Help me choose best eyepiece for a F7 APO

[kriss13]

After months of reading tones of posts and putting myself up to date with terms and tech, I made my mind on an APO 102/F7 AstroProfesional.

A side note, the guys are testing and collimate all telescopes shipped by them and send a sheet with the results after collimation.. Nice .

I choose this over other types (newt, maks etc) because I am attracted by astrophotography and a fast APO is best (imho).

F7 is not fastest but to combine visual and AP too, will do.

In the meanwhile, I want to learn my way in the sky by exercise the visual side of astronomy (saving $ for the AP gear ).

Also this will be a grab'n'go scope, for visual and astro partys.

I red a lot about EP of various company and builds (TV seems what everybody wants , but I cannot decide what to choose.

I prefer buy one EP at the time, the best I can afford , then another and so on, rather than keep upgrading all the time because I choose to buy a set of less quality.

"I'm too poor, I cannot afford to have cheap stuff"

The candidates (for now):

William Optics SWAN series (4, 7, 16, 28mm / 82 fov)

or somewhat eqivalents:

TeleVue Okular Delos 3,5mm

Tele Vue Radian 6mm

Tele Vue Nagler 17mm

Tele Vue Nagler 20mm

Does it worth the x2 price for TV or the WO is already excelent?

Actualy I prefer if someone could tell me what type of eyepiece (Nagler, ortho, radian,plosl etc) is best for a relatively fast 102/f7 APO, an why is that.

I prefer to focus one one brand (parfocal).

thank you

[John]

I have a 102mm F/6.5 ED scope (Vixen). I use Tele Vue (Naglers and Ethos) for low and medium magnification and Pentax XW's for high powers. The William Optics SWAN's would work well enough with your scope but I think you will see a little distortion in stars at the edges of the field of view. The Tele Vues will be sharp right across the field of view but with an F/7 scope there are other eyepieces such as the Explore Scientifics and William Optics Nirvana's that will be excellent as well.

Are you seeking wide or very wide fields of view or would a more normal 50 degrees be enough ?.

The choice is very large today - almost too many choices !

A budget per eyepiece or overall would help too - it's quite easy to spend more than the scope cost on a single eyepiece !

[brantuk]

Johns overview is very accurate in my experience. I have an f-7 115mm ED appo and for a great "first" high quality eyepiece it's hard to beat the 13mm Ethos which works wonderfully in my scope (and most others). Also consider a Powermate 2x for the best doubler around. If you're looking at the WO range then the UWANS come close to TV performance for a fair bit less money - the 28mm in particular is very a good low power eyepiece.

Edit - you can get some great bargains if you shop second hand - for TV you just have to wait till they come up.

[Capricorn]

The WO eyepieces given are UWANs and will show some distortion towards the edge. Not sure about the UWANs but WO rate their SWANs to f/6.

I have read a few reports that the TV Radians do not perform as well as would be expected. CN gave them a bit of a negative report report and many agreed. I looked at them as a possible step up then abandoned the idea.

To say "the best eyepiece" is not greatly helpful, you will get told TV Nagler, and yes they are good, should be at the cost.

Your list doesn't include ES eyepieces, have you discarded these or not considered?

Do you get on with 82 and 100 degree eyepieces?

Quite a few do not and really the costly ones give wider views and that is what you are paying for.

I stopped at eyepieces that were 70 degrees and now use ones that are 60 degree nearly all the time. Just do not see why I should move my head/eye round to see everything it seems pointless. If you have to move to see things then really the view is too big and really I want to look through the eyepiece and see everything. To see 70 degrees of a 100 degree view just seems a bit pointless.

The AP scope is f/7 so will be good with a good eyepiece but it isn't too fast that it needs excessivly expensive ones. Bet that Celestron X-Cels will be very good in it, and at 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of a Nagler. Also the scope is still a doublet using FPL-51 (sorry but expect a small amount of CA still) and a single nagler is 2/3 the cost of the scope. The Delos is even more expensive, and yes they are good.

Personally I would go for the Celestron X-Cel's and stop there with regards cost, they are said to be better then the BST's here = TS ED eyepieces. I do not think that the improvement of a nagler warrants the additional cost, although yes they will (should) be better, just by how much. Will say that I doubt my eyes could tell any real difference between the two and that is a factor as well.

[Rossco72]

I had an UWAN 28mm and replaced it with a Nagler 26mm. I had both for a short time and the Nagler was simply better. The WO was good though, just to my eye the Nagler seemed less washed out and more defined across the whole field.

F7 isn't particularly fast and eyepieces designed to work down to f3 or f4 may not be needed but whilst I may change some of my scopes in the future I won't have to change my televue eyepieces because they will work in anything..

