How to appreciate your eyepieces

[Stargazer_00]

So I was out tonight for the 4th in a row (what luck) and have s really good feel for my recent eyepiece acquisitions. After a2 hour session using nothing but the eps in my sig I decided to go and fetch the supplied 25mm plossl and give it a run to give myself a yard stick for comparison. I Recall when I first got a scope thinking this eyepiece was okay and showed nice wide low power views. My jaw nearly fell off with how bad it is by comparison. It has so many defects it is astonishing. It really made me appreciate the quality in my eyepiece case which can quickly be taken for granted. I've been assessing them for the smallest defects when in reality they are almost perfect by any measure.

I would advise you all to try this on the end of an observing session once you have had a good time and your eye had become accustomed to your good eyepieces.

[Ohmless]

yeah, the supplied eyepieces are usually still marginal compared to any medium-high quality eyepiece when it comes to scatter. I am vending mine off to pay for an upgrade myself.

btw, what focal ratio did you test them at eh? f/5 or so begins to weaken the edges on plossl eyepieces IME.

[Stargazer_00]

It was the 25mm super (lol) plossl.

The amount of defects I saw were quite hilarious. Horrific Coma, astigmatism, pin cushioning, internal light reflection off the inside of the barrel.

I never saw any of these defects when I first got into astronomy, it's incredible...

[rwilkey]

The 25mm 'super plossl' that you speak of is not actually a plossl, it is a cheaply made MA (Modified Acromat), little more than a Huygens or Ramsden, with just three elements. Just because it has the word 'super' in the name does not mean it's a plossl. Poor light scatter is due to poor coatings.

[Stargazer_00]

When I first got a telescope these eyepieces seemed absolutely fine to me, so for those that stick with them then I'm sure everything is fine. I didn't want the thread to sound like a mocking of the supplied eyepiece so much as a way of affirming the quality of better ones.

It is astounding to see the difference a good quality eyepiece can make. I hope that people realize just how important good quality eyepieces actually are.

The good news is the BST actually perform very well by comparison. They are exceptional value for money in hindsight.

[rwilkey]

Hi, I totally agree with you, I am hooked on the widefields now, I like starfield studies and double stars anyway, so these fine ep's suit me well. You made a wise choice with the ES80's I think, lovely eps and great views. I am slowly buying them s/h, have the 11mm and 14mm so far, would love the 18mm!

[Stargazer_00]

I was just down Swindon last week on business!

[John]

The 25mm 'super plossl' that you speak of is not actually a plossl, it is a cheaply made MA (Modified Acromat), little more than a Huygens or Ramsden, with just three elements. Just because it has the word 'super' in the name does not mean it's a plossl. Poor light scatter is due to poor coatings.

Thats a good point. A decent plossl (eg: Tele Vue, GSO, Vixen NPL is actually a good eyepiece and can produce some very nice views.

[twotter]

One of those 25mm eps gave me my first real view of the wonders of the night sky. Not as good as much more expensive eps for sure but better than my mark 1 eyeball

[alan potts]

It is funny you post this as I did much the same with a 26mm Meade Plossl eyepiece the other night. I don't really remember how I got it other than I have always had it since I bought the LX 200, I think the Meade Delaer must have given me it for some reason I have long forgotten. I wanted just to check it out as I was passing it on to one of younger members as he is trying to get some EP's togfether and I remember saving from my paper round to fund Astronomy.

The eyepiece was a great deal better than I thought it would be, these are not bad eyepieces at all.

Alan

[Dunkster]

I think the 26 was a popular bundled EP with the Meade SCTs for a while Alan.... it might be decent in your LX, but for kicks stick it in your MN190 and please report back

[Dunkster]

Btw, where's my manners glad you're enjoying your ES82s and relative, Stargazing00

[Stargazer_00]

They really are good. Couldnt recommend them highly enough, I dont need to tell you though!

The old dodgy 11mm they send me barely gets used I tend to use the 8.8 or 14 at the moment. The 11 isnt as impressive for some reason. Maybe its just the ergonomics of it. Still waiting on the supplier to deliver the new one, I know its coming sooner or later though so I dont mind. It'll be a belated surprise.

