Next step up in Eyepieces

[Steve777]

I have exactly the same 'scope as you & since I've had the three listed below, my interest has been encouraged & I feel I'm getting far more out of the 'scope.

[YKSE]

A bit of topic maybe, this lengthy thread has some interesting discussions about orthos vs plössls:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5979182/page/14/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/all/vc/1

[BillP]

I still have not bought any new eyepieces, I go around in circles.

...Televue Plossl...why are they mainly put aside compared to BST and X Cel LX?

...The Baarder Classic Ortho, and Hyperion, again not often recommended, why?

...Williams Swan and SPL...Vixen NPL and Meade, where do they stand?

I know it is often said it comes down to personal opinion, but I am happy to pay a decent price for the eyepieces, I am just so undecided which brand to buy and try first.

Hi Sandra.  Yes, it can (and is) daunting trying to decide with all those eyepieces out there.  In the end, I feel it is more a personal choice...and like fashion the answer changes with both the season and as each of us change and progress.  So unfortunately, there is no correct answer.  There is however lots of opinions of why folks like one vs the other, and best to read all those comparisons looking for what aspects each writer finds most valuable, then decide if you have similar likes.  So in a sense, more about finding some reviewers whose taste in things seems to align more of less with yours.  This I find is more often the best way to figure it all out if you are not sure yourself.

On some of your questions...TeleVue makes a consistent quality product.  That, in and of itself is sometimes worth it for many folks.  But in the end, no matter how well you make a Plossl it remains generally the same in that the eye relief gets tight in shorter focal lengths and the field of view is not all that big.  So no matter how many bells and whistles you put on it, it keeps those characteristics.  So when you compare it to the more comfortable eye relief and wider AFOV of the BST Explorer Dual ED...just hard to compare.  Then when you consider the others you mentioned, in a way they are all very different from each other so they become like people...some one can warm up to, others you just can't.  The BCOs are quite good optically...but very small and light making them harder to handle in cold weather with gloves and of course the smaller AFOV.  The Hyperions are super comfortable with 20mm eye relief and big eye lens and wide 68 degree AFOV, but the they are a little large in size for some folks taste and the feel of them in your hand does not convey the quality build of the ones that came first like them, the Vixen LVWs.  So as one gets to know each eyepiece brand and line, they all have different personalities to them that goes beyond just the basics stats of eye relief and AFOV.

So in all the years I've been in this hobby, I still can't look at the stats and pictures and decide well.  I find that hard to just know how I will react to an eyepiece line until I pick it up, and if I can give a quick look in a scope.  Some things I know for me is that if the eyepiece is small, I generally like them to have some heft to them.  So for Abbe Orthos I like them to have chromed brass barrels so they feel more substantial (which contrary to Al Nagler's contention I find generally always better on-axis to any Plossl - excepting perhaps the old Clave Paris).  For Plossls, their 50 degree AFOV for me is more or less a wasteland as I like smaller more precise AFOVs, or larger more engaging ones...why the Plossls I do have are a bit odd in that they have 57 degree AFOVs with the design pushed some (Sterling Plossls...discontinued unfortunately).  After that, my observing preferences is typically 70 deg AFOV as easier to take in the whole picture and requires less work for the eye since don't have to scan all over the place.  However, I recently tried the new Williams Optics XWA (9mm 101 deg AFOV) and wow was that nice!  It seemed to hit all the spots just right -- eye relief was such that no problems seeing all the AFOV; the dual 1.25"/2" skirt was nicely thought out and aesthetically it looks great either way; exit pupil behavior was way comfortable and even nicer than the Pentax XW; and finally the performance was spot on great giving sharp stars to the edge and unexpectedly great planetary performance!  I wanted to run out and buy the line after trying it...sadly there is only one focal length and William Optics said they don't expect to bring more out this year   So as much as I like it, I don't care for eclectic collections if I can help it.

I can try to make some recommendations...but to do that need to know more about the scopes you have...the type of objects you like to observe...and any preferences you have with comfort and fields of view.

[Qualia]

A lot of wise words have already been said and I really can't add anything....but I'll give a try .

Most astronomers - myself included - follow quite a predictable path when it comes to buying EPs. Moving on from the supplied eyepieces, we start out buying new and cheapish stuff but typically arrives a day when we want to see what all the fuss is about with those more premium eyepieces. Why this happens is a mystery. Perhaps we've been reading too much, perhaps we've got money to spare, we want to keep up with neighbours, or there's been too many rainy days (I swear astro-folk buy in proportion to quantity of wet and grey evenings they have ), or perhaps we've upgraded from our kindly f/10 to a more demanding f/5.

