In praise of the 32mm TeleVue Plossil

[Caldwell14]

THE 32mm fossil was my first plossil by TeleVue, and what an episode it is. The build 40quality is...er TeleVue, nuff said. At 120 quid New (£70-£90 second hand) you get a quality low power ep, capable, in my scope at least, the entire Beehive cluster, the Pleiades and M32 with ease. Fit a UHC filter and the veil complex is revealed in all its glory. As a solar episode or for full disc lunar observation you just can't go wrong. Extremely sharp optics, superb build quality and at a price won't break the bank that might just last a life timeline

[Caldwell14]

Where did the spelling mistakes and random words ome from?

[Caldwell14]

And again..

[Nakedgun]

I agree, everybody should own at least one.

[Pig]

They certainly are a very good eyepiece

[ollypenrice]

Yes, I did a back to back against a Meade Series 4000 26mm Plossl I have and the TV was that bit better. The TV is the only Plossl I actually use regularly.

Olly

[Tonys]

Posts like these are bad for me as they always put temptation in my way. I use Revelation Astro and Tal plossl's and I keep wondering whether a Televue one really will make enough of a difference to justify the price, given that I'm a cheap-skate where astro gear us concerned. Tempted though...

[bingevader]

If you were buying one to "fill a gap" then yes, they're very fine EPs.

If you were looking to replace one you already have, then unless there's something about the one you have that you can't get on with or it really is duff, I'd say no!

Yes, I did a back to back against a Meade Series 4000 26mm Plossl I have and the TV was that bit better. 

I've done the same, with the same result.

The differences are noticeable, but they won't blow your socks off, in my opinion, but it is just my opinion!

Cheers

[Pig]

Posts like these are bad for me as they always put temptation in my way. I use Revelation Astro and Tal plossl's and I keep wondering whether a Televue one really will make enough of a difference to justify the price, given that I'm a cheap-skate where astro gear us concerned. Tempted though...

It would depend on the size of the exit pupil size with your scope and your age    However this would apply to any eyepiece of the same size.

Only you can decide if it is worth it or not, it is a lot of cash.

Buying one second hand may be an option (if you can get one) you could then sell it on again without taking a big hit when compared to the price of a new one.

[earth titan]

Welcome to the dark (ish) side! I moved to TV Plossls last year and they are all excellent.

The 32 is perhaps the best, but they all provide good crisp images, with excellent contrast.

[Moonshane]

Where did the spelling mistakes and random words ome from?

did they originate from intake of red wine?

I agree completely with your comments. I have all the TV plossls other than the 8mm (I have an 8mm Radian) and the 40mm (the 32mm covers the same field) and they are all superb in every way. The 32mm provides the most wonderful views of the full moon in all my scopes and is my favourite ep for solar (50x in my 6" f11 newt).

[John]

My first 1.25" eyepieces were TV plossls - bought new back in the late 1980's

I was expecting a big jump in performance and to be able to see things that I simply could not in my "lesser" .965" eyepieces. I was quite disappointed when the views were just a little better. I sold the TV plossls and then began a long trawl through numerous other brands of plossls, erfles, SWA's super plossls etc, etc to find that big boost that I was looking for. Of course I didn't find it but during the course of using and discarding many others I did realise just what the TV plossls had actually been delivering because none of the others I used were quite as satisfying. I then set about finding a set of the smooth sided TV plossls and then a set of the current ones with the integral rubber eye cups.

Looking back on that experience, what I feel a TV plossl delivers is the confidence that the eyepiece is going to show you everything the scope and conditions will allow so, in a sense, you can stop worrying about that component of your optical system because it's as good as its going to get. Thats a good feeling, I reckon

[Moonshane]

Great post John. If I ever got to the financial position of having to sell my more valuable eyepieces, I'd had no real concerns as there's no 'shame' in a set of TV plossls.

[YKSE]

My first 1.25" eyepieces were TV plossls - bought new back in the late 1980's

I was expecting a big jump in performance and to be able to see things that I simply could not in my "lesser" .965" eyepieces. I was quite disappointed when the views were just a little better.........

Looking back on that experience, what I feel a TV plossl delivers is the confidence that the eyepiece is going to show you everything the scope and conditions will allow so, in a sense, you can stop worrying about that component of your optical system because it's as good as its going to get. Thats a good feeling, I reckon

Great point from an experienced viewer.

All of us expecting some magic EPs should really understand it for our own benefit (expectations, wallet).

[earth titan]

I have, over my 5 years or so of observing tried just about all the options within my budget. I went from the cheap plossls that came with the 1st scope to TMB planetarys, orthos etc. In the end I came to the conclusion that there are, as John points out above, only small increases in performance and no magic bullets.

The TV plossl is, in my limited experience, the best value for money eyepiece there is.

