Cheap Vs Expensive

[JamesF]

Those 10mm SW EP's are very variable in their quality. Mine was particularly bad but others have had better luck.

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't the fundamental problem with the SW EPs. My 10mm SW kit EP and barlow were shockingly bad, but others have said theirs are not so awful.

James

[omahaastro]

I think your comments do pick up on the subtleties which explain the cost of some of these eyepieces. Namely the Radian... which is (was) of course all about eye relief... viewing comfort. Obviously some folks are going to appreciate this more than others.

As for TV's Plossl's... let's face it, they're just filling in a gap in their product line... ie the 'affordable' eyepieces. I'm sure there's an audience out there that yearns for a Televue... but isn't ready to shell out the cash for a Nagler, much less a Panoptic... so they opt for the Plossl.

Also, under a pristine sky, when chasing the truly faint fuzzies/delicate details, there are folks who appreciate the modest improvement in contrast/sharpness/etc... and are willing to pay a premium to get that little extra boost.

[bingevader]

Excellent review!

I understand the Fiat/Cayman analogy, but we're talking accessories here, not the motor itself.

If I've bought the Rolls-Royce of telescopes, then it makes sense to buy the Rolls-Royce fluffy dice to go with it.

If I've bought Dell-boy's Robin Reliant then regardless of how good the accessory is, it's still only going in a Robin Reliant!

I have a SW 200p at £280, I won't ever be buying a Nagler starting at £265!

The 200p is no Robin Reliant, but I'm sure you understand the analogy.

Cheers

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Excellent review!

I understand the Fiat/Cayman analogy, but we're talking accessories here, not the motor itself.

If I've bought the Rolls-Royce of telescopes, then it makes sense to buy the Rolls-Royce fluffy dice to go with it.

If I've bought Dell-boy's Robin Reliant then regardless of how good the accessory is, it's still only going in a Robin Reliant!

I have a SW 200p at £280, I won't ever be buying a Nagler starting at £265!

The 200p is no Robin Reliant, but I'm sure you understand the analogy.

Cheers

I do not quite agree. I bought a cheap 4.5" F=500mm Konus reflector as a wide-field instrument years back. It came supplied with Huygens 9 and 20mm "eyepieces" (plastic, horrible). Before buying I asked if I could try my Vixen LV 9mm (an expensive EP at the time) in the telescope, just to check out the quality of the mirrors. The shopkeeper agreed, I inserted the Vixen LV, and compared it to the supplied 9mm EP. I also showed the shopkeeper the difference, and his jaw dropped. The difference was HUGE!! I find many fairly run-of-the-mill scopes (in particular Newtonians), fare very well with good EPs. A Newtonian has just two surfaces to get right, this is comparatively cheap. EPs by contrast, have at least four optical surfaces, which need to be matched carefully (this goes up to 8 in Plossls and Orthos, and 12 and more in more complex designs). Moreover, telescope speed is more important when it comes to choosing good EPs that the precise figure of the mirror. A fast newt needs better EPs than a top class catadioptric at F/12 or F/15.

[John]

I have to disagree with bingevade as well.

The eyepiece is a more complex optical device than the scope and contributes a great deal to the quality of the view which is only as good as the weakest component in the chain. They are not just an accessory - they are 50% at least of the optical system that will deliver the views to your eye. The telescope is just a light gathering / focusing device really.

Using mediocre quality eyepieces does not enable your scope to delivery all it can. By all means don't spend £hundreds but do go for proven optical quality such as good plossls and / or orthoscopics.

Don't cripple the potential of your scope by using poor or mediocre eyepieces.

[nightfisher]

I have to disagree with bingevade as well.

The eyepiece is a more complex optical device than the scope and contributes a great deal to the quality of the view which is only as good as the weakest component in the chain. They are not just an accessory - they are 50% at least of the optical system that will deliver the views to your eye. The telescope is just a light gathering / focusing device really.

Using mediocre quality eyepieces does not enable your scope to delivery all it can. By all means don't spend £hundreds but do go for proven optical quality such as good plossls and / or orthoscopics.

Don't cripple the potential of your scope by using poor or mediocre eyepieces.

Excellent post John, its like getting a decent turbo diesel car and running it on paraffin (dont do this)!

[JamesF]

its like getting a decent turbo diesel car and running it on paraffin (dont do this)!

Absolutely not. Heating oil is cheaper

James

[cantharis]

If I've bought Dell-boy's Robin Reliant

Depite the public perception to the contrary, Dell-boy did NOT have a Robin Reliant. Dellboy had a Reliant Supervan III - the van version of the Reliant Regal - I know because I owned one too. The Robin came later.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Whenever Reliants are mentioned I have to think of the Top Gear episode, and Mr. Bean, of course.

[cantharis]

Whenever Reliants are mentioned I have to think of the Top Gear episode, and Mr. Bean, of course.

Oh yes, loved Mr. Bean !

[DaveS]

Glad I found this thread as (As I've posted elsewhere) I'm finally getting my old 8" f/8 Newt up and running again, so I'll be needing a few new EPs.

