Mixing eyepieces

[Gary170782]

Hey everyone

 

I'm just wondering what most people's EP's are like, I know there are literally 100's to choose from but the reason I'm asking is because I've just started replacing my stock EP's, I've got a couple of BST'S which I think work really well (8mm, 18mm) but I've just received a 30mm vixen npl which is brilliant.

Do you generally keep with the same brand and go with there sizes or do most have like a selection box of mixed sizes and brands. 

 

Gary

 

[Dave In Vermont]

It's a matter of personal tastes & styles and who-knows-what-else. opening one of my cases will greet one with a mixture of EP's in many different brandings and styles. All, with one exception, excellent for my varied telescopes. The exception is an older Celestron X-Cel 5mm, which was voted the worst eyepiece ever made on Earth! The new one's are what most people now have - which you can tell as they have something like an 'LX' or something similar in the name: Celestron X-Cel-vl 5mm, or similar. Viewing through the 'worst' EP results in a big, fat kidney-bean confronting your eye. All blurry too! What were they thinking to release these onto the market!  !

Have fun -

Dave

 

[Louis D]

I require my eyepieces to be usable with eyeglasses due to my strong astigmatism.  As a result I have a mixture of lines because certain ones excel at certain focal lengths.  The Pentax XW line from 3.5mm to 10mm is excellent.  The 14mm and 20mm suffer from field curvature.  The 30mm and 40mm are outrageously expensive for what they do.  The 12mm and below Delos are also excellent.  However, the 14mm and 17.3mm focus 1/2" off from those which can be annoying when swapping eyepieces.  The 17.3mm is also reported to be less than excellent at the edge in fast scopes.  I recently picked up a 14mm Morpheus to replace my field curvature plagued 14mm Pentax XL.  It has much less FC and is nearly parfocal with the Pentax line in 1.25" mode.  The 22mm Astro-Tech AF70/Olivon 70/Celestron Ultima LX is the standout performer of that line and actually behaves better with eyeglasses for me than the 22mm Nagler T4.  It's not pin sharp at the edge, but it is easy to take in the view.  The 12mm and 17mm Nagler T4s are almost usable with eyeglasses.  I've just recently gotten the 17mm ES-92 to replace the 17mm Nagler T4.  I'll probably do the same at 12mm in the next year or two.  The ES-92 just works better with eyeglasses.  I have a 27mm Panoptic that has just enough eye relief to be usable with eyeglasses.  At 30mm, I have an older, decloaked ES-82 that has the eye lens nearly flush mounted to the top, so it, too, can be used with eyeglasses.  It's not as sharp at the edge as the Panoptic, but it has a much wider apparent field of view.  At 40mm I have a decloaked Meade SWA 5000 that has oodles of eye relief and is sharp to the edge when used in a corrected, flat field telescope.  I don't own any longer focal length eyepieces because the exit pupil becomes too large and the skies too washed out from my backyard in them.

I also have a bunch of other eyepieces on my B-team that I've picked up over the years and shuffled them down as I've acquired better eyepieces.  They aren't worth enough to bother with selling, so I keep the for outreach.  Oh, and I have a series of narrower field, lighter weight eyepiece pairs and a pair of zooms for my binoviewer.  Each of these collections is also a hodge-podge.

I don't have matching furniture in my house, either.  It's all a hodge-podge acquired and replaced piecemeal over the years.  If you're the sort who has to have matching furniture, you'll probably insist on matching eyepieces.  I'm OCD when it comes to performance, not appearances.

I notice lots of folks on Cloudy Nights and here who buy up an entire line of eyepieces, use them, then sell them to buy up another entire line of eyepieces if they think they're an improvement (like the Nagler to Ethos stampede several years back).  I've also noticed other folks like me who build up their collection one eyepiece at a time over many years.  It's all a matter of personal preference as Dave in Vermont said.

[nightfisher]

some people like to have matching ep`s, all one make, but for me i now have a mixed box, 2 old skywatcher silvertop plossl`s cause they are good for A-focal Luna, 2 Antares orthoscopic because they are superb planetary ep`s, a 12mm BST because they are very good, an 18mm Vixen Lanthanum and  few revelation ep`s one is a 15mm superview and this gives a really nice view of Luna with great contrast and a 2" 42mm that is superb for open clusters

[Charic]

Eyepieces just need to satisfy the end user. If that means sticking with one brand or choosing the best from several, its all down to the end user.
Change the scope to something faster, and no doubt, some of  the eyepieces you already own may  not work in a way that they did on the earlier scope.
One good thing about eyepieces, they can be exchanged. Also no matter the eyepiece, it will be brilliant in all respects depending on the end users perception  and the telescope their using.

