2.5mm EP or x3 Barlow?

[Piero]

52 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

The real problem is approaching the exit pupil limit for the particular scope. The human eye can't really process anything less than 0.5mm. I can get 0.47mm for 270x on my 130M.

What do you mean by this? 

The human eye can process below 0.5mm exit pupil. If you see something while below 0.5mm, your eye is processing. On some people, floaters can become an issue below 0.5mm exit pupil and that is why a lot of folks prefer to stay above. The resolution (meant to split two point sources, like two stars) of a telescope is determined by aperture. Therefore, you can reach a point where an increase in magnification will not provide a split of two point sources, but just a larger image scale as provided by lower magnifications. However, how eye is able to separate things by colour and contrast too. Therefore, it is actually possible to notice differences between two point sources if these have different colour for instance. In this case, even if the resolution limit is reached, the eye can make a difference and therefore a smaller exit pupil can be effective. 

This concept of resolution does not work in the same way on planets though. On planets what matters is contrast. An example is the Cassini division, which is far beyond the limit of my 60mm in terms of telescope resolution, but a hint of it is detectable at moderate magnifications (75x, 0.8mm exit pupil on my telescope/finderscope). This because the cassini division is a black line which has a great contrast with the white/yellow rings. The eye is able to elaborate this very well. More delicate features where a difference in contrast can play an interesting role are festons or a white border surrounding the GRS on Jupiter. 

I think it just takes some experimentation. With this I am not against high magnifications, actually I like to push the telescope/seeing to their limit!  I just think that one should first have a basis of tools (=eyepieces) to operate 90% of the times. Later, following an increase in experience and understanding of his/her own tastes, additional magnifications can be considered. 

 

So, my suggestion is not to get now eyepieces with an exit pupil below 0.7mm.  In your telescope, 130mm F5, f.l. 650mm, an exit pupil of 0.7mm corresponds to an eyepiece of 3.5mm focal length (=0.7mm*F5). On your telescope this is 185.7x which will be more than sufficient for seeing a lot of planetary details (Jupiter, Mars (when placed nicely like now), Saturn, and for double stars. It is also within the "200-220x limit" typical in the UK due to poor seeing conditions. Instead of getting a 3.5mm, you could also consider a 7mm + a good barlow 2x. With this, your 7mm is a nice medium-high power, which is suitable for smaller open clusters, globular clusters, some smallish bright galaxies and planetary nebulae (all these DSOs will depend on your location transparency of course). When you use the barlow 2x you can get the 3.5mm with for planetary observation. 

 

EDIT: Your 25mm gives an exit pupil of 5mm which is ideal as a low power. With the barlow 2x, it gives you an exit pupil of 2.5mm which is a nice medium-low power. So basically, your 25mm, 7mm, and a good barlow 2x might be all what you need.

[Mak the Night]

55 minutes ago, Piero said:

What do you mean by this? 

The human eye can process below 0.5mm exit pupil. If you see something while below 0.5mm, your eye is processing. On some people, floaters can become an issue below 0.5mm exit pupil and that is why a lot of folks prefer to stay above. The resolution (meant to split two point sources, like two stars) of a telescope is determined by aperture. Therefore, you can reach a point where an increase in magnification will not provide a split of two point sources, but just a larger image scale as provided by lower magnifications. However, how eye is able to separate things by colour and contrast too. Therefore, it is actually possible to notice differences between two point sources if these have different colour for instance. In this case, even if the resolution limit is reached, the eye can make a difference and therefore a smaller exit pupil can be effective. 

This concept of resolution does not work in the same way on planets though. On planets what matters is contrast. An example is the Cassini division, which is far beyond the limit of my 60mm in terms of telescope resolution, but a hint of it is detectable at moderate magnifications (75x, 0.8mm exit pupil on my telescope/finderscope). This because the cassini division is a black line which has a great contrast with the white/yellow rings. The eye is able to elaborate this very well. More delicate features where a difference in contrast can play an interesting role are festons or a white border surrounding the GRS on Jupiter. 

I think it just takes some experimentation. With this I am not against high magnifications, actually I like to push the telescope/seeing to their limit!  I just think that one should first have a basis of tools (=eyepieces) to operate 90% of the times. Later, following an increase in experience and understanding of his/her own tastes, additional magnifications can be considered. 

