Another eyepiece thread..I know...I know

[Chubster]

I know this has been asked many times but can I have your thoughts.

Looking to get a good set of eyepieces but not wanting (allowed) to spend Televue, Pentax prices

I currently own

Celestron 32mm Not sure which one doesnt look like any of their current ones

Skywatcher 25mm - came with newt

Meade 4000 12.4mm

Skywatcher 10mm - came with newt

Meade x2 #126 Barlow - thinking of getting the Celestron Ultima (is it worth me getting any higher than x2)

Is this a good range of eyepieces ? Also I read somewhere that an f/10 SCT is much more forgiving to cheaper eyepieces than an f/5 Newtonian. Is this the case ?

Because I am [removed word] would prefer the EP's to be the same brand but again open to suggestions.

Now please don't get all technical on me (unless you really have too) just your unbiased views wanted.

Cheers in advance

Chub

[Andrew*]

I think a good option for you would be to sell all of those except the barlow (I believe that one is pretty good) and go for this: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=revelationepset

that should do you wonderfully for the time being...

Andrew

[GazOC]

A f10 isn't very fussy over eyepieces, the Tevevue Plossls are reasonably priced and are very good or did you want something with a wider FOV?

You've got a good range there, I'd probably go with a ~7mm as well for moon/planets (or you could Barlow the 12mm Meade).

[Chubster]

Gaz I dont know about the wider FOV. Is their a sacrifice for FOV over quality?

Andrew. I dont think there is a good range. ie 20mm with barlow is like the 9mm... 32mm with barlow like the 15mm. But again open to be told differently

Cheers Chub

[GazOC]

Gaz I dont know about the wider FOV. Is their a sacrifice for FOV over quality?

Not really at f10, they just tend to cost a bit more.

[Chubster]

Not really at f10, they just tend to cost a bit more.

hmmm what does a bit mean?

[FLO]

The Revelation eyepiece set is better than you think. I loaned one to the NLO to try in their scopes. At first they were dismissive as they normally use a Meade SWA eyepiece set. But, when they did eventually try them, they were surprised at how good they are and ordered two.

I recently bought myself the Meade Super Plossl eyepiece set and am very pleased with them. All parfocal and all offer 60 degree FOV 8)

Both sets leave a gap for your existing 26mm.

As for a Barlow, the Celestron Ultima barlow is head and shoulders above Meade's #126.

<edit> You will need a 2" diagonal if you opt for the Meade set - probably a good thing anyway as the regular Celestron 1.25" diagonal isn't great.

[Chubster]

Cheers Steve...not saying the Revelation arent any good they just seem to be all a little close especially when coupled with a barlow. The Meade set brand new are a little out of range at the mo....saving for a GOTO dont you know

[Chubster]

After spending the best part of the afternoon looking on the web I seem to keep coming back to the Hyperions or the Meade 5000's. The only thing that concerns me with the Hyperions is their modular design. Ie Are you paying for something that you might not use. I read this on another site

" By removing the 1.25" barrel with the first group of lenses you turn the Hyperion eyepiece into a 2" wide angle eyepiece with the standard M48 filter thread. A much lower magnification and larger true field of view is the result. You should know that the optical quality suffers by this, though! The eyepiece can then be used as an eyepiece for finding objects, but is not recommended for regular observations."

What do you think?

Will both work brilliantly in my scope and will they barlow well with the Celestron Ultima?

Cheers for the help

Chub

[FLO]

Wide-field lenses have (sort of) a barlow built in so whilst you can barlow them, it isn't what the designer intended. Simpler designs such as Kellners, Plossls and ortho's (Gaz will probably throw something at me for saying that!) work better with barlows.

[Chubster]

Sort of had the Meade's nailed down in my head ......then

Wide-field lenses have (sort of) a barlow built in so whilst you can barlow them, it isn't what the designer intended. Simpler designs such as Kellners, Plossls and ortho's (Gaz will probably throw something at me for saying that!) work better with barlows.

:D Now I dont know what to do....HELP please HELP...Im going insane :?

[FLO]

At 60 degrees FOV and 5-6 elements, the Meades are not super-wides so barlow nicely (the Hyperions are 68 degrees with 8 elements). I probably should point out that I have never tried barlowing the Hyperions, its just not something I do with eyepieces of that type. Perhaps someone else has and can comment?

[russ]

Well i've just come from the garden and picked up this thread. Would like to pick from where Steve left off regarding the Hyperion.

