Celestron X-Cel LX Eyepieces

[Steve91]

Hi guys,

I've been looking at the Celestron X-cel's as they seem t get great reviews and they are just about in my price range, I have a few questions first and was hoping you guys would be able to help me out

Everywhere seems to boast that they are great for lunar and planetary, are they particularly good at that and not very good at DSO such as clusters etc? I really love my open clusters and would like the eyepiece to perform well on those.

Also from what I can gather they are not a Plossl eyepiece? Does that matter, and what is the difference ? Most eyepieces I see tend to be Plossl's but I never see it mentioned with these EP's.

Thanks

Steve

[Qualia]

In my forgiving 4" f/10 I had nothing really to complain about. The views with the LXs were delicious. They were well corrected, there was no distortion at the edges, there was good contrast and colour, and the star image was sharp, pin point, throughout. But, then, that might be expected of a f/10 frac .

There have been complaints about the twist up eye-cap peeling off when folk take off the dust cap but if it does happen, I don't see any problem putting it back on again and if need be gluing it in place. There is also concern that some examples of the LX range have had what can only be described as little plastic bits, or a dark looking dust mote within the EP itself. This I can confirm with my 18mm but not with the 25, 12, or 7 I owned. When looking at something bright like the Sun or Moon, the 18mm appeared to have a tiny little spot within it which I tried to clean away and only made matters worse .

With that said, I still think they're great eyepieces for their mid-range price and they will certainly be a nice upgrade from the usual stock of EPs supplied with telescopes. It might also be an idea to check out BSTs which also get a good write up, although I have no idea how they compare with the X-Cel LXs.

But, knowing what I know now, my own personal feeling would be to go for some Tele Vue Plossls. It is here that I was able to make a comparison and although they have a smaller field of view than the X Cel LXs, I found them to be far superior on all accounts. A darker sky background, sharper, better contrast and so on. The TV plossls do fine at f/5 as they do at f/10 and I feel they are probably one of the best eyepieces you can obtain before moving on to top-drawer, premium-premium wider field glass. The other good news is that they regularly crop up for about £45 to £50 secondhand and if you didn't like them, you'd be able to sell them on again at little or no loss.

Sorry if this hasn't helped but just a thought

[mrjsh]

I really like my X-Cel LX. I only have the 25mm but find the image very sharp and the large FOV is great to have. I love the twist up eye-cups and find it a really comfortable EP to use. I always see lots of complaints about the eye-cups coming off with the cap, but I have never experienced this problem and think that as long as you are gentle and aware of the issue it won't cause any grief. Build wise I think they are of very good quality.

I do agree with Qualia above about the TeleVue Plossls though, they are lovely, and the higher magnifications can be picked up for about the same price as the X-Cels (although the lower mag seem to be a bit more expensive). I guess it depends whether you want the better image or the larger FOV. I don't think either would disappoint you though.

[Steve91]

Thanks for the great replies guys, it's nice to hear an unbiased view on these.

I am quite kean to go for a good FOV as my little Mak has a small FOV but I will definitely check out the Televue's as I've heard nothing but good about them.

I was looking at going for around 10-12mm because the stock 9mm EP is not the best and I'm finding such high mag to be difficult with my set up and locaction. So my thinking is a slightly lower mag and better quality EP should be the way forward

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk

[ronin]

If you think about it you want the same on planets as DSO's: good clear sharp images.

Never have understood why eyepieces are split between Planetary and Deep Sky.

Planets can take more magnification, they are brighter, but that simply means a shorter focal length, no a different eyepiece.

[bingevader]

Isn't the difference the aFOV and the magnification?

In my 'scope, I wouldn't look at Jupiter through my 24mm EP and equally, I wouldn't look at a galaxy through my 6mm EP, Isn't that why they tend to fall into the 2 camps?

For DSOs you want as much light through put as possible, so the good clear sharp images tend to be at the longer focal lengths. For the planets, they're bright enough not to worry about that, so you're going for the highest magnification possible.

But I agree, they're not different EPs.

Steve, If you're looking at the shorter focal length EPs, you might like to take a look at the Williams Optics SPLs too.

Cheers

[Donkeiller]

I have both BSTs and Celesctron Xcel-LXs- I'm very pleased with them

I'm sure the TV Plossls will be better in some respects, but I would not go below 12mm with them- after that your eyeball will be in contact with the EP.

That is the problem with Plossls- another one is their FOV- about 50^O  - the BSTs and the LXs are about 60^O -it does make a difference.

[Steve91]

Yeah I've been comparing the Celestron's to the TV's just and for what I need the Celestron's seem like a better choice. The hole to look through on the 11mm TV is tiny compared to the Celestron and i'm only just starting out and not sure I could get used to the tiny hole. Also the field of view seems important as my Mak has a relatively small FOV, and it's f11.8 so it should take most eyepieces without any problems right?

[Christhorpe]

I've gone for the tv 32mm plossl as my finder ep. I then have the xcels in 9/12/18/25. I love the fov that the xcels give me and I get the slightly better contrast with the tv, for finding the faint fuzzies in the first place. For me the new xcels are a great ep for the price. Clear skies.