Unfortunately due to budgetry constraints cheap is all I can afford, so maybe a couple of Meade 5000 Plossels (40 and 14 to go with what I have) and two or three BGOs for higher power platetary work (Probably the main field for such a 'scope).

Big bugbear, I wear glasses and have astigmatism, so eye relief has to be considered, thogh I did have my optician order a corrector lens to go over the eye lens of my 9mm, not sure if something like that will work on the BGOs

[John]

@ DaveS:

I don't think short focal length plossls or orthoscopics are good for folks that have to wear glasses when observing. Their eye relief is short, ie: you have to get your eye close to the top lens of the eyepiece. It's the nature of the design, not a fault.

The BST Explorers often mentioned on here offer much more eye relief even at short focal lengths.

I'd be wary of add on correctors myself as they add an optical component of unknown optical quality (in astro terms) into the light path.

I notice you have a Celestron Ultima barlow though. This would be a better way to get shorter focal length eyepieces because barlows have the effect of pushing out the eye relief as well as adding the power.

Edit: This is a sidetrack from the topic of this thread though so perhaps start another thread on it ?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Glad I found this thread as (As I've posted elsewhere) I'm finally getting my old 8" f/8 Newt up and running again, so I'll be needing a few new EPs.

Unfortunately due to budgetry constraints cheap is all I can afford, so maybe a couple of Meade 5000 Plossels (40 and 14 to go with what I have) and two or three BGOs for higher power platetary work (Probably the main field for such a 'scope).

Big bugbear, I wear glasses and have astigmatism, so eye relief has to be considered, thogh I did have my optician order a corrector lens to go over the eye lens of my 9mm, not sure if something like that will work on the BGOs

A few point:

1. Your F/8 newt should be fine with comparatively cheap EPs (Plossls are fine).

2. Your scope is not just a planetary instrument, it will be fine on DSOs (my F/10 SCT has bagged my over 550 DSOs). Visually focal ratio does not affect DSO performance. Only in imaging does this matter.

3. I would go for long eye relief EPs. The TMB Planetaries, the BSTs etc. have a decent eye relief and are certainly suitable for F/8 instruments.

[crazyjedi]

I do not quite agree. I bought a cheap 4.5" F=500mm Konus reflector as a wide-field instrument years back. It came supplied with Huygens 9 and 20mm "eyepieces" (plastic, horrible). Before buying I asked if I could try my Vixen LV 9mm (an expensive EP at the time) in the telescope, just to check out the quality of the mirrors. The shopkeeper agreed, I inserted the Vixen LV, and compared it to the supplied 9mm EP. I also showed the shopkeeper the difference, and his jaw dropped. The difference was HUGE!! I find many fairly run-of-the-mill scopes (in particular Newtonians), fare very well with good EPs. A Newtonian has just two surfaces to get right, this is comparatively cheap. EPs by contrast, have at least four optical surfaces, which need to be matched carefully (this goes up to 8 in Plossls and Orthos, and 12 and more in more complex designs). Moreover, telescope speed is more important when it comes to choosing good EPs that the precise figure of the mirror. A fast newt needs better EPs than a top class catadioptric at F/12 or F/15.

Totally agree with you Michael. EP's are a critical part of the system and can massively improve your view even if your scope (like mine) isn't the most expensive.

[bingevader]

Depite the public perception to the contrary, Dell-boy did NOT have a Robin Reliant. Dellboy had a Reliant Supervan III - the van version of the Reliant Regal - I know because I owned one too. The Robin came later.

My most humble apology, there's nothing worst than an inaccurate analogy.

However, the original comparison was to a Cayman S and finished by saying its optical equivalent was inexpensive!

Neither a Cayman S nor a Nagler could be considered inexpensive.

I seem to have been misinterpreted as well!

I wasn't suggesting that anyone use poor or mediocre eyepieces, yes, that would be like ruining a turbo diesel with paraffin!

However, to continue the analogy, most of us run around in Ford/Vauxhall type cars (not Pandas), whilst we avoid the re-moulds we don't tend to buy the Pirellis either.

We buy decent middle of the road all rounders.

We just won't see the difference.

If we're of the inclination, we might spend a day out at a race track to experience the thrill of the "real thing".

There are those who might want to pimp their ride, best of luck to them!

I'll stick with my Firestones, they get me a lot further than a trip to the local town.

Cheers

[ollypenrice]

Excellent review!

I understand the Fiat/Cayman analogy, but we're talking accessories here, not the motor itself.

If I've bought the Rolls-Royce of telescopes, then it makes sense to buy the Rolls-Royce fluffy dice to go with it.

If I've bought Dell-boy's Robin Reliant then regardless of how good the accessory is, it's still only going in a Robin Reliant!

I have a SW 200p at £280, I won't ever be buying a Nagler starting at £265!

The 200p is no Robin Reliant, but I'm sure you understand the analogy.