[Damo636]

Each to their own but when I upgraded from the 28mm UWAN to the 26mm Nagler I felt I gained nothing but a little less weight! Imho, the 28mm UWAN is one of the best low power widefields out there. I also owned the 7mm Nirvana (identical to the UWAN) and it was also very nice, sharp edge to edge in the f5.9 scope I had at the time.

Another low & wide to consider is the ES 30mm 82°. At f7, I can guarantee it will perform as well as a 31mm Nagler and give magnificant widefield views in your apo.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm as big a Televue fan as the next and have a few of them but I just feel at f7, some of the cheaper alternatives will perform almost, if not equally as well as the much more expensive premium brands.

[kriss13]

I have a 102mm F/6.5 ED scope (Vixen). I use Tele Vue (Naglers and Ethos) for low and medium magnification and Pentax XW's for high powers. The William Optics SWAN's would work well enough with your scope but I think you will see a little distortion in stars at the edges of the field of view. The Tele Vues will be sharp right across the field of view but with an F/7 scope there are other eyepieces such as the Explore Scientifics and William Optics Nirvana's that will be excellent as well.

Are you seeking wide or very wide fields of view or would a more normal 50 degrees be enough ?.

The choice is very large today - almost too many choices !

A budget per eyepiece or overall would help too - it's quite easy to spend more than the scope cost on a single eyepiece !

The choice is for quality and performance but for 10% increase in performance I wont spend 50%-100% more $.

That is why I 'm considering WO, Baader and other brands.

Wide is what I prefer (70*-82*) but if 50* is better for something specific I'll consider it.

I will borlow these 4 starters, until I will fill the gap with more EP.

The barlow will be 2x.

The buget is 600~800 euros.

I found a EP set by AstroProfessional identical to WO

(all range of 4, 7, 16, 28 @82* fov)

Are they identical (branded) or there is something inside much cheaper?

Any opinions about how Baader measure against WO? (wide)

[kriss13]

To say "the best eyepiece" is not greatly helpful, you will get told TV Nagler, and yes they are good, should be at the cost.

Do you get on with 82 and 100 degree eyepieces?

....

Just do not see why I should move my head/eye round to see everything it seems pointless. If you have to move to see things then really the view is too big and really I want to look through the eyepiece and see everything. To see 70 degrees of a 100 degree view just seems a bit pointless.

"Best" meaning I don't want to start buying and selling over and over again to go up.

There is no ultimate but there are some which are regarded "best" or "preferred"

I agree about wide field, that's why the range is 70-80 fov.

[kriss13]

Budget is 600-800 E for these 4 starters

(why cannot I edit my posts?)

[kriss13]

I'm open to other brand on close to this class or close (WO, TV, etc)

Just to spell their name in full (at first), I'm not used with all abreviations yet

[nytecam]

A budget per eyepiece or overall would help too - it's quite easy to spend more than the scope cost on a single eyepiece !

Crazy

[crazyjedi]

I can vouch for the quality of ES and Meade EP's and my TV Radian is one of my most used EP's but if you want the best it is probably a toss up between Televue (Ethos, Delos and Naglers are raved about) and Pentax XW's.

[kriss13]

I can vouch for the quality of ES and Meade EP's and my TV Radian is one of my most used EP's but if you want the best it is probably a toss up between Televue (Ethos, Delos and Naglers are raved about) and Pentax XW's.

I know those are good EP, but I still cannot correlate specific build (Ethos, Delos ,Naglers...) with the focal of an EP.

For instance I see Radian 7mm and Ethos 7mm....

So in this case for 7mm EP which one provide the better view (regardless the FOV) in terms of contrast, light transmission, various aberrations toward the edge etc.

@nyrtecam

Actualy an Ethos of 17 mm is close to my scope price..

[crazyjedi]

The Delos and Ethos ranges are probably the best of the Televues with regards to contrast and aberration free views. On a par with them in many peoples opinions is the Pentax XW range (some people in fact prefer the Pentax XW to the Ethos / Delos)

I think that trying to split EP's of this sort of quality on performance isn't easy and may come down to personal preference in the end. After all everyones eyes are different.

[kriss13]

The Delos and Ethos ranges are probably the best of the Televues with regards to contrast and aberration free views. On a par with them in many peoples opinions is the Pentax XW range (some people in fact prefer the Pentax XW to the Ethos / Delos)

I think that trying to split EP's of this sort of quality on performance isn't easy and may come down to personal preference in the end. After all everyones eyes are different.

You might be right, in this class they are pretty close in terms of performance...

Maybe I'm thinking too much of it, when in fact I may simply choose by price or personal preference

I realize after your replays (BIG thank you all:)) that I cannot go wrong with any of these sets (the difference is so minor I might not even notice

I'll sleep over it for a little while and I will take the plunge.

Big thank again to all.

ps. excuse my spelling, I'm not English.

[John]

Please let us know what you go for and what you think of it.

