Cheap Vs Expensive

[cantharis]

But how many of us can really afford to buy a set of Ethos - maybe one day I will be able to afford one. Meantime I will enjoy my Baader Hyperions - I like the modular system where each ep has 4 different focal lengths - feel it gives me more bang for the buck.

[Moonshane]

Sell your PST and buy an Ethos . It's all about choices and how we spend the money we have. There's no right way or wrong way, just choices to be made. I cannot currently afford a PST and would love one. If I sold my Ethos, I could buy one. I don't want to so I have to save longer to get one. Whilst my main point in this thread is that good views can be had with cheap eyepieces (based on the comparison of my slow scope - fast scope to follow) I do believe that buying 'the best' is actually cheaper in the long run.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Even with cheap freebies you can have good views. The 20mm Plossl I got my kids is a really nice little EP, and only cost 15 euros. It works quite nicely in their F/4.3 mini-Dob. The current crop of freebies is miles ahead of the pseudo Huygens monstrosities of the past. Lest we forget, the most important part of the optical is the human visual system (from cornea to the visual brain cortex). A complete newcomer will probably see less through an Ethos than a seasoned observer through a cheap Plossl. You need to train the visual cortex to see more detail. The problem is, as your ability to see more detail increases, so does your ability to see deficiencies in the optics. My motto is: only buy more expensive kit when I feel the current kit is limiting me (e.g. because I see its deficiencies).

[bingevader]

Sell your PST and buy an Ethos . It's all about choices and how we spend the money we have. There's no right way or wrong way, just choices to be made. I cannot currently afford a PST and would love one. If I sold my Ethos, I could buy one. I don't want to so I have to save longer to get one. Whilst my main point in this thread is that good views can be had with cheap eyepieces (based on the comparison of my slow scope - fast scope to follow) I do believe that buying 'the best' is actually cheaper in the long run.

Ooooh, and if only you'd have written 'the best I can afford', I think we might have been there!

I read a rather amusing, tongue in cheek article recently suggesting that there might be the hint of the Emperor's new clothes in this high end EP market, it implied that no one who's spent £500 on an EP is going to say it's only slightly better than a cheaper model!

I'm not saying I agree with that, but we are talking sigmoid curve here in terms of plotting price against performance, not linear and definitely not exponential!

If you want to squeeze the last few drops of performance out of a large or decent scope then by all means.

But for the average Joe's 'scope on the average Joe's budget, the middle of the road is always going to be where the greatest gains will be achieved.

Cheers

[John]

You don't need to spend big bucks to experience superb optical performance. The Baader Genuine Orthos can be picked up used for £50 or less and offer sharpness, contrast and light transmission as good as the very best, across their 42 degree fields of view. They do this in fast scopes too. The classic "volcano" top orthos are nearly as good and cost even less. Nothing "middle of the road" about their performance

The big bucks go on having the above performance coupled with a wide or very wide angle of view, more comfortable eye relief, and again, with fast scopes.

[JamesF]

Quite so. I'd have been quite happy with my BGOs if I had an auto dob, but with a manual the field of view is just too small and I was constantly having to move the OTA which is where the wide field eyepieces really help.

Who'd have thought that spending another £400 to get a GOTO dob could actually be a saving?

James

[crazyjedi]

Agree with both of the 2 posts above. Middle of the road? Where do we reckon that is? I'm thinking around the £70 - £90 area - brand new you are looking at Meade 5000 super plossl's, plus HD60's some ES EP's TV plossl's BGO's at shop prices before we even consider the 2nd hand bargains to be had.

So no you don't have to spend hundreds to get fab eye pieces and very enjoyable views. (unless you buy a whole set at once) and indeed the improvements get less obvious as you swap from a £250 lens to a £500 lens over the more obvious improvements from a stock SW free lens to £100-ish lenses . But I reckon ( I'm sure someone will disagree)that an average scope is improved by excellent EP's where as an excellent scope will disappoint with a less than decent EP :-)

[bomberbaz]

great thread this and very interesting, think the ethos lense are erm, something for the future

I will watch this for the results of the tests made on a faster scope.

