Have you regretted moving away from your wide field eyepieces

[Chris]

Ooops yes, sorry spaceboy.

[F15Rules]

3 minutes ago, estwing said:

I'm leaving this as its turning into a tv thread as the OP said he didn't want it to

Good idea:-)

[Mr Spock]

Play nice folks

 

[Stu]

No need to stop posting guys, just bring it back on topic.

[spaceboy]

Thanks again for all the input guys. Tbh I never stopped to think about how I felt with regards comfort using an eyepiece. I was so fixated on the fov that I'd overlooked the benefits of looking through an eyepiece that let's your eye relax to take in the views. Thinking about it this is probably why I regret letting the 24mm maxvision go . 68° requires a little looking around but not to a degree your distracted by trying to find the field stop. Seems to give the happy medium. Plenty of space to frame an object but nothing really going to waste. 

[Chris]

1 minute ago, spaceboy said:

Thanks again for all the input guys. Tbh I never stopped to think about how I felt with regards comfort using an eyepiece. I was so fixated on the fov that I'd overlooked the benefits of looking through an eyepiece that let's your eye relax to take in the views. Thinking about it this is probably why I regret letting the 24mm maxvision go . 68° requires a little looking around but not to a degree your distracted by trying to find the field stop. Seems to give the happy medium. Plenty of space to frame an object but nothing really going to waste. 

I too think 68 degrees must be about the sweet spot

[Timebandit]

Hello. I am afraid to say that I would not be able to do away with my wide angle eyepieces and this is especially true on the Dob.

I have used and still do use Ortho and plossl in the refractor and for detailed planetary views then they are still very effective and a worthwhile eyepiece to have.

But I remember when I first used a wide angle eyepiece instead of my plossl/ Ortho line up. A wide angle eyepiece is like a breath of fresh air into the viewing experience. Instead of looking through a straw like view it was more like looking through a pair of binoculars but with the added benefit of eye relief, steadiness, and of course the flexible magnification. I feel not only do you get a more comfortable eye position and therefore view but also added eye relief compared to the Ortho/plossl. 

In the Dob reflector then I do only use wide angle eyepieces due to the manual tracking and also as I mainly use the reflector for galaxy , star cluster, Dso then the views of the target are so much more engrossing and draw you into the whole view of the object target and surrounding as only IMO wide angle eyepieces can do.

And when you have quality eyepieces like the Pentax/televues wide angle then you are getting the benefit of sharp optics, wide views and great eye relief. Would I want to give these up no and especially in the dob would be a no no no.

To turn your question on its head . I could live without the Ortho / plossl (even though would not like to ). But now I have tasted the wide angles such as the Pentax XW and the Nagler then i would not give up these eyepieces.why would I give up tack sharp eyepiece's of wide views allowing me to enjoy more of the sky in added comfort?  .

And as for the televues, Pentax. I do not think people mentioning these eyepieces need to apologise. These eyepieces are market innovators in many ways and these produce some of the best wide field eyepieces out there. This should be welcomed and encouraged as we are very lucky in our hobby that innovators like this exist so we can have premium wide field eyepieces☺ 

[faulksy]

4 hours ago, F15Rules said:

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that TV eyepieces aren't good, just that I don't think that they are worth the new prices asked for them. I see views through other eyepieces that on axis (which is where I observe!), many other eyepieces are just as good -for a LOT less cost!

Dave

you don't buy a Ferrari and put asda fuel in

you don't spend 10k on a scope and put bst's in

i dont care about the brand name but the company who make the best  ep's to me are TV the views realy are very very special. and in particular the ethos range. if you look through a big fast mirror you would see the difference, and then spend your hard earned on them

so my answer to the o.p. is love wide field ep's

[CraigT82]

Couldn't get on with 100 degree, 82 degree still a bit too wide (still had to peep around to see the field stop - I like to be able to see the field stop!).

I've settled on 72-76 degrees as my max usable fov. The Morpheus are perfect for me... spot on FoV, a pleasure to use and great value to boot. 

