Curious about Tele Vue

[M4lcs67]

Now I know from my limited experience of eyepieces that Tele Vues seem to be the Rolls Royce and the one that everyone aspires to own (if they can mortgage their houses). What makes them so good? Build quality, clarity, sharpness, all of these things? Also what is the difference between the ranges apart from cost? Been on the Tele Vue website and it doesn't really tell you much. Just curious more than anything. I do love my Hyperions and they certainly do well in my C9.25.

Are they suitable in all scopes? Obviously within reason. You wouldn't put one in a £200 scope would you? You would want a pretty decent ota to begin with I would presume.

[ronin]

From what I can tell TV simply take greater care in the ir products. So they work better or they work as you expect them to.

Many times you will read that for a fast scope you need a good eyepiece, usually refering to the standard plossl eyepiece, well TV design their plossl for f/4 operation, many others will start to "fail" at f/6, and f/5 is sort of questionable.

There are several wide angle eypieces available but most are sharp in the central area then not so sharp towards the edges, TV I expect are sharp all the way to the edge.

Before TV plossl's went up in cost many bought them and as best I recall I have never read of a poor performing TV plossl, read of lots of others that have performed bad but not one of theirs.

It is this that you are paying for.

Have a set of TV plossls and they are used on a £200 scope - etx70, and the OTA on that is not good.

[John]

I've cribbed this from a post by member great_bear sometime back:

Tele Vue Range:

- Plossls: No-nonsense 50° Plossls built to a high standard, and modified to work well down to F4

- Radians: The "old man's Plossl" 60° planetary eyepieces with adjustable eye-relief. Design not related to Plossls. Opinion curiously divided on optical quality. Various focal lengths are being dropped from the range - one-by-one.

- Panoptics: Wide-field, 68° eyepieces available in longer lengths only. 15mm model no longer available. Universally liked, but do have a lot of pincushion distortion.

- Delos: Wide-field, 72° eyepieces in only 10mm and 6mm lengths at the time of writing. Excellent eye-relief for spectacle wearers. Very much a premium eyepiece.

- Naglers: Ultra-wide 82° eyepieces. Type 5 is the latest design in longer focal lengths, Type 6 are the shorter lengths redesigned to be smaller and (relatively) lightweight. Some Type 4 focal-lengths remain on sale, as Type 4 are popular with spectacle wearers due to their longer eye-relief.

- Ethos: Televue's premium 100° eyepieces

- Ethos SX: 110° version of the Ethos - only two focal lengths available at the time of writing.

I'd add that Tele Vue also do 3 zooms:

- 8mm-24mm: nice quality mid range zoom but nothing really unusual about it.

- 3mm-6mm Nagler zoom: 50 degree field of view but very sharp high power eyepiece

- 2mm-4mm Nagler zoom: as above. For scopes with shorter focal lengths.

Tele Vue's design, build, materials and quality are outstanding. They quality check every eyepiece before sale for example.

They will work well in any scope but it's fast scopes where their benefits are most keenly felt as they are designed to work very well down to F/4.

I've used mine in sub-£200 scopes and really enjoyed the views

[Moonshane]

you've answered your own question really. other than three BGOs, I have exclusively TV eyepieces from Plossls to Ethos and they are superb in all the ways you describe. Although I feel they provide excellent images in all scopes, the differences are more pronounced in my scopes at f11 than at f4.

my 6" f11 scope cost less than £200 and I'd say that as the eyepiece contributes approximately half of the image then they are worth putting in any scope. in fact two of my three scopes cost less than my 13mm Ethos or my 26mm Nagler so the scope is sometimes the cheaper element.

broadly:

plossls - cheaper end but optically similar to most expensive other than field of view

radians - excellent for high power with long eye relief and flat 60 degree field

panoptic - brilliant wide field eyepieces with 68 degree field

nagler T4 - long eye relief and very immersive 82 degree field. large and heavy

nagler T5 - sharp and medium eye relief 26mm is my favourite

nagler T6 - small and powerful with 82 degree field - eye relief a bit tight for me

ethos - 100 degree field and superb sharpness and contrast but expensive.

zooms - the 8-24mm is not really a TV eyepiece as such, the Nagler zooms (2-4mm and 3-6mm) are quite superb and offer a 50 degree field - like a zoom plossl but brilliant.

[Moonshane]

oh yeah, forgot about the Delos.

[Naemeth]

Just like to add that TeleVue aren't the only ones at the top. Brandon gets great reviews (and the Dakin Barlow), and then of course there is Zeiss....

At F/10, you do have to ask yourself whether the extra price of the TV eyepieces is worth it, when you could get near that performance (and possibly a match) with ES 82 and ES 100 degree eyepieces. If, say, you have an ~F/3 telescope, you won't want anything other than the highest quality eyepieces.

