Is there a law of diminishing returns on eyepieces?

[Waldemar]

12 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

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.

Maybe the quality of the  scopes exceeds the quality of your eyepiece, so basically you only see the quality of the ep... not of the scopes. Don't blame your eyes, just try an excellent ep from somebody else at a starparty and then think again.
The average stock eyepieces that come with a scope are not worth talking about... I am not into visual anymore, but the TV Naglers made a huge difference in what I was able to see through my TEC140, compared to average quality ep's from several brands, and now adays even better ep's are available.

 

[LukeSkywatcher]

2 hours ago, Waldemar said:

Maybe the quality of the  scopes exceeds the quality of your eyepiece, so basically you only see the quality of the ep... not of the scopes. Don't blame your eyes, just try an excellent ep from somebody else at a starparty and then think again.
The average stock eyepieces that come with a scope are not worth talking about... I am not into visual anymore, but the TV Naglers made a huge difference in what I was able to see through my TEC140, compared to average quality ep's from several brands, and now adays even better ep's are available.

 

In the case of the 8se, yes the quality of the scope exceeds the quality of the EP (im guessing). With the 70mm scope, the EP exceeds the quality of the scope (guessing again). Nothing wrong with my eyes really. Its just like Gordon said earlier about the sound quality between a top end hi-fi system and a low end one. Only a well trained ear will detect any difference.

I'm very happy with my choice of scopes and EP's. I buy what i can afford and that which i deem to be of quality. Cost isnt really a very big issue. I could blow a wad of cash on such top of the range glass if i wanted. I just dont see the need. Why spend more when i am happy with what i have,how i am doing things?.

I'm by no means a brazillionaire, or even a man of leisure. I'd prefer to spend the same wad of cash on a huge 70" 4K curved UHDTV. Ive been watching tv all of my life and my eyes are very well educated in this area. 

No, i'm not about to do that either.

 

I'm in the market for a new car in the next couple of months. I could buy a very very nice car (i'm thinking 2017 Ford Mondeo). However, i'm not a car guy and just want something that gets me from A to B. So i'm also thinking of a Ford Focus (maybe not even a 2017).

Again it comes down to "why spend a wad". Both do the same thing and i'll be equally as happy with either. 

I honestly think that there are too many other different factors/combinations at play when using scopes and EP's, to pin it down to just quality of the EP; (In no particular order):

Fast scopes

Slow scopes

Collimation

Cooling

Seeing

Transparency

Experience

It really is all about what works for you and like most aspects of astronomy, there is no right or wrong way of doing things. Its what you do and enjoy that matters.

My most expensive EP?......my Baader Hyperion 8-24mm zoom. It works well in all of my scopes. Do i think/find it any better than my range of 8,15,25,30mm Vixens?. Cant say that i do. Its more convenient to use (no swapping out filters or EP's), and there lies the beauty and sole purpose of owning a zoom EP.......convnience.

My collection of Vixens cost about the same (if not less) than my Hyperion zoom cost me and work just as well (if not even slightly better).

I'm a happy "middle of the road" 1.25" Plossl user. I see no reason to change that OR even upgrade to 2". 

I'm not arguing the point of "expensive V cheaper" EP's. As i have said......i can do both if i so want. I'm just saying whatever works for anyone and they are happy with is the most important factor.

 

 

[Waldemar]

2 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

In the case of the 8se, yes the quality of the scope exceeds the quality of the EP (im guessing). With the 70mm scope, the EP exceeds the quality of the scope (guessing again). Nothing wrong with my eyes really. Its just like Gordon said earlier about the sound quality between a top end hi-fi system and a low end one. Only a well trained ear will detect any difference.

I'm very happy with my choice of scopes and EP's. I buy what i can afford and that which i deem to be of quality. Cost isnt really a very big issue. I could blow a wad of cash on such top of the range glass if i wanted. I just dont see the need. Why spend more when i am happy with what i have,how i am doing things?.

I'm by no means a brazillionaire, or even a man of leisure. I'd prefer to spend the same wad of cash on a huge 70" 4K curved UHDTV. Ive been watching tv all of my life and my eyes are very well educated in this area. 

No, i'm not about to do that either.

