TMB or Plossl

[jason.p]

I would like to get 200x mag with my 200p without resorting to a Barlow, so a 5mm would do the job. I've been searching and reading up as much as possible but am still confused. I understand that eye relief can be an issue, but as my price range is up to £50 I realise I may have to compromise. Although I would use it for planetary on occasion I think my main interest would be splitting doubles and picking out more detail in dso's. So, TMB or Plossl?

Thanks

Jason

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk

[ronin]

Buy the BST Starguider at 5mm, (£49).

Better then both.

[rory]

Agree with ronin , go for the starguider or x-cel lx for 5mm. A. 5mm plossl would be tough going I'd imagine.

[Orange Haze]

Evening Jason. Timely post, I am in exactly the same boat at mo, hoping to get a lower budget eyepiece to give me x200 for planetary. Cannot afford my dream Televue just yet.

Although I believe a 6mm would give us x200 whereby a 5mm would be x240. Wonder how much harder a 5mm would be in a f4.7.

[jason.p]

Evening Jason. Timely post, I am in exactly the same boat at mo, hoping to get a lower budget eyepiece to give me x200 for planetary. Cannot afford my dream Televue just yet.

Although I believe a 6mm would give us x200 whereby a 5mm would be x240. Wonder how much harder a 5mm would be in a f4.7.

Mine's the 1000mm f5 Skywatcher, so I think the 5mm should give x200. Mind you, maths was never my strong suit:rolleyes:

Looks like the BST is the way to go (thanks Ronin&Rory). I've got the 12mm which I like, and should be parfocal.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk

[Orange Haze]

Mine's the 1000mm f5 Skywatcher, so I think the 5mm should give x200. Mind you, maths was never my strong suit:rolleyes:

Looks like the BST is the way to go (thanks Ronin&Rory). I've got the 12mm which I like, and should be parfocal.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk

My bad, assumed it was the 1200mm. Good luck with the choice. Be interested to know your thoughts on first light...

[AndyWB]

I've got the 5mm BST with my 250px - and yup, it's x240 for it. I don't find the BST eyepieces parfocal.

When looking at Jupiter a couple of weeks back, I did start to wonder if it was asking a bit much of the 5mm - Jupiter just seemed blurry, with a haze of light around it. Similarly, yesterday morning when I looked at Mars, it seemed to struggle with the brightness - there was a glow around it, and while the planet showed a little detail, it was quite blurry still (and small!). I then used it on Saturn, though, and the view seemed much better, much more crisp. It worked well the other week too, when splitting the triple of Zeta Cancri (just about).

So I'm not sure if that really helps, but that's what I've observed. I have begun to think that a 6mm might be better (a nice x200), and that maybe an Ortho is work a look. Certainly, I use the 8mm more than the 5mm - but this could be due more to seeing than anything else.

[Bart]

I used the 5mm BST in a 250mm for planetary and found it good. Yes, at x250, there were nights the seeing would allow it and nights it wouldn't . But if you are using it to get x200 it should give you very good views. And as Andy said, I had two BSTs and didn't find them parfocal. I liked them both, but they weren't parfocal.

Barry

[rwilkey]

I agree with AndyWB, the BST StarGuiders are not parfocal, but that doesn't matter, they are still good performers and good eye relief, the TMB is also a good contender in my view.

[andrew63]

If you don't mind tight eye relief and a small top lens to look through and they are a required taste and don't ware glasses - i'll stop with all the negatives ! A 5 or 6mm ortho. will be sharper and with less light scatter - haze around the disk than those mentioned. A new 6mm BCO at £49 will give more or less the 'best' view of jupiter you can get.  One for sale in the classifieds, but they are not as 'comfy' as the bst !

andrew