100° eyepieces so why have so many?

[spaceboy]

1 minute ago, John said:

Makes some of us sound rather gullible

 

 

I think that would be pretty much all of us to some degree John. Just ask anyone who has queued over night for the latest IPhone 6 despite having a perfectly functioning IPhone 5 in their pocket or spent £60 on a pair of Levis when you could get 10 pairs of jeans from Primark. Money makes the world go round and that money is in our pockets. It is the bandwagon that does everything it can to get it out of our pockets. Christmas, Easter, valentines, Birthdays, Black Friday etc, etc.

Been there done it myself. Spent £1k on the latest flat screen hang on your wall TV despite having a perfectly fine TV already. The thing broke down after 3 months. Repaired and failed again 8 months later then 12 months after that. Gave in and sold it for spares and got a second hand 15 year old CRT TV that weighs more than a small car yet 5 years on it still works perfectly.

[John]

Well I'm definitely not like that !

The only thing I invest in is the best astro equipment I can get my hands on. I'm way behind the times on everything else - just ask my kids !

 

[Timebandit]

7 hours ago, spaceboy said:

I get what you are saying Timebandit and this was raised in my opening post that often 8mm and below requires several focal lengths to combat seeing. Obviously scope dependant as SCT's are a whole other ball game.

I also get that someone who has a large light bucket often has so to pick out faint and fuzzies so bright planets and high magnification may not necessarily be on their agenda. That said 2 - 3 eyepieces plus extender seems more than adequate.

I suppose again in the same way those who have middle ground telescopes of 10" and up in aperture want to dip their toes in both puddles wanting both deep sky and planetary views. Those with smaller scopes may reside to just lunar and planets. I can see the appeal of a 100° eyepiece for high magnification planetary observing if you do not have a driven mount but I would though beg the question that if your interest also lie in planets why you would not consider a driven mount. Surely what could be spent on 3.7,4.7,6 & 8mm ethos would more than cover the cost of a driven AZ or EQ mount and plenty of change left over for a set of planetary ep's. I know it can be a fuss to set up driven mounts and they aren't everyone's game of cricket but a planet or even double star isn't going anywhere even in a 40° eyepiece. As others have mentioned it is not always a benefit to have such a lot going on in the back ground when observing planets even when it means at 100° you can keep it in the FOV for longer with out nudging.

I think there has been some valid points made for those who feel the need to have a complete set of 100° eyepieces. Most notably that most astronomers do have more than one telescope so focal lengths / magnifications do vary. I do also agree that we do like to collect things. I do though feel this is due to the culmination of media and commercial manipulation over the years more so than true personal preference. It is salesmen doing their job and doing it well. The best of those are the ones who make you sell the stuff to yourself. Make it uniformed or desirable and even if there are runts in the litter you'll still want them.

 

Hello and I am back for more even though I do feel a bit battered and bruised after last night session, wish the sky's had been clear now I would of been at the eyepiece (,or eyepieces)then on the scopes ?

Going into your observation to which I use manual mounts,i instead of some type of driven/tracking mount system. I did look into a driven mount. But from what I had read then the trouble and time in possible setting up just seem to defeat the whole process of this hobby. As you yourself have acknowledged they can be a fuss. Do I really want to get caught up in the set up time , when I know from experience I may have 30min of time before the clouds I can see in the south have moved across to start blocking the views I can see in the north. This is why I do like a manual Dob mount or AZ . Quick easy and very effective. That is not to say if a manufacturer comes up with basically  some type of satellite based system that is self setting up after you have plonked the mount in position(put down and go) then I would be very interested. But to me the time , trouble and possible frustration goes against what I want to be a relaxing hobby. That's why I suppose numerous fov eyepieces would and will help on this aspect 

This is why I do like to be a Collectionist,as I find it gives me opportunity to have something to cover all situations depending on what is available that night or how I want to see it ,or atmospheric/seeing conditions.