Whatever the reason, we end up with one of those black and green eyepieces in our kit, a Pentax perhaps, but now we find ourselves in a difficult situation, for we now have one cracking eyepiece in company with a case full of relatively cheap EPs that on the secondhand market are now pretty worthless.

So, I'd say premium eyepieces is never a waste of money, especially if you buy them used. These EPs generally become 'lifers', so you never have to upgrade again or you could always re-sell them without losing much - if any - money, especially if you buy them already secondhand. Premium eyepieces, simply hold their value more than cheaper ones.

They also offer an important psychological benefit. After a session, you're not left with any nagging feeling of 'what if...', for you know that this end of the optical system is about as good as it is going to get. If you've had a rough evening, you're going to have to look elsewhere. Over the long months which follow into years that kind of reassurance will save you a lot of time and money.

When buying premium you only cry once. That is, there is no reason - other than wanting to change - to ever upgrade, so you're not losing money as you might be if you're wanting to sell on less-premium, cheaper eyepieces. Paradoxically speaking, "a poor woman or man cannot afford not to buy premium."

From my perspective today, if I were starting all over again, I'd simply skip the middle stage and go straight in to buying secondhand Televue Plossls (TVP) and Baader Genuine Orthos (BGO) for the higher magnifications necessary for planetary viewing. Both types offer sharp, flat fields and excellent edge performance. These are superbly executed eyepieces and the only reason they are not quite premium-premium eyepieces is simply because they lack the important and expensive features of premium EPs, viz, wide fields and better eye-relief.

You can pick up a TVP for around £50 to £65 secondhand and if you avoid the current madness craze in the UK, a BGO for around the same price secondhand and if you ever decide to sell them on, you'll receive about the same money back. They also act as a great platform to see what you really want from an eyepiece.

To sum, as a general rule of thumb, buy the best optics you can afford and they will stay with you.

[Sandraj]

Well thank you all for your wonderful answers and help.

I think then, after all I have read and understand, I will go for a ES Maxivision to start me off, just wondering should I get the 68* 28mm or the 82* 24mm?

Then I will  get a collection of Televue Plossls,  and a Williams SPL 6mm later on as a closey uppy. 

[Reeny]

I don't know about the optical differences.

But looking at the weight and price, I would say the 28mm 68^o will be more practical.

It will give you an extra 55 euros to play with (or a free 16mm Maxvision 68^o)

Don't forget the 9.90 euro postage.

The 82 degree is 850 grams, and 150 euro (nearly twice the price).

http://www.explorescientific.co.uk/en/Eyepieces/Maxvision-82-Okular-24mm.html

The 68 degree 28mm is still hefty at 534 grams, but only 95 euro.

http://www.explorescientific.co.uk/en/Eyepieces/Maxvision-68-Okular-28mm.html

I like my 24mm and 16mm MaxVisions.

But I would swap my 24mm for the 28mm if I was buying them again.

43x and 75x is a much better spread of sizes if you decide to go for the 16mm as well.

150x will be available when a decent barlow is used with the 16mm, e.g. Revelation 2.5x (actual = 2.2 or 2.3x)

Re-edit: 70-ish degrees is supposed to be the widest periferal view available without moving your eye.

However - the 82 degree 24mm will be useful as a finder because the view will be more magnified than the 28mm, nnd you can move your head / eye to see around the corner

I need to do this with my 11mm ES 82 .

It is easier than moving the scope to find things, but the extra 14-degrees comes at a cost.

The 82 degree will be a better eyepiece - but it will come with the extra 320gms weight, and the extra cost.

Decisions, decisions.

[Sandraj]

that is something I didn't take into consideration, I don't want an eyepiece bigger than myself. I did like the thought of having one low eyepiece that had a big FOV,  I may hold off on them then until I can find something else. Glad you mentioned size and weights.

[Sandraj]

But now I have been thinking about it, I shouldn't worry about the weight of the 68*, its not as heavy as the 82*, it will help me find things better and thats what counts, should I go for the 28mm or 24mm, which would be best of the two for finding things?

[Reeny]

I have the 24mm in the 200p dob.

I was on a budget, and I thought it would be less fiddly than swapping over from the 2-inch fittings, onto the inch and a quarter.

Whilst the 24mm is a fine eyepiece, I ended up getting a 2-inch eyepiece as well for a wider view.

Either one will work well.

The 28mm would be my choice if I had the extra 35 euro, and I was happy to use the 2-inch fittings (it's very easy actually).

The 24mm is a winner if I wanted to keep it simple, and I was on a budget - it is excellent for veiwing nebula at 50x magnification.

If you don't wear glasses, and you don't need big eyerelief, I would seriously consider ordering the 16mm as well to save postage later.