For the first time tonight I used a barlow on the 4.7 just to see..... I think I might want a fixed length in the 3.5 area now :/ ..... possibly a Nagler 3-6 zoom is still the best option.

[alan potts]

Stargazing00,

But ExSc don't make a 3.5mm do I see a Televue moment coming over you. I still think I want a 3.5mm. Up there the choice is a bit thin on the ground, Pentax, Delos, Nagler. maybe Vixen do something and I know Baader Hyperion used to do a 3.5mm but I have not seen it for a while on sites. So at least there is a bit of choice, I would go for either the Delos or the XW Pentax, both hard to beat.

Alan.

[Stargazer_00]

I do have an inkling for a tv zoom

[alan potts]

I don't have it yet but I bought the one on site a couple of days back. I have always resisted reading what others have written it seems you either get along with or you don't. With it being secondhand I am not going to loose out in the wallet department if I don't like it. I still think I will get a 3.5mm fixed focal length though, but I may use the zoom to assess how much use it could get if I were to buy one. An eyepiece of this F/L only has a place on two of my scopes giving about X230 on one and X285 on the other, the 190mm should be able to handle that amount on a good night.

Though if you believe the Televue write up you could almost bang it in the LX giving a mear X870.

Alan.

[Stargazer_00]

Cool Alan. I hope you get on with it, please do write us a report when you have it

If you do sell it on, please let me know

[Dunkster]

ES 2x barlow seems a natural choice

Gives you 5.5, 4.4, 3.35 and 2.35 then speak to russ.will, I'm sure he ordered one a while back

[Stargazer_00]

Yeah I had a possible ES 2x Focal Extender in mind. It'd certainly be a cheaper option. I might consider that first

[Dunkster]

Which scope are you thinking about? The 250px has a long focal length to be getting good use out of an expensive Nagler zoom. Not trying to discourage you or anything, I'd love one from what I've read about them, but useless for everything but my little 'frac

[alan potts]

I rather think the optical make up of the ExSc extender or barlow will be the same as the older Meade Tele-extender. I used one of these for a few weeks and had a chance to compair against my Powermate. I have to say I didn't find there to be a great deal of difference between them, both being exceptional at doubling up. I am sure the ExSc will not disappoint.

Stargazer00, rest assured I wil write something on the 3-6mm Zoom and if I don't like it and you have not got one you get first offer. I will do a report on a 3.5mm if I get one too.

Alan

[Stargazer_00]

The ST120 lives in my loft in a box at the moment while I decide if it's worth keeping or not so my current used scopes are the 250px and the 150p/AZ4 as grab and go.

I use the 4.7 a lot in both scopes and it's my main planetary eyepiece. yesterday I barlowed the 4.7 in both scopes. That's 319x in the 150p and 511x n the dob and the eyepiece focal length would've been 2.35.

Now, perhaps unsurpisingly, the dob didn't like this too much and jupiter looked absolutely huge but grainy and covered in floaters and was a real nudge-a-thon so not really ideal. Not worth spending TV money on.

By stark contrast, even in poor seeing the 150p delivered well at 319x. A 3mm would probably get a little use and having an option to tune at any focal length down to 3 from 6 might be worth it. certainly if I buy 2nd hand I wont lose out by buying, trying and selling on. I wont replace the 4.7 simply because I like having the set of eyepieces and I think it might be nice having 82 degrees of moon surface to look at / fly over

If I decide to sell the ST120, which is basically new having only bought it at Jan 30 this year (and its been boxed up for 2 weeks now) I would only need to find a little bit more money and be patient to get a TV zoom.

[alan potts]

The 4.7mm is a fine piece of kit, I am again saying I had the Meade version and I rather foolishly got rid when I got the 5mm Radian as that did have the edge as an out and out planetry eyepiece.

I have the new 5.5mm at the moment but have sold it to a site member when I get to England, that's not at all bad either. It battled long and hard against the 6mm Delos and when you consider the price difference even I had to say it was a winner purely and value for money.

But back to where I started I wish I had kept hold of it.

Alan

[hunterknox]

The problem with using better equipment is that it makes you appreciate the flaws in anything you were happy with up until that point. It's a slippery slope...