As for salesmen and commercial aspect of this hobby ,I am sure a great deal of people get caught up in this merry go round. But anybody who knows me will say I am the last person to get caught up in the hype ,and the must have latest gadgets. Most of my kit is bought used after I have taken a look into the aspects of owners who experience the item, and not a salesperson or commercial feeding. As used a lot of my kit is what would be classed as old school, I don't own a delite, zooms  what I should imagine would be classed as more modern or gadget type objects,even though i understand they are supposed to be very good(I am probably going to get another hammering for saying some of this, I think my likes tab in going  to be given a wide berth for a while). What I am trying to say about this point is that new  shinny things don't impress me ,but well made quality does , so a salesperson will not impress me with hype . A lot of my eyepieces are not today's eyepieces but more yesterday eyepieces, so I am not a commercial led type of person. But when it comes to kit I do like quality and I do like having a range available to cover most viewing conditions and targets to make the hobby a full and enjoyable experience☺

[iPeace]

7 hours ago, John said:

Well I'm definitely not like that !

The only thing I invest in is the best astro equipment I can get my hands on. I'm way behind the times on everything else - just ask my kids !

 

Anyone who has read anything John has written knows that for him determining what is 'best' has nothing to do with hype and everything to do with experience, analysis and personal preference.

And I rather suspect many of us in this business are sort of like that.

[Roy Challen]

3 minutes ago, iPeace said:

 

And I rather suspect many of us in this business are sort of like that.

Definitely agree with that!

[DRT]

17 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Anyone who has read anything John has written knows that for him determining what is 'best' has nothing to do with hype and everything to do with experience, analysis and personal preference.

And I rather suspect many of us in this business are sort of like that.

I have not been doing this long enough to rely entirely on my own experience or knowledge when making purchasing decisions, but I certainly don't rely on marketing hype. What I do rely on is the experience gained over many years by people like John and many others here who have reviewed various pieces of kit in a variety of set-ups. I am much more likely to look for information in reviews here on SGL than on retailer's or manufacturer's websites. 

[Paul73]

I like viewing groups of fuzzies. So being able to up the magnification while comfortably framing the targets is very useful.

In my scopes (10 & 16" Dobs and a little ED80) the 21,17,13 & 8mm's would do me nicely!

Must get saving.....

Paul

 

[kerrylewis]

16 minutes ago, DRT said:

I have not been doing this long enough to rely entirely on my own experience or knowledge when making purchasing decisions, but I certainly don't rely on marketing hype. What I do rely on is the experience gained over many years by people like John and many others here who have reviewed various pieces of kit in a variety of set-ups. I am much more likely to look for information in reviews here on SGL than on retailer's or manufacturer's websites. 

Completely agree.

If you spend time on this forum the cumulative experience and wisdom of contributors is far more useful than any other sources. You soon get an idea of the equipment that may be suitable for your needs and those to avoid.

But it is also soon becomes clear that everyone is different. This hobby, like others, has many facets and people are interested in different things, have different levels of involvement - and different budgets.  Someone can have a case full of Green and Black and revel in the sheer joy of owning them; someone else can have a s/hand scope and a couple of inexpensive eyepieces and get as much enjoyment from them.  To each his own 

 

[iPeace]

23 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

Hello and I am back for more even though I do feel a bit battered and bruised after last night session, wish the sky's had been clear now I would of been at the eyepiece (,or eyepieces)then on the scopes ?

Going into your observation to which I use manual mounts,i instead of some type of driven/tracking mount system. I did look into a driven mount. But from what I had read then the trouble and time in possible setting up just seem to defeat the whole process of this hobby. As you yourself have acknowledged they can be a fuss. Do I really want to get caught up in the set up time , when I know from experience I may have 30min of time before the clouds I can see in the south have moved across to start blocking the views I can see in the north. This is why I do like a manual Dob mount or AZ . Quick easy and very effective. That is not to say if a manufacturer comes up with basically  some type of satellite based system that is self setting up after you have plonked the mount in position(put down and go) then I would be very interested. But to me the time , trouble and possible frustration goes against what I want to be a relaxing hobby. That's why I suppose numerous fov eyepieces would and will help on this aspect 

This is why I do like to be a Collectionist,as I find it gives me opportunity to have something to cover all situations depending on what is available that night or how I want to see it ,or atmospheric/seeing conditions.