Your spelling is great

[kriss13]

Well... I found this package.

How are these Baader compared with those discussed above (quality / optics / viewing)?

Lower, higher , on par....

thx again

[John]

Well... I found this package.

How are these Baader compared with those discussed above (quality / optics / viewing)?

Lower, higher , on par....

thx again

They are a little better than the WO SWAN's but won't be as sharp at the edges of the field of view as the other eyepieces discussed in this thread.

If you had an F/10 scope I'd recommend them but at F/7 I'm a little hesitant.....

The Hyperions are nicely designed and made though and comfortable to use.

[Rossco72]

WO swans are really not that great. The UWANs are WOs best eyepieces and the super planetarys are good but the swans are pretty average (I've owned them all!)

[kriss13]

I wonder if performance/ build of AstroProfessional clones are identical to WO SWAN.

Anyone got the chance to compare them?

[kriss13]

They are a little better than the WO SWAN's but won't be as sharp at the edges of the field of view as the other eyepieces discussed in this thread. If you had an F/10 scope I'd recommend them but at F/7 I'm a little hesitant..... The Hyperions are nicely designed and made though and comfortable to use.

WO swans are really not that great. The UWANs are WOs best eyepieces and the super planetarys are good but the swans are pretty average (I've owned them all!)

I wonder if performance/ build of AstroProfessional clones are identical to WO SWAN.

Anyone got the chance to compare them?

I meant UWAN, (not interested at all in SWANs)

soryyyyyy

So,

UWAN vs Hyperions

UWAN vs their clones from AstroProfessional (coz AsPro are cheaper)

ps, still cannot edit my post..weird, any clues?

[crazyjedi]

I meant UWAN, (not interested at all in SWANs)soryyyyyy So,UWAN vs HyperionsUWAN vs their clones from AstroProfessional (coz AsPro are cheaper)ps, still cannot edit my post..weird, any clues?

The Difference one letter makes is quite big in this case. UWANs = reasonably well thought of. SWANs = not so good by comparisonI'm not sure about which would be better out of the Hyperion and the UWAN as I think my scope would be too fast for either of them and hence I've avoided them both

[kriss13]

The Difference one letter makes is quite big in this case. UWANs = reasonably well thought of. SWANs = not so good by comparisonI'm not sure about which would be better out of the Hyperion and the UWAN as I think my scope would be too fast for either of them and hence I've avoided them both

Apparently my spelling is not that good... or I need some sleep

I'm thinking of UWAN (clones) instead of much expensive TV or WO.

I just hope the clones from AstroPro are as good as WO counterparts.

[Moonshane]

Unfortunately I think asking which is the best eyepiece is like asking which is the best scope or the best car. They all have different best purposes. E.g. you would not use a Ferrari to go off roading.

For me the best eyepiece I have if the 26mm Nagler. It's just superb in every single way. However, I'd not use it to view the moon or double stars. For this is I have TV plossls and BGO orthos, the latter of which give the sharpest and most apparently neutral colour of any of my eyepieces.

I have a 13mm Ethos but would never use it on the moon as it's just not suited to my eyes anyway. for wide field views of globs and other targets though it's sensational.

I have Radians and these are excellent too giving comfortable eye relief and yes, a slightly yellowish tone to the view but it's very sharp and flat.

My advice would be establish what sort of collection you want. My logic was a bit like this (I use manual dobs for aperture and one on an eq platform for hogh power):

Low power - decide using criteria in the following order optical quality, exit pupil, field of view, magnification

Medium power - optical quality, field of view, magnification

High power - optical quality, magnification

Very high power - optical quality, magnification

I ended up with a set that will cover all my scopes pretty much for ever (although you always wonder what else you should buy):

32mm TV Plossl

26mm Nagler

15mm TV Plossl

13mm Ethos

12.5mm BGO

10mm Radian

9mm BGO

8mm Radian

7mm BGO

6-3mm Nagler zoom

You'll note how closely packed they are at the top end to allow me to make use of the changing seeing at higher powers. I can reach 613x with this set up (no barlow). If I could only choose four it would be 26mm, 13mm, 10mm and 6-3mm

[kriss13]

@Moonshane

What I meant was the best eyepiece for a particular job (planets, moon, DS) taking into account my F7 scope (see title), because fast scopes require a bit different EP than slow ones.

(Also title length cannot accommodate all I meant:)

The main concern was that I would use the wrong EP suitable for other scopes (fast vs slow)

I saw EPs the same FL (ex. 7mm) but different technologies, so I figured that only a particular EP will offer a good performance for my scope.

Your list is good for all the scopes you have, but which one (if all) is good for mine?

I hope I brought some light now about "best AP".

I'm a junior in this hobby so things might get messed up in my heat because of the sheer information I try to learn.

Clear skies