Televue EPs...are they worth the (extra) money?

[NeutronNick]

Hi Nick,

To me both the TV and ES 100 range are just not worth it due to the cost!!. However that does not mean they are not good value to others. And it is because others upgrade and are early adopters that some of the older TV and ES ep's  appear in the classifieds at reasonable cost. This enables me on occasion to pick up a classic ep.

Cheers for the info Damien.

[rwilkey]

Hi Nick, I bought the 11mm and the 14mm first off, luckily s/h so that I could try them.  I was pleasantly suprised, the quality and the build knocked my socks off.  I now have most of them except the 24mm, as I already have the 23mm Axiom LX (Luminos as they are now called), however I have the 18mm and the 30mm ES, both superb, the 30mm is super flat in my f/9 scope, where they are most used.

[NeutronNick]

Hi Nick, I bought the 11mm and the 14mm first off, luckily s/h so that I could try them.  I was pleasantly suprised, the quality and the build knocked my socks off.  I now have most of them except the 24mm, as I already have the 23mm Axiom LX (Luminos as they are now called), however I have the 18mm and the 30mm ES, both superb, the 30mm is super flat in my f/9 scope, where they are most used.

Cheers Robin, I think you've convinced me on the ES Route 

[damnut]

Nick,

I am a tackle tramp!!! I try to get the best kit i can afford on the used market. I have a couple  of  axiom  ep's the 23mm   I received as payment in kind for some electronics work on a telescope that my colleague upgraded to (14" intelliscope dob, es 120's and ethos )..I bought the axiom 10mm off SGL classifieds.And as Robin above they are excellent !.Mix of BST's newly (used) acquired es82's...

[alan potts]

I fully respect OP's choice of going for ExSc eyepiece, I am sure you will get years of enjoyment from them, Robin likes them and he know a few things about eyepieces. I guess I have had most of them as well wearing different dresses, many of the Meade 5000 ranges were the same elements, there may have been coating differences as well but no one is really sure.

On the 82 degree range there is the 11mm which Meade didnot carry and the 18mm is a different fitting size, though this was the one I never had but I have read is the same design. I tested the ExSc 4.7mm out a short time back and it was a nice eyepiece though not quite up to the Pentax XW 5mm, but few things are.

Touched on by Robin the 30mm UWA is a less distorted edge of field than the Nagler, I like the 31mm N , especially in the Sumerian, but the Meade 30mm was so much nicer on the Moon in the F10 LX, these are different enough for me to believe they were not just copies of TeleVues work.

The other thing that I failed to put in my other post was, how much you can use them also enters the equation, normally I can get out 10-15 times a month in winter time and as many as 25 times a month in Summer, so this impacts my choice as I am sure you understand.

I think if I still lived in England it would have been keep the Meade's.

Enjoy your first eyepiece, now which focal length?

Alan

[Moonshane]

I recently tried a 16mm Type 2 Nagler against a 17mm Ethos and there was a substantial difference (in favour of the Ethos) in the brightness of the image even in two such excellent comparables. On the basis of this experiment, I sold the 16mm T2 and bought a 17.3mm Delos. Even then, the 16mm T2 was better to use on the moon in MHO the Delos suffers from off axis weird blotches of colour (I think it's my eyes but it never happened in the Nagler).

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I use a mix of (mainly) TV EPs with a few Pentax, Vixen and a lone MaxVision thrown in for good measure. I have used a Meade UWA and TMB Paragon, besides Vixen LVs and variuous Plossls and Orthos. My main rule of thumb has always been to upgrade when I spotted deficiencies in my kit, when I did switch (quite slowly) from Plossls + Vixen LVs to wider fied EPs I decided to go for future proof EPs, which would also work in a future big Dob. Almost all EPs I have had perform well enough in the Celestron C8 (even if FOV is a bit cramped in the Plossl and Orthos I have used), but in Olly's F/4.1 Dob things change a bit. The Meade UWA was fine (also according to Olly) in terms of sharpness, but the MaxVision 24mm 68 deg clearly showed astigmatism in the outer field, quite unlike the Nagler 22 T4. The MV 24mm 68 deg is fine at F/6.

I gather the ES 68/82 deg, Meade SWA/UWA and MaxVision 68/82 deg are optically very similar, and very good performers, certainly for the money, but where they are lacking a bit is in eye relief at the shorter focal lengths. This is of no importance for people who observe without glasses, but for me I need a minimum of 16mm eye relief. Only the Type 4 Naglers consistently give that at those wide fields.

[NeutronNick]

Nick,

I am a tackle tramp!!! I try to get the best kit i can afford on the used market. I have a couple of axiom ep's the 23mm I received as payment in kind for some electronics work on a telescope that my colleague upgraded to (14" intelliscope dob, es 120's and ethos )..I bought the axiom 10mm off SGL classifieds.And as Robin above they are excellent !.Mix of BST's newly (used) acquired es82's...

