Planetary Eyepieces

[Earl]

I have Televue Plossls which are great but are they the best choice for Planetary observing?

Im not looking to spend a wedge as im not really a Visual type of person however it would be nice to have something that does the job when the urge strikes.

Any thoughts?

Edit: the scope of choice will be my 9.25

[Mr Spock]

A 9mm ortho will give you the sharpest planetary view.

As the scope is f10 you might find the Plössls work quite well compared to other types as the eye relief is still usable , though you only have the choice of 11mm and 8mm if yoy use Televue.

I use Vixen NLVs - as sharp as an ortho but 20mm eye relief. They're a bit more expensive though.

[spaceboy]

BGO's for sure have given me the best planetary views. Comes at the cost of comfort though as the eye relief is tight on them.

[Capricorn]

If you have a reasonable selection of TV plossl' then they will do fine on your scope.

I wouldn't bother swapping them for anything else. If anything else is better then it could be a case personel preference or so small an improvement that you may not really detect it.

Just not sure that you will find anything better to any extent, and it costs money to find out.

[Moonshane]

what you really need is an 8mm Radian (Earl will get this I bought his a while back!).

[John]

I had my best ever views of Saturn with an 8mm Tele Vue plossl and a Celestron C8 a few years back

[Earl]

what you really need is an 8mm Radian (Earl will get this I bought his a while back!).

LOL yeah well needs must at the time

[Moonshane]

deffo mate. we all cash in our chips every now and again.

[part timer]

Too be honest nothing will really beat a televue plossl for planetary, especially if it's for ocasional use.

Orthos such as the Baader give the same quality views but in no way better.

There are of course some 'uber' planetary eyepieces but none are even remotley cheap or easily available.

The only reasons to 'upgrade' on TV plossls for planetary use are eyerelief or field of view for dob users.

In both these cases you would need to sacrifice a little optical quality and spend more cash!

I have a mix of new style and old style TV plossls and love them but the eyerelief issue means I can't bear using anything less than my 10.5mm and even that is not very comfortable.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Another vote for Radians (8 and 10mm). So much more comfortable than the Plossls I had. I recently had a very good view of Jupiter with the 10mm in my C8. Io was visible against the SEB very distinctly. I have never seen a moon of Jupiter stand out so crisply from the disk of the planet during transit (the shadow generally has much more contrast). I am tempted by the Delos 10mm.

[Earl]

This is turning into quiet an interesting read.

I might try out a BGO.

[Merlin66]

If you can find an "original" monocentric, you'll be really impressed with the performance. I have a Ziess 6mm Mono and it puts everything else to shame!

Sure it's like looking down a drinking straw and the eye relief is non existant, but the clarity of the view! Awesome!!

[Mark at Beaufort]

Earl it was great to meet you last night and your observatory set up is very impressive.

To get to your question. As you know I tried out 3 of your Televue plossls last night with the Skywatcher 180 Mak Cass and the view I got of Jupiter was the best that I have seen. Your EQ6 mount kept Jupiter perfectly in the eyepiece FOV so unlike my home setup I never had to touch the scope.

IMHO I would not change your EPs they were brilliant planetary EPs.

If I had a Skywatcher 180 Mak Cass and used a mount without a RA/Dec drive perhaps an EP with a wider FOV

like my Nagler/Ethos EPs would make a more comfortable viewing experience.

Stay with what your have.

Mark

PS - I never told Pam that I now wanted a 180 Mak Cass

[great_bear]

I'm surprised you've not stumbled across one of the most famous Planetary Eyepiece reviews of all time (Daniel Mounsey) here <click> and the follow-up article two years later here <click>

The conclusion reads:

"The Televue plossl represents the pinnacle of the planetary eyepiece world to me, thus making them my favorite planetary eyepieces of all time."

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I'm surprised you've not stumbled across one of the most famous Planetary Eyepiece reviews of all time (Daniel Mounsey) here <click> and the follow-up article two years later here <click>

The conclusion reads:

"The Televue plossl represents the pinnacle of the planetary eyepiece world to me, thus making them my favorite planetary eyepieces of all time."

