Televue worth the $?

[amgray04]

So I've been comparing Televue ep's and Meade ep's and i can't understand why there is such a dramatic price difference. TV offer their ethos SX which offers 110 degree AFOV, while Meade MWA offers 100 degree for quite a bit less. Anyone have opinions on either of these?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John]

I believe the Meade MWA 21mm actually has a field of view of around 90 degrees from reports on another forum.

I've not used their 100 degree offerings though. My choice has been Tele Vue.

What scope will you be using the eyepieces with ?

In some scopes the differences could be very minimal, in others there might be a little more difference in favour of the Tele Vue.

This may lead to a lively discussion - Tele Vue v's the competition seems to be one of the continuous "hot" topics on astronomy forums worldwide

[nightfisher]

purely from my own point then no, i have no need for these top end eyepiece`s..............but if you have a fast newtonian and want it to perform to its very best then yes they may well be worth investing in

[estwing]

purely from my own point then no, i have no need for these top end eyepiece`s..............but if you have a fast newtonian and want it to perform to its very best then yes they may well be worth investing in

+1...

[amgray04]

They'll be used w a 12" f5 Newtonian. Simply visual, but looking for 'stellar' views hahaha

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pig]

In my mind it is always worth paying more if you want to get the best out of your hobby   Paying less is also fine if that is what you want to do. I have finally settled on the Pentax XW's, they are not exactly a cheap option and only deliver 70 degrees FOV, but to me they are worth every penny I have paid for them.

[Moonshane]

Personally, all my eyepieces are Televue. I think they are worth the price although I tend to buy used so in a way the price is irrelevant as I can sell usually quickly for almost what I buy for even after a few years' careful use.

If you look at optical differences they are almost certainly not good value but this is not unusual with optical gear as the law of diminishing returns most certainly applies. My eyepiece case is testament to it being worth it to me but ymmv. What i do know is that the view could not generally be better than I see through my eyepieces given the same conditions and scope

[alan potts]

This will depend on how fast your scope is.

I have had almost all of the Series 5000 Meade eyepieces so you cannot say I am not a fan. The only ones I have not owned are the 18mm UWA and the 40mm Super Plossl and the latter I have tested as  friend has one and that I found to be awful in my Dob.

Meades do perform very well indeed at F10 as I have a fair sized Meade SC scope, they also turn in good results in my APO at F7. I start to see noticeable differences between Meade and TeleVue offerings at F 5.26 in my Sky Watcher 190mm Mak Newt. However when I use the few that I have access to in my F4.3 Dod the wheels really start to come loose and I can see larger noticeable differences.

I have owned many of the Televue range and still keep more than a fair share, it is a matter of if you can justify the money but for me with my skies I think it is money well spent.

The other downside of Meades was I found I almost had to drop to below 50% of new cost when I sold them, this though was in some part due to the Maxvision sales.

Alan 

[John]

They'll be used w a 12" f5 Newtonian. Simply visual, but looking for 'stellar' views hahaha

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My largest scope is a 12" F/5.3 newtonian on a dobsonian mount. My eyepieces are Tele Vue's plus a couple of Pentax's at the shorter focal lengths. This set serves 3 scopes and has been built up mostly from the used market place.

While there are eyepieces that get pretty close to the Tele Vues and Pentax's I've yet to use something that is actually better, to my eyes, so I'm happy with the investment I've made.

The "is the difference worth it" question is one that I think everybody has to find their own answer to. At least there is a great deal written about the different options on the web to help although I still reckon the best thing is to try some for yourself at an astro society open event or a star party. Eyepieces are a very personal thing and what suits one person might not do much for someone else.

[RikM]

It is definitely worth trying if you can but it's also worth mentioning that experienced observers tend to notice the differences more readily than new astronomers. I have used a fair few TeleVue eyepieces and while the optical quality is first class, I find some of them uncomfortable to use with short eye relief and quite particular over eye placement. I also know for sure that this is down to me and my eyes, not the eyepieces. I find the Pentax XW series tick all my boxes but I know a couple of experienced observers who have similar issues with the XWs as I have with TV. I only have one Meade eyepiece, a series 4000 8.8mm UWA. It is a nice eyepiece but I feel doesn't show as much contrast and brightness as my XWs and has a warmer colour tone, which I am not so keen on. I use it as a 'public observing' eyepiece.