[faulksy]

don,t get me wrong, i love 70* depends what your looking at

[wookie1965]

I have never looked through anything bigger than 60* been to 3 star parties and never had chance look through one before committing to buy one and I wont until I have checked for myself if I can get on with them.

[scarp15]

I enjoy using Televue plossls, formally I used an 8mm and 11mm for high power views when I was using an 8" SCT. Currently I use a 25mm qnd 20mm plossl, they have a primary purpose but are also a pleasure to use, with my 14" dob for a different viewing experience and can of course encompass many objects and I like seeing the field stop. I recently used my 20mm to observe the double cluster which understandably required some gentle sweeps. There can be a lot of money tied up in Ultra Wide Angle eyepieces, the only reason I would envisage selling my own collection, would be to create cash flow if it became really necessary to do so.  In this scenario I wouldn't regret moving away but I would miss the ultra wide field experience, yet a set of high quality plossl e.p's, whilst requiring some mental adjustment, would still continue to provide stimulating observing encounters on most subjects.

However, there is something quite satisfying about being under the presence of a big sweeping star field dark sky, with a big(ish) scope and a big chunk of glass that can yield an immersive ultra wide, high quality and with good eye relief, field of view. Finding things is easier, retaining objects when changing eyepieces is also steadier and if you like galaxy clusters and large nebulae, then they are unbeatable.   

[Highburymark]

5 hours ago, F15Rules said:

I know it's sacrilege to say it but I just don't "get" all the raving about Tele Vue eyepieces. 

I have never used their Ethos range and at the prices they cost I never would. But I have used several Naglers, Plossls and most recently a 5mm Delite which I bought in a Black Friday sale-.)

I returned the Delite after one session for a refund, (and full marks to TH for their prompt and attentive service). The Delite, to my eyes, offered me nothing that my Pentax XLs,Vixen LVWs and Morpheus units didn't also show just as well. I bought it as a replacement for my Pentax XL 5.2mm which I had stupidly let go, and following abortive adverts trying to acquire a used XW5, I bought the Delite on impulse.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice enough eyepiece but I just don't think it was worth £200 - and that's with 20% off in the sale! I found it cosmetically underwhelming, if not actually ugly, and much prefer the older but to me very stylish appearance of the Pentax and Vixen LVW ranges. The Morpheus range wouldn't win any beauty contests either, but they are optically superb at much lower cost new and used than TV or Pentax.

My XL 10.5 Pentax barlowed with the 2.25x Baader barlow showed at least as much as the Delite, with at least as good contrast, cooler colour tone (which I prefer) and slightly better sharpness, and a bigger field of view. 

The only TV ep I have ever really really liked was a Nagler T6 13mm which I thought was outstanding.

It seems to me that many who love TV so much use fast Dobs and Newts, scope's whose inherent optical properties need highly edge corrected eyepieces. And as I don't use anything faster than F7.5, I don't need to pay outlandish prices for features I don't need:-).

Getting back to the OP's question, I came late to wider fields, and although I've used and liked several UWA 80+ deg eps, including the T6 13mm, I personally find 65-75 degrees to be my preferred sweet spot range. I have got used to wider fields, and apart from double star observing I wouldn't choose to go back to narrow sub 50 degree views.

So, I now feel pretty settled with Pentax XL 7mm, LVW 8mm, XL 10.5mm, Morpheus 14mm, XL 21mm, LVW 22mm and ES34mm 68. I also have BCOs in 6, 10 and 18mm, my favourite being the 18mm which is scarily sharp.

I will probably let either the 21XL or LVW22 go as they are so close, but not until I've done more detailed comparisons..both are superbly sharp eps and the 21XL definitely shows much less field curvature than the XW20 did.

I do heartily support anyone in choosing what suits their eyes and scope's best though, and am really grateful for all the great learning I have benefitted from on forums like this one:-). Each to their own as they say?