[Stu_]

The 9mm X-cel LX, gives great contrast on Jupiter, the GRS & Jovian transits stand out well. Just waiting for Mars & Saturn, with clear skies!

[knobby]

M13 through my 12 mm in the 250 dob looks lovely !

[Astro Imp]

I have been using the 5mm and 7mm X-cel LX and love them and will certainly be adding to the collection.

As far as the tight end cap over the twist up eye shield is concerned I was recommended to stretch the cap between thumb and fingers, works a treat. See this discussion:-http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/207819-celestron-x-cel/

[bingevader]

I have been using the 5mm and 7mm X-cel LX and love them and will certainly be adding to the collection.

As far as the tight end cap over the twist up eye shield is concerned I was recommended to stretch the cap between thumb and fingers, works a treat. See this discussion:-http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/207819-celestron-x-cel/

I have the same two, and find them very good. Although I'd have to say I find the 6mm WO SPL slightly brighter than the 7mm X-Cel LX

Yeah I've been comparing the Celestron's to the TV's just and for what I need the Celestron's seem like a better choice. The hole to look through on the 11mm TV is tiny compared to the Celestron and i'm only just starting out and not sure I could get used to the tiny hole. Also the field of view seems important as my Mak has a relatively small FOV, and it's f11.8 so it should take most eyepieces without any problems right?

How did you find the stock EPs that came with the Nexstar? They should be of a similar design to the TV plossls, so if you didn't find the FOV through those too bad, then the 11mm TV plossl shouldn't be too bad either. Whilst the eye relief does get tight at the smaller focal lengths, I have an 8mm TV plossl which is still comfortable to use and the FOV more than adequate for planetary observations.

[Floater]

Have been following this 'cos I have the XCels in mind, too.

Still at a bit of a loss, though. It seems to boil down to the fact that both TV plossls and Celestrons are good enough eyepieces so I make my own choice.

One thought: everybody speaks of FOV but does eye relief not come into the balance of pros and cons?

[Steve91]

I think I'm pretty set on some celestron's, everything about them seems to fit into what I want really, the FOV is good as the FOV on a mak is small, the eye relief seems plenty and the price is great.

I'm torn between what size to get, the stock 9mm eyepiece doesnt seem to be that great, I just end up with a fuzzy very hard to focus image. I'm assuming the celestron would cope much bettertter than this?

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk

[Steve91]

I don't want to end up with an EP thats only usefull when the seeing is good, hence the consideration of a 12mm.

This is a confusing hobby

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk

[Qualia]

I don't want to end up with an EP thats only usefull when the seeing is good, hence the consideration of a 12mm.

This is a confusing hobby

Perhaps at this junction, Steve, it would be an idea to hold off on buying any eyepieces until the weather clears a little. If there's a clear patch use the ones supplied with you telescope until there's a really good night of clear skies. Try to get a better idea of what objects you prefer to observe, and how. Trust me - this approach will save you money in the long term. As it stands, just looking at the numbers something like a 32mm Plossl, 18mm and 9mm LXs would be worth a look. If after your night out you thought there's no way you're going to get much play from the 9mm, back up and go for the 12mm X-Cel LX.

[Floater]

Sub Dwarf that's an impressive list of EPs. Hate to think what that would do to a guy's bank balance!

In my VERY limited experience I got no joy with my 10mm piece, albeit only a lowly one supplied with my scope, and had resigned myself to having to settle for lower mag. And that's based on viewing a beautifully bright Jupiter.

Am I being too defeatist?

Steve91 you're so right - confusion will be my epitaph (to quote an old King Crimson track).

[Qualia]

I got no joy with my 10mm piece, albeit only a lowly one supplied with my scope, and had resigned myself to having to settle for lower mag...Am I being too defeatist?

The 150mm f8 is going to be a wonderful scope, especially for planet work, so there's no need to put up with second best here, Floater I'm not sure why the 10mm wasn't working out for you but we can assume a number of possibilities:

• collimation: if this is out you're undermining the optics of your newtonian and you're going to have a hard time tweaking all the detail you can. Make sure you've got some kind of Cheshire and sight tube or a combo of the two.
• seeing: stable seeing conditions are essential for serious planetary work. Don't worry about light wisps or a gentle thin cloud covering the night sky, but if there's too much turbulence viewing planets is a pain.
• eyepiece: the 10mm is really a shoddy bit of kit, for at 120x you should get some nice crisp detail, albeit not at a great size.

As a rough guide for Jupiter, I typically use mags between 140x to just over 200x. I have gone to 250x on a number of occassions but generally find I'm working between 180x to 200x in the 10" and between 140x to 160x in the 4" and I cannot see any reason why your 6" cannot be doing the same kind of thing.

You'll know this already but just in case, try to view Jupiter as close to the zenith as possible and bear in mind that as a general rule of thumb the brightness of an object will decline as you up the magnification. If I up the mag twofold, say, I'm reducing the image brightness by a factor of four. If I keep on doing this eventually details just disappear. On the other hand, increasing the mag does make detail more apparent, so, as you can appreciate, we're now at a trade-off: will increasing magnification gain more detail even though I'm making the object fainter?