 

I'm in the market for a new car in the next couple of months. I could buy a very very nice car (i'm thinking 2017 Ford Mondeo). However, i'm not a car guy and just want something that gets me from A to B. So i'm also thinking of a Ford Focus (maybe not even a 2017).

Again it comes down to "why spend a wad". Both do the same thing and i'll be equally as happy with either. 

I honestly think that there are too many other different factors/combinations at play when using scopes and EP's, to pin it down to just quality of the EP; (In no particular order):

Fast scopes

Slow scopes

Collimation

Cooling

Seeing

Transparency

Experience

It really is all about what works for you and like most aspects of astronomy, there is no right or wrong way of doing things. Its what you do and enjoy that matters.

My most expensive EP?......my Baader Hyperion 8-24mm zoom. It works well in all of my scopes. Do i think/find it any better than my range of 8,15,25,30mm Vixens?. Cant say that i do. Its more convenient to use (no swapping out filters or EP's), and there lies the beauty and sole purpose of owning a zoom EP.......convnience.

My collection of Vixens cost about the same (if not less) than my Hyperion zoom cost me and work just as well (if not even slightly better).

I'm a happy "middle of the road" 1.25" Plossl user. I see no reason to change that OR even upgrade to 2". 

I'm not arguing the point of "expensive V cheaper" EP's. As i have said......i can do both if i so want. I'm just saying whatever works for anyone and they are happy with is the most important factor.

 

 

Absolutely true!! When you are happy with what you've got and having fun, that is what counts. Nothing else matters.. 

[Nyctimene]

4 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

I'm very happy with my choice of scopes and EP's. I buy what i can afford and that which i deem to be of quality. Cost isnt really a very big issue. I could blow a wad of cash on such top of the range glass if i wanted. I just dont see the need. Why spend more when i am happy with what i have,how i am doing things?.

I'll second LukeSkywatcher. About (guessed) 75 % of my observing time I find myself using the Baader Hyperion 24-8 zoom. For wide field views, I'm using my only 2" eyepiece, a 30 mmf 77° AFOV Wild Heerbrugg military surplus optic ( the Swiss analogy to the Nagler hand grenade). Fine details in nebular structures I prefer to view with a set of excellent orthoscopics. When I added three years ago a Maxvision 18mm 82° AFOV , I was quite pleased with the sharp field of view even in my 8" f/4 Hofheim dob. But I do not prefer the Maxvision over the other eyepieces; and I feel no need to "upgrade" with other widefields.  I guess, I could get on with just three good orthoscopics  (e.g. Baader BGO/BCO) and a Barlow.

[101nut]

13 hours ago, Stu said:

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

Same here.

I wonder who has a picture of one being used with the most exotic glassware? A big TV hand grenade is nearly the size of the scope! :-)

AndyG

[LukeSkywatcher]

Ive heard that most Penguins are stand up characters.

*boom boom*

[djhartist]

I think a quality eyepiece can enhance the observing experience, even with a 'budget' scope. I've only been dabbling for a couple of years, but my first upgrades were some BSTs. I got some used, but at the time spending £50 on a new one seemed really extravagant! I was using a 130p reflector and 90mm Mak. I bought a solar filter for the Mak and had read that simpler eyepieces like TV plossls were good for solar. A 25mm TV Plossl came up as new for £60 and i jumped on it. That felt like getting serious with the hobby. It was good for solar, but when it came to using it at night in the reflector that i realised the optical quality. Stars were beautifully sharp and tiny details were evident that hadn't been noticed before, it felt like i could see things that other eyepieces didn't show. (Of course, there is also the development of one's own observational skills that grows over time.) But the optical quality of the eyepiece was tangible.

I then tried a 9mm Astro Hutech ortho. Combined with a Rev Astro 2.5 barlow I had some remarkably vivid views of Saturn in 2015, that stay in my memory. That was a bright sharp eyepiece. I have had some other orthos (BCO, Circle T) that all have a special optical quality which i respect. But the field of view can feel limited when nudging a scope. I took a chance on a well priced Meade 5000 UWA 82 degree eyepiece and found that i loved the wider view, so sold the orthos and bits to get a 16mm WO UWAN and 11mm ES 82 degree. Each time my budget was incremently going up from £50 to £100. Now using these in a 6" F5 reflector, I had some fantastic views. But I suppose, getting more critical about eyepieces I was finding the eye relief too tight or just manageable with glasses. Then  a couple of Baader Morpheus came up at a good price and I went for it, selling the 82 degree pieces to fund these, with a little extra thrown in. And these 2 eyepieces (14mm + 9mm) with a Televue barlow and ES 68 24mm, that was my perfect kit for months. Good eye relief, very good optical quality, I could relax and enjoy looking and finding. So, from feeling nervous about spending 20 or 40 quid on an eyepiece a year before, I had 4 eyepieces worth about £300-400. But in a sense it was worth it for the quality of view, and experience, the poetry and science...