Dave

Wouldn't expect a Delite to outperform an XL or a Morpheus Dave, particularly if in a slower scope. They are all premium eyepieces. My post wasn't about brands, it was about the importance of wider field options in an undriven scope at higher magnifications. I think I may have found the solution to my search though - an ES 4.7 which provides the field width of a Nagler at a third of the price ?

[jabeoo1]

I feel this thread is somewhat close to home for me right now.  Having just sold on my marvellous 10" dob, as I too can't have equipment that is not getting its fair amount of use.  It went to a lovely chap who is planning on a tour of Spain with it in his camper van, what a great way to use my scope!  Good on him, he has the time in retirement to do so.  I have annual leave and spare evenings only.   Having owned a very decent 2" EP and beautiful as the double cluster was I found it to be over-kill for me.  Give me a simple set any day, everything I need comes in a 1.25" format.  Most of us have limited storage, no observatory and just need to be diving out there at short notice with minimal fuss and a quick cool down time.  Too many choices, I then find it a task to pick what goes in the focuser, meaning less viewing.  Quality and being compact is a driving theme for my current choices.  This does not mean cheap though as others have pointed out, quality comes at a cost in compact form or not.  Being level headed in this hobby is difficult, we are spoilt with quality & choices, it is not something to be complaining about though thats good!  But I have found happiness in knowing my sold gear is giving views to others, my current gear is regularly giving great views to me and best of all I can now with a small sweat walk off into the middle of no-where with a tripod, scope and a small ruck sack and view away from the glow of the city. 

And I managed that without mentioning any brands  !

[John]

Having re-read the original post (sometimes a good idea once a thread reaches a certain length !) and without talking about brands, I wonder about a pragmatic approach where you sacrifice your wide fields in their least used focal lengths but keep a couple in key FL's such as 12/13mm and 20mm so you retain some widefield capabilitiy where it really makes the most impact but revert to more moderate fields of view, but still high quality views both in daytime and nighttime in the medium to higher power eyepieces.

To some extent your choices might also be linked to any plans you have for your scopes as well ?

Your original post does illustrate how you feel torn so I think you may be able to find a way foward which does not polarise your options into "all wide" or "all standard" field but maintains a mix, largely without focal length duplication, of eyepiece types which will continue to satisfy your viewing interests while achieving a reduction in numbers and obselescence.

Sorry thats not a detailed prescription but maybe, with some further thought, you can "have your cake and eat it"  

[jetstream]

First off I love hyperwides and widefields... but... I think its important to maintain a nice large true field of view for certain objects and regardless of apparent field. Of course large apparent fields can also bring larger true field.

If it were me I'd keep a lowish power eyepiece with a relatively large field stop, and one that is comfortable to observe with- brand doesn't really matter. You can then enjoy filter work and drink in those great starfields when conditions and time allow.

Recently I have been using 3 eyepieces basically- a 42mm LVW, a 30ES 82 and a small FOV wide range zoom. If I didn't own f7ish refractors the first one could go (it is excellent despite the kidney beaning).

Spaceboy, do whatever is best given your current circumstances- they make eyepieces everyday, should circumstance or desire change.

[Highburymark]

1 hour ago, John said:

Having re-read the original post (sometimes a good idea once a thread reaches a certain length !) and without talking about brands, I wonder about a pragmatic approach where you sacrifice your wide fields in their least used focal lengths but keep a couple in key FL's such as 12/13mm and 20mm so you retain some widefield capabilitiy where it really makes the most impact but revert to more moderate fields of view, but still high quality views both in daytime and nighttime in the medium to higher power eyepieces.

To some extent your choices might also be linked to any plans you have for your scopes as well ?

Your original post does illustrate how you feel torn so I think you may be able to find a way foward which does not polarise your options into "all wide" or "all standard" field but maintains a mix, largely without focal length duplication, of eyepiece types which will continue to satisfy your viewing interests while achieving a reduction in numbers and obselescence.

