Skywatcher and supplied eyepieces?

[Astro_noob]

Why do Skywatcher supply these terrible modified achromat eyepieces with there scopes? Considering the cost of the 200p and the audience 1 decent plossl is at least going to give the owner an idea of what the scope can deliver rather than the views through the MA!

Such a shame as I am sure new owners might be turned of this hobby if they were to get this scope and see what it could really deliver with better eyepieces!

[Tinker1947]

i suppose its all down to cost, just set the budget not for a Scope but the add-ons....

[den12386]

I agree, will be down to cost. I have the 25mm MA and I like the results I get with it. Its nice for low power / wide field viewing on my 70mm refractor.

[RikM]

I think they suffer from bad press more than actually poor performance.

They are okay to get you going. The 25mm is pretty good really. The 10mm I am not so sure about. I quite liked it, though I got on better with it barlowed to 5mm as that increased the eye relief and made it more comfortable for me to use (I wear glasses). People have questioned the consistency with this focal length, as some reports say they are okay and others slate them as unusable. I have had 4 sets of the 10 & 25 MA and to my eyes they have been consistent and okay. Not great but not as bad as some cheapo Plossls I have bought as 'upgrades'.

[ronin]

As said it is cost and it looks better to supply 2 eyepieces, also historically they have tended to supply 2. Agree that 1 decent plossl would be better but then after a while someone would reduce costs by supplying one poor eyepiece.

Not sure what Celestron supply but I think Meade still throw in 2 half reasonable plossl's, most of the time.

Really I think it is best to presume that anyone purchasing a Skywatcher will need to consider starting an eyepiece collection fairly rapidly and consign the supplied items to a storage cupboard. I think that telling someone to get used to the supplied items could be a way of putting someone off of this hobby fairly early on.

[Gasman]

I recently bought an Espirit 120 which is a lovely scope but oh dear the supplied eyepiece . It looks quite a nice 2" 26mm fl eyepiece but when I used it the first night with my scope I thought the scope showed pinched optics, my heart sank thinking the scope was faulty but changing to one of my Pentax eyepieces I breathed a huge sigh of relief when all was well in the fov. To be fair I bought the scope without thinking about the supplied eyepiece or finder.

Steve

[den12386]

Yes I have the 10mm one aswell. Results are ok with it. I have barlowed this one 2x and 3x on my 70mm refractor and got good views of jupiter ( thats 210x magnification with the 3x barlow ). I also have a 12mm GSO plossl for comparason which gives slightly less magnifacation but better contrast than the 10mm MA.

[John]

More expensive scopes are often sold with no accessories at all. Meade supply a 2" 26mm QX eyepiece with some of their scopes. It looks much better than the MA's that Skywatcher supplies and is a 5 element wide field design but in reality is a poor performer unless your scope is F/8 or slower. Not great, even then

[twotter]

I spent many nights happily using the supplied eyepieces with my 200P dob and they didn't put me off, quite the reverse in fact. The basic set up introduced me to some wonderful sights in the night sky. The first thing I looked at was Jupiter and I was totally blown away by the view, and I'll never forget that moment.

If more expensive eyepieces were supplied then the cost would go up and I would not have been able to afford my telescope.

[Astro_noob]

Skywatcher sell a line of plossls in the £20 price range. Surely this is more appropriate for higher end scopes than MA.

The MA are useable agreed and can be better than other starter eyepieces. but with scopes costing more than £200 shipping with the same eyepieces as scopes at less than £100 there's something a little cheap about that.

I'm not asking for a pair of panaviews just a eyepiece that matches the audience of the scope.

[Naemeth]

I'm not overly bothered by the fact that the supplied eyepieces of these Skywatcher telescopes are quite poor, because, to a beginner they are great. I had a lot of fun with the supplied eyepieces before I upgraded. I personally would much rather have the purchase price £40 lower (price of two of the SP plossls) and make my own mind up about eyepieces than have slightly better ones supplied .

[KaStern_Former_Member]

Hi Astro_noob,

I fully agree to you!

They supplie eyepieces that are not great at all.

But used in a fastish scope they are a pain.

In a slowish scope they work better.

This is true too if they are used in combination with a barlow.

I think they should at least supply a an eyepiece in the range of these ploessl:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-eyepieces/skywatcher-sp-plossl-eyepieces.html

Cheers, Karsten

[Astro_noob]

Yes I just bougt a explorer 200p that came with a 10 and 25 MA eyepieces. As this is an F/5 why did skywatcher not provide a single plossl in the wideangle range? Given its a fast scope I will need to purchase a new set of lenses, I have a 10mm ortho eyepiece which will of course be better than the MA and a 25mm TAL. Im not asking Skywatcher to throw in a full set of panaviews just not these MAs. I bought them a few years ago as a starter set to use with an old 0.965" scope with a hybrid diagonal. SO now I have 2 pairs of redeundant MAs.

[RikM]

Yes I just bougt a explorer 200p that came with a 10 and 25 MA eyepieces. As this is an F/5 why did skywatcher not provide a single plossl in the wideangle range?

Because the Skywatcher plossls are no better (or rather the MA's are no worse) at f/5. You would have paid an extra £20-40 for nothing and would still have had to upgrade.

People all have different requirements for eyepieces. They could have supplied Televue plossls with the scope but a 10mm would be unusable for anyone who wears glasses while observing. Seeing as you are pretty much guaranteed to change eyepieces anyway, why waste money?

[John]

If you want them to include a wide angle that will do well at F/5 then the price of the scope would increase somewhat. Even the Panaview's are not that great at F/5.

[KaStern_Former_Member]

Hello Rik,

Because the Skywatcher plossls are no better (or rather the MA's are no worse) at f/5.

sorry, this is definitely not true!

A Kellner Typ eyepiece performes worse than a ploessl type eyepiece at f/5.

Shure, at f/5 he ploessl is bad too, but it is better than the MA.

Cheers, Karsten

[RikM]

Hello Rik,

sorry, this is definitely not true!

A Kellner Typ eyepiece performes worse than a ploessl type eyepiece at f/5.

Shure, at f/5 he ploessl is bad too, but it is better than the MA.

Cheers, Karsten

Well we'll just have to disagree on that

Eyepiece preference is a very subjective thing. My experience with the SkyWatcher MA used with f/5 & f/4.7 Newtonians and an f/5 achromatic refractor (among other scopes), they performed to my eyes at least as well as some cheap Celestron, SkyWatcher and GSO plossls I have and in the 10mm focal length, the MA is certainly more comfortable for me to use due to the longer eyerelief. They didn't seem as good as my Meade or Televue plossls and didn't come close to the performance of some other Vixen, Meade, Explore Scientific and Pentax eyepieces I have, though the designs (and prices) don't make that a fair fight.

There is much more to consider with eyepieces than simply saying one design is 'better' than another. The Televue 13mm Ethos is regarded by some (most even) as one of the finest eyepieces ever made. For anyone who has to wear glasses while observing, it could be a phenomenal waste of money and there are far 'better suited' eyepieces available.