Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Recommended Posts

Evening everyone. Quick question about eyepieces in simple terminology:

I understand that the lower the number of an eyepiece, the more zoom it provides, and different makers provide different FOV. My question is that, for example, if I use a 2x Barlow with an 8mm ep, would I have a 4mm ep? (12mm+2x = 6mm; 40mm+2x = 20mm, etc.) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We usually refer to zoom as magnification but your understanding is correct - a 2x barlow lens effectively turns an 8mm eyepiece into a 4mm, a 10mm into a 5mm etc, etc.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To an extent that is true. If an eyepiece gives a magnification of say 50x in your scope a 2x Barlow with the same eyepiece will give a magnification of 100x. The Barlow does not half the focal length of the eyepiece however. It doubles the focal length of the scope.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As said, basically you are correct. The only other thing to add into the mix is that the quality of the Barlow has an impact. Use a bad Barlow to get higher magnification and you will get a bad result i.e. Poor quality image. Get a decent one (and that doesn't have to be stupidly expensive) and it can be quite effective.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that a barlow will often extend the eye relief of an eyepiece. This tends effects longer focal length eyepieces more, so if you intend to use a 40mm eyepiece for example you may be better off considering a powermate or similar depending on what scope your using it in of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most astronomers when starting out automatically assume that they absolutely need a barlow lens. This is not the case though. A collection of 3 well chosen eyepieces (low,medium and high...........so about 8,15 and 30mm)..............will be/is enough.

What will work best with your scope, (i dont know what scope you have or what will work best). I'll leave that to others. I have a wide variety of scopes of different types and size and i personally find that middle of the road (£30-50) Plossl EP's work well in all of them.

I also have an 8-24mm Hyperion zoom EP, but that is a different kettle of fish. Works well, but certainly not everyone needs one.  It's very convieient for me to own one.

Edited by LukeSkywatcher
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

Most astronomers when starting out automatically assume that they absolutely need a barlow lens. This is not the case though. A collection of 3 well chosen eyepieces (low,medium and high...........so about 8,15 and 30mm)..............will be/is enough.

What will work best with your scope, (i dont know what scope you have or what will work best). I'll leave that to others. I have a wide variety of scopes of different types and size and i personally find that middle of the road (£30-50) Plossl EP's work well in all of them.

I also have an 8-24mm Hyperion zoom EP, but that is a different kettle of fish. Works well, but certainly not everyone needs one.  

I have an 8se. I stayed away from buying an ep set due to input from SGL folks. I have the 25mm that came with the scope and also got a celestron 8-24 zoom. I didn't get a barlow because I read, like you said, to stick to a few ep's that are low, med, high. The zoom is good for now until I get some funds built up, but I've been looking at a 30 or 40mm because I get too much magnification from the 2 that I have (lunar/some dso observing made this obvious to me). I was just curious about the barlows. I actually haven't felt the need/want to get one.  

I saw a great difference in lunar observing with the Plossl and the zoom that I have. I'm the kind of person that is skeptical when it comes to things like "a certain type of something is better than another". Put another way, I saw that the Plossl lens gave sharper detail. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John said:

We usually refer to zoom as magnification but your understanding is correct - a 2x barlow lens effectively turns an 8mm eyepiece into a 4mm, a 10mm into a 5mm etc, etc.

 

Thanks! Obviously I'm new to this haha. I'm trying to relate to terms that I know well (photography terms). I'm seeing a difference in photography/astronomy terminology to some degree. On that note, one thing that has been bothering me is that in photography, f/(insert number) is the aperture that a lens allows, but when it comes to telescopes I'm seeing this reffered to as fastness/slowness....input?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crcooney said:

Thanks! Obviously I'm new to this haha. I'm trying to relate to terms that I know well (photography terms). I'm seeing a difference in photography/astronomy terminology to some degree. On that note, one thing that has been bothering me is that in photography, f/(insert number) is the aperture that a lens allows, but when it comes to telescopes I'm seeing this reffered to as fastness/slowness....input?

I'm not an imager so I'll leave others to comment on that.

On the barlow though, if you have a Celestron 8SE then I suspect that a 2x barlow is not going to get much use for visual observing. The 8mm focal length point of the zoom is giving you 250x which is about as much magnification as can be used most of the time.

If you are staying with the 1.25" format eyepieces then a 32mm plossl would be a good low power eyepiece to compliment the others you have.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John said:

I'm not an imager so I'll leave others to comment on that.

On the barlow though, if you have a Celestron 8SE then I suspect that a 2x barlow is not going to get much use for visual observing. The 8mm focal length point of the zoom is giving you 250x which is about as much magnification as can be used most of the time.

If you are staying with the 1.25" format eyepieces then a 32mm plossl would be a good low power eyepiece to compliment the others you have.

Couldnt agree more. Tried and tested by myself (i am by no means an expert), but on the 8SE.........works well for me.

Edited by LukeSkywatcher
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, John said:

I'm not an imager so I'll leave others to comment on that.

On the barlow though, if you have a Celestron 8SE then I suspect that a 2x barlow is not going to get much use for visual observing. The 8mm focal length point of the zoom is giving you 250x which is about as much magnification as can be used most of the time.

If you are staying with the 1.25" format eyepieces then a 32mm plossl would be a good low power eyepiece to compliment the others you have.

I was just curious about the magnification with barlows. No plans to get one.

I considered a 9mm and a 30 or 40mm when I was buying my scope and the zoom offered an inexpensive alternative in the higher magnification range. I noticed that I actually stay at about 12mm when observing due to the image suffering if I dial in any more. 

Thanks for your suggestion! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Schmidt-Cassegrain requires collimation just as a Newtonian; just as any telescope that utilises mirrors to form an image.

