MetroiD

Tak LE 5mm. Helped me stop regretting the sale of my Meade UWA 5.5mm, and that's no mean feat.

Thank you for your kind words! The way I look at the 30mm UFF is more or less like a first cousin to my current collection of Morphei. With the longest FL among those clocking in at 17.5mm, I can't really say I need an additional EP between that and the 30mm - however if I were at any point to add one, it would certainly be the 24mm UFF. Funnily enough, "uff" in Bulgarian is just a grunt you'd normally utter in annoyance. Thankfully, my stargazing mates still haven't started getting annoyed at the amount of praise I keep throwing at this EP - all thoroughly deserved. All things considered, I can safely say that the extended German family of Morphei + UFFs should provide stellar stellar views (bad pun intended :P) in any Newtonian. And as a sidenote - in a quite literal 'pound for pound' aka 'bang for your buck' matchup, sadly I'd have to say the Myriad would be a non-starter.

Whoa... guess I'm a bit of an outlier here. I currently own 9 eyepieces - if we're counting the TV Barlow. Those should soon become 8 though - I expect I'll be moving on an XW 10 in favour of keeping my Morpheus 9mm tucked in with his brothers in the line-up. I'm missing the Morph 4.5mm and 14mm but I don't really think I'd have any use for the latter and have instead opted for a Takahashi LE 5mm in the low-FL range. Add to that an APM UFF 30mm and the venerable RKE 28mm for public outreach and that's really it. I'm ashamed to say... I don't think I'd like to / need to have any more EPs! 🥴

@Louis D, I was comparing my 16mm Nirvana UWAN with the Meade 5000 UWA 14mm, i.e. the "new" version. At one point, I owned the 5.5mm, 8.8mm, 14mm and 24mm iterations in this line, all of the 5000 type. I must have kept the 14mm for about a week, that's how unimpressed I was with this EP. The 16mm Nirvana had definitely set the bar pretty high. As a sidenote - I've replaced all of the above EPs with a line-up of Morphei with the odd addition to the family here and there.

I used to own the Nirvana 16mm and I was very surprised by how much better than the Meade UWA 14mm it performed in my f/4.9 10" scope. Contrast in particular was noticeably better which I would not have expected considering the eyepiece's price (and, respectively, the potential to be faced with subpar coatings). In my book, the Nirvana EPs are great quality for the money with the 16mm in particular one of the best wide field 1.25" EPs on the market.