I've found that playing around with this trade-off - dependent on the evening's seeing (LP doesn't really affect planets, Moon or the Sun) - does make a difference. Even as little as 1mm increase or decrease in the mag - about 10% to 15% difference of magnification - can be quite surprising which is the main reason why most planetary observers will have quite a run of high-mag EPs.

For planetary work, I use Orthos and in particular those that were made by Baader - the Baader G.Os which are no longer in production. These do crop up from time to time on the secondhand market (often overpriced). Nevertheless, Mod John has made some excellent reviews of the Hutech range which appear to be of very similar quality and sharpness.

The B.G.Os in particular - and I imagine it to be the same with the Hutechs - will give you a quality of image just about as good as it gets. If you want a similar quality image EP but with a wider field of view and perhaps a more comforting eye-relief (I haven't had any problems with the BGOs) you're going to have to spend more, a fair bit more.

Final thought, whenever possible try to sit with your given planetary object for a peaceful twenty to sixty minutes or so (at least) and you'll find that they'll be moments of great clarity and seeing. By practicing attentive sitting you come to notice more and more detail from the given object.

If you didn't fancy the Orthos or wanted a little more field of view or didn't want to spend so much, there are some great eyepieces on sale at Astro Buy & Sell. Seriously, you can pick yourself some really nice eyepieces for around fifty notes. Needless to say, Rome wasn't built in a day, nor an eyepiece case

Oh, and it's Qualia, Sub Dwarf is my posting category whilst your own is Nebula

[Sandraj]

Very helpful post Qualia, are those the BST that are on Ebay? as its those and the Celestron X-Cel LX that have come up most as the best middle range to get.

[YKSE]

Very helpful post Qualia, are those the BST that are on Ebay? as its those and the Celestron X-Cel LX that have come up most as the best middle range to get.

BGO stands for Baader Genuine Ortho, it's Abbe orthoscopic design, they are completely different eyepieces than the BST.

The eye relief of Abbe orhto are usually 0.8x focal length, i.e. about 14.5mm eye relief for 18mm eyepidce, 8mm for 10mm eyepiece. While BST or Xcel are fixed eye relief design with more lens and groups.

[Qualia]

I'm not sure where the BSTs are, Sandra. Someone more knowledgeable than me will put this right, but I think BST Explorer is just one name for a similar eyepiece with different names. I think they can also be called Starguider, Astro-Paradigm and Olivion ED. It's probably worth your time giving Sky's The Limit a ring and check out with them what they have along the BST line.

If you had £100 and you wanted to buy new,  then you cannot go wrong buying the Celestron X-Cel LX. If your target was £50 new, then the BST Explorer or the Vixen NPL's would be worth considering. However, knowing what I know now, if I had a hundred notes, I'd be scanning Astro Buy & Sell everyday, checking out to see if a secondhand Radian or Tele Vue Plossl cropped up   

[Floater]

Qualia,

First, I apologise for addressing you wrongly. An elementary and careless mistake which I won't make again.

Second, thanks for such a comprehensive and encouraging post and for taking the trouble to do so.

You encourage me to believe that I can, indeed, get better views.

I have been furiously (my wife's description!) reading as much as I can online and in the printed medium (Turn Left ... and Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders - both highly rated on SGL) and have taken the 'zen' approach you recommend. I will sit - and have sat - for good long periods tweaking the focus and looking for the best views I can find.

I was/am fairly sure that the supplied EPs wouldn't be the best and am already scouring Astrobuysell almost religiously. I'm pretty sure my poor experience was due to bad 'seeing' and less-than-great EPs. I WILL persevere ...

A fellow new traveller, Sandraj, is also on the quest.

For myself, I have acquired, on Astrobuysell, a TV zoom but haven't had a proper chance to use it. My initial trial, in daylight at a distant rooftop feature, has left me encouraged. I have read about the shortcomings of zoom lenses but have high hopes that this EP wil be a step forward.

Also, I have bought another EP on the buysell site and await delivery - with some excitement (Imagine. At my age!) I have questions in my mind about this EP, too, but intend to start a new topic, rather than muddy this thread.

Again, thanks for your interest and input. You da man!

[Qualia]

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind message, Gordon and seriously, it is a pleasure to reply and see if we can make things better. Astronomy and stargazing is extremely frustrating, to put it mildly, so I think that Zen approach you mention is the best bet . That Tele Vue 8-24mm Clickstop is a classic and I'm sure it'll throw up some amazing views. There's a nice review here if you haven't already seen it.

They way I figure it is that if you still get bad views after using this little gem, you'll know it isn't that half of the optic system out of play. After that, it'll more than likely be poor seeing. If you do decide to write, I look forward to reading your new thread.

Thank you again for your kind support and words.

Rob

[Floater]

Rob I had, indeed, read the review you linked (ref. furiously reading!) and made the purchase following that. I look forward to using it in even half-reasonable conditions.

Meantime, I have posted a new topic about things 'weighing' on my mind ...

Thanks again for your interest and willingness to help.