Cheers

I understand the analogy but I honestly think you may be making a mistake. I have a 20 inch F4.1 Dob with a so-so primary, not diffraction limited but not disastrous. Use a Meade Plossl and the view looks vaguely like a hangover seen from the inside. Put in a Nagler and it looks very nice indeed and no mistake. The edge of field is not only further away from the centre, it's clean and almost coma free. Incredible. So in a budget optic a premium EP can really clean things up. I think this will be especially true of come-prone pure Newtonians. An Ethos or Nagler in a 200P? I suspect that this would be better than upgrading to a 10th wave mirror and keeping the budget EP. The optical problems facing the maker of a primary mirror are trivial compared with the challenges of making an EP. Think of the number of optical surfaces to be prepared. Is the furry dice the EP or the primary? Not sure...

Olly

[Ags]

An Ethos or Nagler in a 200P? I suspect that this would be better than upgrading to a 10th wave mirror and keeping the budget EP. The optical problems facing the maker of a primary mirror are trivial compared with the challenges of making an EP. Think of the number of optical surfaces to be prepared. Is the furry dice the EP or the primary? Not sure...

Olly

So true.

[webboid]

I have been following this post with interest & even though my experience is only six months, so I do not have many experiences with different eyepices but.....

When I changed from standard sw ep with my 200P to the medium priced Meade HD60 range my first target was M81 & M82. These had I previously not been able to find. Not only did I find them but they were quite obvious. I immediately swapped the Meades for the standard sw ep & they disappeared. I was astonished no wonder I couldn't find them before.

[bingevader]

Is the furry dice the EP or the primary? Not sure...

Olly

Neither, I was being facetious, I do apologise!

But, I don't think I'm making a mistake.

If I could afford the 10th wave mirror, I'm sure I'd be happy to stick an ethos or a nagler with it!

You can guarantee that I wouldn't be happy with a budget EP!

However, as with life, it's all about compromise.

Sign me up for a slot with the HST!

I happen to like fuzzy blobs.

Cheers

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I understand the analogy but I honestly think you may be making a mistake. I have a 20 inch F4.1 Dob with a so-so primary, not diffraction limited but not disastrous. Use a Meade Plossl and the view looks vaguely like a hangover seen from the inside. Put in a Nagler and it looks very nice indeed and no mistake. The edge of field is not only further away from the centre, it's clean and almost coma free. Incredible. So in a budget optic a premium EP can really clean things up. I think this will be especially true of come-prone pure Newtonians. An Ethos or Nagler in a 200P? I suspect that this would be better than upgrading to a 10th wave mirror and keeping the budget EP. The optical problems facing the maker of a primary mirror are trivial compared with the challenges of making an EP. Think of the number of optical surfaces to be prepared. Is the furry dice the EP or the primary? Not sure...

Olly

Precisely, I had a bash with my EPs in the 20" F/4, and that tested them much more than the TEC 140. The fact that the Meade 14mm UWA I had at the time held its own in the Dobson compared to the 17mm T4 Nagler meant much more than the fact that it did well in the TEC at F/7. I think 1/10th wave mirrors may help in picking up very faint stellar objects (should seeing allow) by concentrating the light more. More generally, it should mainly have an effect at the highest magnifications (when the diffraction disk of the main optics becomes limiting). At an exit pupil of 1.5 to 4, where I do much of my DSO hunting, I do not think 1/6th, 1/8th or 1/10th wave optics matter as much as a very good EP (unless you enjoy seeing seagulls in the outer part of the FOV). In planetay work, the main mirror becomes more important, but even then the differences between EPs can be quite big.

[JB80]

Great review and interesting.

I'd like to see a similar review with barlows as I have just finished reading a page elsewhere in which the popular consensus was that it makes no difference with barlows and you are better off with a generic cheap one.

Not sure I agree with that but then I don't have a swathe of barlows to do a comparison with.

[crazyjedi]

I have been following this post with interest & even though my experience is only six months, so I do not have many experiences with different eyepices but.....

When I changed from standard sw ep with my 200P to the medium priced Meade HD60 range my first target was M81 & M82. These had I previously not been able to find. Not only did I find them but they were quite obvious. I immediately swapped the Meades for the standard sw ep & they disappeared. I was astonished no wonder I couldn't find them before.

This is a case in point. Although you say that you don't have much experience, it sounds very much that you have a good eye and your experience is very relevant. The Meade lenses are of good quality as you have pointed out and a good step up from the standard freebee's provided with most SW scopes.

A good point well made

[bingevader]

I thought we'd finished!

I never suggested anyone should stick with the "freebees".

I haven't.

Just that there's a trade off between 'scope, eyepiece and depth of pocket!

We're not all comparing apples with apples.

A few of the people who have commented have very good or very large 'scopes, I don't happen to be one of them.

Yes I could save up and buy Naglers, I haven't that much time and I'm easily pleased looking at fuzzy blobs.

Cheers

[crazyjedi]

Depth of pocket vs EP quality there's a thread starter! :-):-)

[JamesF]

Depth of pocket vs EP quality there's a thread starter! :-):-)

Buy an Ethos and you need very deep pockets otherwise the eyepiece will fall out

James