Maxvision 24mm vs 28mm

[nitram100]

Hi guys,

I am about to order my first widefield eyepeice and was wondering what would be the better option for me?

http://www.optical-systems.com/maxvision-68deg-okular-24mm-p-25562.html

or

http://www.optical-systems.com/maxvision-68deg-okular-28mm-p-25563.html

I just want an eyepiece that will give me a sort of space walk feeling. It will be used in a F4.8 10" Newtonian.

Has anyone used both of these eyepieces, is there much difference between them?

Thanks

[Chris]

Hi, I have the 20mm and the 28mm and they are both great, I should imagine the 24mm would be just as good. The Maxvisions are fantastic value for the money, they are basically re-labelled Meade 5000 UWA which cost hundreds, so these work out at a fraction of the cost!

I think you will be happy with either really, you just need to decide on a focal length that suits your needs. The eyepiece offers a very good field of view and when properly cooled the stars are sharp to the edge, they ooze quality and are fantastically comfortable to use. I wouldn't call it a space walk but certainly the FOV feels roomy

Chris

[emadmoussa]

I have the 20mm and I think it's pretty good considering the price. As a matter of fact, I bought it along with the ExSc 24mm - which is twice the price - and I can't notice much difference in image quality.

As for space walk, I have this feeling whenever I'm using my Baader Scopos 35mm. I usually use with my 6" refractor and I think it won't give this feeling for lesser aperture.

[nitram100]

Hey thanks for the info guys, appreciated. Think I am going to go for the 28mm as I really do prefer low magnification viewing. It will have 7.1mm exit pupil in my scope, which might be pushing it though!

emadmoussa, wow that is one huge eyepiece!

[John]

I did not use my 31mm Nagler much with my Orion Optics F/4.8 10" when I had that scope. The 20mm Nagler was my eyepiece of choice for most low power wide field viewing. As well as the oversize exit pupil issue (I'm probably a bit older than you so my dilated pupil is probably smaller than yours) the 20mm Nagler gave a noticeably darker background sky than the 31mm.

Your mileage may vary though, as they say.

[emadmoussa]

Hey thanks for the info guys, appreciated. Think I am going to go for the 28mm as I really do prefer low magnification viewing. It will have 7.1mm exit pupil in my scope, which might be pushing it though!

emadmoussa, wow that is one huge eyepiece!

Yep, 1.2 Kg. It's my favourite!!!

[nitram100]

I did not use my 31mm Nagler much with my Orion Optics F/4.8 10" when I had that scope. The 20mm Nagler was my eyepiece of choice for most low power wide field viewing. As well as the oversize exit pupil issue (I'm probably a bit older than you so my dilated pupil is probably smaller than yours) the 20mm Nagler gave a noticeably darker background sky than the 31mm.

Your mileage may vary though, as they say.

Thanks for the info. How did you find the performance of the Nagler in the fast F4.8 scope? I am watching a Nagler T4 22mm on ebay at the moment and wouldn't mind paying around £240 (optimistic i know) for it if it meant that it would be probably the best low power eyepiece for my scope. Plus, I have this craving to see the Nagler space walk!

[John]

The Naglers are all really excellent at F/4.8. You can see a little coma though in a newtonian but thats the scope rather than the eyepiece. I had the 22mm T4 before I moved to the 20mm T5 because it fitted into my set a little better. Both really, really nice eyepieces. The 22mm T4 has a much larger eye lens and more eye relief so it can seem more immersive than the than the 20mm T5.

As others will say, there are other options today though that are very nearly as good and cost somewhat less though.

[alan potts]

It is clear that you have been looking at the Maxvisions, all of them are good , I had the full set of Meades and they ran to over 1000 quid . I would go for the shorter as already advised, if you wanted the wider field of view why not go for the 24mm UWA 82 degree maxvision, if it is still available?

Alan.

[rowan46]

It is clear that you have been looking at the Maxvisions, all of them are good , I had the full set of Meades and they ran to over 1000 quid . I would go for the shorter as already advised, if you wanted the wider field of view why not go for the 24mm UWA 82 degree maxvision, if it is still available?

Alan.

As usual good advice and of course the larger magnification will give a darker sky and the uwa is better corrected in an f5 scope than the swa

[nitram100]

Thanks guys, so if I'm willing to spend that bit more then the 82 degree 24mm would be the best eyepiece from the max vision range to give that wide field space walk kind of view?

[rowan46]

I think it's a better eyepiece but as they say your mileage may vary. When dealing with eyepieces it comes down to personal preference. My scope is an f6 and I only get 20x out of my eyepiece but I love it for tearing through the milky way. I bought it as a finder originally But I use it a lot more than my delos and pentax. No doubt when the darker skies come back I will use it less.

[Andyj]

...if you wanted the wider field of view why not go for the 24mm UWA 82 degree maxvision, if it is still available?

Alan.

Still showing as available. I ordered one myself which was shipped yesterday and is currently in transit.

[russ.will]

As usual good advice and of course the larger magnification will give a darker sky and the uwa is better corrected in an f5 scope than the swa

Is it?

Russell

[rowan46]

Is it?

Russell

which bit isnt it. good advice (thats my opinion) the manufactures themselves claim its better corrected than the 68 at f4 and f5

[russ.will]

It was a question, not a criticism.

I'll admit that time spent with the Maxvisions in my F4.9 Dob has been limited and comparisons with the closest ES82s, even more so. I also wasn't aware that ES/Meade/MV had made such claims regarding the relative levels of correction. I now note that ES.eu do with the SWA & UWAs, whilst ES.com do not for the ES68 & ES82. Meade don't list the SWAs anymore.

I suppose what I was thinking of is that, given that the assumed differences between the SWAs and the UWAs, resulting purely from the increasing field of view, the less demanding field of the SWA would be better corrected and simultaneously show less issues from the scope too? A sort of Ethos v Delos situation.

Like I say, I'm not committing one way or the other, as any comparisons I have made have been in an F9.4 frac on solar and lunar targets, which has really limited the comparison to being between the 14mm UWA, 16mm SWA & 18mm UWA, with the 24mm thrown in occasionally. On those targets, the 16mm kicks their collective butts! Roll on the dark nights and lower humidity I say.

Russell

[rowan46]

Russ its me who needs to offer explanations I was at least curt and definitely snippy so I do apologise. It was entirely my misunderstanding and apologies for my rudeness.

[russ.will]

No need. Unless you knew to read my original question with raised eyebrows, or furrowed, my meaning could have been easily misconstrued.

Russell