Which Barlow would you get

[bomberbaz]

I am building up a short list of items and a decent barlow is on the list.

There is this one from Revelation http://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/Revelation_ED_2x_Barlow_2_.html

and this one from Celestron http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-x-cel-barlow.html

I have noticed this thread from in here http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/151047-2-revelation-barlow-any-views/ but nothing about the celesrton barlow (well not that i can find)

Obvoiusly the first one is cheaper and seems to be a decent bit of kit but I dont know if there is a significant difference in quality to pay the extra £50 for the Celestron.

Your thoughts anyone

Steve

[Spec-Chum]

The Revelation barlow is a bargain in my opinion.

The barlow element also unscrews so you can screw it straight onto 2" EPs and get 1.5x (approx).

Plus it's compression fit. In fact I use this in my scope all the time with the barlow element removed as a direct replacement for my 2" extension or 1.25" adaptor, and just put the barlow element back on if I want to use it as a barlow.

[JamesF]

Did you intend that one should be a 2" barlow and the other a 1.25"?

James

[Eastridge]

Did you intend that one should be a 2" barlow and the other a 1.25"?

James

The Rev is both 1.25 & 2 as it has an adapter. Personally as it's got a good rep. that would be important to someone like me who has a limited budget and wouldn't want to have to buy a barlow in both sizes.

[JamesF]

The Rev is both 1.25 & 2 as it has an adapter. Personally as it's got a good rep. that would be important to someone like me who has a limited budget and wouldn't want to have to buy a barlow in both sizes.

I was actually referring to the barrel of the barlow, not the eyepiece holder. There'd probably be a bit of an awkward moment if someone were to order the 2" one and unwrap it to find their focuser only accepted 1.25" barrels

James

[John]

I've just sold one of the Revelation 2" barlows. Optically it was very nice. Physically the 2" barrel is a bit too long to fully insert into some focusers and all diagonal drawtubes which can cause difficulties in getting some eyepieces to reach focus as you can run out of inward focuser travel. My favourite 2" barlow lens is the Antares 1.6x which is a true "shorty" format and optically a gem despite only having 2 elements and no ED glass. It's rather hard to get hold of though.

I'm not sure that there are many of the Celestron X-Cel LX barlows being used to be honest - I've never seen them mentioned on any forum as far as I can recall. This need not mean that there is anything wrong with them though.

As James says, it's important that the OP realizes that they are in different size formats.

[bomberbaz]

hm mI am getting a little lost here. However my scope excepts 1.25 EP's and that is what i aimed to stay at.

Can someone explain in basic laymans terms what the other part is you have referred to please

[StuW]

I don't know what your budget is, but I have the Astro Engineering Supreme 2x barlow and I love it. It also does 1.5x like the Revelation, but this one also has a T-2 thread for direct connection to cameras.

[bomberbaz]

Yeah i have seen your post already Stu, thnkas for the reminder. So many options, lol like a kid in a sweet shop here

[acey]

I have a Meade apochromatic Barlow, got it about twelve years ago, and can't remember the last time I used it. If I want higher magnification I use a shorter focal-length eyepiece.

[John]

hm mI am getting a little lost here. However my scope excepts 1.25 EP's and that is what i aimed to stay at.

Can someone explain in basic laymans terms what the other part is you have referred to please

Put simply, you need to look at 1.25" barlow lenses then. One of the ones you listed in your original post was a 2" fitting one, hence the confusion as we did not know that your scope only accepts 1.25" eyepieces.

[Nibor]

I, too, have been considering a barlow and this shorty Meade looked promising:-

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-meade-126-2x-short-focus-barlow-lens-1-25-for-the-et/p13465

It seems that it can be used both as a 2x or a 3x depending where you place it in the light path.

Has anyone any experience and would care to comment on it?

[John]

I've tried the Meade 126 2x "shorty" barlow. It's OK but nothing special to be honest. I think the TAL 2x or the Revelation 2.5x are better optically and around the same price.

[bomberbaz]

Put simply, you need to look at 1.25" barlow lenses then. One of the ones you listed in your original post was a 2" fitting one, hence the confusion as we did not know that your scope only accepts 1.25" eyepieces.

