Eyepiece Recommendations within budget

[mcut]

recently bought skymax 127 mak from FLO - so far very good though recent weather not helped.

i have williams optics 9mm eyepiece and the supplied 25 and 10mm that came with the scope.

i was considering buying a barlow but wonder whether i should just get a 7mm eyepiece. with a focal length of 1500mm i did not want to push the scope beyond what it can do. is 6mm too much for it. i thought if i went for 7mm then magnification of x214 would be ok.

as far as what to buy i am trying to stay under £65.00. see Baader ortho's on steve's site and read some other forums saying they are good for planetary observation. would they suit the Mak 127.

just starting out so would appreciate any input.

[Brass n glass]

I find that my Orion Optics 140mm Mak bears high eyepiecing very well and I often use a 6mm Circle T Japanese orthoscopic. The 6mm gives a power of about 330X and that gives very crisp planetary views although with a small field of view. I'm going to buy some Baader orthos, which are supposed to be the best you can get apart from Pentax, which cost more than £200 each, and Zeiss, which are like gold dust. I've never had a Skywatcher scope, but I'm sure the Baaders would work very well in your Mak.

[FLO]

The Baader orthoscopic is an excellent planetary eyepieces and a good match for your Skymax 127. However, below 9mm the short eye-relief can be difficult for spectacle wearers. If that's you, you would do better with a Celestron X-Cel or Meade 5000 series.

[GazOC]

A good, cheap eyepeice for long focal ratio scopes are the Orion/ Skywatcher etc 66 deg Ultrawides. They are not as good as orthos on axis but you get a wider FOV. Just another option....

[KaStern_Former_Member]

Hello mcut,

as far as I know the 127mm Mak has about 1540mm when used with a typical 1,25" diagonal.

Your 9mm gives you 171x, an 8mm 192x and a 7mm 220x.

Based on reflections on light diffraction I would not recommend more than the diameter of the aperture multiplied with 1,5x. That is 190x.

On bright illuminated targets with high inherent contrast like our moon you might magnify even a little bit higher without being disgusted

by diffraction unsharpness.

Your f/12,1 telescope is not difficult for eyepieces, so I recommend good Plössl and Abbe orthoscopics:

7mm Baader or University Optics HD Orthos, 8mm Televue Plössl (the older 7,4mm too) and 8mm Edmund RKE.

All of these will do fine with your Mak.

I do not know the prices in England, maybe one the eyepiece might jump over the 65 Pound mark.

Regards,Karsten

[russ]

Also checkout this range of eyepieces:

http://www.scsastro.co.uk/it120007.htm

I plug them all time simply because I don't think there's a more rounded planetary eyepiece in this price bracket. It's better than the TV Plossls, almost as good as an Ortho on axis and superior to them all off axis. It's offers good eyerelief, comfortable viewing with a 60degree field of view and edge to edge sharpness. Your appreciate the field of view in the Mak.

I've owned the Skymax 127 and it's a great little scope. It will punch above the 50x per inch guide on nights of good seeing. I used mine upto 308x using a 5mm Lanthanum and resolved some nice detail on Jupiter.

That said I would aim for a 7mm eyepiece. That would give 213x and would be comfortable to use on most nights.

Russ

[FLO]

I plug them all time simply because I don't think there's a more rounded planetary eyepiece in this price bracket.

Russ, I know you are a big fan of the Burgess optical eyepiece but have you had the opportunity to compare it with one of these?

[fmeireso]

The Baader orthoscopic is an excellent planetary eyepieces and a good match for your Skymax 127. However, below 9mm the short eye-relief can be difficult for spectacle wearers. If that's you, you would do better with a Celestron X-Cel or Meade 5000 series.

I agree strongly on the Baader ortho's, really excellent eyepieces with excellent contrast and sharpness. But...i realy would avoid Celestron X-cels...

[KaStern_Former_Member]

Hello Russ,

in a night with outstanding seeing conditions viewing the moon with my 200/1200mm Newt

I used just for fun my Televue 3x Barlow and a 4mm UO Ortho: 900x

I was able to focus with the Gerd Neumann helical focusser. But I could not make out anything more on Moon`s surface than using 300x.

All I saw was bigger, edges were rounder, the diffraction unsharpness easily visible.

Some weeks ago I could use the 4mm TMB/Burgess from a friend. I did not like it very much for viewing Saturn because of light scatter.

Viewing Moon was bad due to severe straylight problems. The same problem as with another focal length (I think it was the 6mm).

I preferred my 3x Barlow plus 12mm Edmund RKE to the 4mm TMB/Burgess.

Eye relief of the TMB/Burgess is good, I estimate it to be 16mm or so.

Regards, Karsten

[russ]

That's strange because I had the 9mm and it suffered with none of those problems. Was the 6mm the type 1 'garage sale' version? And was the 4mm an early production model. Only the first batch suffered with a shiny field stop ring which caused the light scatter and reflections caused be a bright object just outside the field of view.

My views of Saturn with ED100 were simply stunning. Sharp, contrasty and reasonably bright.

Never had the chance to use a Meade 5000 Plossl, although I would love too. The specs seem similiar. I did compare it directly with a TV Plossl, Hyperion 8mm, Lanthanum 10mm, Meade 4000 9.7mm and Celestron 9mm Ortho. The Ortho probably did win for on axis sharpness but it's like looking through a very small porthole. It feels restrictive and claustraphobic (if that's possible in an eyepiece). The 9.7mm Meade was simply pants.... And it's a close run thing with the Hyperion and BO/TMB. Just my opinion. But this in-depth review over at Astromart ties in nicely.

http://www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_id=464

Russ

[KaStern_Former_Member]

Hello Russ,

the 4mm was a TS Planetary (clone) and the 6mm a later TMB/Burgess

wich was said to be one where the straylight/glare problem was fixed.

I do not know if the variation is that big between the samples.

I only could use one of the focal length.

Regards,Karsten

[russ]

Ah certainly the 4mm explains things. There's a fair bit about the Telescope Service BO/TMB Planetary clones at the moment....it's plastered in big letters on the Burgess website. My own personal feeling is TS bought up the stock from the manufacturer that Burgess/TMB had rejected. And have now marketed it themselves. Best avoided. Naughty Telescope Service :nono:

But strange about the 6mm. As you say, it should be fixed. The review I linked too noted the below par performance with the 6mm but they hadn't had the chance to test the version 2 6mm.

Regards

Russ

[KaStern_Former_Member]

Hello Russ,

I do not know the background of all this.

So I do not want to comment on it.

I only can say what I saw when I looked through.

Questions that come in my mind:

- Who is the owner of the design?

- Who is the manufacturer?

- Who has a contract with this manufacturer?

- additional questions, but my english is too limited

Regartds,Karsten

[russ]

Hi Karston,

Well Thomas Bach is the designer and he worked with Burgess Optical to come up with the finished article. Not sure who manufactures them but it sounds like a minefield. Some unhappy people, mainly TMB and Burgess.

I was tempted to buy one myself as they appear on Ebay but as it happens they are no cheaper than the original from Burgess.

Regards

Russ