plossls in slow scope

[The Flinty Fox]

I've read lots of discussions on this topic so i am aware that this is old ground but i just want to be clear about this. Are slow scopes much more tolerent on less expensive eyepieces (plossls) than faster scopes say up to f4? So for example there will be less need to use eyepieces such as televue plossls on my f/14 mak90 than less expensive plossls such as meade 4000 or skywatcher plossls and similar?. I am not suggesting televues are not worth the money only suggesting that my scope will perhaps maybe more likely get away with not requiring televues, in other words there will not be a great deal of visible difference, not that i'm ruling out ever buying them. Is this an accurate assesment?

Any feed back on this will be much appreciated, thanks.

flinty:icon_scratch:

[John]

At F/14 the Tele Vue advantage will be hardly noticable, if at all. GSO make good plossls as an alternative to Meade / Skywatcher.

[The Flinty Fox]

Thanks for that John. I have a SW 20mm on order but had a look at the GSOs and the 15mm looks good so might get that next. I also have a Vixen 10mm NPL which a brought so that i could directly compare it with the 10mm MA that came with the mak90. I am not very experienced at astronomy but i thought that i might attempt a mini review at some time, you never know somebody might find it useful.

Cheers Flinty:icon_salut:

[John]

.... i thought that i might attempt a mini review at some time, you never know somebody might find it useful..

I think that would be great

Actually trying to compare things like eyepieces makes you observe more carefully, rather like trying to sketch what you see does.

Plus whatever your views are will be of interest to others facing a similar decision

[A McEwan]

In fast scope (f4) one of the adbantages of the expensive Plossls such as TeleVues will be better edge performance. However, that is not the only advantage that TV Plossls have over their cheaper counterparts. Their coatings, glass, design and production, as well as quality control may all be better.

In a slow scope (f14) it will be virtually impossible to tell the better eyepiece if you're only comparing edge performance, but I'd bet that subtle other pointers may still show up. Especially when making critical observation of fine planetary detail.

Which is not to say that all "cheaper" Plossls are inferior! I too have read that GSO are up there with the best, as are Antares, and they both cost a lot less than TeleVue (although I'm not so sure about Antares now as I can't find an advert for them).

The Meade Series 4000 Super Plossls are slightly less costly than TV, but also have very good perrormance, especially if you can find the older Japanese models rather than the more recent Chinese ones. They seem ot have a tad more sharpness and clarity.

I recently picked up an old TeleVue 10.4mm Plossl and being reintroduced to the sharpness and detail when viewing through it was a real joy. That said, my Meade S4000 32mm Plossl and TAL 25mm Plossl are both excellent performers too, and would have cost a bit less than the TeleVue when new.

Enjoy the comparisons,

Ant

[andrew63]

I have some of the old TV plossl - and they really show up the limitations of these popular new types of 6 element lens bst burgess celestron etc. they are so much sharper and let in so much more light.

andrew

[Merlin66]

When I started out, many years ago, one of my mentors said that with slow telescopes ie f10 or so you could use the bottom of a Coke bottle as an eyepiece and still get good images!

At f10 and above things are very forgiving.....

(Never did around to trying the Coke bottle though..)

[The Flinty Fox]

Thanks everyone but i'll stick with the cheaper ones for now the televues are rather expensive. No doubt i will try them at some point when i'm not quite so poor.

Don't have a coke bottle will pepsi do:)

Flinty

[andrew63]

What you have will serve you well!

andrew

[John]

The Vixen NPL's get good feedback and seem good value for a very reputable brand:

First Light Optics - Vixen NPL eyepieces

[Moonshane]

you can get used TV plossls for about £45-55 so not too bad. BUT in my 6" f11 scope I was surprised that an extremely cheap and nasty 20mm eyepiece inserted into a very budget barlow gave an image not too far away from a 10mm Radian. I agree with others though that better quality will not only work better in faster scopes (I predict you will eventually buy a faster scope) but also provide a more detailed, contrasty view on closer inspection even in a slow scope.

[The Flinty Fox]

Good news everyone, at least for me. I have just received my new SW 20mm plossl today and as the weekend forcast is good i will be hoping to do a double comparison of the SW 20mm and my vixen 10mm npl. The object of the exercise is to compare the SW 20mm with the 25mm which came with the scope (SW mak90) and the 10mm vixen with the 10mm which came with the scope.

Cheers.

[andrew63]

Hope it stays clear for you - the vixen are nice.

andrew