It will barlow well on one of these. http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Revelation_Astro_2_5x_Barlow_Lens.html

Also - ES Germany have just taken off the 10% discount they had on their website last week.

I would be asking them to take the 10% off your order if you decide to buy the eyepiece(s) from them.

[andrew63]

I think either the 24 or 28mm 68 deg will do a great job - they are also very 'easy' to observe with.

andrew

[Reeny]

For a sense of perspective - this is the 24mm and 16mm MV's next to a Plossl / and next to the full set

The shoulder of the 24mm tends to overhang, and get in the way of the locking thumb screws used to secure it into the focuser.

It is a simple enough job to twist the eyecup out of the way, lock it in, and twsit it back down again.

That is my only grumble with the 24mm

 

[alan potts]

Some really class writing on this thread, it sort of started after I chipped in.

Alan

[Reeny]

...................it will help me find things better and thats what counts, should I go for the 28mm or 24mm, which would be best of the two for finding things?

The wider view will be better for finding things

So the 28m gets the winning vote as a finder

However - once found, the view will be slightly smaller at 43x magnification, compared to the 24mm at 50x magnification.

I have trouble star hopping with the 24mm - hence I got the 42mm Revelation at 28x

Something between the two would be ideal for me (around 32mm).

I don't know how much better the 28mm MaxVision might be compared to the the 24mm.

43x compared to 50x is about 15%.difference.

The whole of the double cluster can fit into the 24mm no problem.

But something wider than 24mm will give you the inky black border to frame it properly, and give you a bigger WOW factor.

So a 15% wider view = 15% smaller image in the eyepiece

If the budget will stretch - you will need that 16mm as well at 75x

[Sandraj]

For a sense of perspective - this is the 24mm and 16mm MV's next to a Plossl / and next to the full set

The shoulder of the 24mm tends to overhang, and get in the way of the locking thumb screws used to secure it into the focuser.

It is a simple enough job to twist the eyecup out of the way, lock it in, and twsit it back down again.

That is my only grumble with the 24mm

 

Gosh some of them are huge 

Are all the Maxvision inch and a quarter ?

[Moonshane]

make no mistake that all eyepieces 'work' in any telescope and will provide pretty satisfactory views (I include the standard 'free eyepieces' in this category). as with most purchases in a hobby, the differences between the worst and good eyepieces is very noticeable when you start to look and gain experience but you will still see almost everything even with the 'worst' quality eyepieces that you can with premium eyepieces. the difference between good and premium is much smaller and more difficult to quantify unless you have been observing for a while. the difference between one premium and the next is extremely small and debated long and hard between fans of either.

I have tended to go down the televue route as they are as good as you can get but others are equally good, just different. I have most of the televue plossls and have used many eyepieces over my astro habit. TV plossl have two negatives, the eye relief is quite small on the 8mm and the 11mm. also, they have a 50 degree field which a lot of people don't seem to like (I do like it actually). I have a 26mm and 16mm Nagler as well as a 13mm Ethos and to my eyes, the TV plossls are as good in every way as the wider field eyepieces other than field and possibly eye relief.

in fact, when observing double stars, the moon, sun and planets I really don't get on with the wider fields, preferring plossls and my BGO orthos. the wider fields are superb though with fainter targets and wide clusters etc.

consider weight carefully. this is an advantage of plossls as they are small and light. with your scope, I'd look at a 32mm TV plossl as my wide field (or maybe 24mm Panoptic if you can stretch to one) and then go from there. larger heavier eyepieces will create balancing issues (which can be addressed of course) but a 32mm tv plossl will give you 1.3 degrees, more than enough for almost all common objects.

in the end we all learn from our mistakes and experiences and buying used will allow you to do so with minimal losses if you buy good quality in good condition.

I cannot recall if I have linked to my eyepiece logic thread before, but here it is http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/188794-eyepiece-groups/

I have five scopes though and the collection is based around that.

[Moonshane]

ps the best thing for finding things is in my opinion a red dot finder (I use telrads) and a right angle correct image finder (perhaps a 6x30mm) along with a good star map (e.g. sky and telescope pocket sky atlas). that way you can reduce your spend on big, heavy glass.

[jetstream]

For a finder eyepiece in my dob a true field of view of at least 1.3 degrees is nice to have.Not sure what the Maxvisions give,but maybe somebody does?If I did not already have EP's in this category an ES 82 24mm or equivalent would be used.

[Sandraj]

make no mistake that all eyepieces 'work' in any telescope and will provide pretty satisfactory views (I include the standard 'free eyepieces' in this category). as with most purchases in a hobby, the differences between the worst and good eyepieces is very noticeable when you start to look and gain experience but you will still see almost everything even with the 'worst' quality eyepieces that you can with premium eyepieces. the difference between good and premium is much smaller and more difficult to quantify unless you have been observing for a while. the difference between one premium and the next is extremely small and debated long and hard between fans of either.