Not if you wear glasses, they aren't. I tend to disagree with a number of points in both pieces. Opening up the rear of an SCT or Mak when pointing downwards may increase the cooling speed, but it is an invitation to get dust in. I have seen spokes in Saturn's rings with Vixen LV 7 and LV 9mm, and the Radians were sharper when I did a comparison (not much but it was there). They do have a warm tone, but not excessively so. I find the tone also typical for CN, bordering on combative, at times. Anyway, it a a visual comparison, not blind, i.e. by someone who knows which eyepiece he is looking through. I would much prefer quantitative measurements of transmission, sharpness and contrast.

[Damo636]

My single planetary eyepiece is a 6mm Radian and i love it. I have used plossls and orthos and would agree they are very sharp and contrasty but i now prefer the comfort of the Radian to the tight eye relief and narrow fov of the others.

[great_bear]

I tend to disagree with a number of points in both pieces.

I should have referred to it as the "infamous" review rather than the "famous" one, since (as you can see) there are over two years' worth of comments on the follow-up thread

Without meaning to stray too far off-topic, I'd say that - since reading that review - I've discovered the following facts (as opposed to opinions!) about eyepieces, which help explain why reviews are not always helpful:

• Some eyepiece models have changed without notice significantly over time. They may get better or worse, but still have the same product designation, and might have little or no external signs of differentiation.
  
• Smaller variations may even appear within one vintage. For example I have two brand-new 20mm Meade 5000 Plossls purchased together only two weeks ago. They have quite different coatings to each other.
  
• Statements about one focal length in a model's range might not hold true for others in that same eyepiece range.
  
• Atmospheric seeing at critical magnifications changes second-by-second, and these differences dwarf the optical differences between top-quality eyepieces.
  
• The focal length differences between two tested eyepieces need only be minor in order to render the side-by-side optical comparison unfair and invalid.
  
• The performance of an eyepiece in one telescope may be dramatically different to its performance in another.
  
• Price is not always a good guide to performance.
  

[John]

If you can find an "original" monocentric, you'll be really impressed with the performance. I have a Ziess 6mm Mono and it puts everything else to shame!

Sure it's like looking down a drinking straw and the eye relief is non existant, but the clarity of the view! Awesome!!

I have a 5mm TMB Supermonocentric at the moment which were made by a Zeiss sub-contractor. It's eye relief is actually specced as a little more generous than the Baader GO 5mm but the field of view is 32 degrees which makes it "interesting" in use

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I should have referred to it as the "infamous" review rather than the "famous" one, since (as you can see) there are over two years' worth of comments on the follow-up thread

Without meaning to stray too far off-topic, I'd say that - since reading that review - I've discovered the following facts (as opposed to opinions!) about eyepieces, which help explain why reviews are not always helpful:

• Some eyepiece models have changed without notice significantly over time. They may get better or worse, but still have the same product designation, and might have little or no external signs of differentiation.
  
• Smaller variations may even appear within one vintage. For example I have two brand-new 20mm Meade 5000 Plossls purchased together only two weeks ago. They have quite different coatings to each other.
  
• Statements about one focal length in a model's range might not hold true for others in that same eyepiece range.
  
• Atmospheric seeing at critical magnifications changes second-by-second, and these differences dwarf the optical differences between top-quality eyepieces.
  
• The focal length differences between two tested eyepieces need only be minor in order to render the side-by-side optical comparison unfair and invalid.
  
• The performance of an eyepiece in one telescope may be dramatically different to its performance in another.
  
• Price is not always a good guide to performance.
  

Agreed. I would like to add, that if skies allow, spend time looking through the eyepiece, not at it .

Taking time to tease out the details, and to await those fleeting moments of good seeing even a mediocre sky can offer, that is more important than having endless doubts about your kit. In the higher there is only very good to excellent kit.

[John]

Agreed. I would like to add, that if skies allow, spend time looking through the eyepiece, not at it .

Taking time to tease out the details, and to await those fleeting moments of good seeing even a mediocre sky can offer, that is more important than having endless doubts about your kit. In the higher there is only very good to excellent kit.

Great advice Michael

[Earl]

IMHO I would not change your EPs they were brilliant planetary EPs.

Stay with what your have.

Mark

PS - I never told Pam that I now wanted a 180 Mak Cass

Cheers Mark a pleasure to meet you and the Hereford Society ill will endeavour to be a regular as the talk last night was excellent, ill squeeze a day off for a Saturday imaging lecture

I was please with the view, it was the first time I have seen a barge, very interesting how the thin cloud made the view better..