[Moonshane]

hopefully one day, the weather will allow it!

[Moonshane]

Last night I finally got around to making some (unfortunately rather brief) comparisons between similar eyepieces to my first sojourn but this time at the native f4 of my 12" scope. I didn't use the paracorr for this comparison. the main target was the moon which last night was a waning gibbous phase, quite low down. I also looked at the double cluster with the wider field eyepieces.

The results were pretty surprising in a way.

25mm Televue (TV) Plossl vs Standard Skwatcher (SW) 25mm  - 48x

On axis there was very little to choose between the two eyepieces and both showed excellent detail. Off axis the TV continued to show this detail across the field and there was no CA. With the SW there was some CA on the limb (blue principally) and what I took to be astigmatism off axis from maybe 40-50% out. This meant that the whole moon could not be focused at one time unlike the TV.

The double cluster appeared much neater in the TV with stars sharp more or less across the field. The SW suffered a bit here but the view was nonetheless quite satisfactory.for this focal ratio.

15mm Televue (TV) Plossl vs Meade 15mm Plossl - 80x

On axis there was again very little to choose between the two eyepieces and both showed excellent detail. Off axis the TV continued to show this detail across the field and there was no CA. With the Meade whilst there was no CA it suffered from a milder aberration than the 25mm SW from perhaps 60% out from centre. Again this meant that the whole moon could not be focused at one time unlike the TV.

The double cluster surprised me with this pair. Whilst the same features existed as with the 25mm pair, the Meade somehow seemed to reveal better (or more saturated) star colour. There was very little between then and whilst I'll not be selling the TV, I'll be looking again at this pair in particular.

11mm TV Plossl and 10mm Standard SW - 120x

A very similar story here with in axis being perfectly fine with both but off axis revealing about the same differences as the Meade - surprisingly as this is often said to be a truly poor eyepiece.

Nagler zoom set at 5mm vs 5mm SW LER - 240x

At this sort of magnification you'd expect an eyepiece that someone gave me ages ago for free would be bad. However, the same rules apply. On axis, great. Off axis not so great.

Perhaps the general overview of this brief examination is not that surprising; that probably all eyepieces are good to excellent on axis. That generally better quality eyepieces provide a wider percentage of 'good' field at fast focal ratios and control light scatter better (this was certainly the case here but in fairness even with something as bright as the moon the ghosting and internal reflections were not unusable).

My own mind has changed slightly in that whilst I have literally no intention of selling any of my current eyepieces and swapping for £15 cheapies, a budget conscious astronomer should use the standard eyepieces that come with a scope, or some bargain eyepieces off ebay, happy in the knowledge that they will provide a reasonable image where most of the detail possible in the more expensive options will be there in their cheaper option albeit they may have to re-centralise the scope on the particular detail they wish to see rather than have it float across the field as you can with more expensive options.

[Qualia]

Great review, Shane and thank you.

I really don't know what I'm talking about here and I haven't had nearly enough experience comparing eyepieces but I get this gut-feeling from reading reviews here at SGL of various eyepieces and brands that the differences are often only very, very slight and only noticeable under the best of atmospheric conditions. Nevertheless, looking at my own sentiments there is something about that green and black lettering (both on the TVs and BGOs) in the EP case that stir inner feelings. I can't really explain them but there's this peace of mind, a greater confidence (as John once wrote) that I'm viewing through something of exceptional quality and if I've had a bad night, for example, or wished I could have tweaked out a little more detail any feelings that it might have been the EP causing me grief or letting me down are significantly muted.

[Reeny]

Last night I finally got around to making some (unfortunately rather brief) comparisons between similar eyepieces............................

