Why would somebody use Plossls in this case...?

[BillP]

Having moved from Plossls to wide field eyepieces I ended up selling most of my Plossls as they weren't used as much . But I can still see a lot of members who still use both Plossls and wide field EPs...even with similar focal length. Any reason for that?

I maintain a complete set of wide fields, a complete set of high performance planetary eyepieces, and a complete set of Plossls (Sterling Plossls).  A number of reasons for me:

1. Plössls can really do it all and are a more hassle-free experience being small and compact, so perfect for quick observing sessions.

2. A quality Plössl, having only 4 air-glass interfaces, can provide a slightly brighter view and sometimes a perceived higher contrast as well, so sometimes gives a better perspective on some target features.

3. Sometimes it is just plain "easier" to view a 50-55 deg AFOV than it is a larger AFOV and generally there are zero eye placement issues.

4. Generally being the least expensive design on the market, I feel more comfortable traveling with them than expensive wide fields in case lost or stolen.

[YKSE]

I maintain a complete set of wide fields, a complete set of high performance planetary eyepieces, and a complete set of Plossls (Sterling Plossls). 

Would you like to share your point of view why you choose Sterling Plössls over others?

[Joves]

The only duplicate focal lengths I keep in my eyepiece case are a 25mm X-Cel LX which is my Horsehead Nebula eyepiece and a 6mm Baader GO which I use for splitting Sirius. Otherwise I'm doing all my viewing with Nagler, Ethos, Radian and Pentax XW eyepieces now. The Ethos 6mm has shown superb views of Jupiter and the Moon over the past few nights 

Hi John,

Love that you have a dedicated EP for the Horse Head. I wish I had dedicated eyeballs for it. How many times have you been able to view the elusive nag through your X-Cel LX, out of curiosity? With a 12" scope, I believe this is quite an achievement and have been curious as to what FL EP gives the best chance. I've seen it nicely with my Mallincam, but would absolutely love to get even just one glimpse of it visually in this lifetime

[emadmoussa]

If I'm using an RDF finder only I find that wide field eyepieces are more helpful in finding your target, while Plossls with their modest FOV require extra moving of the telescope. I know that sounds lazy...

Plus, I always found the short focal length Plossls very uncomfortable to use. I don't wear glasses...but still.

[ronin]

To me its always a balance of cost and performance.

Ultimately if the plossl's work and produce what you want why buy an eyepiece at 5x or 10x the cost.

I have read people here seling their ES82's with which they were immensly happy for ES100's, and the only apparent reason being a new option was now available. Concidering I have yet to read how great ES100's are but have read many times how great ES82's are I have to wonder if the change was to any advantage.

One slightly odd aspect is that there seems more high end eyepieces for sale then there is for BST's, X-Cels and TV plossl's. Also the BST's, X-Cels and TV Plossl's get snapped up almost immediatly.

I have a set of TV plossl's, set of BST's the WO SWANS and a few others running round.

The inexpensive plossl's I did give away, not because they were too bad but I was not going to use them and it saved someone the cost of buying for their new scope.

Have a few plossl's still around, seem pretty good Meade and Celestron ones from a few years back. They have their use.

When TV upped their prices a few year back it pushed the TV plossl's out of reach of many as a good upgrade path and the BST's and X-Cels became the upgrade of choice. Perhaps simply too many cheap cheap plossl's are available that put people off of them. A TV plossl on a cluster will be sharp, a Quango £20 plossl on a cluster will be bad.

Also suspect that in many instances plossl's get push out as people wnat magnification and really a plossl below 8mm can be difficult to get on with.

[cotterless45]

I love using them down to 5mm on refractors. The older Ultima and Vixens are just pin sharp to the edge of the field.

I think what puts folk off is that you've got to get used to them up close. It's very satisfying to see galaxies and nebulae at 60-80 fov set in a background of star fields, but this is not the requirement for planets or double stars.

I picked up my 7.5 Ultima for £20 on Ebay and am happy to pay a bit more for old school quality,

Old Nick.

