Is there a law of diminishing returns on eyepieces?

[JOC]

I've touched on this in anther thread, but I don't want to derail things too much there so I thought I'd post a thread to see what people think. 

Is there a law of diminishing returns with some of these really expensive eyepieces if you don't have a really top quality precisely collimated telescope.  i.e. if you only have a telescope 'Ford Fiesta' is it worth putting Lamborghini Countach eyepieces in it (apologies to any Fiesta owners, but I liked the analogy - which I should add is not my own, but comes from the other thread).

i.e. What sort of telescope you do need to own before it makes sense to spend a King's ransom on eyepieces.

[iPeace]

Good question. Alternatively, I would be interested to know how inferior a telescope has to be in order for a premium eyepiece not to improve your views.

A subtle difference, to be sure, and I harbour no pretentions, just interested in the opinions of those who know.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Actually, I have found that really good EPs also improve views in fairly cheap telescopes, in part because some cheap telescopes come with downright bad EPs. However, in poorer optics it would be hard to spot the difference between "pretty good" like a decent Plossl, and "outstanding" like a Pentax XW, TV Delos, or top orthoscopics. Much also depends on the speed of the optics. In a fairly cheap 4.5" F/4.3 Newtonian  the differences show quickly, especially off centre, whereas in a cheap 80mm F/12 achromat little difference may be visible.

[Louis D]

14 minutes ago, JOC said:

if you only have a telescope 'Ford Fiesta' is it worth putting Lamborghini Countach eyepieces in it

That reminds me of this project.  If you only have a Smart Car, is it worth putting a Hayabusa Turbo Engine in it?  Maybe not, but it sure looks like fun!

[Louis D]

I'm also reminded of the folks with 20+ inch dobs who have mounted Orion Starblast OTAs (or similar) to them for use as finder scopes.  Some have even found discontinued 1.25" TV Paracorrs to correct coma in them.  Of course they then use high end eyepieces in them since they've already got them for the big scope.

[DRT]

I have had a very expensive journey through the eyepiece minefield over the past three years and can say with some certainty that buying eyepieces at the top end of what is available is a good idea if you have a long term aspiration to own a great set of kit.

I have the luxury and luck of being able to afford these things so I appreciate that my experience is not necessary relevant to all, but in general I think it is a good idea to stretch to buy the best you can rather than go through lots of steps up the ladder to reach the level you want to be at. Like almost everyone else I started with a 10mm and 25mm Plossl and a small scope (Heritage 130P) and then quickly wanted better eyepieces. I ended up with a full set of second hand Celestron X-Cell XLS's at about £50 each. A few weeks later I bought an 8" F6 Dob. The EPs worked well. I then bought an F5 12" Dob - the EP's started to struggle. I sold them and bought a set of Explore Scientific EPs at £80-£120 each. I also bought a CPC1100, and C6, a few refractors (fast and slow, large and small), a 16" F4.5 Dob, etc and before long had been through various ranges of EPs and decided that the ones that provided the best performance and the great scopes and the most consistent performance in the lesser scopes was my Tele Vues. I then decided to just build a collection of those, which have been seen elsewhere on this forum.

Although I have now slimmed down the collection of Ethos and Panoptics, I now know that regardless of which scope I put them in I will get the best out of it. They work superbly well in my Orion Optics F4 12" Dob, and my C11, and my 120ED, and my Altair 152 Achro, and the SW 200P I passed on recently. I now have EPs that will last me a lifetime and can continue to invest in buying better scopes to put them in.

I think a good way to think of it is that a set of EPs can be for life whilst scopes will come and go as your interests evolve.

When I eventually have my 6" Fluorite Tak, 14" SCT and F4 32" Dob I will still be putting my Ethos 21mm eyepiece into all of them

 

[John]

I think there definitely is a law of diminishing returns on eyepieces. Despite that, I've always tried to use the very best eyepieces that I could afford on the basis that I'd like to think that the eyepiece was in no way a weak link in the optical chain. I've never regretted spending on the best quality I could. I have sometimes regretted making a compromise purchase.

Until quite recently my eyepieces were worth way more than any of my scopes. More than all of my scopes put together in fact.

When my budget was more limited I would sacrifice FoV and eye relief to get optical quality if needed. Now I have a larger budget and have been able to afford top end scopes, I already have top end eyepieces to use with them

 

[DRT]

3 minutes ago, John said:

I think there definitely is a law of diminishing returns on eyepieces. Despite that, I've always tried to use the very best eyepieces that I could afford on the basis that I'd like to think that the eyepiece was in no way a weak link in the optical chain. I've never regretted spending on the best quality I could. I have sometimes regretted making a compromise purchase.

Until quite recently my eyepieces were worth way more than any of my scopes. More than all of my scopes put together in fact.

When my budget was more limited I would sacrifice FoV and eye relief to get optical quality if needed. Now I have a larger budget and have been able to afford top end scopes, I already have top end eyepieces to use with them

 

I think we have similar views on this, John, although you expressed them much more concisely that I was able to

 

[Stu]

Coming back to Michael's point, I think a scope has to be pretty bad not to be improved by better eyepieces.