A man after my own heart, save money and buy used.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[John]

A man after my own heart, save money and buy used.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All my eyepieces and scopes have been bought used. Thats why I've got a case full of Tele Vue and Pentax eyepieces

[nightfisher]

While what you say is true regarding the demands of slower scopes I would say that a standard range of eyepieces would not perform as well as Tele Vues. Having a long focal ratio might help with colour correction and give a flatter field, but does nothing for edge distortion (I can see this by comparing my 8mm TV with 9.5mm Meade S3K) or contrast.

correct, though i have long focal length scopes i do use decent eyepieces (circle T orthoscopics)

[damnut]

Nick,

Absolutely, missed out on the Nagler that Moonshane sold...Circumstances bloomin circumstances..

[Dude_with_the_tube]

i have tried them all..Starting from Meade UWA.ExSc,Televues.Its honestly boils down to what scope you use.Televue is known performer and is GUARANTEED to perform in fast F ratio scopes down to F3.There is an obvious price tag for that to be paid,but then again,you need to understand the point that scopes can come and go,be sold,swapped out etc,but eye pieces can and will probably stay with you for much longer time.You need to consider eye pieces as a long time investment.ALL good quality eye pieces will hold they value,be it TV or any other,still if you buy brand new,you will loose out when selling them,as such,go for s/h.Slow scope will not show you ANY difference between TV or ExSc/Meade,its the fast scopes like F4.5-F4.8 where you will see it.But again,nothing really dramatic.I have a F9 now and you can poke a finger in my eye but i couldnt detect practically any difference,unless you are very critical.

ExSc is a great buy even the price of new eye pieces are very atractive.Good luck with whatever you decide to go.

[John]

.....,unless you are very critical.

Thats the thing though, I reckon. As you get more experienced in the hobby and you push your abilities and equipment further on more the obscure and challenging targets, you do get more critical and small differences can make a difference to your viewing experience.

Some clearly can see a difference between Tele Vue and competitor eyepieces even in slower scopes. Small differences granted but they will make a difference for some.

[jetstream]

The difference between my 17mm Ethos and my 18mm ES /16mm T5 is substantial on some objects, in any of my scopes and the observations are made from dark skies. M42 is an example... the Veil is another and the list goes on (Double Cluster has to be mentioned).

Poor conditions will shrink the benefits and of course great conditions bring them alive...

Has anyone with a fair collection of EP's also noticed that certain ones are always grabbed first? From open clusters to nebulae to galaxies the TV Hypers are my pick, in any of my 3 scopes.

I have to reiterate- many EP's including the fine ES 82's ( I own two good ones) are very good and the views won't disappoint - compare them to the Ethos under dark, transparent skies and the difference becomes clear. I wish TV made a 30mm Ethos, I'd buy one tomorrow...

[Piero]

I wish TV made a 30mm Ethos, I'd buy one tomorrow...

I cannot even imagine how it would look like next to a Nagler 31mm in terms of size, though!   

However, It would be a real "portal to the sky"! 

[estwing]

I cannot even imagine how it would look like next to a Nagler 31mm in terms of size, though!

However, It would be a real "portal to the sky"!

..think John had a 30 Ethos last April didn't he faulksy?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I cannot even imagine how it would look like next to a Nagler 31mm in terms of size, though!   

However, It would be a real "portal to the sky"! 

I can imagine, with the help of the 30mm 100deg ES (3"):

http://www.explorescientific.com/eyepieces/100_degree_series.html

I would need a new focuser (and telescope, really)

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Just noticed: It is shown as "Expected summer 2013" but clicking on the monster EP gives a 404 error. A better link is this

http://explorescientificusa.com/collections/100-series-eyepiece

but that does not show them in relationship

[Piero]

I can imagine, with the help of the 30mm 100deg ES (3"):

http://www.explorescientific.com/eyepieces/100_degree_series.html

I would need a new focuser (and telescope, really)

2.4kg ???     

it is almost twice the weight of my telescope!!   

[faulksy]

..think John had a 30 Ethos last April didn't he faulksy?

still keeps coming around, doesnt it john and it was the april before that

[spaceboy]

Sorry I haven't read through the length of the thread so fogive me if I am repeating what others have voiced.

In reply to your question I would say yes they are worth the extra money. They are for the best part super sharp eyepieces which are well corrected and perform well against their competitors in even the fastest of scope.

That is not to say they are not without their short comings as the views are in my eyes not always as neutral in colour as other eyepieces I have used and in the case of the T6 Naglers and Plossl the eye cups are not the most comfortable.

It is and always be down to personal preference at the end of the day as we all add our own variables in to the mix. Some of us are distracted by CA more than others and there are those who just can't get on with coma. Some of use require spectacles or suffer astigmatism. Some of us see the world in a totally different light and have different expectations due to that. What may work for one person may not necessarily work for you!

Then there is budget in general. You have to take in to account that the UK probably has the most varied weather in all the planet and you will find that astronomy kit lays idle for a great part of the year. There are personal commitments, work, kids, etc. The point being is while Televue eyepieces are worth the difference in cost, it is worth keeping your feet on the ground and considering what the extra money means to you.

