2" 32mm Eyepiece v 1.25" 40mm Eyepiece

[dcwales2012]

Hi,

Are there any benefits / disadvantages in getting a 2" Barlow with a 35mm Eyepiece, against a 1.25" 40mm eyepiece, or even the 32mm 1.25"; already have a TAL 2x Barlow (best buy ever).

[Peter Drew]

David. You will get a wider field of view with a 2" fit 35mm eyepiece , the fields of the 1.25" eyepieces are somewhat restricted by the smaller tube size in the longer focal lengths. To Barlow a 2" fit eyepiece you will of course need a 2" fit Barlow.

[rwilkey]

Hi David, I agree, the 2" 32mm like a Panaview would be a great addition to the focal ranges, however, I have found it futile trying to Barlow at this range, even with a SW 2" ED Barlow, if you are going for low power, there is no real benefit in Barlowing them, it just doesn't work.

[Moonshane]

a 1.25" 32mm generally shows the same field as a 1.25" 40mm often has 40 degree field and a 32mm 50/52 degree field.

I agree that you should forget barlowing any 32mm eyepiece. even a 1.25" 32mm will give over 2 degree field of view in your scope and would be a lot cheaper than a 2", with no need to rebalance your scope.

[swamp thing]

HI David

I'm going to go slightly against the grain here, I do like Barlowing big 2" eyepieces myself. They are much more comfortable to use than 1.25" equivalents. Having nice big eye lenses to observe through makes for a very pleasant way to observe IMO. Yes they're heavier, and yes you will require some counterweighting but its a small price to pay for comfort if you ask me.

[Moonshane]

I'd agree on 'powermating' 2" longer focal length eyepieces but I find the increased eye relief bad enough on the 32mm 1.25" used as it is and would this not be even worse with a barlow?

[sologuitarist61]

Ummm, I wish I could upgrade most of my EP's to 2" versions, but the costn would be too much I fancy.

[dcwales2012]

Hi Guys,

Thank you very much for the advice.

I might go for the cheaper option of the Skywatcher Kellner 2" 35mm as an experiment, to see if it gives me any benefit before looking at the Panaview.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I had a 40mm Celestron E-Lux (1.25") EP a couple of yrs ago. Honestly the worst EP i have ever used (i bought it second hand and used it once before selling it on). The FOV was so narrow it was like looking down the cardboard tube of a roll of tin-foil.

[dcwales2012]

Paul,

I thought Celestron EPs had a reasonable reputation on here, I'll certainly stay clear of this one.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Celestron is a fine make. Just look at my signature to see most of my scopes are Celestron. The 40mm (1.25") E-Lux EP was just horrible.

As i said (did i say it?) the best EP i have ever used was a 32mm Celestron (came in the EP kit). Its the same EP as a 32mm GSO.

But dont dismiss a 30mm Vixen NPL (1.25"), very nice and contrasty.........................good price too.

[John]

....I might go for the cheaper option of the Skywatcher Kellner 2" 35mm as an experiment, to see if it gives me any benefit before looking at the Panaview.

The problem is that Kellners will not work well with your F/5 newtonian - the outer half of the field of view could be pretty messy and put you off 2" eyepieces. In my view the Panaview is the lowest cost 2" wide angle eyepiece that gives decent (but not perfect even then) performance in faster scopes.

[DirkSteele]

I might go for the cheaper option of the Skywatcher Kellner 2" 35mm as an experiment, to see if it gives me any benefit before looking at the Panaview.

I would encourage you not to do that. Fast telescope optics always test eyepieces, and a kellner is really going to struggle. They come from a time when telescopes were basically all long focal length, small aperture refractors. It would be a shame to colour your view of 2" eyepieces. I have many and love them. Despite the excess weight on the back of the scope, I will often use my Televue Powermate with them.

[dcwales2012]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to go for the Panaview then. I'll get the misses to buy it for my birthday - not long to wait. At my age perhaps one should not wish the days away.

[rwilkey]

Hi Paul, I concur on the 40mm E-Lux, like looking down a tube, the 32mm Celestron Plossl is much better as you say, a good clear crisp image, and great for wide sky study.