BST Planetary Eyepiece

[John]

For me, the Baader Classic Orthos are the best optical quality of those listed and probably the best optical quality available for their price (just under £50 in the UK). In terms of viewing comfort they have the normal orthoscopic characteristics of a narrowish field of view, smallish eye lens and eye relief that is around 80% of the focal length. Their external finish is utilitarian too. Optically though they are really very good indeed.

Having had a set of Baader Classic's on loan to compare with many other, often much more expensive, eyepieces for at least a year now I guess my view on them is "strongly opinionated"

I'm sure others will have different views though which are well worth taking account of as well

[Dr Hamzonian]

Thanks for sharing your opinion John!

Looking forward to more views from others.

[bingevader]

Each to their own. Me, I'm with Moonshane -  happy to be a TeleVue user and indeed 'fan' -  so far nothing I've used made by them has disappointed in any way

The dust caps on my 3 plossls are poop!

If you wanted more comfort and a wider field of view than the BCOs, then as Charic and I have already mentioned, the WO SPL 6mm is a little cracker.

I've nothing to compare it to at the same FL, but it is bright and crisp across the FOV.

[Dude_with_the_tube]

out of the choices given,i would take BCO or Meade 5000 series plossl (not the HD) any time over BST or X-Cel. 5000 series plossls are excelent performers,HD series are good too so if you cant get hold of the normal 5000 series plossls,HD will do the same thing.

[ghostdance]

The dust caps on my 3 plossls are poop!

Heh, it's my ES Maxvision 16 cap that's poop! And that grrr Axiom LX 10 cap. Seem to need gravity to stay on.....

Wouldn't mind trying a BGO or BCO...

[Charic]

.......Scope is a SW 200P F/6 Dobsonian. This will mostly be used for Jupiter, Saturn, and the occasional Mars........

For the Skyliner 200P I prefer a 1mm exit pupil for my Planetary work, this equates to a 6mm EP at 200x. ( 6mm WO SPL)

Theory suggests that a 2mm exit pupil is better suited for  the eyes in  capturing more detail which suggests  a 12mm EP.  With a 12mm the image  scale  will be smaller when looking at Jupiter! The 12mm  could also be Barlowed to good effect?

I wouldn't go below 6mm in the first instance, but would follow the guidance of the telescopes f/ratio and aperture in guiding you to the correct eyepiece. The Skyliner is capable of 200x. A 6mm fits the bill with a 1mm exit pupil.

On that ground, as there is no 6mm BST Starguider,  I would say the BCO  often gets good write-ups for their optical performance alone, but cant say they would be as comfortable in use as the  BST for FOV and eye-relief.

My 3.2mm and 5mm both work well, but the  seeing conditions need to be very good to get the best from these EPs on  smaller planetary targets. The Moon is just fine.

[Dr Hamzonian]

out of the choices given,i would take BCO or Meade 5000 series plossl (not the HD) any time over BST or X-Cel. 5000 series plossls are excelent performers,HD series are good too so if you cant get hold of the normal 5000 series plossls,HD will do the same thing.

The regular Meade 5000 plossls seem hard to find new.  Are they cheaper than the HD?

[Dr Hamzonian]

For the Skyliner 200P I prefer a 1mm exit pupil for my Planetary work, this equates to a 6mm EP at 200x. ( 6mm WO SPL)

Theory suggests that a 2mm exit pupil is better suited for  the eyes in  capturing more detail which suggests  a 12mm EP.  With a 12mm the image  scale  will be smaller when looking at Jupiter! The 12mm  could also be Barlowed to good effect?

I wouldn't go below 6mm in the first instance, but would follow the guidance of the telescopes f/ratio and aperture in guiding you to the correct eyepiece. The Skyliner is capable of 200x. A 6mm fits the bill with a 1mm exit pupil.

On that ground, as there is no 6mm BST Starguider,  I would say the BCO  often gets good write-ups for their optical performance alone, but cant say they would be as comfortable in use as the  BST for FOV and eye-relief.

My 3.2mm and 5mm both work well, but the  seeing conditions need to be very good to get the best from these EPs on  smaller planetary targets. The Moon is just fine.