[John]

The Pentax XW and Baader Genuine Orthoscopic eyepiece ranges also rival the best Tele Vue eyepieces in terms of sharpness, contrast and light scatter control in my opinion, albeit through a small and intimate "window" in the case of the Baader GO's.

[Naemeth]

The Pentax XW and Baader Genuine Orthoscopic eyepiece ranges also rival the best Tele Vue eyepieces in terms of sharpness, contrast and light scatter control in my opinion, albeit through a small and intimate "window" in the case of the Baader GO's.

Yes, indeed. No single eyepiece covers it all, there is no perfect eyepiece design - they all have flaws.

[E621Keith]

Just like to add that TeleVue aren't the only ones at the top. Brandon gets great reviews (and the Dakin Barlow), and then of course there is Zeiss....

At F/10, you do have to ask yourself whether the extra price of the TV eyepieces is worth it, when you could get near that performance (and possibly a match) with ES 82 and ES 100 degree eyepieces. If, say, you have an ~F/3 telescope, you won't want anything other than the highest quality eyepieces.

Don't forget the Leicas, Docters and Nikons as well. On the expensive scale, TV is only Mercedes, not Rolls Royce.

[Naemeth]

Don't forget the Leicas, Docters and Nikons as well. On the expensive scale, TV is only Mercedes, not Rolls Royce.

Point taken. Don't Swarovski do optics too? Maybe it's just binoculars.

[E621Keith]

Point taken. Don't Swarovski do optics too? Maybe it's just binoculars.

They do, but oddly I haven't heard anyone using them. Some people use astro eyepieces in Swarovski scopes and Kowa's giant binocular, but not their eyepieces in astro scope. I wonder why? May be because no one makes adapter for them. Apart from the ultra expensive Leica ASPH zoom, the Swaro 25-50x zoom is one of the few zoom on the market that has a minimum AFOV >60deg at the long end and it's cheaper than the Leica (but it still cost more than some Ethos).

Pentax is popular, there is no doubt about that. Zeiss, TMB Mono, and Brandon have their cult followings, as do the Leica zooms. Starlight Instrument makes an adapter for Leica ASPH zoom that cost nearly as much as two ES82, it just gives you an idea how expensive the top end eyepieces can get.

[alan potts]

I firmly believe that when we talk about the other mentioned quality eyepieces, Zeiss, Doctor etc etc, most of these are either; no longer made, very hard to get hold of or offer a tiny range. Televue offer a massive range of quality eyepieces like no other I can think of.

Yes Keith I am sure will tell you Nikon are excellent and I am sure they are but getting one either means parting with a small pools win or going to Japan. Zeiss are sadly no more and cost a fortune because they are rare. The others I have never seen even second hand. That is not to say thay are not good

Even Pentax as good as we all say they are offer a small range against TV.

To go back to question, your scope at F 10 will work very well with eyepieces costing less, Meade Series 5000 work well and can be got second hand also ExSc do a good range of good quality Ep's. There are others from Celestron and Vixen that will do the job too.

Alan,

Ok Televue may not be as good as some but at least you can buy them, and in any case for me a Mercedes is a better car, ever driven a Rolls Royce

[Charon]

I thought my Hyperions were the bees knees until I tried my second hand 22mm T4 Nagler, no comparison on quality no distortions etc, but as you has rightly said they are expensive but they work so well.

[E621Keith]

I firmly believe that when we talk about the other mentioned quality eyepieces, Zeiss, Doctor etc etc, most of these are either; no longer made, very hard to get hold of or offer a tiny range. Televue offer a massive range of quality eyepieces like no other I can think of.

Yes Keith I am sure will tell you Nikon are excellent and I am sure they are but getting one either means parting with a small pools win or going to Japan. Zeiss are sadly no more and cost a fortune because they are rare. The others I have never seen even second hand. That is not to say thay are not good

Even Pentax as good as we all say they are offer a small range against TV.

To go back to question, your scope at F 10 will work very well with eyepieces costing less, Meade Series 5000 work well and can be got second hand also ExSc do a good range of good quality Ep's. There are others from Celestron and Vixen that will do the job too.

Alan,

Ok Televue may not be as good as some but at least you can buy them, and in any case for me a Mercedes is a better car, ever driven a Rolls Royce

I am not saying Rolls are better to drive then Merc, but TV is not the only high end choice out there. I'm worried if people think TV is the only choice out there, it will leaded to a monopoly.