Sorry thats not a detailed prescription but maybe, with some further thought, you can "have your cake and eat it"  

Agree with this John. Variety being the spice and all that. 

[mapstar]

9 hours ago, wookie1965 said:

I have never looked through anything bigger than 60* been to 3 star parties and never had chance look through one before committing to buy one and I wont until I have checked for myself if I can get on with them.

You'll have to wander over at the mini psp Paul and take a look then 

To the op

I think I would've regretted not moving to widefield eyepieces being a manual dobber type. 

Amazing how many times I've picked something up at the edge of the field which would've got missed with a narrower fov. The wider field is more immersive and in my opinion frames the object more realistically. I don't have field stops on my eyes! 

If I ever do sell them I will regret it, as it would mean I'm leaving the hobby (in that shape and form at least) 

There is nothing wrong with a narrower field of view (especially on a tracking mount) and you will get just as good a view with some eyepieces on axis as others do with big expensive widefields but thats not exactly what widefields are about as mentioned above.

[spaceboy]

13 hours ago, John said:

Having re-read the original post (sometimes a good idea once a thread reaches a certain length !) and without talking about brands, I wonder about a pragmatic approach where you sacrifice your wide fields in their least used focal lengths but keep a couple in key FL's such as 12/13mm and 20mm so you retain some widefield capabilitiy where it really makes the most impact but revert to more moderate fields of view, but still high quality views both in daytime and nighttime in the medium to higher power eyepieces.

To some extent your choices might also be linked to any plans you have for your scopes as well ?

Your original post does illustrate how you feel torn so I think you may be able to find a way foward which does not polarise your options into "all wide" or "all standard" field but maintains a mix, largely without focal length duplication, of eyepiece types which will continue to satisfy your viewing interests while achieving a reduction in numbers and obselescence.

Sorry thats not a detailed prescription but maybe, with some further thought, you can "have your cake and eat it"  

I think this is going to have to be the way it is. As you say this way I can have my cake and eat it. Seems weird but it's going to be odd having an odd jumble of eyepieces in my case. I don't know if it is just me and being a 'collectionist' but I like having order in my case. Daft I know as I could amass a set that suits my needs perfectly but would be a collection of different brands and guises. Even my first ep collection being only plossl were all Tal. My later TV were all Nagler, Hyperions, Nirvans, ortho, BST ES82° and ES100° with the exception of maybe one or two eyepieces they were  all the same in their own individual cases. It's as if I have been brought up to be uniformed  

[Timebandit]

33 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

I think this is going to have to be the way it is. As you say this way I can have my cake and eat it. Seems weird but it's going to be odd having an odd jumble of eyepieces in my case. I don't know if it is just me and being a 'collectionist' but I like having order in my case. Daft I know as I could amass a set that suits my needs perfectly but would be a collection of different brands and guises. Even my first ep collection being only plossl were all Tal. My later TV were all Nagler, Hyperions, Nirvans, ortho, BST ES82° and ES100° with the exception of maybe one or two eyepieces they were  all the same in their own individual cases. It's as if I have been brought up to be uniformed  

Hi. I think you really are a collectionist, and have an addiction to sets?

My opinion on eyepieces is that I get what works in the scopes I have.

I do not need to get complete sets of this eyepiece or that eyepiece.

For example have televues, Pentax, William optics , meade , Baader ect, you get the idea. And in all these eyepieces i do not have one complete set. I just buy what I need for my eyes and my scope set up and the best I can afford at the time.

But anyone who does not have a wide field eyepiece of 70d or more IMO is really missing out on a feast for the eyes especially in the galaxy, clusters DSO observing. 

 

[spaceboy]

I have retained my 20mm ES 100° for the bigger stuff but my BST's should cover everything else other than probably needing something to give me 1.2° in the mid to mid high magnification range. I guess if I had to be really picky I could do with something a little wider for globs but I tend to like my orthos for the unbeatable contrast effortlessly resolving them to the core.