Most disappointing eyepiece

[JulianFR]

Although the core of my eyepiece collection is BST/Starguiders I have two Maxvisions (24 and 34mm, the re-branded Meade models), which I really like. So for my birthday in June I thought I would buy a 16mm Maxvision, although as I already have a 15mm BST. But it's a Maxvision, I thought, so it is bound to be better and will replace the 15mm BST.

Wrong. For me at least.

I have been very disappointed with the MV 16mm sadly and I wondered if anyone else has this model. Maybe it's just me. 

The fundamental problem is that I have to get my eye right up to the EP to get a half-decent view. In other words the eye-relief one't good. And then the field of view seems very constricted. It actually a bit like looking through a higher power Plossl. I've had one of those (another buying mistake!) and didn't like it. In fact the 15mm BST is much more comfortable to use... More comfortable eye-relief and the field of view just seems better. If the the MV is better optically that is well and truly hidden by its shortcomings... As I experience them at least.

Build-wise it is like a mini-version of the 24 and 34mm MVs, but even so it feels lightweight, and less solid than the BST... Not the same as its quality-feel larger MV siblings. Also the end of the EP unscrews when I twist up the eyecup ... Something the BST is prone to as well, though not the larger MVs . 

So, really a disappointment. 

[Dude_with_the_tube]

you are the first one to dislike the Maxvisions.they are re-branded Meade SWA and are quite good built quality eye pieces for scopes F5 and slower and for people on budget a real bang for money.I can only assume that your issue is that you are not used to eye pieces with short/tight eye relief,other than that,i cant fault the eye piece itself.At the end of a day,what you dont like,you can always sell it.there are plenty people who do enjoy them.

[Chris]

I love all my maxvisions including the 16mm. I however also noticed that the barrel of the 16mm unscrews a bit too readily. The views through the 16mm are better than the bst eps I had in my opinion though but then again I don't need my specs for viewing.

Chris

[JED-E3]

If you don't wear glasses and a few extra millimetres of eye relief would solve the problem you could remove the rubber outer adjustable part of the eyepiece.

I use a pair of denuded 20mm Maxvisions in my binoviewers, the only issue is the bare metal gets cold and could scratch glasses but adding a bit of flocking to the tops would help.

James.

[JulianFR]

Well, as I said it's just my own perception. I know EPs can be a matter of personal taste ... And I love my other two MV EPs. No one could be more surprised (and disappointed) than me that I don't get on with the 16mm.

[rowan46]

Well, as I said it's just my own perception. I know EPs can be a matter of personal taste ... And I love my other two MV EPs. No one could be more surprised (and disappointed) than me that I don't get on with the 16mm.

It would be a very boring world if we all liked the same things. It doesn't matter that everybody else likes them (although that is not strictly true as a couple have come up on the classifieds) What matters is that you tried it and didn't like it  and gave your reasons that constitutes an honest review in my book.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I bought a 40mm Celectron E-Lux from a fellow SGL member. It was terrible. It was like looking down a cardboard tube. I quickly sold it on to another SGL member who was looking for one. I sold it for what i bought it for, so i didnt profit from it. I didnt see the point (no pun intended).

[russ.will]

Well, as I said it's just my own perception. I know EPs can be a matter of personal taste ... And I love my other two MV EPs. No one could be more surprised (and disappointed) than me that I don't get on with the 16mm.

Nothing wrong with what you are saying.

ER is tight on the 16mm MV and if you don't get on with that, then the fact that it is one of the sharpest EPs you can buy for double the price will be lost.

For me, the 16mm MV required a bit more work to use than the longer FL MVs, but this was off-set by how well corrected it was in a sub F5 scope. If getting up close is uncomfortable for you, then it is unlikely you would stick around long enough to see this. I could get on with it (superb for white light solar) but ultimately I could afford to get that uber sharpness and comfortable ER in the shape of a Delos.

That's a quantum leap in expenditure though and if the fiscal bottom fell out of my world, the 17.3mm Delos would hit the classifieds and I'd resign myself to working a bit harder, knowing that I wasn't giving up much in pure optical terms!

Russell

[JulianFR]

Thanks all. I appreciate the comments... And I'm heartened actually that most of them are positive about the 16mm. I'm going to go back to it and persevere for a while longer to see if I change my mind about it.

[alan potts]

I had the Meade version of this which costs a whole lot more for the green band around it. Myself I had no problem with the ER and found it to be a very good eyepiece, however when I sold it to a member in the UK he only kept it for a very short time because of the same problem you have. This eyepiece is clearly not for everyone, I will be doing a review on this eyepiece later in the year so will I will focus on this issue.

Alan.

[Paul73]

I know what you are saying.

I had the 24mm MaxVision then bought the 16mm and found it to be exactly as discribed (no build quality issues though). However, I didn't have any similar length eyepieces to fall back on. So I persevered and found that I very quickly learned how to getvthebbest out if it. Perversely, screwing the eyecup out a bit, shortening the eye relief still further seems to help.

My collection now includes the 16mm, 20mm, 24mm and 28mm (didn't get the bigger ones due to pupil size with my scope). I have had to spend a lot more to get the quality that I need at higher magnifications.

But, as already pointed out, it is a personal thing.

Try it on the moon. The contrast and clarity is outstanding.

Paul

[Macavity]

I don't think I've ever been really disappointed with any of them.

