Televue- over-rated??

[Donkeiller]

Just bought a Televue 32mm Plossl. Looks nice and has "heft", but what about actual performance?

Did a back-to-back comparison with a bog-standard Celestron eyepiece kit 32mm Plossl.

Looking at objects like M45, Double Cluster I could not see ANY improvement in view, extent of field of view, off-axis aberrations etc. etc.

Have to say I am distinctly "underwhelmed" by the TV eyepiece.

Since I do not want to take a loss on the TV, the Celestron is up for sale.

£20 for an eyepiece that delivers Televue performance can't be bad!

[Ben Ritchie]

I'm guessing from your signature that you're using it in a f/10 SCT or f/7.5 refractor? 'slow' telescopes are very tolerant of eyepieces, it's really faster than f/5 that you see the difference between TV (+Pentax, etc.) and the lower-cost options.

[Space Beagle]

Blimey! Are you trying to start a fight!

Stand by for some TV fans to put you straight!

Doc

[Moonshane]

if you get a chance, try them both against a faint target and even with those scopes you may see a difference. as Ben says though slower scopes will be less revealing than faster scopes.

in truth though, the differences between TV Pentax etc are small when compared with decent brands like Celestron. It's the usual law of diminishing returns of optics I'm afraid.

I buy TV (and BGOs) to ensure I get the best from my scopes when conditions allow. I think a short look will not demonstrate why so many people like them.

you buy them and buy them once (until you sell them and swap for something else of course).

[CGolder]

Hello Don,

i compared the rev plossl to the TV one and i kept the Rev and sold the TV with no loss... i think the plossls are the least value for money over the GSO Plossls.

As others have said when you get to wider fields and view and faster scopes, you will see more of difference

[Donkeiller]

Don't get me wrong the view is fine in the TV Plossl. The issue for me is I thought the TV would be noticeably better than the Celestron. It's not.

So why do all the reviews I read (and did read before buying) sing the praises of TV above all others?

Not wanting to be different from the crowd?

I'm a Northern Git- I say it as I find it.

[John]

If Tele Vue are over rated, they have managed to "take in" many thousands of observers worldwide including some of the most experienced there are.

I can completely accept that their characteristics don't suit some people though and there are some nice alternatives around.

As has been said, in an F/10 scope the difference between a decent 32mm plossl like the Celestron (which I think is made by GSO) and the Tele Vue 32mm plossl will be very subtle at most.

[Donkeiller]

If Tele Vue are over rated, they have managed to "take in" many thousands of observers worldwide including some of the most experienced there are.

I can completely accept that their characteristics don't suit some people though and there are some nice alternatives around.

As has been said, in an F/10 scope the difference between a decent 32mm plossl like the Celestron (which I think is made by GSO) and the Tele Vue 32mm plossl will be very subtle at most.

And in an f7.5? Which is what I used.

How low do I have to go?

[John]

And in an f7.5? Which is what I used.

How low do I have to go?

If you don't like em Don, don't buy em

They are designed to be sharp across the field down to F/4 and are all quality tested by Tele Vue prior to sale - maybe they missed yours ?.

[ronin]

On an SCT at f/10 probably no noticable difference on things like a cluster, maybe a bit more contrast on a nebula or galaxy. But they are not exactly well defined to start with.

Difference may be seen when it is put on an F/5 newtonian.

A lot of the following for TV plossl's is that their QA is such that a bad one is rarely heard of.

Bit like cars, a Mondeo will travel round the M25 in all probability for the next 5 years, so will a BMW. But one is better then the other even though they can do identical jobs.

[johninderby]

The TV Plossls are OK but in a slower scope they aren't going to be much different to many other eyepieces. However in a fast scope they will show a difference. Most of the TV Plossls aren't that expensive and are in a similar price range to Celestron X-Cel LXs, WO SPLs etc. so don't expect them to blow away other similarly priced eyepieces.

However once you get to the Nagler and Ethos eyepieces then you'll see what all the hype is about.

John

[Ben Ritchie]

So why do all the reviews I read (and did read before buying) sing the praises of TV above all others?

Across the range, it's when you put eyepieces through the most demanding of tests (fast focal ratios, and wide fields of view) the TV eyepieces perform like few others.

Under demanding conditions the difference between a poor-quality ultrawide and a Nagler is immediately visible towards the edge of field, and apparent on-axis too. When it comes to Plossls, there is less in it - in this case the difference lies in the quality of the coatings, the glass used, overall quality control, and the general manufacturing standards. Those are subtle differences, but visible under careful observation.

[dweller25]

"Televue- over-rated??"

No.

[brantuk]

At f7 you're in the "mid-range" as far as scope speed goes. Hang on to the TV plossl in case you ever get a faster scope - you'll notice the difference then. Mean time at f7 and above you won't necessariy see a marked difference.