 

So, my suggestion is not to get now eyepieces with an exit pupil below 0.7mm.  In your telescope, 130mm F5, f.l. 650mm, an exit pupil of 0.7mm corresponds to an eyepiece of 3.5mm focal length (=0.7mm*F5). On your telescope this is 185.7x which will be more than sufficient for seeing a lot of planetary details (Jupiter, Mars (when placed nicely like now), Saturn, and for double stars. It is also within the "200-220x limit" typical in the UK due to poor seeing conditions. Instead of getting a 3.5mm, you could also consider a 7mm + a good barlow 2x. With this, your 7mm is a nice medium-high power, which is suitable for smaller open clusters, globular clusters, some smallish bright galaxies and planetary nebulae (all these DSOs will depend on your location transparency of course). When you use the barlow 2x you can get the 3.5mm with for planetary observation. 

 

EDIT: Your 25mm gives an exit pupil of 5mm which is ideal as a low power. With the barlow 2x, it gives you an exit pupil of 2.5mm which is a nice medium-low power. So basically, your 25mm, 7mm, and a good barlow 2x might be all what you need.

 What do you mean by this?

I have no idea. But there again, I’ve had brain damage.

The human eye can process below 0.5mm exit pupil. If you see something while below 0.5mm, your eye is processing. On some people, floaters can become an issue below 0.5mm exit pupil and that is why a lot of folks prefer to stay above. The resolution (meant to split two point sources, like two stars) of a telescope is determined by aperture. Therefore, you can reach a point where an increase in magnification will not provide a split of two point sources, but just a larger image scale as provided by lower magnifications. However, how eye is able to separate things by colour and contrast too. Therefore, it is actually possible to notice differences between two point sources if these have different colour for instance. In this case, even if the resolution limit is reached, the eye can make a difference and therefore a smaller exit pupil can be effective.

Yes, thank you for the information. But 0.5mm is considered the usual limit for maximising the image with the eye. I’m not a biologist, doctor, optician or expert in the field of optics (I mentioned the brain damage right? lol).

This concept of resolution does not work in the same way on planets though. On planets what matters is contrast. An example is the Cassini division, which is far beyond the limit of my 60mm in terms of telescope resolution, but a hint of it is detectable at moderate magnifications (75x, 0.8mm exit pupil on my telescope/finderscope). This because the cassini division is a black line which has a great contrast with the white/yellow rings. The eye is able to elaborate this very well. More delicate features where a difference in contrast can play an interesting role are festons or a white border surrounding the GRS on Jupiter.

I can see the *Cassini Division with my 90mm Mak. Detail on Jupiter is more difficult, I’m hoping my new 235mm SCT and my new 18.2mm TV DeLite will help with this.

I think it just takes some experimentation. With this I am not against high magnifications, actually I like to push the telescope/seeing to their limit! I just think that one should first have a basis of tools (=eyepieces) to operate 90% of the times. Later, following an increase in experience and understanding of his/her own tastes, additional magnifications can be considered.

Not sure what you’re actually getting at here.

 So, my suggestion is not to get now eyepieces with an exit pupil below 0.7mm.  In your telescope, 130mm F5, f.l. 650mm, an exit pupil of 0.7mm corresponds to an eyepiece of 3.5mm focal length (=0.7mm*F5). On your telescope this is 185.7x which will be more than sufficient for seeing a lot of planetary details (Jupiter, Mars (when placed nicely like now), Saturn, and for double stars. It is also within the "200-220x limit" typical in the UK due to poor seeing conditions. Instead of getting a 3.5mm, you could also consider a 7mm + a good barlow 2x. With this, your 7mm is a nice medium-high power, which is suitable for smaller open clusters, globular clusters, some smallish bright galaxies and planetary nebulae (all these DSOs will depend on your location transparency of course). When you use the barlow 2x you can get the 3.5mm with for planetary observation.

Of the five telescopes I own, only one of them is 130mm and it is f/6.9, 900mm f/l. I don’t accept that 220x is the typical UK limit. There again, I live in a village in the green belt.

 

EDIT: Your 25mm gives an exit pupil of 5mm which is ideal as a low power. With the barlow 2x, it gives you an exit pupil of 2.5mm which is a nice medium-low power. So basically, your 25mm, 7mm, and a good barlow 2x might be all what you need.

I don’t think so.

 

*I could see the Cassini Division this morning with my 90mm Mak (f/11.3) at 76.9x and 90.9x using a Celestron 13mm (GSO) Plossl and an 11mm TeleVue Plossl.