I recently had the opportunity to put these three side by side. Considering their TFOV is almost exactly the same, I was slightly surprised by my findings so I thought I'd share with you guys. tl;dr: The APM UFF 30mm is bloody amazing. Meade's 24mm UWA was the very first widefield EP I purchased almost as soon as I'd laid eyes on this holy hand grenade of an eyepiece. And I did learn to love it - much more so in my bottom-heavy 12" flex tube dob than the smaller ones that preceded it - but I was always bothered by its ergonomics (which had admittedly attracted me in the first place). The widefield 24mm was in regular use as my lowest-magnification "seeker" eyepiece - but then earlier this year the EP itch saw me grab an APM UFF 30mm from Germany - which coincidentally was the direction in which the Meade later departed. But not before I'd had the opportunity to test these two side by side and confirm that the much newer design in APM's UFF series trumps Meade's variation on the Nagler. Field curvature was present as a shift in focus in the outer ~10% of the field in the Meade even when simply looking at star fields. With a clear target in sight, things did seem a tad better, no doubt due to the UWA's rather engaging 'spacewalk' view. However, when the same object was seen through the 30mm UFF, things immediately looked much crisper and yes, even more 'exciting'. I know that the latter is a poor marker for any eyepiece's performance but it's still part and parcel of the whole starry skies experience. Colour transmission in the APM was decidedly more neutral and contrast was on a different scale altogether - apart from the fact that the field was... well, ultra flat - there's a reason they called it that. Regardless whether I was looking at random star fields, larger targets (think M31), clusters, nebulae or the moon, the results remained unchanged. Better design, better optics and definitely better coatings - the APM won hands down. Shortly after the 30mm UFF had carved itself a firm place in my EP case, I stumbled upon a 100-degree Skywatcher Myriad 20mm. Buoyed by the fact that my flex-tube telescope had already proven it had a way with heavy eyepieces, I jumped at the opportunity - especially seeing as I'd been casting glances at the rebranded APM XWAs for a while. By the time I could take my two lowest-magnification eyepieces out for a spin, the Hercules Cluster was high enough to provide a wonderful arena for the battle between the UFF and XWA's ancestor-of-sorts. Considering how it cost almost twice as much as the UFF (both used), I was looking forward to amazing feats from the Myriad. I aimed my f/4.9 reflector at the Hercules cluster and was half-expecting something along the lines of an Obsession Telescopes ad. In went the 600-gram EP - but my jaw remained very much undropped. I had already peered through a 21mm Ethos at that point so I knew what 100 degrees looks and feels like but on this occasion, I was immediately transported to the feeling that my old 24mm Meade used to give me. Very nice indeed - but still a performance that could be upgraded upon. The UFF readily revealed a much more crisp layout within M13, and I felt as though I was even seeing more stars within the globular cluster. By the time my eyes had gotten used to the improving conditions, I was already convinced that the lightweight UFF was the one to keep. I tried a quick glimpse at low-lying M31 - not a good view by a long shot so neither eyepiece seemed to perform particularly well. Clearly though, the UFF showed better transmission. 9 elements in 6 groups for the Myriad vs 9 elements in 5 groups for the UFF - apparently, it does make a difference in terms of transmission so it would be interesting to see actual values on this. Curious to find out whether there was any discernible field distortion with either, I then started randomly starhopping and taking in the widefield views. I still wanted to be amazed by the Myriad but kept confirming that, in this telescope, the UFF was simply superior. In the end, the Skywatcher/OVL EP didn't drop my jaw - but it definitely made my head spin quite a bit. That night I'd driven about 40 minutes away from home to enjoy better viewing conditions- but by the time I decided to call it a night, I was so nauseated by all the starhopping that it took me about two hours before I could finally crawl into bed. Lesson learnt the hard way: "floating in space" is not all it's cracked up to be. A few months later, I had the opportunity to test the Myriad vs the UFF once again, this time in a 14" f/4.3 Newtonian. As I'd expected, the field distortion I'd already sensed in the 20mm Skywatcher was far more discernible. But what sealed the deal for me was the view of M57. In the UFF, despite the very low magnification, the Ring Nebula almost showed some level of detail. The 20mm Myriad should have made for a much clearer view given its 50% increase in magnification vs the 30mm - but I just didn't feel like I was able to see any more detail than with the UFF. After this session, the Myriad found a new home - along with my 12" dob. The featherweight UFF's performance in the rather quick f/4.3 truss tube convinced me that I could get away with using my current EP collection without a Paracorr - so we quickly made friends with the 14" scope, and by the looks of it, my 30mm APM has cemented its place as my go-to widefield EP. Overview Conditions: Bortle 4>3 skies Observer: no issues w/ vision, don't wear glasses Telescope: 12"/305cm f/4.9 Newtonian; later 14"/350cm f/4.3 Newtonian Focuser: Omegon Monorail Steel track Corrector / Barlow: None Filter: None Specs for each eyepiece based on 12" Newtonian parameters: Meade UWA 24mm: AFOV 82 / 78.7 arcmin; magnification 63x; exit pupil 4.9mm; eye relief 17mm; calculated field stop 34.3mm Skywatcher Myriad 20mm: AFOV 100 / 80 arcmin; magnification 75x; exit pupil 4.1mm; eye relief 15mm; calculated field stop 34.9mm APM UFF 30mm: AFOV 70 / 84 arcmin; magnification 50x; exit pupil 6.9mm; eye relief 22mm; calculated field stop 36.7mm Meade UWA 24mm: + Cheap(er than the other two) + Very engaging views + That big cloak really does its job well and helps find / retain the perfect eye relief ? Decloakable - you could slim it down if you're so inclined - Very bulky and heavy - Noticeable field curvature when compared to more modern designs - Can get greasy: Meade have gone slightly overboard with the oil on the cloaking mechanism Skywatcher Myriad 20mm: + Huge field of view + Great eye guard - I've always been a fan of twist-up rather than fold-up, especially with such big EPs - The sheer size of it - Some field curvature - nothing too dramatic considering the AFOV. - Pricey and hard to find - long lead times when new, a rare Pokemon on the second-hand market APM UFF 30mm: + Brilliant, sharp and engaging view + Light transmission and contrast on par with the best EP's I've ever used + Ergonomic: light and compact EP, great fit for truss-tube dobs + Quite affordable given its performance