Schoolboy error there, thanks John.Silly me

[bomberbaz]

Yes just checked same website and the 2.5 times Rev barlow is on there, dont know what i was thinking/not reading, dozy sod.

http://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/Revelation_Astro_2.5x_Barlow_Lens_1.25_.html

[JamesF]

John and I agree on the Revelation 2.5x barlow. I use mine as often as conditions allow when imaging and I've been very happy with it.

James

[Qualia]

I use a Celestron X-Cel x2 Barlow.

Obviously, without the numbers (of users), the weight of persuassion or of critcal assessment or of comparison is rendered mute. So, all I can offer are the reasons why I chose it over other similarly priced barlows which included the Omni and the Tele Vue.

The sheer quality of the X-Cel EP range gave an extra + for the X-Cel barlow.

The Tele Vue barlow is quite long and I worried that due to its length I might have problems if used with my diagonal. When I enquired on this feature by phoning my retailer, I found the assumption was grounded and was informed that Televue themselves explicitly say that their x2 barlow is for use only between the diagonal and the OTA, and newts. Putting the barlow before the diagonal in the refractor would require quite a bit of outward focuser travel. Obviously, if I get a newt I'll probably just save for a powermate and be done with anymore concern.

The X-Cel is the champ of shorties. It is shorter than the classic Shorty Plus or Ultima.

Again, my retailer - who I trust to some degree - informed me that in his opinion the X-Cel and Tele Vue barlow in the forgiving f/10 would be of similar quality and that the views with the 18mm X-Cel barlowed would be the same-ish as the X-Cel 9mm. Furthermore, he believed that due to a better quality ED glass used (perhaps more a selling gimmick) the X-Cel should out-perform the Ultima and Orion Shorty and for this reason was probably why it had a higher retail price.

In the end I went for the X-Cel although I could find no reviews of it or in fact any evidence of anyone else using one - sometimes you just have to jump.

So, is it any good. Yes and No.

For measuring stars, their PA and separation, or measuring the size of sun spots, craters etc, I need a barlow and to be honest, this was the main reason I bought one. The X-Cel works fine, but then I imagine any decent barlow would do the job and perhaps at half the price.

The image of a 25mm X-Cel barlowed is not the same as a 12mm X-Cel. The image is 'different' and although this difference is minimal and I imagine for the casual observer non-existent, it's there. And, again, I imagine this would be the same for all barlows.

However, I cannot equate this 'difference' to degradation of image, the results with the X-Cel barlow are as good as quality and as sharp as when using just an X-Cel and the barlow also has the relative advantage of being compact, short and light. Also at higher magnification, you don't sacrifice field of view.

So, the only disadvantages I can offer is 1) its relatively high price and 2) the time and effort to install the barlow.

Hope that helps a little.

[acey]

I, too, have been considering a barlow and this shorty Meade looked promising:-

It seems that it can be used both as a 2x or a 3x depending where you place it in the light path.

This is true of any Barlow - the further away the eyepiece is from the Barlow lens itself, the greater the magnification increase. If you double the length of the tube on any x2 Barlow it will become a x3 Barlow. Triple the length and it becomes x4, etc.

[Nibor]

This is true of any Barlow - the further away the eyepiece is from the Barlow lens itself, the greater the magnification increase. If you double the length of the tube on any x2 Barlow it will become a x3 Barlow. Triple the length and it becomes x4, etc.

Acey,

Many thanks for the explanation - Meade's marketing team seem to be on the ball when it comes to their "features and benefits" department!!

[Rossco72]

There are often bargains to be had and looking around the classifieds you might well pick up a Televue barlow for around £40-50.

What can be said about the Televue barlow, well put simply "the best".

You will not notice it is there except for the magnification increase and it will not introduce any noticable degredation of your image.

Other cheaper barlows are available and other results are also achievable but I haven't met the person yet who regretted getting a Televue.

Cheers

Stuart

[KaStern_Former_Member]

Hi bomberbaz,

wich Barlow would you get

it depends largely on the type of telescope the barlow will be used with.

For example I use 3 differently apertured newt from f/4 to f/6 .

I got me a University Optics Klee Barlow because it matches pefectly to Newts.

But if you have a refractor you will certanly choose other barlows.

Cheers, Karsten

[ismangil]

I can attest that Tal 2x barlow is good quality as it does not degrade my 13mm Nagler. Using it for Jupiter in the dob was very nice, and the view was as sharp as a Circle T Ortho 6mm.