Meade QX 4000-series 2" EPs

[Stratis]

Hi all,

So I recently took advantage of a sparkling deal for a 2" Revelation Astro quartz diagonal with a free Meade QX 30mm eyepiece just thrown into the bargain.... I've taken delivery of the two items because honestly nothing beats free, but I won't get a chance to use them until the 2" visual back arrives for my SCT.

I had a nice conversation with a gentleman at Telescope House and he seemed very upbeat about the QX-series, citing extremely high transmission as a key feature. That said, the QX series crops up again and again around the net as one of the worst eyepiece series ever made! I've read extreme criticism of the series from insane barrel distortion, coma, astigmatism, gut-wrenching focus accommodation problems... the list is apparently endless.

The chap at TH seemed surprised when I mentioned this, and said that with slower scopes (above f/6) he's personally found them a bright and beautiful eyepiece so I thought I'd seek advice from you fine people

I'd like to know,

• Are they really as bad as a lot of posters claim they are or is it just random forum whining?
  
• Are the problems confined to an earlier series of the EP? I have a 4000-series.
  
• Are the problems confined to shorter fls? This one is 30mm.
  
• Is it likely to be so bad I have to throw it onto AstroBuy&Sell or (shudder) fleabay?
  

The build quality of the piece at least is absolutely exceptional... I'd appreciate the experience of any owners of this series

[John]

I can only comment on the 26mm 2" QX that was supplied by Meade with my Lightbridge 12" dobsonain. It's nicely finished so thats a positive point. The problems I had with it were:

i. It's focal plane was well down the barrel, much further down than many other eyepieces. In practice this meant that, as supplied, the Lightbridge would not bring the eyepiece to focus unless the eyepiece was hanging most of the way out of the focuser. It did not look very secure to be honest.

ii. When I did get it to focus, by using a short extension tube, the outer 30% (at least) of the field of view was astigmatic, ie: stars were not points but extended into a sort of "seagull" shape which got more severe as your eye moved towards the edge of the field of view. This was not coma produced by the scope as that would give the stars a comet shape with the "tail" extending away from the centre of the field of view.

Both the above issues might not be present when the eyepiece is used in a slow scope like a schmidt or maksutov cassegrain of course.

Thats my only experience with the QX range. The 26mm certainly did not suit the F/5 Lightbridge in my opinion.

[alan potts]

I was loaned one of these by my friend and it was not very good in my LX 200, and that is F10. I am sure the faster you go the worse it will become. I only had one scope at the time and though focus was not an issue I agree with John it was not a good eyepiece.

Alan

[swamp thing]

I also echo Johns comments. Awful thing the 26mm one.

Never seen as many seagulls in the night sky as when using this eyepiece near the Milky Way