[Piero]

 

Quote

I can see the *Cassini Division with my 90mm Mak. Detail on Jupiter is more difficult, I’m hoping my new 235mm SCT and my new 18.2mm TV DeLite will help with this.

Congratulations for your new telescope and eyepiece. It believe it will provide you with great planetary and DSO views.  

 

Quote

I think it just takes some experimentation. With this I am not against high magnifications, actually I like to push the telescope/seeing to their limit! I just think that one should first have a basis of tools (=eyepieces) to operate 90% of the times. Later, following an increase in experience and understanding of his/her own tastes, additional magnifications can be considered.

Not sure what you’re actually getting at here.

This was actually directed to the OP, not you as you have clearly already experimented. As the OP mentioned that his telescope was bought last December, I think I am correct to assume that he is a beginner, particularly after s/he started this thread. In any case, if it is unclear, what I was saying with that text is that I think one should first get the eyepieces s/he uses most of the time, and then, after some experimentation considering interests, seeing, transparency and darkness, consider whether other eyepieces might be needed. To be honest there is nothing of esoteric in this. It is just a trivial way of maximising the benefits and reducing the costs. Sure, one could get an eyepiece for each focal length. If the OP's interest had been this, I think he would not have started this thread. That's it. 

 

Quote

 So, my suggestion is not to get now eyepieces with an exit pupil below 0.7mm.  In your telescope, 130mm F5, f.l. 650mm, an exit pupil of 0.7mm corresponds to an eyepiece of 3.5mm focal length (=0.7mm*F5). On your telescope this is 185.7x which will be more than sufficient for seeing a lot of planetary details (Jupiter, Mars (when placed nicely like now), Saturn, and for double stars. It is also within the "200-220x limit" typical in the UK due to poor seeing conditions. Instead of getting a 3.5mm, you could also consider a 7mm + a good barlow 2x. With this, your 7mm is a nice medium-high power, which is suitable for smaller open clusters, globular clusters, some smallish bright galaxies and planetary nebulae (all these DSOs will depend on your location transparency of course). When you use the barlow 2x you can get the 3.5mm with for planetary observation.

Of the five telescopes I own, only one of them is 130mm and it is f/6.9, 900mm f/l. I don’t accept that 220x is the typical UK limit. There again, I live in a village in the green belt.

>> Again, this was addressed to the OP who is asking suggestion for an eyepiece purchase, not you as you already have your eyepiece set.

Beside this, I don't know what to answer to the fact you don't accept that 220x is the typical UK limit. Good for you. I could not accept that you think using more than 220x makes completely sense in the UK, and than what? Are we going on and on arguing? I think this is quite pointless, don't you think? We are enjoying our hobby and we are free to do it in the way we prefer. The reason why I suggested a typical limit of 200x-220x is that by reading reports and comments from members living in the UK, it frequently happens to read that most of these people tend to prefer using magnifications below that limit due to seeing conditions. Whether you are one of ten who prefers high magnifications, is completely fine with me. It is just that it is more likely that the OP is within that 90% of people who prefer a view with more contrast. As mentioned before, he's free to do so. Nobody is constraining him from doing so. I simply think it is better he gets a magnification which is useable most of the time and then, if he feels, get an even higher power eyepiece. If this does sound illogical to you, well, I don't know what to say, except that one might well think that your suggestion might not make sense either. With this again, instead of being part of the solution for the OP, we are part of a problem arguing with this.. 

Hand shake?  

 

Quote

EDIT: Your 25mm gives an exit pupil of 5mm which is ideal as a low power. With the barlow 2x, it gives you an exit pupil of 2.5mm which is a nice medium-low power. So basically, your 25mm, 7mm, and a good barlow 2x might be all what you need.

I don’t think so.

well, fair enough..  

[Mak the Night]

Congratulations for your new telescope and eyepiece. It believe it will provide you with great planetary and DSO views.

Thanks, it’s a bit of a monster for someone who is disabled, but I’m getting the logistics of moving and setting it up sorted out.