To cut a long story short at the end of last year I got fed up with having so much money (for me) tied up in equipment that sat around in a box not being used much (due to work, weather etc). So I sold the Morpheus and TV barlow (wasn't easy). Thought, "relative to my income and the cost of living, that's a ridiculous amount of money to spend on something. I'll get a basic kit together and save some of that cash". Well i've tried a few different eyepieces but either the smaller FOV, eye relief, or issues like eofb and uneven contrast have come up. So i've ended up getting another used Morpheus and an 8.8 ES 82 degree (don't need glasses for high power) plus decent barlow - so basically I have come full circle again, and have a basic kit that i need and know that i will enjoy observing (critical or pleasure) when i get out , but have still ended up spending nearly as much

Anyway, moral of this story is - for me optical quality does interact with a scope and my eyes, and allows the experience to be enhanced. I haven't looked through 'high end' scopes, i've a couple of basic, small skywatchers, but what i can see with these fills me with wonder on many ocassions. The eyepieces help, as does a certain degree of modding or a decent mount, etc. as well as spending time looking, learning and reading. But due and relative to my limited income and other financial commitments I struggle to justify spending hundreds or thousands. (I'm sure i'd love to if i had the finances though). I wouldn't want to pay the new price for a morpheus, pentax etc. The only TV i've used is the 25mm plossl and the 2x barlow - both exceptional i thought.

But it's relative, to what you enjoy, can afford, want to pursue. Don't feel pressure though. The equipment is a window into the mystery of reality.

[Charic]

3 hours ago, djhartist said:

I think a quality eyepiece can enhance the observing experience

I share this view to some degree, but I don't feel that a premium EP  can improve upon the image quality of your scope, that  is  the sole  task of the telescope.
It's the telescopes task of providing the perfect image at the focal plane. Your eyepiece  magnifies the image, you see the subject!  How can this image be  further improved  from the  back end of the optical train!  the image has already been formed?

I  do believe the observing experience can be improved upon  by  how comfortable the field of view  is, and the eye-relief offered, but for me  a 6mm is a 6mm no matter if its my Delos, BCO, SPL or Revelation they still provide the same detail to my eye.  If the real image is good, proper collimation, and good seeing  conditions,  then on axis, just about any eyepiece should work on my scope. no matter which EP I choose. The differences so far to my eye are too subtle to worry about, though the field of view is really noticeable.

 

[DRT]

9 hours ago, Charic said:

I share this view to some degree, but I don't feel that a premium EP  can improve upon the image quality of your scope, that  is  the sole  task of the telescope.
It's the telescopes task of providing the perfect image at the focal plane. Your eyepiece  magnifies the image, you see the subject!  How can this image be  further improved  from the  back end of the optical train!  the image has already been formed?

I  do believe the observing experience can be improved upon  by  how comfortable the field of view  is, and the eye-relief offered, but for me  a 6mm is a 6mm no matter if its my Delos, BCO, SPL or Revelation they still provide the same detail to my eye.  If the real image is good, proper collimation, and good seeing  conditions,  then on axis, just about any eyepiece should work on my scope. no matter which EP I choose. The differences so far to my eye are too subtle to worry about, though the field of view is really noticeable.

 

I agree with this to some degree

I think there must be a cross-over point with any scope where on one side the quality of the eyepiece makes a material difference and then the law of diminishing returns kicks in. To use the same logic as above, the telescope's job is to form the image. That image will be of a definable quality. Some EPs will have the optical qualities to transmit that image to the eye without diminishing the quality and some will introduce reductions in quality in one form or another. Depending on the quality of the telescope, the point at which eyepieces of difference qualities will show material differences will vary. Once you get to the point where two eyepieces are both capable of transmitting the image unimpaired  and increase in eyepiece quality would be of diminishing or no benefit.

