wants a telecentric FE they can avoid televue pricing and just get one from Explore Scientific for about half the price... (still more than a regular barlow though)

[John]

I've used one of those short Meades and they are very mediocre I'm afraid.

The Tele Vue Barlows and Powermates, though the prices are high, are the best of their type unless you go for something really exotic, rare and even more expensive.

[NGC 1502]

I used to think Televue stuff was expensive, so didn't buy.  

I bought relatively cheap, after a while, wasn't satisfied.

Upgraded to what I perceived to be better, after a while, wasn't satisfied.

I bit the bullet, bought Televue, after a while, was satisfied at last.

Would have been cheaper in the long run to have bought Televue first.

However, all this was years ago, and the situation has moved on.  If you buy Televue now, you won't be disappointed, apart from the damage to your wallet.

Others at SGL can hopefully advise what kit matches (or very nearly matches) the performance of alternatives, with less money spent.

If your scope is a slow focal ratio, you've more chance of being happy with non-Teleview,  fast scopes, much less so.

Regards, Ed.

[kurtz9]

From all the reviews I've read, plus a pretty large # of posts on the various astro forums from users, and my own (very limited) personal experience, these days you can get about equal  TV performance for half the price from Explore Scientific, and with an even better warranty (it's transferable, while TVs warranty is only for the original owner)

that said- if you're getting a non-telecentric barlow, I don't think you need to drop the coin on either brand-  a basic  barlow is a pretty simple device and I've seen lots of folks unable to tell the difference in viewing between a good cheap one and a high-end one.

[John]

....that said- if you're getting a non-telecentric barlow, I don't think you need to drop the coin on either brand-  a basic  barlow is a pretty simple device and I've seen lots of folks unable to tell the difference in viewing between a good cheap one and a high-end one.

Sorry but I have to disagree on this. I've tried a number of low cost barlow lenses, including the Meade "Shorty" one linked to above and they do introduce some aberrations of their own to the image. There are some decent low cost ones as well such as the now out of production TAL 2x barlow and the GSO / Revelation 2.5x 3-element unit though.

[RT65CB-SWL]

Sorry but I have to disagree on this. I've tried a number of low cost barlow lenses, including the Meade "Shorty" one linked to above and they do introduce some aberrations of their own to the image. There are some decent low cost ones as well such as the now out of production TAL 2x barlow and the GSO / Revelation 2.5x 3-element unit though.

I borrowed the GSO/Revelation 2.5x 3-element, (for comparison), from my work colleague late last year/early this year and it is very good. Apologies as I forgot to include this one in my earlier reply. 

[kurtz9]

Sorry but I have to disagree on this. I've tried a number of low cost barlow lenses, including the Meade "Shorty" one linked to above and they do introduce some aberrations of their own to the image. There are some decent low cost ones as well such as the now out of production TAL 2x barlow and the GSO / Revelation 2.5x 3-element unit though.

Not really clear how you're disagreeing with me.... I said good cheap barlows are largely indistinguishable from inexpensive ones.

I didn't say all cheap barlows are.

[kurtz9]

Errr... that should read "indistinguishable from EXPENSIVE ones" up there

[milkyjoe]

Thanks all for your comments, I will take a look at TV and ES :-D