Charic, which do you prefer using in your dob, the 8mm bst or the 6mm WO? (for an average run of the mill seeing day)

[Charic]

Dr Hamzonian....I prefer the comfort in use from the 8mm ( my eyes only ) and I could still Barlow this EP if required ?  As for the 6mm. I bought  the WO SPL on recommendations, second hand! Its a very good eyepiece, and on specifics alone, it matches my telescope, giving me  the 200x and the exit pupil  I require for one task in mind. If BST had provided a 6mm Starguider, I probably would have bought that!

I use all my EPs, rather than having just a three EP  set (  ie. Low Med & High )  and  although the BSTs are still regarded as basic by some,  for my eyes only,  and on  this f/6 system, they are very good for my needs/my location, which suffers slightly from street light pollution.  With these EPs, I can achieve the best possible framing  for the targets in question, simply by having a larger selection of EPs. I just swap-out the EPs until I find the one that works best on the night.  But as each EP is so close in comparison, its still hard for me to say that you need this specific EP for that specific target, although many will say you need this  x-amount power for a certain target,  to get the best detail from it, which generally entails using a lower powered EP in the telescope? This is ok, but as the powers reduce on the scope, so does the image scale. The only away around this for me would be  to get a larger telescope,  providing greater light capture,  more detail, larger image.

Nothing is so simple with this hobby, and EP selection is and always will be a difficult decision to make until you have physically put your eyes to the eye-glass. I still think the single - best image of Jupiter I obtained was  from a Barlowed ( @ 1.5x) 5mm BST. The conditions were just very good, observing a Moon transit across the face of the planet.  

All said and done, although the 6mm is a better match for 200x on my scope, and the 8mm offers better fov and eye-relief, the Barlowed 5mm won that night!

[Dude_with_the_tube]

The regular Meade 5000 plossls seem hard to find new.  Are they cheaper than the HD?

they are a bit cheaper then HD version.And  are hard to find because people tend to hold on to them,reason being: these are 5 element plossls(apart of 5.5mm which is 6 element) copying renown Masuyama design which where well known performers.As you being from Canada,you can get them imported from USA.Cloudy Nights classifieds(USA astro forum,alternative to UK`s Stargazers lounge) is the place you can pick them up cheap.I personally tried 14mm example and it was very sharp and beautiful.

[alan potts]

Dude with the tube,

I had a almost full set of S5000 Super Plossl's and in my only scope then which was the F10 Meade LX they were very nice. I sold them and moved on the to SWA range as the 5.5mm and 9mm were of no real use on a 3 meter scope, I only bought them as they were a special with the buying of the scope.

Since then I have tested at length the 14mm and now the one I did not have the 40mm and they don't cut the mustard at F 5.26, but F 10 nice eyepieces. It is very true that the 40mm is not really for a 1 meter fastish scope but in my next in line an f7 APO I can see a bit of astigmatisum creaping in at the edges.

Alan 

[John]

On the Meade HD-60 eyepieces, I'm sure I read somewhere that they are the same optically as the Celestron X-Cell LX's. Or did I imagine that ?

[Dude_with_the_tube]

you are correct John,both HD and celestrons are 6 element design,as such,we can say the are more or less the same.

[Dude_with_the_tube]

Dude with the tube,

I had a almost full set of S5000 Super Plossl's and in my only scope then which was the F10 Meade LX they were very nice. I sold them and moved on the to SWA range as the 5.5mm and 9mm were of no real use on a 3 meter scope, I only bought them as they were a special with the buying of the scope.

Since then I have tested at length the 14mm and now the one I did not have the 40mm and they don't cut the mustard at F 5.26, but F 10 nice eyepieces. It is very true that the 40mm is not really for a 1 meter fastish scope but in my next in line an f7 APO I can see a bit of astigmatisum creaping in at the edges.

Alan 

astigmatism Allan will be there,but where it will not? It is a plossl at the end of a day You cant expect absolutely superb,astigmatism or any other aberration free performance from a plossl on a fast scope.Then you have to step into Ortho territory.Narrower FOV will eliminate all these issues,but with a manual scope,i can see people sooner or later getting fed up with nudging the scope all the time.On a driven scope it is different story. 

[alan potts]

Dude, with,

Are TeleVue Plossl's not really plossl eyepieces then?  I have only two of them 11mm and 15mm, I have used them a few times in my fastest scope that was until the Sumerian landed earlier today, thats F 4.33 so not lightning fast but quick enough to distroy most eyepieces. The two TV seem very sharp in the SW M/N 190mm. I have to lean how the nudge now.