In other words, a high quality eyepiece will always get the most out of a scope whereas a cheaper eyepiece might not.

[Mr Spock]

It's like a lot of things; it doesn't matter whether you have a Ford or a Ferrari, they run better on good tyres rather than cheap remoulds After all, the tyre is the point of contact with the road.

The same with eyepieces. The eyepiece modifies the light cone from your scope. It doesn't matter what the quality of your scope is, a poor eyepiece will degrade the image.

However, beyond a certain point, you may be paying for performance you don't need.

For example: if you have a f10 scope, don't need a wide field of view and don't need long eye relief, then a decent Plössl or Orthoscopic will give you all the performance you need.
On the other hand, if you have a f4 Dob, maximising performance will be expensive; you'll need a coma corrector and eyepieces of the Nagler/Ethos standard; the eyepiece should be able to handle an f4 light cone and have a wide enough field of view so you don't have to 'nudge' too often.

This will explain why an SCT user is happy with using Plössls and a Newt user isn't.

Additionally, there is also the question of build quality, glass quality, lens figuring and coatings. Anyone who has used a cheap Plössl, as typically bundled with scopes, and compared it with a Vixen or Televue Plössl will tell you they are as different as chalk and cheese.

[Alan White]

I agree with Mr Spock, that hits the nail on the head quite squarely.

[Roy Challen]

A lot of good points in this thread. Sticking with the car analogy, it's all very well having a Ferrari, but are you able to exploit its performance. Can you (I know there are many Ferrari drivers on this forum judging by the number of Tele Vue users!) drive it at 100% of its capabilities? If not then are you just buying the car for its badge?

Personally, I don't think it's 100% necessary to buy the best the you can afford, otherwise I'd have sets of Ethos and Zeiss ZAOs all over the place, and Tak fracs and 30" Obssessions etc. What I think is important is that eyepiece, diagonal (if being used) and telescope are properly matched.

It's funny that all I had for the first 10 years of observing with my Meade ETX 70 were the eyepieces it came with and a 10mm Kellner, and I never once thought about if the views I had were the best possible. I just observed and enjoyed what I saw. In the last 3 or 4 years, I must have gone through at least 50 or 60 eyepieces, all of which were better - much better in most cases, but I can't say that enjoyment (which is most important to me) increased in proportion with cost.

[Mr Spock]

You can get the best out of a Ferrari in suitable conditions - same as you can with a scope which has 1/10th wave optics

[JOC]

2 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Anyone who has used a cheap Plössl, as typically bundled with scopes, and compared it with a Vixen or Televue Plössl will tell you they are as different as chalk and cheese.

Well I now have a 10mm bundled Plossl and now a 11mm TV Plossl, now there is clearly a slight difference in magnification from the two, but I think they will be close enough to make an interesting comparison especially I have 'uneducated' eyes.  I therefore qualify as an 'anyone' and I am very interested to see if they are as different as chalk and cheese (though the bank manager might not be as interested).  If someone can blow me some clear weather down here I'll get viewing.

B.t.w. I think this is great thread response wise.  Such a variety of responses and thoughts, it's really interesting reading this far.

[Roy Challen]

I would have to disagree with you on that, Michael. Getting the best out of a piece of equipment depends very much on the skill of the user. Giving 100% effort in a Ferrari doesn't mean you'll get 100% of the cars limits - you'll reached have your limit regardless of the conditions. Much the same with eyepieces, if the user cannot detect subtle differences due to the inability to recognise them, or through lack of experience or some other reason, then that is down to the user, not the eyepiece.

[Moonshane]

An optical chain (which includes the eye/brain of the user) is as strong only as the weakest link.

[YKSE]

Lots of good points.

9 minutes ago, Roy Challen said:

Getting the best out of a piece of equipment depends very much on the skill of the user. Giving 100% effort in a Ferrari doesn't mean you'll get 100% of the cars limits - you'll reached your limit regardless of the conditions. Much the same with eyepieces, if the user cannot detect subtle differences due to the inability to recognise them, or through lack of experience or some other reason, then that is down to the user, not the eyepiece.

