TeleVue Plossl 32mm

[enigma]

Does the quality of TeleVue justifiy the extra cost or should a less expensive plossl such as the 30mm NPL Vixen (at half the price) or the 32mm SP SkyWatcher (even less expensive) be considered?

[John]

Does the quality of TeleVue justifiy the extra cost or should a less expensive plossl such as the 30mm NPL Vixen (at half the price) or the 32mm SP SkyWatcher (even less expensive) be considered?

I guess question is, how much better would the Tele Vue have to be for you (as it's your money) to feel the extra cost is worthwhile ?

I've used / owned the 3 you list and the TV is better made and optically a slightly better performer, especially if you have a fast scope, than the other two but not 2x better (whatever that means ?) than the Vixen in the same way that the Vixen is not 50% better than the Skywatcher.  

The Tele Vue does not show you stuff the others don't though but that would be unrealistic !

[John]

I'd just add that the Tele Vue plossl does give a feeling of confidence that it's going to show you everything that the scope and conditions are capable of showing and as well as it can be seen, which is worth something I reckon  

[enigma]

I'd just add that the Tele Vue plossl does give a feeling of confidence that it's going to show you everything that the scope and conditions are capable of showing and as well as it can be seen, which is worth something I reckon  

I understand what you are saying but I think optical quality is what matters and if there not much difference between the three then why spend the extra money. On the other hand from photos I can say that the TeleVue does look much better made.

[andrew63]

Both the televue and vixen are very good plossl.  If it was me rather than spend £120 on a plossl i'd put that towards a wider field eyepiece.  What telescope would you be using it in ?

andrew

[ronin]

Part of the appeal of the TV is as John says confidence.

Cannot recall someone getting a bad TV in the time I have been reading posts.

Bit like cars people like a good solid reliable car. Like many I have been down that path and the "standard" cars are good but ultimately reliability is a big factor. TV are reliably good, actually very good.

In most hobbys and sport that is the choice only you can decide. JD Sports golf clubs or Titleist and Galloway.

If you fish there are some good budget rods but the best anglers use the best rods, small fractions in it but it pays.

[John]

I understand what you are saying but I think optical quality is what matters and if there not much difference between the three then why spend the extra money. On the other hand from photos I can say that the TeleVue does look much better made.

I meant that the its the TV optical quality that gives you the confidence. It took me quite a few years and may other eyepieces to realise this though.

But keep your expectations realistic - Tele Vues can't work miracles 

[bingevader]

Oh no, the car analogy!  But we don't all drive around in Porsches (or what ever, I don't know!) now do we?

Both the televue and vixen are very good plossl.  If it was me rather than spend £120 on a plossl i'd put that towards a wider field eyepiece.  What telescope would you be using it in ?

I think I'd have to agree. My TV plossls (different FLs) were £70 in the sale and so were only twice the price. They're (very) marginally better than my Meade Super Plossls which people put on a par with the NPLs. If I'd bought them to replace the Meade's I'd have been disappointed. They were to replace the stock EPs, so I was delighted! (the meade's with the etx90 were spending a fair amount of time at my brother-in-laws, hence the duplication). £120 is a fair chunk more, my 24mm 82^o Maxvision was £135 and sacrilege of sacrileges I prefer it to my 25mm TV plossl and not just on FOV. But that honestly is my very humble opinion!

Having said that, if you have the money and want the assurance that you're getting the best plossl you can buy, then go for the TV!

Cheers

Ps. there's one (a 32mm gso plossl) in the classifieds atm.

[AlexB67]

Depending how long you have been observing or wear glasses and how good your eyesight ease of use and comfort is something to consider.  Some eyepieces are more picky about eye placement. At this focal length I doubt a 32mm plossl would be hard to use in any case ands will be easy on the eye, but some of the premium brands are not always a guarantee they will be easier on the eye with blackouts and so on.  Reading some reviews and this forum, as many as you can get you hand on can help with that, since there can be some variation in opinion.  Often common patterns emerge about specific eyepieces where they are strong, weak etc so you get a pretty good idea.

To continue with the car analogy. Optical brilliance is one thing, but how easy is it to use to extract the performance is another. Two cars may have the same weight and power, aero, tyres and so on, but can you drive it on the limit to extract the laptime, push it to the limit for any length of time without fatigue and a loss of concentration. 

A lower spec car with easy handling and traction control you may end up driving quicker around the track where you are given a helping hand. In eyepiece lingo, an Erfle design such as found in the BST explorers can be seen to a bit like a decent traction control system in a car. Place that versus the on paper faster car like an orthoscopic. 

The Erfle versus ortho argument would be more valid in the short focal length ranges.  In any case, to emphasize the point, the ortho based car may not turn out to be faster than the erffle based car for you, unless you are a Sebastian Vettel of astronomy and can use any eyepiece with ease