[nicks90]

the other option to consider is to use a decent quality barlow if eye relief is an issue.

that way you can get decent high power out of a plossl/ortho without the ludicrous eye relief. I am currently on the hunt for a nice 10mm ortho to use with my ED x2 barlow. That would give me an impressive 10mm in its own right, and on nights of exceptional seeing and the barlow, x300 mag with very little glass to reduce the contrast. I know adding the barlow would probably not make it as good as a straight up 5mm ortho - but it will be a lot more comfortable to use and should still be a very good planetary performer at a fraction the cost a more exotic ep would sting me for, and probably give better edge to edge views in my f4.9 dob.

Looking at ep reviews on big fast dobs, to get something properly good in the 5mm range with 60deg+ FoV i need to be buying a delos or pentax. I'd rather spend £100 on a decent barlow and a couple of orthos and effectively get 4 higher power eps and save a couple of hundred notes. But I am from Yorkshire...

[John]

Hi John,

Love that you have a dedicated EP for the Horse Head. I wish I had dedicated eyeballs for it. How many times have you been able to view the elusive nag through your X-Cel LX, out of curiosity? With a 12" scope, I believe this is quite an achievement and have been curious as to what FL EP gives the best chance. I've seen it nicely with my Mallincam, but would absolutely love to get even just one glimpse of it visually in this lifetime

So far, I've not managed to see it Joves. I probably need to get to a darker site than my back garden. 

[Moonshane]

I also have a Horsehead eyepiece (in my case a 20mm TV plossl). I bought it for the same reasons as John and also have not used it in anger yet. In all honesty it's a great eyepiece anyway and just squeezes the moon in the field at 80x in my 6" newt. hoping next new moon will bring clear skies, a dark site and the HH with my 16" dob.

[RikM]

You know that 21mm smoothside TV Plossl I mentioned HH-EP

[BillP]

Would you like to share your point of view why you choose Sterling Plössls over others?

Sure.  The primary reason is that they are more engaging than standard Plossls because their AFOV is slightly widened to an advertised 55 degrees (although my measures say 57 degrees).  This small increase is significant perceptually compared to a standard 50 degree AFOV Plossl.  Next reason was performance.  When I stacked them up against my TV Plossls I noted that their transmission is as good or better as the TVs, which is supelative.  Looking at the off-axis, I noted that both the TV ans Sterlings use the modified Plossl design where the external facing surfaces are concave instead of flat, which improves off-axis astigmatism control.  In field tests this bore out as the off-axis to the same TFOV point was just as controlled in both.  Their price of course is wonderfully good so a great value.  Finally, on some DSO field tests (I usually am just a planetary guy), the 25mm Sterling was simply phenomenal beating out a field of competition, excepting the 25mm ZAO.  So overall the line is quite exceptional.  I feel that they show a very slight amount more of scatter which makes them less optimal for planetary than I like, but it's sufficiently low to not be an issue for all other observing tasks.  They also have no issues with conventional Barlows, so no vignette of the FOV.  I had had the TV Plossls which need a Telecentric or Powermate to not vignette, so was happy that the Sterlings did not need this and worked well with a conventional Barlow as I prefer the least amount of glass in the path that I can manage.  So overall, of all the Plossls out there, I feel the mix of pros and cons weighs best in their favor over others.  The only real quirk they have is that their field stops are located unusually high above the shoulder of the eyepiece.  The consequence of this is that may be problematic with binoviewers needing more in focus that may be available on the scope.  Also affect the resulting Barlow magnification, more so when using a shorty Barlow so you may get slightly higher magnifications when using these since the field stop is offset above the shoulder.  This is their major "con" IMO.  The rest is a lot of "pros"   btw, I just got the 2" 30mm Sterling Plossl.  It is amazinging nice and is very bright.  Has pretty much become the low power eyepiece I start with now on all my scopes.  Love it.

[BillP]

Ooops...just remembered the 2nd quirk, but only really notice it on the 25mm Sterling, which is a fair amount of angular magnification distortion right at the field stop, so the Moon and other round shapes get distorted when positioned there.  Have not noted it on any other focal length though...but don't look for it either as I generally keep my targets centered.  But this bothers some folks with the 25mm so need to be aware of that.

[AlexB67]

Interesting to always hear about other lesser known makes, looking around they seem like a bargain too. Never heard of them before.

[YKSE]

Bill, Thanks a lot for your sharing your thoughts, I've always enjoy reading yours and John's reviews