Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Recommended Posts

The Vixen NPL plossls get good reviews on here and are a little better than the standard Skywatcher plossls I reckon.

Super plossl does not really mean much these days - it's a marketing term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd wait and see what other suggestions come in. There are lots of options for £50 or less per eyepiece these days, some of them might suit you better than plossls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had any experience with either, but the Meade 4000 I have is of very good quality, and that is around £40 new. If it were me, I'd go for the Vixen's, because they are highly recommended on here, it's easy to tell the difference between a slightly cheaper plössl and a slightly more expensive one at F/5, and often the increase in cost is only small (~£5 or ~£10). Try and get them 2nd hand if you can.

EDIT: Go for the Sterling's as Damo has pointed out.

Edited by Naemeth
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vixen NPL plossls get good reviews on here and are a little better than the standard Skywatcher plossls I reckon.

Super plossl does not really mean much these days - it's a marketing term.

John, was Plossl not a name of an optical design? I seem to recall the Meade S Plossl 60 degree had added elements, which would mean it is not a Plossl.

Alan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John, was Plossl not a name of an optical design? I seem to recall the Meade S Plossl 60 degree had added elements, which would mean it is not a Plossl.

Alan.

My understanding is that the plossl design has 4 elements in 2 groups. Meade and Celestron launched the 4000 series Super Plossls and Celestron Ultimas both of which added an element to the design. Meade reverted to a 4 element design after a while but still called the eyepiece the 4000 Super Plossl. I believe the 5000 series is a 5 element design so perhaps back to the original 4000 design ?

As far as I know the Skywatcher and TAL Super Plossls have always been a "4 in 2" design.

To add to the confusion I believe that many so called plossls actually use a design which is closer to the symmetrical but quite what the subtle differences between these designs are I'm not certain !

I don't want to confuse the OP though and most of the plossls out there today are decent eyepieces to use :smiley:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plossl is the name of a design. It's made from two doublet. Some 'Super' Plossls are not true plossl but a modified design with an additional singlet element. I think the original S4k super plossl are 2-1-2 designs which is also known as Masuyama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John and Keith,

Which brings me back to the point that if the design is a 4 lenses in 2 groups affair the other Meade and Celestron offering can't really be called a Plossl. I am only really appling the orthoscopic rule to a different design. I guess poetic licence plays a big part.

Alan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John and Keith,

Which brings me back to the point that if the design is a 4 lenses in 2 groups affair the other Meade and Celestron offering can't really be called a Plossl. I am only really appling the orthoscopic rule to a different design. I guess poetic licence plays a big part.

Alan.

I guess you are right Alan. Perhaps it could be called "plossl plus" :smiley:

I believe the term orthoscopic simply means "distortion free view" so can be applied to other designs in theory although it's much more commonly used for the triplet-singlet eyepiece lens arrangement we know and love (unless we wear glasses when observing !).

Thomas Back of TMB used the term "Orthoscopic" to describe his Paragon 2" wide field eyepieces which have 6 elements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John and Keith,

Which brings me back to the point that if the design is a 4 lenses in 2 groups affair the other Meade and Celestron offering can't really be called a Plossl. I am only really appling the orthoscopic rule to a different design. I guess poetic licence plays a big part.

Alan.

I guess that's why Meade called it 'Super' Plossl. Celestron just called it Ultima, they never called it a plossl as far as I know.

Meade do have a habit of calling things they are not. Remember a few years ago, Meade used to call their ACF scope Advanced Ritchey Chretien. They only renamed the new design to ACF because a number of genuine RC manufacturers sued Meade for calling their modified SCT a RC.

In the end it was a bit of a waste of time and money because a few years later, the Chinese manufacturer GSO found a way to mass produce hyperbolic mirror and flooded the market with affordable genuine RC.

Edited by E621Keith
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart Astronomy have the Stirlings on offer at the minute.....

http://store.smartas...stsepley12.html

Out of sheer curiosity, I have just placed an order for the 12.5mm!

For £30 inc postage they are excellent value. I'll do a review on it in due course.