Does it work as a 2" eyepiece.......Not really! That review was absolutely right. It could be a finder eyepiece but not an observational one. If I bought that as eyepiece I would be very upset indeed, probably just throw over the fence, it's that bad.

With it's barlow element in, working at it's native focal length, it's a really good quality eyepiece.

Barlowed....not so sure. Was just doing a comparison between the barlowed Hyperion equiv to 10.5mm, the 10mm Plossl and the 9mm BO/TMB. In the Revelation 80ED there's not a hint of false colour while viewing Saturn with the Plossl and BO/TMB. But with the Hyperion things are not so good. The barlow is a Celestron Ultima, one of the best around and works brilliantly with the BO/TMB. So does the blame lay at the door of the Hyperion? Perhaps it's the double stacking of barlows?

I think the Hyperion is great eyepiece that's laden with a bunch of half baked features.

Russ

[Chubster]

Cheers Rus.....BO/TMB never heard of those...where do you get them and do you know how they compare with the Meade 5000's.

Chub

Ps Is that my barlow your using

[russ]

Never used a series 5000, so can't say really. But I know they get rave reviews, so must be good.

It's a Burgess Optical/TMB Planetary Series to give it the full name. SCS Astro is t

As for performance, I'll say this.

Tonight I placed Saturn in the centre of the field, focused it perfectly. The view was sharp and contrasty. I then moved Saturn into the extreme edge of the field. Still sharp, no lateral colour and no field curvature.

Ortho or Plossl have more light throughput. It's also impossible to beat the Ortho value/perfromance ratio. Just viewing comfort ranks very low on the list.

[FLO]

Chub,

Why not wait until the Star Party when you will be able to see through a number of eyepieces.

[Chubster]

Not sure if I am able to make it. All depends on the new shop.

It's means using SCS Astro and a lot of people have a problem with that

Got to ask. Why?

[GazOC]

Wide-field lenses have (sort of) a barlow built in so whilst you can barlow them, it isn't what the designer intended. Simpler designs such as Kellners, Plossls and ortho's (Gaz will probably throw something at me for saying that!) work better with barlows.

Barlowing WHAT???????? Philistine!! :D

[FLO]

:D

[Chubster]

Have I missed something

Barlowing WHAT???????? Philistine!!

but previously you said this

I'd probably go with a ~7mm as well for moon/planets (or you could Barlow the 12mm Meade)

what gives. :?

[GazOC]

Nothing serious Chubs, I'm just not a big fan of barlowing orthoscopics (or barlows in general for visual use TBH). They are good eyepeices because they only have 4 glass elements, why add a Barlow and add another 2 or 3? Defeats the object IMHO, they are cheap enough (~£20 S/H) that you can just buy a (say) 6mm instead of Barlowing a 12mm.

[Chubster]

OK now we are getting somewhere SO this is now my plan. First going to get Baader ortho 7mm from Auntie. Take it these are good ones and will work well in my scope. Then get a couple of the Meade 5000's.

Any apparent immediate flaws in that plan ?

Cheers

CHub

[GazOC]

The Baaders are very good, I can't really see any 'immediate flaws in the plan' . The way I did it was to buy two sets of eyepieces, orthos and Hyperions (most of the orthos were cheap secondhand). Horses for courses and all that!

I only bought the Hyperions because I got a 14" Dob and the FOV/ eye relief on the orthos is too small for a ~1400mm focal length Dob. The Hyperions are nice eyepieces but on a RA driven scope I'd have been quite happy sticking with the orthos.

[russ]

Why not wait until the Star Party when you will be able to see through a number of eyepieces.

That's the best advice. Try out the eyepieces first at the star party and then decide.

You'll also need to choose the high power eyepiece carefully. The C8 will handle just about anything thrown at it but the British skies won't. For Most nights the seeing will only allow for 200-220x, which means a 9 or 10mm really hit the sweet spot in the C8. No need for a barlow. For the whole time I owned your C8 I only used my trusty Celestron 9mm Ortho or the TMB 9mm.

I had a 6mm Ortho and a 5mm Lanthanum too but they never really got used. Image scale improved but at the expense of image quality.

Russ

[FLO]

... a 9 or 10mm really hit the sweet spot in the C8. No need for a barlow. For the whole time I owned your C8 I only used my trusty Celestron 9mm Ortho or the TMB 9mm.

The nice thing about a 9mm is the way it offers a near ideal 1mm exit pupil when used with an 8" f/10 SCT. I don't pretend to understand the physics but a 1mm exit pupil is said to match the resolving power of the telescope to the resolving power of your eye.

If anyone can explain why that is the case, I would be grateful...