As for salesmen and commercial aspect of this hobby ,I am sure a great deal of people get caught up in this merry go round. But anybody who knows me will say I am the last person to get caught up in the hype ,and the must have latest gadgets. Most of my kit is bought used after I have taken a look into the aspects of owners who experience the item, and not a salesperson or commercial feeding. As used a lot of my kit is what would be classed as old school, I don't own a delite, zooms  what I should imagine would be classed as more modern or gadget type objects,even though i understand they are supposed to be very good(I am probably going to get another hammering for saying some of this, I think my likes tab in going  to be given a wide berth for a while). What I am trying to say about this point is that new  shinny things don't impress me ,but well made quality does , so a salesperson will not impress me with hype . A lot of my eyepieces are not today's eyepieces but more yesterday eyepieces, so I am not a commercial led type of person. But when it comes to kit I do like quality and I do like having a range available to cover most viewing conditions and targets to make the hobby a full and enjoyable experience☺

Well said.

A driven mount is heavy, requires power, is liable to break and would take a lot of the fun out of observing for me. So I use an indestructible alt-az mount on a sturdy tripod from the bargain bin.

It's all down to observing style and personal preference, of course, and so much the better. So why do I use a small scope of relatively simple design on a simple undriven mount combined with a case full of wide-angle eyepieces?

Because it's fun.

[Paul73]

Hype does seem to get exposed pretty quickly on this forum. And, the pros and cons of different observing styles are roundly discussed. I have been saved from going down many expensive (& shiney) dead ends just by reading SGL threads.

BTW - I took a Delos apart yesterday, don't ask, and the quality is more than skin deep. I was very impressed.

Paul

 

[kerrylewis]

46 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

 

BTW - I took a Delos apart yesterday, don't ask, and the quality is more than skin deep. I was very impressed.

 

 

Hope you got it back together OK. I (accidentally) took a Panoptic apart once and that was that 

[spaceboy]

1 hour ago, iPeace said:

Anyone who has read anything John has written knows that for him determining what is 'best' has nothing to do with hype and everything to do with experience, analysis and personal preference.

And I rather suspect many of us in this business are sort of like that.

I totally agree with you! I have been lucky enough to meet and tell John in person just how much I appreciate his honest and informed reviews. He has for one personally saved me a fortune over the years.

But this kind of brings me back to my point and one that has been put down to 'collectionosis'

10 hours ago, spaceboy said:

 Make it uniformed or desirable and even if there are runts in the litter you'll still want them.

But if we look at it from outside the box for a moment taking in to account reviews rather than commercial spiel. just off the bat say you have a collection of same brand 100° ep's. For ease we will say each one costs £600. You have one review that picks out a single focal length that isn't quite up to par with the other in a range. Still very good none the less but one that is very closely matched with a cheaper 100° competitor costing only £400. The reviews suggest the performance between the two are negligible so much so that the mistook which eyepiece they had in the focuser during the review. (not referencing John BTW)

Is a choice then based on informed reviews or the need to collect ? Is it the need to have a matching set over performance / price. While marketing may not have directly influenced your purchasing decision to buy a particular eyepiece either new or used does it not to some degree influence your itch to have everything matching and uniformed? I use the word uniformed as I often associate a school "uniform" of being our first taster in life where we are subjected to having to have something matching. While not directly obvious McDonalds Happy meals and some breakfast cerials offers also create a desire to collect. While not all "marketing" parse their is still an essence of "conditioning" from the off.

