What's the worst eyepiece you've ever used?

[Mr Moff]

I was just wondering what your most hated eyepiece is. Or if you've ever bought an eyepiece that was a big disappointment?

Kind of a thread of which eyepieces to avoid.

I've had such great advise on here that so far I've been happy with those that I've bought, so the only one I didn't like was the skywatcher standard 10mm.

[Dipper]

I also disliked standard SW eyepiece, 9 mm and 50 degrees FOV. Another one that was in the kit was better. I believe it was 25 mm. I haven't bought EPs that disappointed me though.

[miguel87]

never bought anything really bad, but the SW 3.6mm was a bad idea.

[RikM]

Nothing wrong with the eyepiece but it just didn't suit me at all was a 6.4mm Meade 4000 plossl. Gave it away in the end.

[swamp thing]

Meade QX 26mm, absolute litter.

[Moonshane]

it was not particularly bad but I expected more from the Televue 8-24mm zoom as they had put their name to it. i sold it within 24 hours of buying it and bought two used Radians (14mm and 18mm for use in the powermate I had) for a little bit more money.

[E621Keith]

The 6.4mm Kellner that came with my first scope was quite bad, but the all metal build is much better than the plastic eyepieces that is supplied with today's scope.

[sam mayo]

not keen on the sw standard 10mm to claustrophobic!!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

A "Huygens" 8mm that came with a cheapo 4.5" F=500mm scope from Konus. Awful quality, not even sharp in the centre, let alone at the edge of its 25 deg FOV.

[Spec-Chum]

Can 25 deg even be described as an FOV? Would it be SOV (Straw of view)?

[JamesF]

Celestron 4mm Omni for me.

James

[John]

I've used a few "dogs":

Celestron Omni 4mm (a per James)

Meade 26mm 2" QX (supplied as standard with a Meade Lightbridge)

Skywatcher LER's - the earlier thinner bodied range

I'm also not a fan of 1.25" 40mm plossls generally. The 43 degree FoV combined with long eye relief reminds me of looking down a well with a little puddle of space at the bottom of it !

[coulthamst]

I bought a 100 degree 16mm eyepiece. Although there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it, I couldn' t come to terms with the field stop only being reachable (on the opposite side only) by moving my head by a considerable amount sideways. Others may not be unhappy with this, but to me it felt like I was peering round the edge of the viewing ring in an uncomfortablw manner, and I eventually sold the eyepiece on. Has anyone else felt this way over ultra-ultra wide eyepieces?

[John]

..... Has anyone else felt this way over ultra-ultra wide eyepieces?.....

Not really. I've always loved the immersive "pool of stars" effect that ultra wide field eyepieces give. For me the 100 degree EP's do this in spades. It's got to be a sharply focused pool for me though.

Moving ones eye to see around the field of view is an old technique that Nagler users developed.

That said, it's not going to suit everyone by any means and there are plenty of great non-ultra wide eyepiece choices available

[JamesF]

I'm not sure I like the idea of having to move my eye around, either. For that reason I'm far more inclined towards the 82 degree eyepieces than the 100 degree models.

James

[Moonshane]

personally I prefer the Nagler field but when you don't have to strain to see the field stop. my 26mm Nagler is good in that way. I have a 13mm Ethos and love it but don't even try to see the field stop, just see a view without a limit effectively by staring straight ahead into the eyepiece.

[Stu]

I agree, why strain to see the field stop, just enjoy the view!

Stu

[Alma]

Nagler 4.8mm. It was my first Televue eyepiece and I bought into the hype somewhat, however this is a very early MK 1 Nagler design and the eye relief is virtually non existent - in fact I found it just about unusable. It was inovative at the time it first came onto the market, but wouldn't cut the mustard these days. Having said that, I've owned plenty of Televues since and loved them all.

[johninderby]

Another vote for the 4.8mm Nagler. Most unpleasant eyepiece to use I've ever encountered. Almost negative eye relief if that were possible.

Bought one and got rid of it a week later. The eyepiece that taught Televue how not to make eyepieces.

John

[Andrew*]

Another vote for the 4.8mm Nagler. Most unpleasant eyepiece to use I've ever encountered. Almost negative eye relief if that were possible.

You mean you have to push your eyeball through the eye lens to see the edge of field! That sounds uncomfortable!

My shortest-lived eyepieces in my collection include:

- 16mm William Optics UWAN. Was great in my ED120, but just didn't cut the mustard in my 16" Lightbridge, which is what I'd bought it for. It may be surprising to see this very popular eyepiece in this thread, but the field was surprisingly appalling in the LB!

- 26mm Meade QX. Got with the Lightbridge - again, just nowhere near good enough to show a sharp field at f/4.5.

- 21mm Orion Stratus - supposedly the same as the 21mm Hyperion, but with 68° FOV. Not a great FOV though at f/5 at all.

Andrew

[alan potts]

Worst, no doubt Meade 26mm QX and they sent it out with dobs for years. It really was I don't think they still make it, Rubbish!!!!

Interesting to see a Televue eyepiece getting a drubbing, Nagler 4.8mm, no wonder they only attract small money.

Alan.

[alan potts]

You mean you have to push your eyeball through the eye lens to see the edge of field! That sounds uncomfortable!

My shortest-lived eyepieces in my collection include:

- 16mm William Optics UWAN. Was great in my ED120, but just didn't cut the mustard in my 16" Lightbridge, which is what I'd bought it for. It may be surprising to see this very popular ey

Andrew,

Funny to read this, John who I consider to be as clued up as anyone on site on eyepieces rates these UWAN's fairly high, wonder if you had a duffer?

Alan.

[Andrew*]

I think the 16mm UWAN is the least of the UWAN series, by a small margin. The 28mm UWAN I owned at about the same time was excellent in the Lightbridge. I don't believe John ever tried the UWANs in an f/4.5 scope, which is a tough test for any eyepiece. I think the UWAN becomes very good above f/5, but like many start to fail below that point.

Like I said, it was very impressive in my f/7.5 ED120, and as far as I'm aware, the subsequent owner was not overly dissatisfied!!

Cheers

Andrew

[John]

Andrew is quite correct - I've not used the 16mm Nirvana / UWAN in a scope faster than F/5.9. F/4.5 would be a much sterner test. I've read that the 16mm is the "weakest" of the series too but one noted reviewer on Cloudynights found it difficult to tell it apart from a Nagler T5 16mm in the dark. That was in an apo refractor though so not that fast a scope. Personally I liked the eyepiece and, with hindsight, I'm not sure the extra £'s I forked out to move to a 16mm T5 Nagler was money well spent. But F/5.9 was my fastest scope at the time.

Worst, no doubt Meade 26mm QX and they sent it out with dobs for years. It really was I don't think they still make it, Rubbish!!!!

Interesting to see a Televue eyepiece getting a drubbing, Nagler 4.8mm, no wonder they only attract small money.

Alan.

The Meade 26mm QX is a classic case of "all that glitters is not gold" in my view. It's a well enough finished eyepiece and the coatings look good. The astigmatism in the very scopes it is supplied with plus it's very odd focal plane position really let it down though.

I still have a soft spot for the 4.8mm T1 Nagler as it was the first Nagler I ever owned. The T6 5mm that followed it was a noticeable improvement though in many areas.

It's interesting that Roland Christen of Astro Physics fame still uses a 4.8mm Nagler to do critical testing of his companies apochromatic refractors.

[RikM]

Cotswold AS have recently been donated a 4.8mm T1 Nagler but I have yet to (try and) look through it. I suspect with its tight eye relief and large field that I won't like it very much. I am one of those who prefer 60-70° over 80-100°.