The Sterling 12.5mm is a fantastic eyepiece, I very reluctantly sold mine cos I have unfeasably long eyelashes and the eyerelief on the Sterling was about 2mm(!!) too short, I kept having to clean the lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's why Meade called it 'Super' Plossl. Celestron just called it Ultima, they never called it a plossl as far as I know.

Meade do have a habit of calling things they are not. Remember a few years ago, Meade used to call their ACF scope Advanced Ritchey Chretien. They only renamed the new design to ACF because a number of genuine RC manufacturers sued Meade for calling their modified SCT a RC.

In the end it was a bit of a waste of time and money because a few years later, the Chinese manufacturer GSO found a way to mass produce hyperbolic mirror and flooded the market with affordable genuine RC.

Keith,

Is this Meade or just American Companies in general? I have one of the Meade RC scopes as I am sure you know. They are really quite good. I also have a 150mm GSO RC which was silly money when you look at the price of some of them ( I am sure the others are better quality ). I wanted an 8 inch GSO RC and if I manage to sell the smaller one I will get one, they are remarkable for visual as well, really tight stars better than the LX.

Alan.

Edited by alan potts
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realise your scope was an ACF, I thought it was the standard LX200. Anyway I didn't mean the Meade RC/ACF wasn't good. I don't know, I've never looked through one, but I'm sure they are an improvement over the standard SCT.

The problem was the ACF was clearly a SCT with a new corrector. A true RC has a hyperbolic primary and a hyperbolic secondary. The Meade didn't have either.

We always talked about how the Chinese clone stuff, but we need to give some credit to GSO for working out how to make cheap RC. Several companies have attempted it, but only came up with a substitute, a poor man's RC. Meade with the ACF and Vixen with its VISAC. Ironically, both are now more expensive than GSO's true RC.

I understand the reason for marketing the Meade ACF as a cheap RC rather and an expensive SCT, but why they marketed a 5 element Masuyama as a plossl is beyond me. Was plossl the fashionable eyepiece to have in the 80?

Edited by E621Keith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith,

I wasn't taking offence, sorry if I gave that impression. I happen to think the 200lx is overpriced when you compare it to the lx90. Everthing I have ever read say the optics are the same. If that is the case the OTA with only a mirror lock as the diffence is one heck of a price. Funny how one comes to this conclusion years after I bought it, I got brainwashed by the adverts.

I mean to get the best from it you need 2 inch diagonal and 2 inch eyepieces. Some of these are so heavy a balance system is a good idea and before you know another 1,000 pounds has gone and that's only one eyepiece and the rest, add to that the finder is rubbish. I wouldn't buy it if I had my time again.

The GSO is a fine visual scope and worth every penny it costs, though you do have to buy a few adapter to use it as such. The problem with it is it's back heavy and balance is a problem, I had a velcro band made that I could put metal bars in, putting a 30mm UWA on the back is impossible without such system.

If you ever get a chance of a look though one I don't think you would be disappointed.

Alan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have come up with a slight problem, if I get 2 high power plossls, say 6mm-8mm, then I think I might have a problem viewing through the pinholes, using 1 ep would be ok but I think getting an object in view using them in the bv would be a pain. Now considering using 2 bst explorers from Alan at STL. Any thoughts on this? Would it work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have come up with a slight problem, if I get 2 high power plossls, say 6mm-8mm, then I think I might have a problem viewing through the pinholes, using 1 ep would be ok but I think getting an object in view using them in the bv would be a pain. Now considering using 2 bst explorers from Alan at STL. Any thoughts on this? Would it work?

It would be a far better option to go for the BSTs, high power Plössls will be extremely uncomfortable for eye relief, even if you don't wear glasses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have come up with a slight problem, if I get 2 high power plossls, say 6mm-8mm, then I think I might have a problem viewing through the pinholes, using 1 ep would be ok but I think getting an object in view using them in the bv would be a pain. Now considering using 2 bst explorers from Alan at STL. Any thoughts on this? Would it work?

I agree with Naemeth, plossl's that short can get pretty uncomfortable with their short eye relief. I take my glasses off for observing by my limit for long term comfort in a plossl is 10mm. I could handle shorter for a quick peek but not if I wanted to spend a long time at the eyepiece.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.