Televue- over-rated??

[Macavity]

...but have never hurled at the eyepiece yet.

Well, I shouldn't start these rumours.

I SENSE, the more you spend on an eyepiece, the more likely it is to conform to it's stated specifications... Apparent field of view (TFov) notably? Though one senses such things are convoluted into eyepiece design, despite back-of-envelope "theoretical" stuff.

In that way, I regret having to "let go" of my treasured, initially-purchased, "precise", standard Vixen Lanthanums. I like the wider field of my Hyperions. But I sense the Delos range (of which I know yet nothing) might be interesting...

[Damo636]

I will never ever never ever sell my precious, sorry my ethos, he he!

Doc

I am currently in the middle of an ongoing struggle with myself regarding a 13mm Ethos

I do believe wide field addiction is even worse than aperture fever!

[Earl]

There is another point, the Celestron 32mm is regarded as a good eyepiece.

Sometimes going from good to very good it can be hard to see the improvements especially where the optics are not been pushed.

[GazOC]

"Fighting talk".

[Nexus 6]

I find it incredible that the odd thread can provide so many passionate views, shame we all can't just forget about the equipment etc and enjoy the beauty and majesty of the Cosmos....the reason I bought a telescope in the first place and something I am not going to forget.

[Steve]

Well said that Man

[spaceboy]

I find it incredible that the odd thread can provide so many passionate views, shame we all can't just forget about the equipment etc and enjoy the beauty and majesty of the Cosmos....the reason I bought a telescope in the first place and something I am not going to forget.

I have to disagree Alan. I think it is good that this debate has arose. Now it has been brought up I am inclined to agree. I think TV are terrible EP's and a total waste of money! The views have been misleadingly hyped up so much by TV PR's and Celestron are far better. Anyone out there that agrees can send me there televue EP's and I will gladly replace them with some amazing Celestron alternatives. I will even go as far as to destroy the TV's free of charge. You can thank me later.

[Damo636]

That's a very gracious offer Spaceboy

[Nexus 6]

I have to disagree Alan. I think it is good that this debate has arose. Now it has been brought up I am inclined to agree. I think TV are terrible EP's and a total waste of money! The views have been misleadingly hyped up so much by TV PR's and Celestron are far better. Anyone out there that agrees can send me there televue EP's and I will gladly replace them with some amazing Celestron alternatives. I will even go as far as to destroy the TV's free of charge. You can thank me later.

well, we can talk about it for 20 minutes and then agree I was right

who else said that?

[rawhead]

Brian Clough

[Nexus 6]

Brian Clough

no one gave quotes better than Brian Clough

[Mr Spock]

The Televue eyepieces I have are excellent - but so are some of my others.

No, the only thing wrong with Televue eyepieces is the fanboyism which surrounds them.

[pvaz]

Get a couple of wide angle ones. Even if they don't please you, you're bound to impress your friends with those beefy grenades!

[saturn4me]

Brian Clough

Didnt know Brian Clough was into astronomy! Mind you his ego was bigger than the cosmos!!

[Orion_the_Hunter]

No, the only thing wrong with Televue eyepieces is the fanboyism which surrounds them.

I couldn't agree more.

I don't doubt that TV eyepieces give excellent views but are they REALLY worth the money?

I have a SW Panaview 32mm which I think is a great ep. I know that at £80 many of you will see that as a budget ep.

But a Nagler 31mm costs £475. SIX TIMES THE PRICE OF A PANAVIEW? REALLY?

That's £400 more for a Nagler. I don't doubt for a second that the Nagler gives much better views but £400 better???

Many people clearly own TV eyepieces for the 'right reasons' and very much enjoy using them. But the TV fanboyism & snobbery is clearly just that to some.

Peace.

[Moonshane]

I generally make the comparison in eyepieces with those in binoculars. you can buy a pair of bins at maybe £100 - £200 that will give excellent views and be very good quality. to make any sort of step up from that you need to be spending perhaps 5x this sum. it's about the fine margins of improved performance or wider fields and in effect the cost spirals due to the labour intensive aspect of making many of these things ever so slightly better; and that's all it generally is. I suspect the time of a qualified optician is not much cheaper than a good car mechanic and I suspect more than 10 hours extra is spent on the higher quality eyepieces compared with the standard ones?

personally it's about getting or at least feeling like I am getting the best optics I can afford so that I make the most of the observing I actually get to do. I am also a bit weird about having them all from the same stable. if I'd originally chosen Pentax, I'd probably have all (or mostly) Pentax now.