I agree John's reviews are superb but I said in my opening post I am not basing this on any particular brand which I feel the topic may be slipping in that direction. As I said earlier I am not knocking 100° eyepieces or those who own/ collect them for that matter.  My opening post was simply why have so many 100° when you consider they do the job of several plossl. Why replace say, x9 50° plossl with x7 100° ep's when x3 would do a similar job was my driving factor. The thread seems to have evolved in to why have so many matching 100° eyepieces but as it has been pointed out collecting seems to be the driving factor of choice along with some having a selection of scopes.

 

[Highburymark]

On the dark arts of marketing, I've often thought how little Tele Vue seems to spend on advertising. You see some of its ads in the US astronomy magazines, but I can't remember the last time I saw any direct TV advertising (ie separate from its retail network) here in the UK. 

[Paul73]

2 hours ago, kerrylewis said:

Hope you got it back together OK. I (accidentally) took a Panoptic apart once and that was that 

Yes, back together no problem. 

Phew

Paul

 

[acey]

On 21/07/2016 at 12:20, spaceboy said:

Did it not all start of with eyepieces and something like 30° FOV back in the day? I can see the reasoning behind having two dozen eyepieces with such a tight FOV. Improvements upon improvements until All Nagler paved the way with the MKI 82° Naglers.

Just one of these eyepiece could cover a similar FOV of two 40° orthoscopics or 50° plossl. The astronomer could now increase his OR her magnification with out loosing the FOV thanks to this new spacewalk experience. In addition this meant less time swapping out eyepieces to fit things in as one eyepiece could now do the job of two.

...I understand magnification can begin to play a role depending on seeing so while FOV may be similar there is no saying the views will be. Is a night still spent swapping out one focal length for another when you have so many to choose from? Or do you find that FOV that fits the DSO's being observed and stick with the one ep all night? In my experience the latter seems to be the case. Other than some of the much larger clusters or Nebula most objects seem to accommodate very similar FOV. While the magnification can be pushed on some nebula to release more finer detail most clusters gain nothing by this. 
 

The OP confuses magnification and apparent field of view, and assumes that the latter is the most important factor in DSO viewing. That is incorrect, unless your sole purpose is to get all of M31 within the apparent FOV.

If two eyepieces were equal in every respect except FOV, they would both give views with exactly the same level of detail, but one would have the appearance of a view through a smaller "hole", and you'd need to nudge the scope in order to see everything visible in one go with the larger "hole" of the wider-angle eyepiece. To see more detail (e.g. fainter stars in a cluster, the nucleus of a galaxy, or a tiny dust lane) you would need to increase magnification in either case. To see large features of low surface brightness (e.g. the outer part of a galaxy's disc) you would lower magnification in either case. All of this means  having multiple magnifications at one's disposal, either with multiple eyepieces or (my own preferred option) one or two zoom eyepieces, allowing for continuous magnification adjustment. Field of view is irrelevant.

Reasons for opting for a wider FOV are 1) aesthetic - you like the views more; 2) practical - it makes high-power dob tracking easier (my only 100 degree eyepiece is a 4mm one, for the rare occasions when I need x375 on a DSO); 3) consumerist - everyone says ultra-wide is the only way to go, and if something costs a lot of money then it must be the best thing there is; 4) personal preference - no further justification needed.

In most of my observing (with a 12" dob at a dark site) I use two eyepieces: a 32mm plossl for finding the target area, then a 24-8mm zoom for observing the target. A Speers Waler 8-5mm zoom and 4mm Nirvana are there if I need them, which isn't often. I spend spare cash on luxury goods that I don't need, but which make me feel good. Astronomy doesn't come into that category for me. Everyone is different.

[iPeace]

4 hours ago, spaceboy said:

I totally agree with you! I have been lucky enough to meet and tell John in person just how much I appreciate his honest and informed reviews. He has for one personally saved me a fortune over the years.