I too got super lucky with mine so don't think I'll ever part ways with them - I use a Lumicon OIII (the 'good' retro type) and a Lumicon UHC, both 1.25". I also own a 1.25" Meade ND96 filter for moon viewing. The first time I saw M42 through the Lumicon OIII, my jaw completely dropped. An absolute top-notch investment for all visual observers. I also used to own a Celestron E/P set that came with a bunch of colour filters - can't say I was particularly impressed with any of them. Only suited for planetary / lunar work, and they'd only deliver marginal improvements, at best. Based on the replies in this thread, I'm now definitely on the lookout for a Baader Contrast Booster for planetary work -- and I have been mulling over the idea of an H-Alpha for quite some time now but not sure if it would make much of a difference for a strict visual observer such as myself. A quick note on UHC and OIII - yes, the lower magnification, the larger the exit pupil, the better the filtered viewing. Generally, I've found that I prefer to use the OIII on the lowest possible 1.25" magnification (in my case, 17.5mm which gives me 86x), while the UHC filter can also work with higher magnifications - I've gone as high as 8.8mm / 170x but ideally I'd stick the OIII to my 17.5mm Morph, and the UHC to the 12.5mm one. Perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, to my eye the UHC seems to present finer details in the brightest parts of nebulae, whereas the OIII really allows for dim and delicate details to shine through.

Other than the OVNIs, is there an alternative to NV monoculars? I'm interested in giving EEVA a shot (strictly for visual, not astrophotography) - but certainly not at these list prices...

First off, congrats on your incoming 102mm ED! As to your question... I purchased my first set of binoculars, Olympus DPS I 10x50, in the summer of 2013. Can't say I did much stargazing even though that was the idea initially - until one amazing night I looked straight across from my balcony and saw M42 in colour, observable with the naked eye from the heart of the city - green, pink and everything! The magnetosphere was really putting on a show that night. Half a year later, I'd enrolled in an MSc programme in Astronomy which I loved to bits. In 2018, I bought my first telescope (8" dob). Three years on, I can honestly say I feel pretty happy with where I'm am - but only in terms of "having", not in terms of "knowing". It seems that more I read up on stuff, the more I realize how little we understand about the essence of it all. More importantly though, what this has given me is a lovely network of friends that I love spending time with - not just under the stars. Back to the "having" part - my current gear is based around a 12" f/5 flex-tube dob and comprises of three Morphi & an APM UFF for DSO / moon, Taka LE 5mm + Meade 5.5mm + a TV Barlow for planetary, as well as a Lumicon OIII + UHC and a Baader ND96 filter. I've also added another set of binos - of course, once again 10x50, this time a Pentax SP - for those stargazing nights in far-off lands that I'm dreaming of in the not-too-distant future, once my daughter grows up some more. I've done a fair share of buying & selling, especially seeing as I live in a country where visual observers are few and far between, and certainly don't regret any step I've taken. I can't really say I have a 'holy grail' that I'm really after either. Maybe an OVNI intensifier tube? But then again, that's really more out of curiosity than necessity: I actually enjoy driving my astro-friendly car to dark sites (except when I hit potholes and destroy tyres, that is... don't ask). So... yeah, I actually do have pretty much everything I need - and can't wait to share it even more in the future!