I have tended to go down the televue route as they are as good as you can get but others are equally good, just different. I have most of the televue plossls and have used many eyepieces over my astro habit. TV plossl have two negatives, the eye relief is quite small on the 8mm and the 11mm. also, they have a 50 degree field which a lot of people don't seem to like (I do like it actually). I have a 26mm and 16mm Nagler as well as a 13mm Ethos and to my eyes, the TV plossls are as good in every way as the wider field eyepieces other than field and possibly eye relief.

in fact, when observing double stars, the moon, sun and planets I really don't get on with the wider fields, preferring plossls and my BGO orthos. the wider fields are superb though with fainter targets and wide clusters etc.

consider weight carefully. this is an advantage of plossls as they are small and light. with your scope, I'd look at a 32mm TV plossl as my wide field (or maybe 24mm Panoptic if you can stretch to one) and then go from there. larger heavier eyepieces will create balancing issues (which can be addressed of course) but a 32mm tv plossl will give you 1.3 degrees, more than enough for almost all common objects.

in the end we all learn from our mistakes and experiences and buying used will allow you to do so with minimal losses if you buy good quality in good condition.

I cannot recall if I have linked to my eyepiece logic thread before, but here it is http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/188794-eyepiece-groups/

I have five scopes though and the collection is based around that.

Thanks for the lovely detailed post, can I ask what a Panoptic is, I know I am showing my ignorance but this is why I started this thread as I really want to start off my collection buying (with this forums help) what I think will be right for me, my scope and are stayers.

[Sandraj]

ps the best thing for finding things is in my opinion a red dot finder (I use telrads) and a right angle correct image finder (perhaps a 6x30mm) along with a good star map (e.g. sky and telescope pocket sky atlas). that way you can reduce your spend on big, heavy glass.

I have a Telrad which I find brilliant but will purchase the pocket sky atlas 

[Moonshane]

panoptics are the televue version of the 68 degree maxvisions. the 24mm gives the maximum field in a 1.25" focuser and is in my view one of the best eyepieces ever made for smaller scopes. not cheap but if you can get a used one they are great value. that said, a 32mm and 25mm TV plossl combination is about half the price used and gives the same sort of quality and result.

[Sandraj]

Found the Panoptic  Televue.

[John]

It might be worth going back over this thread before plonking down any cash.

Qualia, as usual, very eloquently set out  an often traveled path which culminates in Tele Vue and / or Pentax investments. 

I've sometimes wondered if you could build some sort of cost v's benefit analysis that demonstrates that, perverse though it may seem, taking the small steps approach actually costs more in the long term than investing in premium from the start as well as giving you the confidence that your scope, any any you may own in the future, will be delivering the very best performance that the conditions allow.

[Stu]

It may well cost more to go through various different levels of eyepieces, but I think there is something to be said for upgrading as and when you reach the limit of what you have got. I think this probably teaches you more in the long run about observing, and the features or each different eyepiece. This has a value in itself I think.

I hold the same view about aperture. In my view, it is not a bad idea to start small and build up to a larger scope as you learn various different techniques for getting the best out of the smaller scopes which stand you in good stead when you progress to larger apertures.

Just my thoughts

Stu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexB67]

It may well cost more to go through various different levels of eyepieces, but I think there is something to be said for upgrading as and when you reach the limit of what you have got. I think this probably teaches you more in the long run about observing, and the features or each different eyepiece. This has a value in itself I think.

Stu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree I learned a lot from the BSTs, and not even to a point  by any means all that can be done with them, but for sure to see some of their limitations and where they are not as good in some areas in a scopes such as mine and learning to understand why.   In the end I used them for a long time, both in my smaller  Dob and the bigger Dob and they still get used now. I bought one second hand and the other two new, they still cost me not much more than 110 pounds total.  The loss is not that great in the long run when you think about the cost of panoptics, other TVs eyepieces and other wider angle premium eyepieces.   The resale value of popular eyepieces such as the BSTs is also actually quite good, 35 pounds second hand is common resale value,  versus 49 pounds new currently.

[AlexB67]

I should probably add that the longer you go down the path of buying cheaper and the collection mounts, the losses can grow to more significant amounts, often some will upgrade to medium range, and at that point the costs/losses can mount up when you eventually decide you wanted those premium TV eyepieces anyway.

In my case anyway,  I feel 3 BSTs, or a similarly cost alternative for a high, medium and low power eyepiece is not that much money IMO. There is plenty to be learned from those and very enjoyable observing to be done without incurring any great losses.