No Televues allowed...

[jetstream]

After reading some more material on eyepieces,I wanted to see which ones would give us the views on M42 so cherished.It seems that some EP's can give M42 that nice mottled,structured or as I've called it "marbled" look vs the "milky" or "flat" look to the nebula.Here is the stipulation-NO TV's allowed!Personally here the conditions have prevented much observation,but this will change & the eyepieces here will be checked.

Any thoughts?

[John]

For what it's worth I found the 18mm and 10mm Baader Classic Ortho's gave an excellent rendition of M42 and seemed to have a slight edge on the Baader Genuine Ortho's of equivilent focal lengths on deep sky objects where light transmission and contrast are a really benefit. 

A 10mm Baader CO slightly bested a 10mm of a range named after a Greek island from a brand that I can't mention in a comparison conducted on faint galaxies with big dobs under dark skies in the USA recently

[Mr Spock]

For faint fuzzies you can't beat a good Ortho

There's too much of an obsession with going wide, when what you really want is to go faint.

[RikM]

An old Meade 3000 series 16mm polssl in an 8" Dob gave a phenomenal view of M42 for me a couple of years ago. It was one of those rare nights after a good deal rain had washed all the dust out of the atmosphere and no moon around spoiling the view. An unforgettable experience

[Mike73]

If I wanted to improve the views of M42 then the last thing I would look at would be an EP!

[alan potts]

It is a good job I have some BGO orthoscopics and a longer  18mm Kasai otherwise I would not be able to take part.

Mike, interesting point, can I read into that a 20 inch is on order.

Alan.

[estwing]

I have said set of meades RikM £40 for the complete set really,really good EPs...good orthos are hard to beat tho

[Joves]

I'm not really in a position to comment on any specifics, however... When looking at an object like M42, which is quite large and has quite a high surface brightness, I think you'd find a wide EP is exactly what the doctor ordered. The best views I've had of M42 (and I look at it every time it is up) has been through a high-powered, wide AFOV eyepiece (can't for the life of me remember what brand it is though!). The high magnification brings out the detail whilst keeping the sky it's trademark velvety black and the AFOV allows you to still see the overall structure.

Sorry for the shot memory on brand, btw... It'll definitely come to me...

[Moonshane]

if there are no TVs allowed then I'd probably say Pentaxes LOL

if you are saying you want to omit expensive eyepieces then I'd agree that orthos are hard to beat but then so are TV plossls at £50. I'm not really sure what the point of the question is other than obviously being a bit of fun?

[RikM]

I took the view of no £200+ EP's. If it's just about the brand...the best view of M42 I ever had was with my 14mm Pentax XW. This never fails to put a smile on my face

[swamp thing]

Sounds like you need a bigger scope to me Gerry

[jetstream]

Sounds like you need a bigger scope to me Gerry

Steve,down the road I will have a bigger scope to compliment the existing ones-no doubt more aperture will give a great view.As far as the point of the question-it is clear-which non TV eyepiece can give the best mottled,structured look to M42-the question is what it is.Looking for peoples experiences and thanks to those contributing/sharing their viewpoints.

[Moonshane]

on the basis that they are described as close to Nagler performance what about the 16mm Nirvana? of the ones I have used, I'd say the 18mm BGO.

[Mike73]

I understand your question Gerry but if you want to see more structure or detail in any object then you need dark skies, good transparency, good dark adaption, good observing technique and then maybe aperture and eyepieces in that order.

Trying to find an eyepiece that will show you 'more' is pretty wishful thinking but this is just my opinion.

[Pig]

I refuse to contribute to this thread    its a bit like not being able to use water when taking a shower

Bu if I had to I would say the VT Soled give great views

[astronymonkey]

For me its my William Optics 28mm UWAN in my 16 inch lightbridge under a dark, non light polluted sky .... awesome.

I think you need good aperture and a 1 degree field in order to get the whole thing in 

cheers

[jetstream]

I understand your question Gerry but if you want to see more structure or detail in any object then you need dark skies, good transparency, good dark adaption, good observing technique and then maybe aperture and eyepieces in that order.

Trying to find an eyepiece that will show you 'more' is pretty wishful thinking but this is just my opinion.

Well Mike the existing eyepieces that I have already show differences in the structure and detail on M42 as well as on other DSO like the Flame neb, Veil etc.It seems that a good Ortho is a common recommendation for an excellent view of the object structure/ & DSO detection.My best viewing has been in very dark,transparent skies,with good dark adaptation-and if the forecast holds,tomorrow will be an excellent night to observe and check eyepieces.I'm sure others have noticed differences in different eyepieces on different objects,probably why so many are bought and sold

[E621Keith]

if there are no TVs allowed then I'd probably say Pentaxes LOL

if you are saying you want to omit expensive eyepieces then I'd agree that orthos are hard to beat but then so are TV plossls at £50. I'm not really sure what the point of the question is other than obviously being a bit of fun?

+1, get the Pentax XW, Leica ASPH zoom, or one of those Nikon NAVs.

To see details in M42, I'd say the following factors are more important than your choice of eyepiece.

Dark sky, atmospheric transparency, scope aperture, scope optics quality. 

If you've got all those sorted, Orthos are the obvious choice for deep sky on a budget.

Also have you consider using filters? UHC filters can help bringing out the details too. 

[jetstream]

+1, get the Pentax XW, Leica ASPH zoom, or one of those Nikon NAVs.

To see details in M42, I'd say the following factors are more important than your choice of eyepiece.

Dark sky, atmospheric transparency, scope aperture, scope optics quality. 

If you've got all those sorted, Orthos are the obvious choice for deep sky on a budget.

Also have you consider using filters? UHC filters can help bringing out the details too. 

What is your opinion/experience with the Leica ASPH and the Nikon NAV?Better than most?My best views of M42 has been without filters,the Veil with.M57 best without one-I guess it depends on the object

[Joves]

I find the Astronomik UHC filter to work wonders on M42. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful sight without a filter however, with the UHC, it practically doubles in size!

That being said, I view from quite a light polluted location. I'm sure, under truly dark skies, the filter would probably only hamper the view.

[Moonshane]

I agree about the UHC. it's virtually the only object I use it on.

[Joves]

Glad you agree

True though, it makes a huge difference!

[swamp thing]

. I'm sure, under truly dark skies, the filter would probably only hamper the view.

Filters never hamper, specially from dark sites.

[Joves]

Interesting Steve. I wasn't too sure

[RikM]

I use the Astronomik UHC for M42 as well