[rl]

People always say that the eyepiece is half the telescope. Personally I disagree..you'd be better off first investing in improving the primary image with either a bigger or better quality objective. After that's as good as you can get for cost or space reasons it's time to look at the eyepieces. It's as well to remember that scopes have been around for 400 years and televue for about 40....people made wonderful discoveries with Huygens, ramsdens, orthoscopics etc. These still work ok in a lot of cases, unless your scope has really fast optics. So having preached the gospel of keeping eyepiece fever under control, what's in my eyepiece case? Mainly TV......It is my sad duty to inform you that they are just about as good as can be made optically. Others come close, but no-one else controls optical aberrations quite as well over the field. I'm still using MK1 Naglers bought in the 1980s and the ethoses are probably the best all-round eyepieces out there. Not perfect at everything, but if not the best in a given situation, then a very good runner-up. You can't really go wrong. An often-used quote regarding TV; "you only cry once...". The pain of purchase does pass...eventually!

RL

[DeejayP999]

purely from my own point then no, i have no need for these top end eyepiece`s..............but if you have a fast newtonian and want it to perform to its very best then yes they may well be worth investing in

This^^.

I've owned quite a few TV eyepieces and, while they're undoubtedly high quality, I've never seen a huge difference probably because I've always owned slow(ish) scopes.

[rl]

When I bought my MK1 naglers in 1987 the 7mm cost me about £120 and the 11mm £180. A total spend of £300 which seemed wildly extravagant at the time. I've now had them 28 years, or roughly 10,000 days. I guess that's about 3p per day.....

If you're churning your eyepiece collection and buying new every time then they will be losing you money very quickly. If you buy second hand and keep them a long time because you're happy with them then they look like a bargain. I've found that most owners see them as an investment and take care of them. I've bought several in perfect nick but without the original box and caps; this makes them a bit cheaper.

RL

[Dave In Vermont]

Perhaps a paper could be written in a psychology-journal on how seeing green lettering on a black background has the effect of clouding a person's mind.

Or not!

I think it's a subjective question, with TeleVue owners leaning heavily to their being worth the added expenditure. But my opinion could be discounted because I own a wide variety of different brands of eyepieces - including TV's. So, for what's it's worth: I find the optics in my TV's to be marvelous. I'm also a big fan of Vixen EP's, I find their 'L' branded one's with a Lanthanum lens element amazing - tack-sharp stars to the edge of the FOV. And then there's my weird Speer-Waler 10mm..... It's performance compares well with a TV Nagler in some scopes. I could go on.

Back when I first started out with an Edscorp 3" F/15 refractor, the usual eyepieces supplied with a scope was likely to be a Ramsden - which was considered a great improvement over the Huygenenian-designs one still encountered. Kellner were the obvious step-up from a Ramsden. People anticipated getting an Orthoscopic or two. Those were like a TeleVue in those days. But most Newtonians back yonder were F/6 or F/8. One never thought of F/4's becomming a serious consideration. Leave alone needing to consider what sort of EP would be the best choice for getting the best out of one visually. Or the current day of considering an EP which had a 100° FOV! There weren't any of those except in some eccentric's delusional mind, the poor things.

So I think you'll really have to be your own judge. Though you might consider buying used at first. Then if you don't like what you get, simply re-sell it and recoup your money and try another.

Happy hunting -

Dave

[seo]

I own 4 of the TV Ethos and none of the Meade MWA so I can't speak about them. The Ethos SX 3.7mm at 110°, and the TV Ethos 8mm, 13mm and 21mm. 

I'm very pleased with all of them and I haven't regret even a bit the purchase of them but as many others said before me beside the technical specs and quality which at least for TV's is one of the best one has to try first and then decide which is better "fitted" for his/her own eyes and wallet...

Clear skies.

[jetstream]

Are they worth it? Yes.

