MV16mm just arrived.

[lestergibson]

Very good service from Explore Scientific; ordered on Sunday  and arrived yesterday.  And, as ever, the skies are going to be cloudy for the forseeable. Can hardly wait to get a rip on the 16mm though, having been really pleased with the 24mm.

[alan potts]

Congratulations on your new eyepiece, I had the 16mm SWA from Meade, which we all believe is the same as you have and that was a very good eyepiece, though some say a bit tight on the eye-relief, for sure that came from people that were not short orthoscopic users.

Alan

[Bart]

I had the 16mm 68* ES which is probably the same EP. Liked it a lot, the ER was sshort, but as Alan said, when I got the 6mm BCO i realised what short eye relief meant!!! Lovely and clear though, the BCO.

Barry

[Reeny]

I have the 24mm and 16mm.

They work well together.

Because they are pretty close together for magnification, the 16mm more or less lives on the 2.1x Barlow, and is used as an 8mm.

50x   = 24mm

100x = 24mm barlowed

160x = 16mm barlowed

Last night I noticed I had to extend the eyepiece rubber to elimiate blackouts and get comfy.

My 16mm seemed to have too much eye relief.

[AlexB67]

I got the 20mm recently and used it a few times now on various targets in my two scopes, cracking eyepiece, no doubt you will love the 16mm I expect.

IMHO, for the price these are brilliant is my early impression only having used BSTs so far as the bets I own, and the MVs are only slightly more costly and supposedly the BSTs are on par with the X-Cel in your sig ... many would say anyway.

My take so far is that the MV Beats my BSTs in most areas, contrast not dissimilar, perhaps arguably even slightly better in my 25mm BST given the larger exit pupil and you would expect it to be other way round, but hard to say really. Clearly off axis and sharpness it is just better plus an extra 8 degrees.  Since  I do not own anything else 20mm to compare with, but even with that 5mm difference the stars still look more pinpoint too.   Only the ergonomics of the BST I find better, these maxvision eyepieces have a big flat top, makes it a tad less comfy to rest on is about the only thing I'd say, not the best design, but overall it is a winner for a price that is not much above that of the  BSTs, if not the same depending which focal length you get.

I wish I could do a  16,20,24mm MV comparison against 15, 18, 25 BSTs for the fun of it one day with the very similar focal lengths side by side, but my gut tells me go for the MVs is almost a no brainer if you are willing to spend that extra little bit.  Most of that will just be postage cost well worth it. 

I'd also say if indeed these were sold as Meade at normal price for around 200 pounds or thereabouts where I have seen them, I'd be more inclined to say you get what you pay for, and that the  BSTs are easily better bang for buck in that case. However, as it is with that cheap offer they are so attractive, the 28mm is tempting me before this batch potentially vanishes as one more to add to my collection for Xmas,  Bargain :0) 

[lestergibson]

Thanks fellas. Like us all, I wish the clouds would sod off to get a bit of first light through it.  Now I just need a decent planetary ep to round things out. The 24mm was definitely a bargain and I hope the 16mm performs just as well. I was going to go for the ES 82 14mm but it was double the price and the general opinion was that the MV would be the best bang for the buck. I love this site:)

[Reeny]

................................................ Now I just need a decent planetary ep to round things out. ...............................

You might be revisiting the Explore Scientific 82 degree catalogue.

I had my eye on the 11mm to use at 109x

and Barlowed up to 230x as a 5mm. 

Let us know how you get on with your next choice.

The 70o Delos will match the 68's for field of view.

But at higher magnifications, I think the wider 82's will keep the object in the sights a little bit longer.

Any weakness in the BST's is likely to be exposed at these higher magnifications 

Otherwise it would be a done deal with the 12mm and 5mm BST to give:

100x / 200x / 240x (and the barlowed 16mm in the middle at 160x)

Unfortunately there is a 12mm and 4.5mm Delos in the TeleVue range.

[lestergibson]

Yeah, I had been reading thar a wider FOV is not really needed for planetary at high power but I thought it would mean less frequent nudging. I had been thinking of the WO 6mm but it's a 55. Seems to be a lot of love for it, though.  Choices choices, lol.

[bingevader]

I have the WO 6mm in your 'scope and it's fab. I don't find nudging it to be a problem. The image is good and sharp across the field and there's plenty of time between nudges for good observations. But then I don't find nudging the 5mm a problem either.

Cheers

[lestergibson]

Cheers, vader, that's good to know. Do you get to use the 5mm much?

[Joves]

I was of two minds as to whether I needed a wide field high-power EP for planetary use, so went with the Nagler 3-6mm zoom, which I love. However, I have just gotten the 3.7mm Ethos and had a look through it at Jupiter a couple of nights ago, and it is SUPERB! The need to nudge the scope less frequently to keep it in the FOV is a godsend, but the view itself... Wow. It's amazing how beautiful planets look when they are floating in the vast ink-black sky that high power EP's provide!!

[Pig]

Congrats on you purchase, you have a fine eyepiece there   I had to wait over a month to use the last eyepiece I bought   pesky clouds.

[Joves]

Congrats, btw... Which is what I meant to say first up in my last post

[Lee M]

Yeah, I had been reading thar a wider FOV is not really needed for planetary at high power but I thought it would mean less frequent nudging. I had been thinking of the WO 6mm but it's a 55. Seems to be a lot of love for it, though.  Choices choices, lol.

As you can see in my sig I've also got the MaxVision bug. You'll like the 16mm. It's sharper than the 15mm BST especially towards the edges.

Ref a higher mag - I managed to pick up a 6.7mm Meade UWA and I find the extra FOV with less nudging a real benefit. I still like the BST 8mm but I must admit if I got the chance to pick up the 8.8 & 5.5mm UWAs at a decent price I'd certainly snap them up.

[lestergibson]

Cheers again, folks for the reassurrances.  That Meade UWA 5.5mm looks really tasty, Lee but I'd be a little wary of going above x200.  Having said that though, there are quite a few people on the board who seem to get fairly regular time on their 5mm eps at F6 so maybe one would worth a punt. I don't know if I'd have the patience to wait see if a used one pops up somewhere so I might end up going for a new one. I have a little bit of ep fever don't I?!?!? Still, I don't mind; I waited a fair bit before starting to upgrade from the stock eps so I know the interest is going to stay with me.

[Lee M]

Cheers again, folks for the reassurrances.  That Meade UWA 5.5mm looks really tasty, Lee but I'd be a little wary of going above x200.  Having said that though, there are quite a few people on the board who seem to get fairly regular time on their 5mm eps at F6 so maybe one would worth a punt. I don't know if I'd have the patience to wait see if a used one pops up somewhere so I might end up going for a new one. I have a little bit of ep fever don't I?!?!? Still, I don't mind; I waited a fair bit before starting to upgrade from the stock eps so I know the interest is going to stay with me.

The 5mm BST mostly gets used for star tests or splitting doubles. There's been plenty of times where the 8mm is clear and stable but the leap to 5mm is just too much so the 6.7 looks like it should be sweet as long as the seeing is reasonable.

[Ness]

I have also just received the MV 16mm & 24mm from Explore Scientific. Excellent service! Now I'm waiting for clear skies to put them to the test. Enjoy your new EP :-)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk