Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

  • Announcements

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_nb_dso.jpg.eb6cd158659331fd13e71470af6da381.jpg

Caldwell14

In praise of the 32mm TeleVue Plossil

Recommended Posts

Stu    14,146
1 hour ago, mikeDnight said:

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.

Is that not as likely to be field curvature of the scope as much as anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikeDnight    3,540

Yes, but in my mind and for whatever reason, unless the stars are sharp across the entire field then the eyepiece isn't really giving a true real field. If for example, the stars in the outer 25% of a 70° AF  are not sharp or in focus then I might as well be using a narrower field eyepiece that is sharp or sharper towards the edge.

May be I'm a little odd, or even a lot odd, but over the last couple of months I've really enjoyed using quality but simple eyepiece designs over the bulky, wide field designs. These little gems are so sharp and pure that I'm happy to let go of the wide field hand grenades which are often much larger and heavier than they need to be, all in the name of fashion. 

To fund my Tak I sold many of my Televue eyepieces which were mainly 2" fit and kept my XW's, which I thought gave a better view anyway. But this left me with mainly highish power eyepieces, so one evening my mate Paul loaned me a 24mm Plossl. Wow it was good! There was a sharpness and clarity to the view that i hadnt seen in years. I then decided to set myself up with some small but high quality eyepieces from Takahashi but was dissapointed with the performance and comfort of some of them. I then bought a set of Fujiyama ortho's but some were faulty and I sent them back. Although I wanted a complete set of quality 'simple' eyepieces, I was unable to find a set, so I've had to cherry pick from different brands until I feel reasonably happy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    16,714

But Tele Vue's whole ethos is about "showing no field unless it's fine":icon_scratch:

Better let the Naglers know that they've got it wrong Mike :icon_biggrin:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iPeace    2,016

I do see the point in not incurring the extra bulk, weight and cost if the extra field is not worth it to you. Especially if your mount is motorized.  :happy11:

Perhaps a bit more pertinent to the OP, I am curious as to how the TV 32mm Plossl stacks up against the 24mm Panoptic. Same true field, different magnification. Neither qualifies as a hand granade. Can the simplicity of the Plossl's design provide a more pleasing view? Or does the "majesty factor" prevail?

I have acquired a TV 32mm Plossl from a fellow SGL member and after I return from hols, I intend to find out.

:icon_biggrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Spock    4,951

I have a Meade 4000 32mm Plössl and it gives lovely crisp views with a nice black background. I do prefer my widefield eyepieces eyepieces though, especially the LVW series.

As an aside, don't worry about spelling Plössl. From what I've seen I'm about the only person on the planet who writes it correctly... :ohmy::tongue2:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    16,714

I spent a happy night with just a TV 32mm Plössl  (plus eyecup extender) in my 12" dob galaxy hopping last year.  Spotted dozens during that session :icon_biggrin:

I find the 24mm Panoptic provides a similar view with a darker background sky here though, as does the 21mm Ethos (more sky !) so I don't tend to use 30mm+ eyepieces that often apart from on the largest deep sky targets.

I believe the pronounciation is "pl-oo-eh-sl" :icon_biggrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×