[Brian Nordstrom]

I have a 20mm and 40mm TV plossl's in my case with my Tak SKY90 so they and a 9mm nagler are always ready for use ( the whole scope mount and tripod live in a locked case on the back of my ute , ready for action ) and find the plossl's very , very good in the Tak even at f5.5 , great eyepieces for sure for very little money .

Brian.

[StarryEyed]

I used to have a televue 32mm plossl. Fantastic in a small refractor. For me second only to my 2.5 powermate as best value accessory to a telescope. Nearly cried the day I dropped it and it cracked.

[Nakedgun]

I have a 20mm and 40mm TV plossl's in my case with my Tak SKY90 so they and a 9mm nagler are always ready for use ( the whole scope mount and tripod live in a locked case on the back of my ute , ready for action ) and find the plossl's very , very good in the Tak even at f5.5 , great eyepieces for sure for very little money .

Brian.

The 40TV plossl is the only one in the line-up I had no trouble parting with. You really should try the 32 in your Tak. It provides the same true field as the 40, but with higher magnifiication.

[CSM]

First eyepiece I bought and the first one I use every night - well, when it's clear.

[25585]

Love my 32mm TV Plossl. It is my lowest power 31.76m ep

[Charic]

On 31/12/2013 at 13:01, Tonys said:

I use Revelation Astro and Tal plossl's and I keep wondering whether a Televue one really will make enough of a difference to justify the price,

Just browsing some older threads and noticed its nearly four Years and still no TV Plössl's  in @Tonys  collection?

I went there with the 8mm and 11mm on loan! just did'nt like the eye-relief,  just too short ( back then) plus  I needed a shorter focal length in the 'set' (6mm to be precise). I've since gone back to their Plossls to try the longer focal lengths, but can't get away from the fact that the Revelation Plössl's are so darn good on the f/6 Skyliner, and  yet even with the short eye relief, their workable for my needs, but alas,  folk won't know this until they try them?
 Same with the 8mm Delos a very nice lens with the potential to perform on faster scopes, but against my Starguider, on my f/6 scope, my eyes, only the afov was noticeable, the image itself was too close to warrant the Tele Vue expense and to  keep them for just the Skyliner, plus my mindset changed with the thought/purchase of the 12"/10" Skyliner, now keeping the 8" for practical reasons, but all  that could still change!

 

[kev]

I completely concur. My 32mm is my go to low power eyepiece.  Always "snappy" and brings out the best.  

 

[mikeDnight]

After spending the last thirteen years using TV'amazing wide field offerings, I made the decision to return to the simpler plossl and ortho designs for my eyepieces. There's a clarity about them that to my eye seems to be lacking in more complex eyepieces. I can live quite happily with a slightly narrower true field of view as its more than compensated for by the clarity and on axis sharpness. Other advantages are the physical size of the plossl and similar designs, they are relatively cheap, and in many good quality simple design eyepieces the edge distortion is kept well under control. It used to niggle me that on many high end eyepieces boasting a 70, 80 or 100 degree field or more, a significant amount of the outer field showed distortion. So in my mind if the outer 25% of a 70° field eyepiece such as the XW shows distortion, its not a 70° eyepiece. Granted, all eyepieces go off a little at the edge, but when you're paying hundreds of pounds for a wide field its a bit of a con'. I recently bought a 35mm Eudiascopic as my lowest power eyepiece. It gives the widest true field that a 1.25" eyepiece can, so in this regard its similar to the 24mm Pan. It has a lower power than the Pan, and in a direct comparison with the 24 Panoptic only last week, the Eudiascopic proved to be a much more pleasant eyepiece to use and was more comfortable by far. I can't see me returning to expensive wide field eyepieces any time soon.

[John]

On 10/09/2017 at 08:31, mikeDnight said:

.... It used to niggle me that on many high end eyepieces boasting a 70, 80 or 100 degree field or more, a significant amount of the outer field showed distortion. So in my mind if the outer 25% of a 70° field eyepiece such as the XW shows distortion, its not a 70° eyepiece. Granted, all eyepieces go off a little at the edge, but when you're paying hundreds of pounds for a wide field its a bit of a con'..

Mike - what sort of distortion are you talking about ?

It's a bit off topic though because the thread is about the 32mm plossl - a simple, non-wide, design.

 

 

[mikeDnight]

35 minutes ago, John said:

Mike - what sort of distortion are you talking about ?

It's a bit off topic though because the thread is about the 32mm plossl - a simple, non-wide, design.

 

 

Hi John,

With the XW's the 20mm and 14mm tended to show seagulls at the edge of the field which started to be detectable at around 25% from the edge. With my 31 Nagler the edge stars were out of focus when the centre field was sharp, but by focusing the 75% zone it gave a reasonable view across the field though technically it wasn't in true focus. My 35mm Eudiascopic goes off at the edge but its very close to the field stop and the eyepiece is so comfortable I can forgive it.