AS for the eyepieces themselves, my choice  was as follows. The BST 8mm replaced the supplied 10mm, the rest of the BSTs followed, their that good ( my eyes - my scope )
I also wanted/needed a plössl set?  settling  for the cheaper Revelations, Tele Vue do not produce a Plössl below 8mm ( I see why now?) but I needed 6mm and possibly below, but eye-relief is an issue! I almost own the full  Revelation set now.
The Delois were only bought  to compare with the BST's, and in preparation for a newer scope. This will not happen for the foreseeable future!
BST do not produce the Starguider 6mm so a William Optics 6mm is the stand-in ( Its still a good eyepiece, but I`d hoped to complete the focal range with a BST ) My Panaview is remarkable as a wide-field eyepiece, and I'm just about to embark on a 6mm EP test including the latest 6mm Baader Classic  Orthoscopic EP range, which is bottom in my viewing table at present?
Overall a 6mm is just that, 6mm providing 200x power on my scope ( other scopes may differ) the real difference will lay in the eyepiece design allowing for better eye-relief, field of view, light throughput, cost, materials.

More often than not, trial and error is what it takes to achieve a satisfactory result when purchasing your eyepieces. The one eyepiece that works well for my needs will not work for you or  Louis D or Dave, unless were all using the same scope, but there's still a difference that our eyes will percieve, so finding the 'one' EP or brand is all down to the end user. I still remember the days when as an audiophile, it was normal to pick the best that each brand  provided, provided their connectors were compatible with each other.

If I had to reduce my collection, for whatever reason ( today ) I would be left with the BST Starguiders.

[bingevader]

Most of mine are second hand, so it's been a case of waiting, when I have the money, for any half decent EP to appear in a focal length I desire.

One advantage of a set is that, in some cases, they can be par-focal, which means you don't have to re-focus when changing EPs.

[Ruud]

When it comes to eyepieces, performance and value are more important than brand.

[ronin]

I tend to collect the set of whatever eyepieces. So that means I have the set of BST's. Hwever to my mind there is too big a jump at the shorter focal lengths 5mm to 8mm is a bit big. So along with the BST's I have a 6mm Altair. If the BST Starguiders came in 4mm, 6mm and the others as at present then I would simply have those as well and likely be immensly happy.

So to an extent it matters on which focal lengths are available.

No reason for me to have basically all the BST's except the hope that they are at least partially parfocal and it is my nature to just get the set, once identified as good eyepieces.

You can also find that at one end or the other then people get a "non-set" eyepiece, which in a way is what I have done and what you have done. Another factor on my decision was that at the time I bought them they were somewhat less in cost then now, my set are "Explorers" not "Starguiders". When I found they were good it just made sense to grab the lot while I could. (And they look good - wonder how big that is as a factor??)

Suppose that it is often that simply having found one or two that work then it is sensible to carrying on increasing the number of those, you have some confidence that the others will be good as well. If you have 3 BST's that are good why take the chance on a TMP clone that may not. At least without some evidence that the initial "set" have a failing at that focal length. Or in my case there is not a suitable item.

 

[cloudsweeper]

A mixture - see signature.  But I do like the Explore Scientific ranges - 68* and 82*.  Plus it depends on what is available at your required focal lengths, AFOVs, and price range!

It's very informative to hunt through the suppliers' websites, as well as to read comments and reviews here.

Doug.

[Ben the Ignorant]

30 minutes ago, Ruud said:

When it comes to eyepieces, performance and value are more important than brand.

Exactly. I have Explore, Sky-Watcher, Meade, TS, Baader and Maxvision eyepieces. I wait for promos, or hunt for bargains; there's always one going on somewhere. I try to have 82°'s, which is easier and easier thanks to the continuous drop in price. To equip my 300mm f/5 dob I'll have to buy 100° lenses someday, but they still cost more than I want to spend on a single unit.

Sticking to a brand or a line of eyepieces won't guarantee you get what you want. In every line some optics have less distortion and better edge sharpness than others. You need to read all the reviews you can find, and select your eyepieces one by one, regardless of line and manufacturer.

[Moonshane]

My take on eyepieces is very biased. Having tried a lot of other eyepieces I have concluded that I have only been satisfied completely with Televue as a brand. Many eyepieces described as wonderfully sharp and excellent by others I have found to be (albeit marginally in most cases) second best in comparison.

Therefore although other options do come at a much lower price and their performance is certainly not actually poor I do always gravitate towards Televue. I often buy a certain focal length in a cheaper brand and then when satisfied that the magnification meets my needs, I sell and buy the Televue equivalent.

I tend to buy used as this means that the costs are lower and I can sell if required at around the same price as they hold their value well. Furthermore, I am not necessarily talking about very expensive wide field eyepieces as I have tried the Televue versions of these and they don’t match my observing preferences which are for eyepieces with a field of 50-70 degrees apparent field (APOV).