But this kind of brings me back to my point and one that has been put down to 'collectionosis'

But if we look at it from outside the box for a moment taking in to account reviews rather than commercial spiel. just off the bat say you have a collection of same brand 100° ep's. For ease we will say each one costs £600. You have one review that picks out a single focal length that isn't quite up to par with the other in a range. Still very good none the less but one that is very closely matched with a cheaper 100° competitor costing only £400. The reviews suggest the performance between the two are negligible so much so that the mistook which eyepiece they had in the focuser during the review. (not referencing John BTW)

Is a choice then based on informed reviews or the need to collect ? Is it the need to have a matching set over performance / price. While marketing may not have directly influenced your purchasing decision to buy a particular eyepiece either new or used does it not to some degree influence your itch to have everything matching and uniformed? I use the word uniformed as I often associate a school "uniform" of being our first taster in life where we are subjected to having to have something matching. While not directly obvious McDonalds Happy meals and some breakfast cerials offers also create a desire to collect. While not all "marketing" parse their is still an essence of "conditioning" from the off.

I agree John's reviews are superb but I said in my opening post I am not basing this on any particular brand which I feel the topic may be slipping in that direction. As I said earlier I am not knocking 100° eyepieces or those who own/ collect them for that matter.  My opening post was simply why have so many 100° when you consider they do the job of several plossl. Why replace say, x9 50° plossl with x7 100° ep's when x3 would do a similar job was my driving factor. The thread seems to have evolved in to why have so many matching 100° eyepieces but as it has been pointed out collecting seems to be the driving factor of choice along with some having a selection of scopes.

 

Fair enough, I could get all my observing done with 3 WA eyepieces, no problem. But which 3 seems to differ from night to night, at least so far.

[spaceboy]

4 hours ago, Highburymark said:

On the dark arts of marketing, I've often thought how little Tele Vue seems to spend on advertising. You see some of its ads in the US astronomy magazines, but I can't remember the last time I saw any direct TV advertising (ie separate from its retail network) here in the UK. 

A company at the forefront of eyepiece design doesn't really have to spend a lot on advertising as their customers often do it for them. If you are the first to release an 82° ep with competitors lagging behind with only 68° of course to some the larger FOV is going to be more appealing. There are those who simply have to have the latest gadget and those who get drawn in to the sales pitch. Either way this soon get the ball rolling. It is worth noting that those who can afford new equipment when it is released more than likely already have all the other mod cons to boot. What I mean by that is someone isn't going to spend £225 on an eyepiece to put in their Seben reflector. There is a higher probability it is going to go into something that already possesses optical performance of it's own. So the hypothetical scenario is you have someone with a nice scope who has just bought the latest gadget with no other competitors to make a fair side by side review.  It goes with out saying a company isn't going to release something that is going to end up loosing them money so standards are going to be in line with the asking price. So customers offer their reviews and the sales begin to grow. Until a similar design is released at a far more competitive price and the reviews see some in favour of one or the other taking in account affordability and performance. At this point one company may see a slow in sales or wish to market their product by offering a 25% off discount.

The same goes again for 100° eyepieces. If you have no other competitor at the time of release and you already have a fan base a product will often sell itself until something better or cheaper comes along.

As some will know I have had a case full of Naglers and they are superb eyepieces. (see I'm a 'collectionosis' also  ) so I know where the TV fan base come from. I also know where the ES fan base comes from also having replaced the Naglers with a 'collectionosis' of ES82° & ES100°  My excuse is I don't always like using the heavy 100° eps over the much lighter ES82°'s so I have to have them all

I think this is kind of where my thoughts come from for this topic. Faffing around in the dark trying to figure out coma corrector spacing with 2 cases full of eyepieces tends to make you ask why do I have so many eyepieces

[Timebandit]

 Hello. This post seems to have stirred up a lot of opinions and  strong feelings on eyepiece selection. I think part of the reason is that we all have different eyes and like seeing things differently to maybe another person , or see things in a different way to another person. Eyepiece selection is a very personal thing depending what we want out of the hobby, what equipment we have at our disposal and how our personal eyes like to view things.