I am lucky I bought mine a little while ago as it would at my current salary and personal free income take me about 18 months to save for another Ethos.

[todd8137]

Some people have all the gear,but no idea.does a 400 pound ep make you a better astronomer

[Moonshane]

Some people have all the gear,but no idea.does a 400 pound ep make you a better astronomer

no of course not. why would it?

having a keenness to learn and some equipment with which to do so is not a bad thing either? I have never understood the 'all the gear no idea' slur which seems a little bizarre to me (unless aimed at oneself!). personally I'll always be a novice as I know so little compared to many in this hobby. that said, why should anyone wait to buy gear until they know 'everything'. if you can afford it why not buy good to excellent quality from the start and enjoy the hobby to the maximum possible?

that's always been my philosophy anyway.

[todd8137]

Moonshane it was not aimed at any one to be fair,I spent 11 year in the infantry,I would see new lads come from training depots with 300 pound mag tec boots.now put 100 pound bergans on there backs and the boots did not make them go faster or slower than the guy with 30 quid army issue boots nor did it stop him get in blisters

[pvaz]

I don't doubt that TV eyepieces give excellent views but are they REALLY worth the money?

The short answer is yes.

Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it and there doesn't seam to be a shortage of people buying them.

[Moonshane]

true enough Todd, not faster or slower, but were they more comfortable? in truth (what I think was) your basic point is sound in that an experienced astronomer with average kit will always see more than an inexperienced astronomer with top notch kit. my point was really an extension of that in a way but I feel that buying the best kit from day one is not a shame ridden thing.

I didn't take your comment as aimed at me by the way as I was sure it was not (even though to some extent at least it applies!).

[CGolder]

i am all for not paying other the ods for things.. but premium eyepieces do deliver better perfomance.. fact

its not buying the same product for more money.. its buying a better product more money

when i first started out i wouldnt have noticed the difference but now having tried dozens of different eyepieces in dozens of scopes its easy to see.

[John]

I couldn't agree more.

I don't doubt that TV eyepieces give excellent views but are they REALLY worth the money?

I have a SW Panaview 32mm which I think is a great ep. I know that at £80 many of you will see that as a budget ep.

But a Nagler 31mm costs £475. SIX TIMES THE PRICE OF A PANAVIEW? REALLY?

That's £400 more for a Nagler. I don't doubt for a second that the Nagler gives much better views but £400 better???

Many people clearly own TV eyepieces for the 'right reasons' and very much enjoy using them. But the TV fanboyism & snobbery is clearly just that to some.

Peace.

I really don't see what the problem is or why you appear to be getting so hot under the collar about this.

In virtually every leisure activity I can think of there will be equipment at completely different ends of the budget, the certainly is in photography, angling and cycling to name but 3.

I own a 31mm Nagler and I've also owned a 32mm Panaview and enjoyed them both. The Nagler is not 6x better than the Panaview of course but, like Shane and many others, as my budget allowed, I felt that the modest improvements were worth spending some of my hard earned money on.

When premium equipment is discussed here it's usually pointed out that the performance gains as cost increases get progressively less so anyone contemplating making a large investment should be aware that it's not going to revolutionise the hobby for them.

If anything I think what's showing in one or two posts in this thread is a kind of inverse snobbery

[pvaz]

I think John summed it all very well.

I have friends with top class cars which cost almost as much as a house. To me it does sound a bit like a waste but I'm aware that's because I never really had an interest in them other then going from A to B.

When it comes to astronomy, I do have premium EPs. I know an EP for half price would probably be 95% as good, but I enjoy astronomy and could afford them.

In the end we do what we enjoy while we can. Knowing I'm getting the best views possible out of the scope helps me enjoy it more.

[johninderby]

Why does it so irritate some people that despite the hype Televue Naglers and Ethos eyepieces actually deliver, and not forgetting Pentax of course.

John

P.S.

Or perhaps to some "cras credemus, hodie nihil"