[cs1cjc]

There are a number of plus point to the Tele Vue plossl over other products:

it is a known (patented) design which has been produced consistently for many years;

it is good in telescopes as fast as f/4 as are all Tele Vue designs;

although it is manufactured in the far east (like almost all eyepieces), Tele Vue check every eyepiece so quality should be consistent;

Tele Vue provide a service for product repairs.

Tele Vue have a reputation to protect! Whether this is worth the premium is up to each buyer to decide for themselves

[rawhead]

I wouldn't notice any difference at F7.5 (47 year old eyes )

My 32mm Celestron was a great EP.

That said...

I don't think their 100 degree EPs in an F4.7 are at all overrated.

[ollypenrice]

We have a big but optically modest f4 20 inch Dob. The difference, in that, between TeleVues and cheapos is simply enormous. Using the TVs is like having a coma corrector in place. Using cheapos the view borders on the queezy and makes me feel uncomfortable.

I did buy a TV Plossl to compare with a Meade 3000 and in good optics there is only a small improvement. Move up to a widefield TV, though, and the difference really shows.

I'm on the record as saying that modern budget optics run the posh stuff close and that stands, for me. However, I have a box of TVs and you'll see none for sale.

Olly

[Ben Ritchie]

The great thing about eyepieces of course is that there's such a strong element of personal preference and tolerance to aberrations, so if the Celestron Plössl works for you, that's all there is to it

At f7 you're in the "mid-range" as far as scope speed goes.

In general terms I agree, but for a relatively narrow AFOV eyepiece like the Plössl f/7.5 is pretty undemanding.

it is a known (patented) design which has been produced consistently for many years

The Plössl dates back to the 19th century, so it's not patented any more (if it ever was) - that's why the differences in a true Plössl are purely manufacture and materials, not design. There are plenty of eyepieces that get called Plössls without actually following the design though (and the TV one might be, I don't know), it has become a bit of a catch-all name for eyepieces in the 50-60 degree AFOV range (and even less, in the case of the 1.25", 40mm design)

I'm on the record as saying that modern budget optics run the posh stuff close and that stands, for me.

Me too.

[Donkeiller]

So what eveyone seems to be saying is

1) Don't bother with a TV Plossl unless you have a "fast" scope.

2) If you buy a super expensive Pantopic, Nagler, Ethos etc. you are bound to get the "wow" factor.

Excuse me if I don't join in "Songs of Praise"

[WayBig]

ooh now that's put the cat amongst the pigeons

(try posting a thread with the same title on cloudy nights )

[Earl]

No your missing the point.

A Televue Plossl will work to a very good standard from F4 upwards, and that is why you pay a little more for them, this allows the eyepiece to be functional in many scopes from slow Luna and Planet targeted Mak, SCTs and refractors to wide field Newts and refractors.

Then when you want to kick up a gear and go for more then the Premium Eyepieces come to the field.

As many observers have multiple scopes it make sense to purchase eyepieces that will perform well in all scopes.

Are you now a well fed Troll?

[spaceboy]

Hi Donkeiller. Plossl is the EP design so to buy another plossl you would gain nothing other than the coatings used by a different manufacturer. While the differences would be subtle at best, in a slow scope they would near impossible to distinguish (as you have found) I'm sure your disappointment would have not been so obvious if you have chose a different design like the Nagler or Panoptic. Please forgive me but I don't understand what difference in views were you expecting ?

[Merlin66]

Back in the 1980's I did about ten years of visual super nova searching using a 12" f5 Newt.

I started with UO Ortho's which I thought were pretty good... then I bought my first TV plossl. To me the difference was meaningful. better contrast, better field definition and about 0.3 mag in limiting magnitude. This got me down to +15.5 - just 20 Km from the centre of Melbourne. Since then I've managed to add to the collection....now, they are better than my eyes ever will be. But I did manage recently to split the double double with a 10.4mm TV at x48....not bad.

I'm sure some of the more recent eyepieces are pretty good, but for me..why change?

[Donkeiller]

On an SCT at f/10 probably no noticable difference on things like a cluster, maybe a bit more contrast on a nebula or galaxy. But they are not exactly well defined to start with.

Difference may be seen when it is put on an F/5 newtonian.

A lot of the following for TV plossl's is that their QA is such that a bad one is rarely heard of.

Bit like cars, a Mondeo will travel round the M25 in all probability for the next 5 years, so will a BMW. But one is better then the other even though they can do identical jobs.

Interestingly the one brand new car I ever bought was a BMW.

Again I was underwhelmed by a "premium" product.

A subsequent second hand Renault and my current VW proved more reliable and in the case of the VW- better built.

[Donkeiller]

ooh now that's put the cat amongst the pigeons

(try posting a thread with the same title on cloudy nights )

I have- to similar squels of protest.