When it comes to eyepiece cases and our collections  of eyepieces then again this is a very personal thing, as many of us have spent numerous time and money in getting what we feel is the right choice or collection of eyepieces for our own personal eyes and target enjoyment. As for the discussion about needing  to build sets of certain manufacturer eyepiece's due to salesmen or commercial brain washing , then I think most of the persons replying on post such as this have enough experience and common sense not to fall into this trap. I think Televue has been hinted at and how some persons like a row of green and black in their eyepiece cases, because of the aesthetic quality rather than the eyepiece quality. From my experience I think this is a bit unfair to Televue as Mr Nagler and co have come up with some great ideas and concepts in development of eyepieces. IMO moving the hobby forward to the serious amateur backyard astronomy hobbyists . Without the likes of Televue I think our telescope eyepieces images would be a lot poorer without them. They have produced eyepieces of quality in budgets we can afford. Not  only have they helped the hobby go forwards in their own right, but by them releasing quality products of different designs they have IMO given other rmanufacturers food for thought and they have had to respond with their own improvements  (by the way I am not an employee of Televue or connect to the company, but if Televue do like these comments then a complete set of Ethos on permanent loan for testing would be most welcome and helpful?)

Just to show I am very open with my collection of eyepieces ,and do not just  collect for the sake of a nice green and black eyepieces through out my case. My eyepiece case consists of many different makes and fov eyepieces. I have Televue , William optics, pentax , Baader to name a few, I don't buy eyepieces because of commercial , sales people but because the eyepieces are good. My eyepiece case may look like a mess to some people, but to me it's a line of quality that works for me and my scopes. As I said before eyepieces are a very personal thing.

[swamp thing]

22 hours ago, Timebandit said:

I see swamp thing believes he could just have just two eyepieces(100degree) and a powermate. He may be able to get away with this combination, but would he not feel he is not getting the best benefit from his scope with such a limited number of eyepieces, and would he not feel he is also not getting the best views of a particular targets also with such a limited number of eyepieces. I would feel this. I think it's a bit like somebody who goes fishing even though a certain bait may work for him most of the times, there are times, conditions,fish temperament that mean he needs other baits to catch them. I think if you limit your eyepiece to just two and a powermate then you are limiting your image combination and therefore your views and enjoyment of the hobby. Just my opinion☺     

Thanks for your concern but I'm all good thanks. 

Ps I don't fish either. 

[niallk]

3 EPs (Pan24, 13T6 and 7T6) plus a 2.5x PM have been a very versatile little set for me in my two dobs.  I like a bit of everything - planets, lunar to DSOs of course. I must have gone 3-4 years without buying an EP (for cyclops viewing).

This is a very interesting thread - and very prescient for me as I got my first 100° EP relatively recently (and unfortunately liked it). 

[John]

I wonder if we will be having a similar discussion in a couple of years time about 120+ degree eyepieces

 

 

[Timebandit]

1 minute ago, John said:

I wonder if we will be having a similar discussion in a couple of years time about 120+ degree eyepieces

 

 

 

Do you know Mr Nagler that well John, to get such inside knowledge?

[DRT]

7 minutes ago, John said:

I wonder if we will be having a similar discussion in a couple of years time about 120+ degree eyepieces

[spaceboy]

1 hour ago, John said:

I wonder if we will be having a similar discussion in a couple of years time about 120+ degree eyepieces

 

 

Probably

[astronymonkey]

As a person who wears glasses ive steered clear of 100 degree eyepieces as they dont have the eye relief for me but id agree that as the fov gets wider then generally then you can get away with fewer eyepieces in your case.  Indeed, a wider range would give more options but I use a range of six eyepieces (82degree and 70 degree) to go from my lowest to highest magnification and find this is sufficient for me to be able to see a difference but often find 3 increments sufficient for viewing most objects.

Cheers