I'd think this is one of the most important thing, or the weakest link in the whole optical chain.

Take a simple example,  time to time, there come some first light of a good EP compare to stock EP, the user seems not be able to state some clear detailed differences, instead throwing out something like "pitch black ground" for the good ones. That's sound just so unreal to my ears, because, an eyepiece can't distinguish the light from sky glow or stars, it just treat them all the same., so the one showing darker background is more likely has lower light throughput,  assuming focal length and internal reflectiions are the same.

[Roy Challen]

22 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

An optical chain (which includes the eye/brain of the user) is as strong only as the weakest link.

Exactly! More succinctly put than me! But if the optical chain in question is strong (i.e. top end stuff), then IMO the weak link will be the user. If the user is the equal of the equipment, the weak link will be the viewing conditions, and if there are no weak links then the smallest, subtlest details that can be resolved, will be resolved!. The holy grail of visual astronomy!!

Thinking about it, I would like to be able to go back to those original eyepieces I had with the ETX and see how they perform in my slow fracs. I wonder how much difference I  would see.

[rockystar]

The user can only increase in experience over time, the eyepiece will always remain the same.

[MartinB]

Lets face it, most men love "kit", I'm no exception.  Typical we want something which, if we are being sensible (heaven forbid!), is slightly outside our price range.  We are egged into it by the hyperbole of our fellow enthusiasts, along the lines of, "having previously used the 10mm Smudgefill I was blown away by the 10mm Glassyblitzer".  So you part with a kidney and get the Glassyblitzer and after peering for 30 mins you can cheerfully convince yourself that the peripheral  stars are less distorted and promptly post on SGL that the Glassyblitzer is worth every penny (or nephron).   

I love widefield EPs and wouldn't want to go back to plossls for deep sky observing, it's not just the fov but the extra contrast.  My 10mXW Pentax, 17mm Naygler and 27mm Panoptic are great but so too is my 30mm  widefield Moonfish.  It's not quite as good but it's still great.  Actually in an SCT it is just about as good, less so in an F5 dob but even then I like using it.

Sometimes in the chase for the best (and most expensive) kit it's easy to forget just how good well chosen budget stuff is these days.

[Swoop1]

I have a vision of an optics manufacturing overlord sitting at his desk, stroking his log haired white cat with his finger hovering over the big red delete button, just waiting for the wrong post to pop up....

I have yet to experience EP's of better quality than those that came with my scope but, I would equate the probabilities of better quality with that I have found in the camera world.

Good quality originals- Nikon, Canon etc. pretty much always outperform the likes of Tamron or Sigma. This better quality however is generally only noticeable when looking at enlargements of the images taken.

 

[DRT]

@Swoop1 I think you should perhaps correct the spelling mistake in your first sentence

 

[Mr Spock]

25 minutes ago, Swoop1 said:

Good quality originals- Nikon, Canon etc. pretty much always outperform the likes of Tamron or Sigma.

Unless you are using Sigma Art lenses, where the reverse is true

[JOC]

I started with a Praktica manual camera years and years ago, For about the last 8 years I have owned my Canon DSLR with Canon lenses.  OK, so the Praktica was a film based SLR where as the Canon is a digital job, but if I am being honest I haven't noticed a wholesale improvement in the quality of pictures I am able to take.  Whether this has anything to do with the fact that the lenses were reputed to come from the Carl Zeiss factory I don't know, but for a budget camera my lenses seemed very high quality.  I wonder how may budget eyepieces actually have high quality glass in them that we just don't know about.

[Stormbringer]

2 hours ago, JOC said:

I started with a Praktica manual camera years and years ago, For about the last 8 years I have owned my Canon DSLR with Canon lenses.  OK, so the Praktica was a film based SLR where as the Canon is a digital job, but if I am being honest I haven't noticed a wholesale improvement in the quality of pictures I am able to take.  Whether this has anything to do with the fact that the lenses were reputed to come from the Carl Zeiss factory I don't know, but for a budget camera my lenses seemed very high quality.  I wonder how may budget eyepieces actually have high quality glass in them that we just don't know about.

Funnilly enough it was my 1st slr as well and yep the lenses had Carl Zeiss written all over them . Great film camera tad heavy but it too great pics