This was actually directed to the OP, not you as you have clearly already experimented. As the OP mentioned that his telescope was bought last December, I think I am correct to assume that he is a beginner, particularly after s/he started this thread. In any case, if it is unclear, what I was saying with that text is that I think one should first get the eyepieces s/he uses most of the time, and then, after some experimentation considering interests, seeing, transparency and darkness, consider whether other eyepieces might be needed. To be honest there is nothing of esoteric in this. It is just a trivial way of maximising the benefits and reducing the costs. Sure, one could get an eyepiece for each focal length. If the OP's interest had been this, I think he would not have started this thread. That's it.  

Yes, what you are saying makes sense. As a minimum I would suggest a low power, perhaps a 32mm Plossl, a medium size EP and something that possibly Barlowed could give at least 250x, which most 130mm scopes should handle well depending on conditions of course.

 >> Again, this was addressed to the OP who is asking suggestion for an eyepiece purchase, not you as you already have your eyepiece set.

Oh right, sorry. It must be the brain damage lol.

Beside this, I don't know what to answer to the fact you don't accept that 220x is the typical UK limit. Good for you. I could not accept that you think using more than 220x makes completely sense in the UK, and than what? Are we going on and on arguing? I think this is quite pointless, don't you think? We are enjoying our hobby and we are free to do it in the way we prefer. The reason why I suggested a typical limit of 200x-220x is that by reading reports and comments from members living in the UK, it frequently happens to read that most of these people tend to prefer using magnifications below that limit due to seeing conditions. Whether you are one of ten who prefers high magnifications, is completely fine with me. It is just that it is more likely that the OP is within that 90% of people who prefer a view with more contrast. As mentioned before, he's free to do so. Nobody is constraining him from doing so. I simply think it is better he gets a magnification which is useable most of the time and then, if he feels, get an even higher power eyepiece. If this does sound illogical to you, well, I don't know what to say, except that one might well think that your suggestion might not make sense either. With this again, instead of being part of the solution for the OP, we are part of a problem arguing with this..

In my experience the limit is primarily dictated to by conditions/transparency. Also, the intended target is another factor. Moreover, where you are observing from is yet another consideration. Where I’m situated I can have relatively dark skies, and I can often see M4 inter alios  with the naked eye on a good night. I can use a variety of magnifications depending on the specific target or conditions. For example, I’ve reached 260x on Saturn with a 102mm Mak, which is well above its resolution limit and exit pupil which tends to limit it to 208x. Lunar viewing at 250x plus with my 130mm is often quite achievable, but I wouldn’t attempt or expect this to work on Jupiter. My point was that with a 5.1“ aperture it’s not completely out of the question to get high magnifications on specific targets. As such, I don’t see any harm in purchasing a Barlow/eyepiece that would reach the upper limit of a 130mm scope (around 260x), especially for certain targets.

Hand shake?

Sure, sorry if I came over a tad truculent.

 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I am surprised you needed to go all the way to 362x to get a view of the main cloud belts and GRS. I have seen these through an 80mm at no more than 100x (96x if memory serves, with a 5x SLV or XW EP). Very often you need to take time to watch a planet. Detail is often not immediately apparent. After a while you start picking out more and more detail, even at lower magnification. I have rather taken to the views of Jupiter through a 14mm Delos in my 8" (145x), quite a lot can be seen. The 10mm XW (203x) does show a bit more, but 145x shows most detail nicely.

[spaceboy]

21 hours ago, Yamez said:

My telescope is the Skywatcher Explorer 130P GoTo

Is it worth getting a 2.5mm EP for my telescope or a x3 Barlow lens.

I'm asking because i would love to see mars and Saturn closer up for finer detail.

My guess is you are considering to x3 barlow the 25 & 10mm MA eyepieces that came with the scope so this really wouldn't work well. IMHO I would forget a barlow and go for a 3.2mm BST starguider which will give you x208 and an exit pupil or 0.6mm which is the shortest I would go as it should be bright enough on the moon and Jupiter and offer far more comfort viewing than a similar focal length plossl or ortho. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1-25-3-2mm-BST-Explorer-Dual-ED-eyepiece-Branded-Starguider-/161461651877

[Yamez]

1 hour ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I am surprised you needed to go all the way to 362x to get a view of the main cloud belts and GRS. I have seen these through an 80mm at no more than 100x (96x if memory serves, with a 5x SLV or XW EP). Very often you need to take time to watch a planet. Detail is often not immediately apparent. After a while you start picking out more and more detail, even at lower magnification. I have rather taken to the views of Jupiter through a 14mm Delos in my 8" (145x), quite a lot can be seen. The 10mm XW (203x) does show a bit more, but 145x shows most detail nicely.