Like you said TV eyepieces are quite common and easy to buy while others are rare. In fact TV's comprehensive coverage makes it more similar to Mercedes, which offers a comprehensive range of cars, from relatively cheap A-class to the SLS. Rolls Royce, Bentley, Marsereati ... offers a much smaller range of luxury cars, and this is similar to the other high end brands. Like many high end cars, high end planetary eyepiece is not comfortable to use.

I agree with the comments about Meade S5k and ES on f10 C925. The C925 is very tolerant on eyepieces and you many not gain much going from ES82 to TV Nagler. If I was judging my eyepieces on SCTs alone, I'd have sold many of my Nikons, because they offer very little over my LVW at double the price tag. Fortunately, it's a totally different story in my f6 apos.

[twotter]

I think I've read critical reviews of Televue EPs on SGL maybe once or perhaps twice over the last few years and I think that says a lot about the quality and performance of the brand.

For me it comes down to two issues...can I afford them and do my telescopes need them? The answer is no, and no. But I do like to read the discussions about them

[alan potts]

Kieth,

I don't know whether a Rolls is better now BMW have had a play but I drove one a few years back that would be 10 years old now and Rolls was the right word. I wish there was a better choice at the high end myself, what I was getting at rather badly was may of these other class glasses are not really available at all, I believe you told me the Nikons are from one outlet and I am sure you could buy Leica but I have never seen any of the others new.

In the end it dosen't matter how good your eyepieces and scope are it is all down to the quality of the seeing and even that will have a limit as to how good it can be.

This is the 5th day of clouds, i'm fed up.

Alan.

[M4lcs67]

Blimey. Thanks to you all for your comments/opinions. Very comprehensive. I thought that using the car analogy would be a good one anyway. So in summary, they are good, but there are many other good eyepieces out there. Perhaps Tele Vue have been dining out on their status of a high end producer, and with that in mind are they really worth the money or are they overpriced just because they have the Tele Vue badge on them?

[alan potts]

Are they worth the money? Errrrr, for me yes if you can afford them , I got half of mine secondhand . If you want one why not wait a pounce on a S/H one, say a Nagler. It will be easy to sell it on without it costing you a mint if you don't like it.

If you go to a star party there is a very high likelyhood of someone there having one you could look through. You may even find someone with one of the others mentioned but many of these are rare, there 's a good chance of coming across Pentaxs eyepieces too.

Alan.

[Damo636]

I'm not exactly sure where my 02 tdi Focus would fit in in all this, probably comparable to a GSO plossl?, cheap as chips, but reliable (most of the time) & gets the job done!

Its the same with eyepieces really, you don't have to spend the earth to have a very enjoyable experience!

[M4lcs67]

Yeah, Damo.

You are right. It's not that i've the greatest eyesight now since my op a few months ago. I have limited experience at the eyepiece as well, so all I can say is whether I think something appears good or not. There will be others out there with much more experience observing with many more scopes and eyepiece variants who could offer a better opinion than I could ever give.

[John]

The "are they worth the money" question is always difficult because I suspect everybody has slightly different way to reach these decisions. There are eyepieces that are nearly as good and cost a good deal less such as the UWAN's, Nirvana's Meade UWA's, Vixen LVW's, Explore Scientifics etc.

I guess the best answer is to try some out if you can and then you can see how the answer to the "are they worth the money" question shapes up for you

I've been buying Tele Vue eyepieces for years and I can't recall regretting any of the expenditure. I have bought the vast majority of them used though.

[alan potts]

Mal.

If you want something that is going to be good and will not break the bank go for the ExSc or the Meade 5000, I use UWA's at 30mm 24mm 14mm and 5.5 and I have a lot of Televues.

Alan.

[Moonshane]

it really depends on your requirements for 1) apparent field and 2) eye relief.

if you want to try a Televue and don't want to spend a lot then a used TV plossl at £50-70 will provide the same kind of build quality, contrast and sharpness, and overall feel of quality as e.g. a Nagler or Ethos, just with a narrower field of view.

good eyepieces of different types have a place in any kit e.g. although I have a 26mm Nagler and a 13mm Ethos, I prefer my 32mm and 15mm TV plossls for viewing the moon, especially in my lanky 6" f11 dob.

[Space Dragon]

i've only had my 24mm Pans for a few months but can't see myself selling them. Just really comfortable to use, no black-outs or kidney beaning, apart from all the other optical advantages.

Planning on re-buying a pair of 100mm 45º Binoculars with the intention of cruising the Milky Way with them.

Blissful.

[Moonshane]

hi Malc

I just remembered this review I did comparing cheaper eyepieces with more expensive eyepieces and thought you might be interested. not quite an exact match (or science) but perhaps pertinent to your thought processes:

the weather has been so foul that I have never managed to use my 16" f4 since to make a further comparison at a faster focal ratio.