25mm Televue (TV) Plossl vs Standard Skwatcher (SW) 25mm  - 48x

On axis there was very little to choose between the two eyepieces and both showed excellent detail. Off axis the TV continued to show this detail across the field and there was no CA. With the SW there was some CA on the limb (blue principally) and what I took to be astigmatism off axis from maybe 40-50% out. This meant that the whole moon could not be focused at one time unlike the TV.

The double cluster appeared much neater in the TV with stars sharp more or less across the field. The SW suffered a bit here but the view was nonetheless quite satisfactory.for this focal ratio.

11mm TV Plossl and 10mm Standard SW - 120x

A very similar story here with in axis being perfectly fine with both but off axis revealing about the same differences as the Meade - surprisingly as this is often said to be a truly poor eyepiece.

Interesting,

I have Revelation Plossls - 9mm / 12mm / and a 2.5x Barlow which appear to be good enough quality.

I am hoping to use the Revelations on a Skywatcher 8" Dob when I get one soon - and transfer the 10mm freebie onto the old scope.

Glad they are both up to the job.

Recently I bought a second hand Skywatcher 2x Barlow which is too hazy use. (although it is OK with the end unscrewed, used as a 1.5x adaptor)

Revelation do a 2x Barlow themselves, which looks to be exactly the same model as the skywatcher.

So mine is either damgaed, or the 2x version is a bit of a dud.

[John]

Very interesting findings Shane - thanks for posting them 

Plenty of food for thought here, given the amount of clear nights we get and the value of metal and glass in some of our eyepiece cases 

[bingevader]

Thanks Shane.

My experiences are similar with the same TV plossls and the stock SWs in my smaller and slower 'scope.

I've never thought my 10mm SW was that bad and certainly doesn't need immediately replacing, however, there's definitely better contrast in the TV plossl without the shades of grey.

My meade 4000s have been on long loan with the etx90, so haven't had the chance to compare them.

Cheers

[bingevader]

A little update!

Just come back in as the cloud is building up and I'm in work in the morning.

Took out the SW MA 25mm, the Meade 4000 Super Plossl 26mm and the TV Plossl 25mm to look at the moon through the 8" Skyliner (no filter).

It's impossible to do a blind test as the SW is so much lighter than the other 2!

None of the EPs was crisp to the edges, but the central sweet spot on the SW was much smaller (50%) than the Meade or TV (not much in it, 80 to 90%).

If I wasn't comparing the 3 EPs, I'd be happy with the SW, it's central region comes to a good sharp focus. However, switching between the 3 shows up the differences.

The SW is not as bright and reveals less contrast. The edges of craters, peaks and walls just aren't as bright and the bottoms of valleys and craters not as dark. It's shades of grey, rather than the whole range from black to white.

There's not much in it between the Meade and the TV, but the TV does still have the edge as far as contrast goes over the Meade. There's a slight crispness or brightness that just makes the moon dazzle that little bit more.

There's also a slight difference in hue between the too, with the Moon appearing slightly browner (?) in the Meade than in the TV.

The SW certainly isn't a duff EP and not one that immediately needs to be replaced on a new 'scope as some might suggest, but there's definitely room for improvement, and that is accessible at not too dear a cost in the Meade or better still, the TV plossl.

Hope that helps a little!

Cheers

[Pig]

I have only one scope to compare eyepieces in and believe you me there is a huge difference between "cheap" and the Delos range even in a slow F10 scope , this includes the "cheaper" eyepieces  (and some I have tried are by no means cheap)

I have not used any BGO's but the FOV and eye relief make a big difference to me and thus are not really comparable.

In my humble opinion the size of the view is as important as the clarity 

I think my post clearly shows the only eyepieces that matter are the 2 that are attached to your head   my experience differs quite a lot when compared to other posts and I guess its because my eyes are probably tailor made for the eyepieces I get on best with.

As I have said before you should buy what you can afford or indeed whatever your preference is.