S/W Super Plossls, Vixen LVs, Baader Hypersions, TS HRs...

Reasonable expectations or just easily pleased?

(For known purpose would rebuy any of above)

I found a lot of mid-price eyepieces were of rather similar in performance

though. Fast scopes aside, maybe price is as good a guide as anything?

The biggest (minor) disappointment I had was with the (rather curious) Antares Speers Waler.

Nothing wrong with the eyepiece, nothing wrong with the *Apparent* 82 deg field of view. But

I bought it to neatly frame the moon with a particular scope. The *true* field was 90% moon!

Worth thinking about though? I suspect the discrepancy was due to misquoted focal length

(When 10mm is really 9mm!) OR, more interestingly, rectilinear distortion of "Ultra-Wides"...

Tempted by the 24mm Maxvision (82) though. It's so darned BIG! lol. I take an average of

reviews. Probably good to f/5 (f/4). I want it for my Startravel ST102 for wide sky sweeping!

Vague questions about eye placement (indeed) seems to be only issue? Perhaps too those

of rectilinear distortions (aka "sea sickness" effect?) but Pan 35s are said to have those too?

I have NO eyepieces of note at the moment (video astronomer). I find this strangely liberating.

[Charic]

We all know that the task of the eyepiece,is to take the image formed by the telescope's system of Mirror's and/or Lenses, and to magnify this image so that we can see it with our own eyes. Thats where the similarity ends. Its all in the eyes!

One mass produced Televue, BST or  Meade eyepiece given to ten individuals with their own telescope, with the possibility of  several individuals having the exact same telescope, will still see and  have their own differences and preferences for that one eyepiece.  The fact is that one eyepiece does not fit all. It may fit all in regards to barrel size, but the end user is the final ingredient as to whether it gets the good or bad qualification.

Unless one can get the use of a friend, a club, or like my BST's, 'Alan' who allowed me to trial the eyepieces and return them if not satisfied, its going to be a random trial and error exercise, until you find what's best for your own personal use. Second to the purchase of the telescope itself, buying new eyepieces can be stressful for some folk, having so many choices to pick from. If more vendors could offer a scheme of return, should the EP not be to your satisfaction, buying eyepieces could be less stressful for some, 

I'm fortunate enough to have bought the f/6 Skyliner telescope, pretty easy to get on with most eyepieces at this level of focal ratio, and I've been most happy with the guidance and advice from fellow members here at SGL in my preparations during my lead up to my initial EP Investments. I wanted  the earlier Meade [JAPAN] EP variants but wasn't able to source a full set at the time, so went for the BST Starguiders, and I wont look back. Their value and quality on this telescope are very good, excellent. In-fact, I  feel at present that I don't need to try anything else brand wise, that will improve on what I already have, unless I want wider views at the eyepiece, or a larger image scale, then a bigger Dobsonian is required. But come try my scope, and your eyes will perceive a different picture. 

Most folk  have  several eyepieces in their collections, but note how many folk have several different brands to complete their collections. Through  a period of trials and error, and/or reliance on friendly advice you will find what your looking for. 

The only other eyepiece I have tried, on advice was a TMB Planetary II 6mm. For me it was like looking down a tube in comparison to the 60° afov offered from the BST's so I returned the EP and invested in the BST 5mm. Again, advice was that the 5mm may be a little too much power for the Skyliner under UK conditions. It works for me. And the only reason I have the 32mm Panaview is that from a darker site, I felt that 25mm cannot capture a wide enough view M31 for my liking.

I've seen a few mentions  about the BST's and which one is better/poorer, seems a lot don't like the 15mm? Yet for my eyes only, I like all six!  of the BST Explorer's ( possibly 7 if you include the 3.2mm ?). I use all the eyepieces, all the time. Whatever the target now, I just try to frame the target, as best as I can, under the present viewing conditions, and the limits set by  the 200P f/6 Skyliner.

JulianFR, I would also have been disappointed If I had suffered the same results with the Maxvisions, as, like yourself,  I see and  hear so many good things about them. But alas, they wont suit everyone. I'm sure someone is in need of a 16mm. 

Lastly, I haven't noticed my BST`s  unscrewing when operating the eye-cups. The eye-cups on two of my BST's were tight, very tight, and to be honest, I only managed to just rotate the eye-cap rubber, it did not actually raise into the extended position, just a rotation. So I removed the rubber eye-cap, tried rotating the eye-cap barrel again with a little more strength, and this time, the extension was  apparent and clearly visible, I replaced the rubber, and all works well now.

 wow! Just noticed my 'Clear Outside' is,   for the first time in many days,  predominately green/blue. Pity though its 0900? Last night was actually clear, got to see a few constellations for a few mins, just    prior to bed, but noticed the dew on the cars this morning!

[JulianFR]

Charic ... Thanks for the comments. I'm one of those that likes the 15mm BST. Re the BST unscrewing , I've found that on the barrel end (the bit that goes into the focuser) rather than the eyecup end ... And it's happened when I've attempted to unscrew a tight filter. It's been no big deal. 

Alan ... I'll look out for your review and will be interested to read what you think.

Paul ... So at least it's not just me that has found it a difficult EP. But like you I will (as I said before) persevere with it. I WOULD like to enjoy it as much my 24 and 34mm MVs.