Ags

Makes sense - the eyepieces don't exist - they are probably just ghosts in the TS machine.

Time to dust off this thread. Weirdly there are still no reports online of anyone using these. Very weirdly they only seem available from TS in Germany. I am thinking hard about getting the older ES 4.7 and 8.8, but would love to know how these compare... I'd probably go for the non-LER eyepieces, simply because they are bit lighter, their excellent quality is well known, and I am so happy with their 6.7 sister. Maybe that's how everyone feels.

I fall asleep by trying to fill the slots in my eyepiece case. 12 slots currently containing three eyepieces, so many choices. I'm asleep before I fill the final row.

How can you hate Mars, the bestest of all planets? My astronomy life life is centered around Mars oppositions...

Gosh that's bright! Where is it? Is it naked eye? EDIT: I am now educated: http://aerith.net/comet/catalog/2020F3/2020F3.html

Once upon a time I was on a German retailer's site and the browser's "translate page" function was switched on. I couldn't understand why the site was selling Reverse Waiter eyepieces!

Logicons!

When I started in the hobby, I did find the subject of "super" Plossls very confusing. But I did have a strong sense that an eyepiece with "super" in the name was unlikely to be better!

Good point - I guess they don't use emoticons on Vulcan.

It's a beautiful image, regardless of noise. I quite like the foreground stars.

Welcome to the forum! For DSO imaging on a HEQ5, a smaller scope is a better choice (because it would be easier on the mount and less focal length makes tracking easier) so the 150 would be my choice over the 200 for that. For planetary imaging the 200 would be better as it offers better resolution, and planetary imaging can tolerate poorer mounting. For visual DSO and planetary observation the 200 would have a slight edge - giving 33% more magnification for the same brightness (i.e. a nebula will be the same brightness but slightly bigger). I have owned a 150 PDS and it is quite large already. Another thing to think about is that a Newt on an EQ mount can be a bit awkward for visual use - the eyepiece can get into awkward positions.

Hanging in my home office now, reminding me to rise above human emotionalism...

When I moved to a fast scope I sold the Hyperions. But they worked very well in slower scopes.

I used to use the fine tuning rings a lot with a Hyperion 17mm - to get down to 9mm for viewing Jupiter. It gave really great views. I would "tune" the eyepiece for the planet season then "untune" it for the rest of the year. So not too much fiddling with the optics. The Hyperions make really nice planetary eyepieces in slower scopes.

Well, I found a new home for my Nirvana 16 - or, more accurately, a new home found my eyepiece. So I am pivoting away from thinking about SLVs to plugging my new gap in the 16mm mark. So I have started the hunt for the 16mm and 20mm Explore Scientific 68 degree eyepieces.

There is tons of detail to see in a Mak 102 let alone a 127. Just be aware the colors and banding are very subtle so take your time to examine what you are seeing, and wait for the air to momentarily stabilize. Getting critical focus can be a challenge with Jupiter, my technique to get best focus is to focus on the moons not the planet.

Not sure I agree, especially after my collection of Hyperions encountered my shiny new F5 Newt a few years ago.

Berlebach Castor: TS AZT6 for travel compared to the Castor: AZ GTi with very cheap counterweights: Hmmmmm... I have three mounts and only one tripod 😕

No need to apologise @John, people can only give their honest opinion as you did. I read lots of opinions and went with the consensus. And on some nights the eyepiece does deliver great views - lovely views of the moon at 94x for example. It's a bit of a mystery really. It seems when I am looking AT something the eyepiece is great, but when I am looking FOR something I find it frustrating. I bought the eyepiece for finding rather than for looking, hence my overall assessment. I think in finder role my attention is off axis, and the Russian link does indicate the Nirvana struggles away from the center of the field. What I keep coming back to is that the Explore Scientifc 24/68 performs perfectly in all my scopes including the ST80 despite having a far larger field stop. I wanted the Nirvana to replace it as a finder as the ES is optically perfect but the exit pupil was too large for my location. I know the ES 24/68 is really very, very good and many eyepieces would suffer in comparison. Once again, don't apologise - I always find your contributions informative and entertaining! It's a big responsibility putting one's thoughts online about an eyepiece or other item, but the community depends on people sharing their experiences - or we would only have the word of retailers and manufacturers. I am not anti the Nirvana series as a whole, I am toying with getting the 4mm as the shortest focal length in my collection - at that magnification 82 degrees field might be more practical than 45 degrees.

@Ricochet that's a great link - and it looks like the NLV eyepieces score really well and I guess SLVs would be similar. I can't see TMB clones in the list unfortunately.

Oh, I have tried! The Nirvana 16 has been in an ST80, Skymax 102, C6 at F10 and C6 at F6.3 (with flat field). It behaves consistently in all of them. ...And then on some nights it gives phenomenal views of the moon. Can eyepieces be subject to tidal forces?

I am very short sighted and I have presbyopia too.

I know I am in the minority. It's either my eyes or my eyepiece. I should have sent the Nirvana 16 back at the time, but I really wanted to like it.

@John I am thinking of our contrary feelings about the Nirvana 16mm. You say it is comparable to the equivalent Nagler, while I find it unacceptable. I suspect the reason may be my eyes are unable to compensate for the field curvature.

I do find eyepiece reviews so difficult. We can't see through other people's eyes. I also think the 4mm shootout I linked to above is limited by the high magnifications being used. I don't know what the seeing was like, but the reviewer does acknowledge that 4mm was pushing it on the night.