I bought one of the rocket shaped Infinity 76mm scopes for my children to play around with quite a few years ago. It wasn't too bad for what it was, but I removed the pegs from the helical focuser which allowed me to put a 7mm Type 6 Nagler in and it was definitely a significant improvement! I think I tried higher power too, possibly even the 3.5mm, great fun on the moon.

I've been all around the houses in terms of eyepieces and know what I like and don't like. Funds are tight currently, and time short so I am relatively light on top notch eyepieces but when I reinvest I shall know what to go for, definitely.

[Floater]

I'll fess up now:  I fear I'm out of my depth discussing this subject in the presence of far more experienced and knowledgeable Loungers. 

Nevertheless, something that hasn't been mentioned - but I think is highly relevant - is how 'educated' an eye one possesses.

To buy quality can never be a bad thing. But I'm reminded of discussions I had long ago with my brother (professional musician) about hi-fi sound; stylus; speaker, and even placement of speakers. An uneducated ear will hear no difference among any of these permutations. If I only ever play pop and rock at a party, why would I buy a top-drawer sound system?

Legend are the tales of Loungers blaming another for introducing them to the world of 'better' eyepieces - because those EPs are also 'superior' in price! But I suspect that when the eye has become educated it recognises when it looks through something inferior.

Further, I believe the 'diminishing returns' law is inevitable. To distinguish between excellence and something superior requires a lot of experience and an ability to discern the smallest of improvements.

That said, we should all aspire ... ??

[DRT]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I bought one of the rocket shaped Infinity 76mm scopes

You never fail to learn something when you engage with the experts on this forum.

I have always assumed the Infinity 76 was the shape of a flying piglet (Arms straight down by its sides launching head first into infinity and beyond) - never once have I thought it was a rocket

 

[DRT]

1 hour ago, Floater said:

I'll fess up now:  I fear I'm out of my depth discussing this subject in the presence of far more experienced and knowledgeable Loungers. 

Nevertheless, something that hasn't been mentioned - but I think is highly relevant - is how 'educated' an eye one possesses.

To buy quality can never be a bad thing. But I'm reminded of discussions I had long ago with my brother (professional musician) about hi-fi sound; stylus; speaker, and even placement of speakers. An uneducated ear will hear no difference among any of these permutations. If I only ever play pop and rock at a party, why would I buy a top-drawer sound system?

Legend are the tales of Loungers blaming another for introducing them to the world of 'better' eyepieces - because those EPs are also 'superior' in price! But I suspect that when the eye has become educated it recognises when it looks through something inferior.

Further, I believe the 'diminishing returns' law is inevitable. To distinguish between excellence and something superior requires a lot of experience and an ability to discern the smallest of improvements.

That said, we should all aspire ... ??

I agree with all of that, Gordon, and when it comes to observing experience  I firmly put myself in the camp of "all the gear, no idea" - a bit like when I used to play golf

But I intend sticking with this hobby as I grow older as my mobility is becoming compromised with age so I need something interesting that can be done sitting down. Whilst educating myself on the techniques required to become experienced in observing I decided that investing in good glass now (when I can afford it) is likely to be helpful later in life as I become more attuned to appreciating what I am seeing.

[iPeace]

13 minutes ago, DRT said:

You never fail to learn something when you engage with the experts on this forum.

I have always assumed the Infinity 76 was the shape of a flying piglet (Arms straight down by its sides launching head first into infinity and beyond) - never once have I thought it was a rocket

 

I'm with you on this one - definitely a flying piglet.

[JOC]

1 hour ago, Floater said:

Legend are the tales of Loungers blaming another for introducing them to the world of 'better' eyepieces - because those EPs are also 'superior' in price! But I suspect that when the eye has become educated it recognises when it looks through something inferior.

Oh, dear - will my bank balance live to regret my minor green and black purchase? £55 seemed a relatively innocent investment just to try out the difference! Eeeek!  NB.  FWIW I'm one of those people for whom an expensive HiFi system is wasted, but I've done enough photography to know when something is out of focus or unclear!

The Infinity 76 telescope - I've also seen pictures and I thought they resembled a clown's circus canon.

[Floater]

47 minutes ago, DRT said:

But I intend sticking with this hobby ... investing in good glass now (when I can afford it) is likely to be helpful later in life as I become more attuned to appreciating what I am seeing.

That's you and me both, Derek.

Q.E.D. (I think. Never been sure of that one. ?

[DRT]

11 minutes ago, Floater said:

Q.E.D. (I think. Never been sure of that one. ?

According to WiKi: Q.E.D. (also written QED) is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "what was to be demonstrated", or, less formally, "thus it has been demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when the original proposition has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.

I think the highlighted text describes exactly where you and I were coming from.

Time for another Highland Park

 

[John]

31 minutes ago, JOC said:

Oh, dear - will my bank balance live to regret my minor green and black purchase? £55 seemed a relatively innocent investment just to try out the difference! Eeeek!  NB.  FWIW I'm one of those people for whom an expensive HiFi system is wasted, but I've done enough photography to know when something is out of focus or unclear!