I have had various eyepieces over the years and Televue Naglers were by far one of the best eyepieces I ever owned but do I miss them now I don't have them.... yes and no. Yes because they are super sharp eyepieces with superb contrast and there are those nights when it would be nice to have one in the focuser again & No because I no longer have as much invested in the hobby that I curse the skies for being cloudy for weeks on end. I'm not saying that I don't have a nice set of eyepieces as I do and they perform to a standard I am happy with. It's just that the extra money I saved by having mid priced eyepiece went on photography kit that keeps me entertained when I can't stargaze and can be used for astronomy when I can.

HTH

[F15Rules]

Short answer to the question is yes, in many ways they are worth the extra (I don't own a single TV eyepiece at present). I still think they are worth the money as Tele Vue have consistently been the one company pushing and driving quality and innovation in astro gear. I believe that it's because of Tele Vue and a few like minded companies (and certainly not Celestron, Meade and Skywatcher) that the rest of us can buy decent quality, high performing eyepieces at affordable prices. 

Pretty much every new pushing of the boundaries in eyepiece performance has come from firms like Tele Vue (and Zeiss and TMB and Pentax etc): that level of commitment to optical excellence, build quality, ergonomics and innovation (with none of the financial payback guarantees you could expect in a high volume fast moving consumer goods market) deserves, in my opinion, the price premium which they ask for. Same for scope builders such as Takahashi, Vixen (and D&G USA in the achromat world, which is actually my world).

I'm blissfully fairly unaffected by much of this new development personally as I only use slow scopes of F10-F15 where an eyepiece has to be pretty bad not to perform pretty well. And some of the older less sophisticatedly (is that a word? ) coated eyepieces like Circle T's etc can still deliver superb, sharp views  - just not with such a wide field of view as more modern designs.

I remember when I had a Nagler 13mm T6 - it was the best eyepiece I ever used, taking all measures into account, but when I sold it I was able to buy 3 really nice used eyepieces of differing lengths with the money, all of which performed really well in my slow scopes...arguably the T6 was an "overperformer" versus my needs.

Lastly, I'd also say that whichever eyepieces we use, the real determining factor of performance is the optics of the actual scope - the best, widest, sharpest, most flat field eyepiece in the world won't deliver when used with junky optics. Whereas a really well figured lens or mirror will give decent performance with virtually any of the eyepieces mentioned in this thread.

I'm really glad the Tele Vues of this world are still going strong. I thank them for their pioneering spirit and dedication to high quality optics and build which , indirectly or directly have contributed, and still do contribute to all of us being able to find great equipment within our own particular price range. Here's to Al Nagler, the late Thomas Back, Mr Tani-San (retired owner of Circle T, Mr Takahashi and Co!   

Dave

[ghostdance]

Well said Dave.

I'm also grateful though for the likes of Synta who have enabled me to own good telescopes at comparatively cheap prices, to use TeleVue and Circle T eyepieces in

[NeutronNick]

Sorry I haven't read through the length of the thread so fogive me if I am repeating what others have voiced.

In reply to your question I would say yes they are worth the extra money. They are for the best part super sharp eyepieces which are well corrected and perform well against their competitors in even the fastest of scope.

That is not to say they are not without their short comings as the views are in my eyes not always as neutral in colour as other eyepieces I have used and in the case of the T6 Naglers and Plossl the eye cups are not the most comfortable.

It is and always be down to personal preference at the end of the day as we all add our own variables in to the mix. Some of us are distracted by CA more than others and there are those who just can't get on with coma. Some of use require spectacles or suffer astigmatism. Some of us see the world in a totally different light and have different expectations due to that. What may work for one person may not necessarily work for you!

Then there is budget in general. You have to take in to account that the UK probably has the most varied weather in all the planet and you will find that astronomy kit lays idle for a great part of the year. There are personal commitments, work, kids, etc. The point being is while Televue eyepieces are worth the difference in cost, it is worth keeping your feet on the ground and considering what the extra money means to you.

I have had various eyepieces over the years and Televue Naglers were by far one of the best eyepieces I ever owned but do I miss them now I don't have them.... yes and no. Yes because they are super sharp eyepieces with superb contrast and there are those nights when it would be nice to have one in the focuser again & No because I no longer have as much invested in the hobby that I curse the skies for being cloudy for weeks on end. I'm not saying that I don't have a nice set of eyepieces as I do and they perform to a standard I am happy with. It's just that the extra money I saved by having mid priced eyepiece went on photography kit that keeps me entertained when I can't stargaze and can be used for astronomy when I can.

HTH

Thanks for the detailed reply, points taken on board.

[Dude_with_the_tube]

Thats the thing though, I reckon. As you get more experienced in the hobby and you push your abilities and equipment further on more the obscure and challenging targets, you do get more critical and small differences can make a difference to your viewing experience.

Some clearly can see a difference between Tele Vue and competitor eyepieces even in slower scopes. Small differences granted but they will make a difference for some.

i agree with everything you are saying John and its is absolutely correct,the only issue i find is that once you start pushing the boundaries on telescope and on eye pieces,it normally does make a serious damage to your wallet and bank statement