Optically, they're the same eyepiece. Ergonomically, the eye guard makes quite a bit of difference. The "new" soft guard is rather annoying and falls off (yes, off the actual eyepiece) way too easily. The "old" variation might look cumbersome, but it works quite well. I've used Nirvanas with both and, as far as I'm concerned, I definitely preferred the twist-up eyeguard.

Second-hand Nirvanas are indeed a rarity - I've had luck there but it depends on what FL you'd be looking for. 4mm? Doable. Anything other than that? "All signs point to Nope," as Nopestradamus once famously said. The 16mm was one of the very few EPs I bought brand new, and I never regretted it for a second. The fact that I sold it on within a day of listing it for about 90% of the purchasing price I had paid speaks volumes about just how sought after these are - and how well they work with all kinds of different scopes.

With a 150p, I'd be wary of heavy EPs - and that might unfortunately include the Morpheus line, depending on just how much you'd be bothered by the issue. The ES82 line, on the other hand, is much more of a safe bet, if not quite as engaging a view as the Morphs. That, and the Nirvana OVL line, would definitely get my vote - which is only fair since those were pretty much the EPs that comprised my first E/P line-up! My experience with the above: the 16mm Nirvana was a good friend (if rather cumbersome at times with a flimsy eyecup that would fall off every other night and set me off on an expletive-ladden rubber hunt in the pitch dark), as was the ES82 8.8mm. I swiftly moved on the ES82 6.7mm though since I liked the Meade 5000 UWA 5.5mm so much more: that would definitely get my vote as a brilliant planetary EP; it's been well documented how much it punches above its weight. If you want to go down the thrifty route, you could consider Celestron's X-Cels, as well as Edmunds Scientific's RKEs, with the latter being very much an open secret - relatively cheap and rather cheerful; deliver more than you'd bargain for - and they also barlow rather well too. Didn't keep any of my X-Cels but I don't think I'd ever sell the RKE 28mm. Also - and I'm playing the devil's advocate here, I know - I just thought I'd mention that the first ultra wide-field eyepiece I bought for my first scope (200p) was the Meade UWA 24mm which weighs in at close to a kilo - and looks/feels like it too! Takes a bit of tightening on those handles - but the views were always worth it... A final word of advice - make sure you invest in a nice, reliable collimator and a set of Bob's knobs. Often times overlooked but easily the most crucial piece of the accessory kit.

Of course, it's clear that 4mm vs 5mm provides a significant step up in magnification which does substantially alter what the observer would "see". Other differences include the marginally better Exit Pupil with the LE - which is also due to the increased magnification - as well as 5 elements with the LE vs 6 with the TOE. Also, I'm not sure the TOEs use the Masuyama design - I distinctly remember their type being described as "Planetary" in DonP's Buyer's Guide to Eyepieces.

This comment brings me to a question that's been on my mind for some time now... I sold my Nirvana 4mm to finance the purchase of a Takahashi LE 5mm - fortunately, I managed to track down a Tak pretty swiftly. However, I've always wondered how my LE would compare to the 4mm TOE - not least of all because I still haven't moved on my 5.5mm Meade 5000 UWA... One could say that viewing at such high magnification in my 12" flex dob won't be a regular occurrence -- but in all honesty, I did find much use for my 4mm UWAN eyepiece. Of course, ever since the Takahashi LE arrived, conditions for planetary observation have been subpar at best. So - can anyone share their viewing experience in terms of comparing the TOE to the LE E/P lines, especially the LE 5mm vs TOE 4mm?

So much about Black Friday deals 😕