Skywatcher UWA planetary eyepiece

[bomberbaz]

Has anyone any experience of these as I want something at 5mm and 7mm for my 100p. (F4) mini dob. I currently have pentax at that size but they are way oversized for this and I wouldnt even dream of trying them in there.

So I am tossing up between these http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-eyepieces/sw-planetary-20275.html or the Celestron http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-x-cel-lx-eyepiece.html

They actually look the same as TMB's and suspect they are very similar and if that is the case I may go for celestron as I am not overly keen on the TMB

Big diference here is the saving of £54 between the two if I bought new so any help here is welcome.

[rwilkey]

Hi Steve, I have not used either eyepiece but I suspect the Celestron X-Cel LX's might still be a bit heavy for your smaller scope, just a thought.

[bomberbaz]

good point robin, its not very happy when i put the barlow in to be honest so an heavy eyepiece on top might totally be ott

[rwilkey]

Hi Steve, Baader Classic Ortho's might be the way to go perhaps?

[Grotemobile]

They are simular to to the TMBs.

Good for the price.My son has the

5mm & 4mm .This is his scope.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-astromaster-series/celestron-astromaster-130eq-telescope.html

He said they work very well.

Steve.

[Stu_]

I have the 5mm planetary, not bad for under £40, personally I would spend the extra on x-cels, as I found they are sharper.

As mentioned above they may be a bit heavy.

[John]

Hi Steve, Baader Classic Ortho's might be the way to go perhaps?

I agree - top flight optical quality for their <£50 price tag. Very lightweight as well.

[Grotemobile]

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/baader-planetarium/baader-classic-ortho-bco-eyepiece.html

The smallist they do, is the 6mm.Good for the price,

as you say.

Steve

[bomberbaz]

its the size thats the issue with the orthos, with a 400 focal length scope you haven't got a lot of room for comprimise as you do on longer focal scopes. A 5 gives me x80 and a 7 = x57. The stock 25 is only x16 but a great finder however barlowed up we have x32. Not all the sure if the 5mm is even needed tbh as the 7 barlows up to x114 for planetary!

Anyway I have played around for ages with ep sizes and the sizes that come up most useful in my opinion are  25, 7 and 5 with a barlow (16,32,57,80,114) All bases covered there.

Cheers for the input though chaps, just waiting to hear back on weight of these UWA vs x-cels.

[YKSE]

I see that you have 6mm and 8mm TMB in your sig, have you tried barlow them to check the viewing and balance?

[bomberbaz]

I see that you have 6mm and 8mm TMB in your sig, have you tried barlow them to check the viewing and balance?

Yes and they seem ok, but right on the limit although doesn't help that I am using a reasonable quality x-cel barlow. Would probs work better with a cheapo barlow. Slightly ironic that actually, hehe

[bomberbaz]

I have looked all over the internet and forums and smply cannot find the weight of the x-cel lx eyepieces.

Hi Steve, I have not used either eyepiece but I suspect the Celestron X-Cel LX's might still be a bit heavy for your smaller scope, just a thought.

I weighed the TMB's I have this morning and both are around 170gm. Martin at FLO weighed the SW Planetarry at 174gm and the LX at 188gm.

I then weighed a stock SW barlow and this is 42gm as oppose to 142gm for the celestron x-cel 2x version. So I think the obvious conclusion to me is if I want to use better quality eyepieces then I should swap the x-cel barlow for the stock sw barlow tp reduce the weight and help the scope retain balance and not overload the focuser. (tbh its the latter that concerns me most and not the balance of the scope which can be locked in place on the mount)