Alan

[Dr Hamzonian]

Dude_with_the tube, sounds like I am going to have to join cloudynights as well.

Alan, "Are TeleVue Plossl's not really plossl eyepieces then?" is this your subtle way of hinting at TeleVue's optical superiority?

charic, thanks for your detailed opinion. I am leaning towards getting an 8mm bst, and the 6mm WO (though the WO is a lot more expensive than the bst! is it worth it?)

[Dude_with_the_tube]

not that i quite understand the meaning of that Televue plossl thing? If the point was :are TV plossls the ultimate ones? Umm nope they are not.But if the point is:Is Televue as a brand one of the best ones money can buy? Probably lol.

[Moonshane]

I am not sure exactly what is different about TV plossls design but it is patented so there must be something different enough. We are a little off topic though so maybe search or start another thread?

I have used bsts and they were really very good. I have never looked back though since buying my first Televue eyepiece.

[John]

The glass types used and the radius of some of the lens surfaces of the TV plossl are different enough for Al Nagler to put a patent on the design. It improved the edge sharpness over the standard plossl design in faster scopes. Their light transmission and light scatter control tends to be rather good too. I've read that Vixen have emulated this design to some extent in their NPL series but I don't know if this is correct.

Tele Vue plossls were the first 1.25" eyepieces I ever bought back in the late 1980's. I don't recall having used a better plossl over the intervening years and I've owned a used quite a few types. The Celestron Ultima's / Orion Ultrascopics are probably as good though, albeit a 5 element "super plossl" type design.

Dr Hamzonian - the best thing to to is to try some eyepieces for yourself. Only you can decide what is best for you and eyepieces really are a personal choice. If you buy some used ones you can usually sell them on for more or less as much as you paid for them, thats the joy of the vibrant used astro equipment market

[swamp thing]

I read that the TV patent was about using concave surfaces on the external lenses rather than the more usual convex ones. and this is what the patent is about. Whether this is correct or not I have no idea.

It certainly improved edge correction for astigmatism over the original plossl design. That is in no doubt.

[Charic]

The 8mm BST will be a good choice, for your scope. If you have the chance to try or buy a WO SPL, do so, especially if you can get one cheaper than retail. There is no doubt, its a great EP, and given the chance, I would probably buy the 3mm and 12mm just to complete the set. Another option maybe, is to locate a 12mm WO SPL for more options, ie it can be Barlowed with room to spare without over powering the scope? Remember, I bought the 6mm for a specific task. There will be other 6mm EPs available.

I also tried the Televue 8mm Plossl recently, considering my first EP set was to be based on Meade Plossls. However, I found the 6mm eyerelief uncomfortable during my practical test, yet my 9mm Revelation feels so comfortable? I may try the TV again to double check!

Ive had some real pants weather recently, and need to camp out one night at my darkest site and give all my EPs a thorough test.

Given that there are fewer layers of glass in the Plossl, possibly with better light transmission and a brighter image, and with the renowned optical quality of theTelevue brand, maybe consider their Plossl range too for your Planetary EP,, as to be honest, you dont really need 60° afov to observe Jupiter with a 200P Skyliner. My Plossls are cheaper than the TVs, but suit my needs for now. A tighter field of view will require better control of the Skyliner to keep your image central.

In the time its taken to type this post from my tablet, John has pointed out the benefits of the TeleVue brand.

[Moonshane]

Slightly more off topic is that I would agree that the 8MM plossl is a bit tight for eye relief. If you can find one a 7mm type one nagler is highly recommended for about £100. I love mine.

[faulksy]

personel preference and my eyes/scopes. i tried the bst,s at f10 and f4.6 the views were ok ish at f10 but below not to sure. i realy didnt like the yellow tint on bright objects. i sold them and bought the ts-hr which i thought were great and neutral colour. and the same price

[great_bear]

I read that the TV patent was about using concave surfaces on the external lenses rather than the more usual convex ones. and this is what the patent is about. Whether this is correct or not I have no idea.

That's right (the patent is easy to find online)

- reduced astigmatism at the expense of some image distortion. Not "no" astigmatism though - the improvement isn't that spectacular.

[great_bear]

astigmatism Allan will be there,but where it will not? It is a plossl at the end of a day   

Actually it isn't - the Meade S5000 "Plossls" are actually Erfles, not Plossls.