I did'nt need to use that mag for the belts and GRS i can see them with the 10mm and x2 barlow and the 4mm. I was saying that when i used 362x which is an excesive amount of mag i could still see them

[Mak the Night]

Oh yeah, if the weather's good Sunday morning I'm planning on using my 130M to see the Mars Opposition. I plan to start off with 193x at least (14mm Baader Morpheus and TV 3x Barlow).

[Yamez]

37 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

Oh yeah, if the weather's good Sunday morning I'm planning on using my 130M to see the Mars Opposition. I plan to start off with 193x at least (14mm Baader Morpheus and TV 3x Barlow).

I had a look at the weather for Saturday's full moon shame its going to be cloudy

[Putaendo Patrick]

Generally supplied 10mm EPs are adequate but not the best. Combining this with a x3 Barlow which likewise is not the best is likely to give rather poor results.

However, as you note, high magnification Plossls tend to have very small holes and poor eye relief. This is certainly one advantage of a Barlow.

A lot really depends on how much you want to spend. One reasonable option might be to start with the Revelation x2 Barlow which will effectively make your 10mm into a 5mm, (giving a very usable 130x magnification) as well as 12.5mm with the 25mm.

Then if you like what you see, think about getting a better 8mm-ish EP which you could Barlow to 4mm to give 162x magnification - some brands to consider might be Revelation (9mm), TMB Planetary (7mm, 7.5mm and 8mm), Vixen NLP (8mm, or even the 6mm if you want to push it), or BST Explorer (8mm).

As has been said, atmospheric conditions often mean that higher magnification on the planets doesn't necessary improve detail. I often push viewing the Moon to x266 or very occasionally to x366, but with planets I usually get best results in the x130 to x180 range.

[Louis D]

On nights when I thought my 8 inch was maxed out at ~200x due to seeing conditions, my 15 inch looked fine at ~400x with the same eyepiece.  It was then that I realized aperture really does matter.  I generally back off the 15 inch to about 250x-350x for fine views of Jupiter with decent image scale.

[Mak the Night]

2 hours ago, Yamez said:

I had a look at the weather for Saturday's full moon shame its going to be cloudy

Yeah, doesn't look good. We have to think optimistically though ... this time next week Mars will still be there ... just a little further away. lol

[Yamez]

26 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

Yeah, doesn't look good. We have to think optimistically though ... this time next week Mars will still be there ... just a little further away. lol

Well if your being optimistic then i will be to, there's always next months full moon to capture and all of the months coming

[Mak the Night]

22 minutes ago, Yamez said:

Well if your being optimistic then i will be to, there's always next months full moon to capture and all of the months coming

That's the spirit! lol

[Mak the Night]

2 hours ago, Louis D said:

 It was then that I realized aperture really does matter.

This was kind of my point earlier. In my experience, a 130mm aperture will reach at least 260x if the conditions are good. A lot depends on exit pupil, and I would try to stay around 0.5mm at the minimum. And, of course, a lot depends on the target itself. Jupiter is notoriously difficult. With my 235mm scope I will be happy if I get a good 150x with Jupiter. I expect much more on other targets.

[View2]

On 5/19/2016 at 12:15, mikeyj1 said:

i am sure you know the theoretical max mag for your scope Yamez, it's approx 2x the aperture in mm..260x...so 200x should be ok.  The revelation barlow gets a pretty good write up, search it on here.   

One question to Daz... don't you class your 2" 2x powermate as a barlow then?

Never heard of the 2x aperture rule...nice.

I guess 317x out of a 127mm apochromatic triplet(fl=952mm) f/7.5 isn't as attainable as I thought.  Perhaps 254x should be my max? I have a 20mm Meade UWF, a 9mm Celestron X-Cel LX and a cheapo 6mm plossl and a mediocre 2x barlow.

So probably a 4mm should be next up? That'd be 238x...close enough. I suppose I could barlow the 6 and see.....

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, View2 said:

Never heard of the 2x aperture rule...nice.

I guess 317x out of a 127mm apochromatic triplet(fl=952mm) f/7.5 isn't as attainable as I thought.  Perhaps 254x should be my max? I have a 20mm Meade UWF, a 9mm Celestron X-Cel LX and a cheapo 6mm plossl and a mediocre 2x barlow.