The Infinity 76 telescope - I've also seen pictures and I thought they resembled a clown's circus canon.

Fortunately excellent optical quality is available at reasonable prices these days. Things only get really expensive if you get a taste for:

- Excellent performance in both the centre and edges of the field of view

AND

- A wide or very wide field of view

AND

- Both the above maintained in scopes faster than around F/7

[Stu]

8 hours ago, iPeace said:

I'm with you on this one - definitely a flying piglet.

I've heard it described as a penguin before.....  

[Moonshane]

Most things in life are the same. Buy a cheap used runaround car (cheapie used plossl) for £250. Assuming it runs, it provides exactly the same journey from A-B as any other car albeit with a bit more noise, smoke and general roughness round the edges. Buy a Ferrari (other super cars are available) (a Zeiss Orthoscopic) and you will get finely tuned amazing performance but it will be slightly uncomfortable and 'basic'. Buy a good quality new car (say a basic Golf) (top quality plossl) and you'll get reliability in all circumstances albeit without as many features as you'd like. Buy a top of the range car (Range Rover maybe??) (Ethos?) and you'll have all the features you'd ever want with lots of space and perhaps some Kudos too. That said it won't always fit in the car parking space you want it to, you'll be worried about a scratch or two and it will always have something that's annoying - maybe a weird handbrake mechanism (in my case off axis chromatic aberration on the moon).

The difference between the bottom end car and the top end car is about £60k but they essentially do the same thing. Measurable differences between top end optics and bottom end optics are usually easy but when you have to try and decide for great optics and top end optics the differences are marginal at best albeit with a large differential in price.

Personally I have always bought the best eyepieces/optics I can afford. Sometimes I buy cheaper versions (used) to fill in the gaps pending a final decision on whether they fit my scopes and other eyepieces (and observing requirements) before eventually buying the 'final' choice. This isn't always the most expensive option like an Ethos as I don't really get on with them and currently I find plossls are more suited as I use binoviewers and their apparent field matches the available prism size. Plus for me, simpler eyepieces provide more pleasing views of the moon / sun for which I use the BVs in the main.

Only your own specific circumstances, observing preferences and budget can decide what's worth paying for.

[Moonshane]

ps

usually when people (me included) ask questions like this, they have made the decision to get the best quality already in their heads but need some reassurance before they tell their wallet......... wife.......... make a final decision.

[Paul73]

At the end of the day, it is down to personal taste (or how far apart your eyes are in Shane's bino viewing case).

The core Green & Black (TV) elements of my eyepiece cases have remained pretty constant. Everything else seems to get changed around fairly regularly. That should tell you something.

My main vice is the Delos range. Possibly a bit narrow for my bigger scope. The Ethos range are so eye wateringly expensive that they make rare appearances, then get sacrificed in times of financial emergency (ie the need for a new scope)...... I had an Ethos 21mm for about 9 months and sold it to pay for half a Dob for exactly what I paid.

Paul

[JOC]

Thanks for all the postings - its an interesting discussion.  Well I have just unwrapped my first green and black that I bought on the other thread (2nd hand, but who would know to look at it) and am (I hope) the proud owner of a TV 11mm Plossl - now all I need is the clouds to shift and the moon or something else nice to come out

[SilverAstro]

16 hours ago, DRT said:

According to WiKi: Q.E.D. (also written QED) is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "what was to be demonstrated", or, less formally, "thus it has been demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when the original proposition has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.

Quite correct !

as "has been demonstrated"  it was commonly in use at the school I attended when the dinosaurs roamed wild. Mind you we usually had in mind Quite Enough Done   - titter ye not.

( the school motto was  "Nil Sine Labore" - nothing without work, but our childish sense of humour translated it into the vernacular as " no sign of work " )

--

@Nyctimene and I agree that the Infinity is indeed a penguin, and for what it is, a surprisingly fine instrument

--

52 minutes ago, JOC said:

now all I need is the clouds to shift and the moon or something else nice to come out

all fingers etc. are xxed and I will be most interested to read your comparative review.

[noah4x4]

I bought a Williams diagonal for my Evolution 8 to improve things when using the modest quality supplied Celestron 13mm and 40mm Plossls. I thought I had wasted my money. Saw no improvement.

I then bought a number of Televue Delos and Televue Plossls. Huge improvement. But I then tried these through my old Celestron diagonal. Great, but not as good as when combined with the Williams diagonal. 

Since then it has seemed evident to me that any optics are only as good as the weakest link. Improve all and you get optimum benefit. But EP'S are a higher priority than diagonal; but even quite modest scopes can benefit from both.

[LukeSkywatcher]

To my "uneducated" eyes, using the same EP (Vixen NPL) in both an expensive scope (8SE) and a cheap scope (Heritage 130P), shows me very little difference. Nothing wrong with either scopes or the EP. Its just my eyes cant see much if any difference. Huge differences obviously in the images provided by either scope, due to aperture.

So for me personally, it would be a waste of money to invest in any of the top of the range bits of glass available. I have to say though that the Vixens are IMHO top quality EP's. Great views altogether when you compare them with some stock ep's that come with most scopes. They are not expensive either in the world of EP's.