For example, a used Televue plossl will provide all the sharpness and clarity of an Ethos but with less field of view yet for £60 used rather than £300.

Whilst you did not mention 2” eyepieces, I have also recently sold my only 2” and am sticking more or less to 1.25” versions. I find the bulk and weight of the 2” eyepieces more of a negative than the positive of additional field gained. Smaller and lighter = easier to balance.

Ask this question to 10 astronomers and you’ll get 10 equally valid but different views. Above is my take but in general, and whatever brand or brands you choose, I’d say buy what your observing preferences dictate are required focal lengths. Only experience at the scope will allow you to establish this.

[laudropb]

It is really up to you. There is no right or wrong approach as long as the eyepiece gives you the view you are after.

[Floater]

41 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

Only experience at the scope will allow you to establish this.

And there, disciples, endeth today's lesson. ?

[Gary170782]

So are the EP's I have okay for my focal length? Am I right in saying it is FL ÷ EP = Mag. My dob says highest useful mag is 406 

[John]

What dob do you have ?

406x will very, very rarely be useful even in large scopes under fantanstic conditions.

I have a 12" F/5.3 dobsonian and my most used eyepiece focal lengths are 31mm, 21mm, 13mm, 8mm, 6mm and 5mm. These give me magnifications from 51x to 318x.

Like Shane I like Tele Vue but I also use Pentax eyepieces. There are many choices that are still pretty good but a lot less expensive though.

 

[Gary170782]

16 minutes ago, John said:

What dob do you have ?

406x will very, very rarely be useful even in large scopes under fantanstic conditions.

I have a 12" F/5.3 dobsonian and my most used eyepiece focal lengths are 31mm, 21mm, 13mm, 8mm, 6mm and 5mm. These give me magnifications from 51x to 318x.

Like Shane I like Tele Vue but I also use Pentax eyepieces. There are many choices that are still pretty good but a lot less expensive though.

 

I have a Dob 200p

[John]

24 minutes ago, Gary170782 said:

I have a Dob 200p

A similar range of focal lengths to the ones I have would work well in your scope as well. You don't need to get them all at once though !

The 200P dobs are very good scopes

[Moonshane]

Generally it's it's the atmosphere that restricts the magnification not the scope. between 100-250 X is the usual max range for any scope depending on conditions.

[rockystar]

Gary, I've got the same scope as you and my highest mag eyepiece is a 6.5, giving x185 which doesn't get that much of a work out. I've also got a 14 which is my most used EP (gives x86) - these are the same brand (Baader Morpheus) and I'm going to get a 9mm in the same range to plug that gap, where I want more than the 14 offers, but the 6.5 is too much.

I've also got a 24mm in a different range (ES8) and it's 2" - this gets a lot of use too and only offers x50, which often surprises people at open evenings.

 

[Gary170782]

@rockystar having the same scope -would you say there is an obvious EP that I'm missing?

[Ricochet]

The 200p is f6 so to get a 2mm exit pupil you want to get a 12mm eyepiece or there abouts. 

[Charic]

22 minutes ago, Gary170782 said:

@rockystar having the same scope -would you say there is an obvious EP that I'm missing?

I have settled on the theory of  using the scopes focal ratio from the  data plate!
F-1200/200=f/6

The 6mm is my HIGH powered EP. This matches the scope, providing 200x power.
The 12mm  is my MEDIUM powered EP and works really well, probably the best detail afforded from the scope as a whole, but half the image size?
A 24mm would seem the next  logical step, but  6x my pupil size affords me the lowest power that my eye should accept ( again based on  f/6).
If I want higher magnification for those one-off nights of spectacular seeing conditions ( Lol )  I could halve the focal ratio by using a 3mm EP. I have the 3.2 as part of the Starguider set, but its hard going! Its fun? but you need good conditions, but you gotta keep up to speed with the scope, the Moon does not hang around,  but that just takes practice, I can track as smooth and as fast as required with the Skyliner from my seated comfortable position,  but the 3.2mm and the 5mm are  used  mainly for observing  the Moon,  but details are  often sharper with less power!

Anything else is a bonus to be honest.

[rockystar]

as ricochet says a reasonable quality 12 or 14 - I assume you just have the stock 10 & 25 at the moment? And then an 8 or 9 after that. The 25 will keep you going for a while.

[Gary170782]

Yes I have the stock 10/25mm, BST 8/18mm and a 30mm vixen. Thanks for the info, I'll now look at the 12-14mm BST'S. 

[rockystar]

if you can drop a 12-14 bst in there, you'll have a nice range and probably won't use the stock EPs