Whilst it's true that a Schmidt does not require collimation as often as a Newtonian, the need is there nonetheless.

If your telescope could indeed use a bit of adjustment, then if collimated spot-on you may then be able to realise a power that even an 8mm would provide(254x), at least on occasion, especially when observing the Moon.

Edited by Alan64
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, laudropb said:

To an extent that is true. If an eyepiece gives a magnification of say 50x in your scope a 2x Barlow with the same eyepiece will give a magnification of 100x. The Barlow does not half the focal length of the eyepiece however. It doubles the focal length of the scope.

Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware that the Barlow doubled the focal length of the scope.  Bearing that in mind, I assume it also halves (for a 2x Barlow) the TFOV of the EP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Corpze
      Hi, i have made a video where i show a coople of eyepieces that i use and like, and also show how a barlow works, compared to the "Powermate" from Televue. And how is the FOV affected when changing the magnification with different eyepieces?

      Feel free to comment and give me feedback - I hope you like the video!
      /Daniel
       
       
    • By kevenh
      A week or so I good I did some preliminary research for a decent 32mm eyepiece.  Looking at my results today I went for budget but decent.
      I have ended up with a shortlist of: -
      Revelation 32.0mm Plossl Eyepiece 1.25"
      Celestron 93323 1-1/4-32 mm Omni Series Eyepiece
      Baader Planetarium 32 mm Classic Ortho Eyepiece
       
      My query today as I recheck my findings is the Revelation one.  That is coming up at almost half the price of the other two (at www.telescopehouse.com)
      But this eyepiece made my shortlist due to positive comments about the GSO build.
      So, finally, my question, does the purchase price suggest this 32mm isn't a GSO?
      No rush here.  It's a wish list not a need list - as I remind myself... lol
    • By Zermelo
      I picked up a Celestron Omni last year quite cheaply and had originally been using that with stock eyepieces, which was fine.
      Since then I've bought a couple of BST Starguiders and a Hyperflex zoom, and I'm now wondering if I'd notice any difference with a better barlow (this is now being used on an F/5 150mm Newtonian). Otherwise, the pennies can be directed elsewhere.
      I'd not considered it before as the next rung up seemed to be around the £90-£100 mark, which seemed out of line with the rest of the spend. But I've seen some positive reviews of 3-element models in the region of £35-£40.
      In particular, I've read good things about the Revelation/GSO Astro 2.5x (though apparently closer to 2.2x) and the Baader Classic Q 2.25x.
      - does anyone have experience with both of these, and have a preference?
      - would I notice any significant difference with either, compared with the Omni?
      - I read somewhere that the Baader in particular required focussing the tube into the OTA to an extent that caused some image degradation. Obviously I'd want to avoid this if true, so is this a feature of the Baader, or of both, or of all (shorter?) barlows? (to be honest, I'd not thought to see whether this was happening with the Omni, I'll try to remember to check, if this weather ever breaks).
      Thanks in advance.
    • By LondonSi72
      Hi SGL,
      My lovely wife bought me a SW Explorer 130 with the basic RA drive for my 40th birthday 8 years ago, and I've enjoyed using it on and off ever since.  I've started getting more into it - it's a great beginner scope, but I'm - like lots of others on this forum - looking at upgrading.  One of the things I found tricky with the scope was getting the focus just right at high magnification (I'm sure that's kind of obvious!).  It does wobble quite a bit on the EQ2 mount when focusing.  I get pretty good - if small - views of Jupiter, Saturn, (the Moon, of course) and have had hints of seeing some DSOs.
      I bought a 8mm BST Starguider, and it's a great improvement on the standard 10mm that comes with the scope, but if I push the scope by adding the 2x Barlow and the 8mm it's a blur and the focus seems to keep missing the sweet spot.  I saw a post elsewhere on this forum by MakTheNight, (looks like they've left now - last post was 2 years ago) who added a Baader Helical Focuser that attached directly to the T-thread on the focusing apparatus on the SW. Link to that post is below. I got one and it is indeed a great improvement on fine tuning - the problem is I can't use it with the Barlow as the helical focuser is about an inch long and the focuser can't move far enough into the scope to focus with the Barlow and any of my eyepieces (the 8mm BST, or the 10 or 25mm standard eyepieces)
      .
      Clearly MakTheNight managed to get their setup to work with some specific eyepieces (a Luminos 10mm and 32mm Plossl) and a specific Barlow, so I tried looking up how I could work out what combination of eyepieces and Barlow would work, rather than randomly buying kit and having to return it because it won't work with my scope, but I haven't found anything useful yet.  So I thought I'd take the plunge and ask here

      Can anyone help me figure out how I can calculate what combinations of eyepiece and Barlow would work with this setup?  I'm also looking at upgrading the OTA and mount to a 200P and EQ5 at some point, so ideally would have a combination that could work with that too - the focal length and mirror is quite different - 1000mm on the 200P parabolic vs 900mm spherical on the 130.
       
      Many thanks!
      Simon
       
       
    • By StarGazingSiouxsie
      Hi  
      Tonight I was looking at Jupiter and got some nice views with a range of eyepeices. The best image detail wise and for clarity of image was a 15mm, which on my 8" Evolution gives me appx 135X 
      I tried using my Televue 2X Barlow which normally works fine. I can't remember exactly which eyepiece this happened with, maybe the 15mm or a 9mm, but when I used the barlow the planetary image would soon disappear out of the eyepiece. The mount seemed to otherwise be tracking OK although notice the planets seem to move out of the eyepiece view after a while. So did I have too much magnification with the Barlow? I think I did manage to get focus, the image just wouldn't stay put.
      Thanks for any insights or advice 
       
      Siouxsie 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.