[Moonshane]

it depends what you are comparing I suppose. I was comparing on axis view and what details could be seen and found very little difference (on axis). don't get me wrong, when I then put in my 26mm Nagler it was a completely different view. this turned out to be more a thread about cheaper being serviceable rather than good/best being good/best. sure, the view is better through top quality but that's not to say it's not still good through other options.

I really don't buy into the 'massive' differences as for me they don't exist but if for you they do that's great

[Naemeth]

it depends what you are comparing I suppose. I was comparing on axis view and what details could be seen and found very little difference (on axis). don't get me wrong, when I then put in my 26mm Nagler it was a completely different view. this turned out to be more a thread about cheaper being serviceable rather than good/best being good/best. sure, the view is better through top quality but that's not to say it's not still good through other options.

I really don't buy into the 'massive' differences as for me they don't exist but if for you they do that's great

I agree up to a point Shane. I think the word 'massive', in this case, has to represent a fairly small change, because even cheap eyepieces get about 40-60% of 'best performance' without trying, it's the last 40-60% that is most expensive to correct, but to some would represent a fairly large change. While ~50% extra performance might sound like a lot, imagine if you were chasing 95%....

Does that make sense?

[Moonshane]

I think we are all saying the same thing largely. it just depends on your requirements. if you feel that a wide open vista with small objects in the field then a plossl might seem like a nightmare to use. if you want planetary/lunar detail or a good split on a tight double then a wide field does not matter and therefore a plossl might look great.

I am lucky enough to have both but something that concerns me sometimes is that people new to the hobby might worry that they will never afford anything decent and perhaps lose interest. also they might be disappointed when they try top quality expecting a lot more. if you can see the small smudge or crater then you can see the small smudge or crater.

[AlexB67]

Long interesting thread, sorry if I missed something not having read it all that I can remember, had to absorb lots of info today . While I don't know from experience, with a f4.5 - f5 Dob, how would fairly cheap( say what I have with the BST but I am happy with in my current DOB )  and add to that a Coma corrector compare ? versus very expensive eyepieces. I suppose lot of it is personal, but if I were to put my finger on it, Coma would be one of thing I'd be looking at minimising sooner than later, the coma corrector would work with all, so a worthy investment  to keep it cheaper in the long run?

Now having read about coma correctors a bit already I appreciate they are not an all cure as I now understand for aberrations in general, but I'd say it would clean up the viewing experience very well for most things ?

[Moonshane]

yes, a coma corrector would correct the coma of the scope leaving the eyepiece to do what it does as well as it can. I'd expect BSTs and a cc to work well although you might have to play with spacings.

[AlexB67]

yes, a coma corrector would correct the coma of the scope leaving the eyepiece to do what it does as well as it can. I'd expect BSTs and a cc to work well although you might have to play with spacings.

Thanks Shane. I do recall reading there is a little bit of carfuffle involved from threads long ago, and some interesting little solutions to got with it,  but that's fine with me, as long as it works 

[Moonshane]

I'm lucky enough to have a paracorr and I'd recommend a used one if you ever see one. they seem scarce over here, more commonly sold in USA

[John]

...... something that concerns me sometimes is that people new to the hobby might worry that they will never afford anything decent and perhaps lose interest. also they might be disappoointed when they try top quality expecting a lot more. if you can see the small smudge or crater then you can see the small smudge or crater.

Funnily enough Shane, thats what I've been thinking lately too. 

[bingevader]

I am lucky enough to have both but something that concerns me sometimes is that people new to the hobby might worry that they will never afford anything decent and perhaps lose interest. also they might be disappointed when they try top quality expecting a lot more. if you can see the small smudge or crater then you can see the small smudge or crater.

Me too!

I suppose, it's what I've been trying, very badly, to say for some time now! Thanks Shane!

It's also why I try, again very badly, to give any comparison I can in my humble (but very popular) 'scope.

There's no doubt that TV are the top of the range, it's just that we don't want to give the impression that extraordinary things aren't achievable through modest equipment. It's why I keep harping on about getting the best you can afford, I do apologise.

Cheers