So probably a 4mm should be next up? That'd be 238x...close enough. I suppose I could barlow the 6 and see.....

The x2 aperture rule is in part derived from the exit pupil I think. By definition it gives you an exit pupil of 0.5mm which is about as low as most people find they can go without floaters in their eyes becoming to distracting; that's certainly the case for me. So, whilst your scope will no doubt take higher mag, you may not like the results except on the moon and double stars.

If you have a good scope, which it sounds like you do, don't expect it to perform at high power using cheap eyepieces and a questionable Barlow. Get yourself some decent quality ones up around the x150, x180, x200 and x230 range and see what the scope can really do at high power.

[View2]

On 5/19/2016 at 12:15, mikeyj1 said:

i am sure you know the theoretical max mag for your scope Yamez, it's approx 2x the aperture in mm..260x...so 200x should be ok.  The revelation barlow gets a pretty good write up, search it on here.   

One question to Daz... don't you class your 2" 2x powermate as a barlow then?

Never heard of the 2x aperture rule...nice.

I guess 317x out of a 127mm apochromatic triplet(fl=952mm) f/7.5 isn't as attainable as I thought.  Perhaps 254x should be my max? I have a 20mm Meade UWF, a 9mm Celestron X-Cel LX and a cheapo 6mm plossl and a mediocre 2x barlow.

So probably a 4mm should be next up? That'd be 238x...close enough. I suppose I could barlow the 6 and see.....

[View2]

Any thoughts on the TV Nagler 3mm-6mm zoom? Just the concept of a zoom piece sounds too convenient. If it truly gives quality comfortable views, I could deal with 50'AFV, I think my 9mm is only 60. Looking forward to seeing Saturn and Mars this year.

[View2]

Btw, I find you foreigners have a better, friendlier, more helpful and chattier than most

[Stu]

1 minute ago, View2 said:

Any thoughts on the TV Nagler 3mm-6mm zoom? Just the concept of a zoom piece sounds too convenient. If it truly gives quality comfortable views, I could deal with 50'AFV, I think my 9mm is only 60. Looking forward to seeing Saturn and Mars this year.

In my experience, the nag zoom is a very nice, compact zoom of excellent quality, but not quite in the same bracket as top end fixed focal length eyepieces. I'm sure you wouldn't be disappointed with it, although you would probably only use down to around the 4mm setting most of the time, that's certainly what I do with similar focal ratio scopes. I think the eye relief is 10mm, fine for me but no good if you wear glasses.

[John]

1 hour ago, View2 said:

Any thoughts on the TV Nagler 3mm-6mm zoom? Just the concept of a zoom piece sounds too convenient. If it truly gives quality comfortable views, I could deal with 50'AFV, I think my 9mm is only 60. Looking forward to seeing Saturn and Mars this year.

I've owned 2 of the 3-6mm Nagler zooms and currently have the 2-4mm one. Optically I'd say that they are as good as Tele Vue Radian's but not quite as good as a good abbe orthoscopic or the Pentax XW range (these are eyepieces that I've compared them too) showing just a little more light scatter around bright objects but still pretty good. The TV zooms have 10mm of eye relief so much better than a plossl or an orthoscopic in the same focal length range (not that you can get 3mm or 2mm orthos or plossls !). The zoom feature is very well implemented and the eyepiece is more or less par focal throughout it's focal lengths and the apparrent field of view of 50 degrees remains consistent too.

For many, the ability to instantly fine tune the magnification being applied to suit the target and viewing conditions outweighs any slight performance deficit over fixed focal length premium eyepieces. They are really well built eyepieces but their eye relief will challenge those who wear glasses when observing.

Here is a review by a respected USA astronomer, Tom Trusock. He compares the Nagler zoom to the much vaunted TMB Supermonocentric specialist planetary eyepieces:

www.cloudynights.com/documents/tmb2.pdf

 

 

[View2]

Have you an opinion on this Lanthium Vixen 4mm?

[John]

I don't want to hijack this thread. Here is a review I did on here of the 6mm, 12mm and 20mm Vixen SLV's:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/217971-vixen-slv-eyepiece-report-6mm-12mm-and-20mm/

 

 

[Yamez]

3 hours ago, View2 said:

Have you an opinion on this Lanthium Vixen 4mm?

Thanks for the suggestion I already own a 4mm EP. (Skywatcher UWA Planetary 4mm)