The better ones sky gets the farther they pull away from average eyepieces, particularly Delos/Ethos. The Pentax XW is on par ( some say better) with the Delos and now the Baader Morpheus is on the scene, which are rumored to be very good and in the same league. The Nikon HW is another top tier hyperwide that competes with the Ethos... then there is the diminutive Baader Classic ortho that optically competes with all these, but at a narrow field of view.

My opinion is this: good glass is good glass....and TV is among those who make excellent glass.

[DRT]

Perhaps a paper could be written in a psychology-journal on how seeing green lettering on a black background has the effect of clouding a person's mind.

Yikes! I hope they don't look at my signature

Compared to most here I am relatively new to astronomy but am lucky enough to have been able to try quite a few different ranges of eyepieces including Celsetron X-Cel, Celestron Luminos, Pentax XW, Explore Scientific 68° & 82° and all of the Tele Vue ranges (old and current) apart from Radians. After buying and selling lots of second hand eyepieces (most of which I didn't lose much money on) I decided to go with the Tele Vue Ethos range as the backbone of my EP collection with a few other Tele Vues thrown in to fill gaps. My eyes are not experienced or acute enough to spot the myriad of optical differences between different eyepieces but I can say that the views I get from my Tele Vue eyepieces is spectacular and from the comments from others on this forum I can feel assured that I probably could not have anything materially better. I also get a kick out of owning items that are beautifully engineered and that will last a lifetime so that also factors into my own personal "are they worth it" question.

As others have said this is a very personal decision and there really is no right or wrong answer. My advice would be to pick up one or two good quality second hand TV eyepieces and try for yourself. As Mooonshane has said above you are unlikely to lose money as they hold their residual value very well provided they are well cared for. Having the original box and caps also helps when it comes to re-selling.

Good luck!

[ollypenrice]

Meade systematically and shamelessly copy other manufacturers' designs. (Their SCTs copied Celestron's, their LX90 copied the Questar - not in all its details - and they always copy TeleVue's eyepieces.) TeleVue invented these wonderful ultra-widefeild eyepieces, which personally I love, and if we want them to go on inventing them then I think we should support them. TeleVue also answer the phone and give optical help if you need it. They told me how to sort out a damaged Genesis which I had bought second hand and their advice worked perfectly. To my mind they are a good firm.

Olly

[Roy Challen]

I also agree with most of the comments so far. I would also point out that Tele Vue achieve consistent quality across their entire range, from Plossl to Ethos. So, there is no 'entry level' as with other manufacturers, just smaller field of view.

[alan potts]

Roy,

Never thought of it that way before but your absolutely correct!

Alan

[Cjg]

This is an interesting thread. I was happy with celestron / Meade plossl with my 5SCT. Upgraded to a Tak and saw the difference between a Meade and TV Plossl, so have 4 TV Plossls. Then a friend showed me the view through her Panoptic ( thanks Sam) and now torn between the ES 24mm that is a quarter of the price (after a price drop) and the Panoptic. I know that if I go for the ES I'll be forever wondering, but is the TV worth the 4/5 times the price? And I thought it was just the imagers who had to spend big in this hobby!

Chris

[John]

Well it's not going to be 4/5 times better, nothing ever works like that. The differences are most often slight and subtle. The individual then has to decide whether they value that difference. Each person could well reach a different conclusion !

[ollypenrice]

Well it's not going to be 4/5 times better, nothing ever works like that. The differences are most often slight and subtle. The individual then has to decide whether they value that difference. Each person could well reach a different conclusion !

And it's worth noting that, although small improvements do cost a lot in optics, the other side of the coin is that good - but not premium - optics are now relatively far cheaper than they have ever been.

Olly

[alan potts]

Chris,

I did write a review on the 24mm Panoptic and the 24mm Meade SWA which is the same as the ExSc 24mm as far as makes no difference, it is in equipment reviews. Not in the review itself but i later subjected the 24mm Meade to the F4.3 Dob of mine and it was not very good in my opinion, of course the TV offering was spot on apart from a slight coma at the very edge. In the Meade i couldn't see the coma because of other more serious abberations.

Olly,

Very good point about the cost of the likes of Meade which I paid heavy for about 7 years ago, the 24mm SWA was I believe 169 pounds. the 40mm was 269 .

Alan

[Cjg]

Thanks Alan, I'll check out your review.

Chris