Low cost eyepieces, Revelation superview 15mm

[Stu]

50 minutes ago, John said:

Quality starts to show the more you push the performance of scope / conditions / observer / eyepiece. As you get more experienced in the hobby you start to try for more challenging targets eg: tighter doubles, fainter galaxies, dimmer planetary moons, finer lunar and planetary detail, etc, etc. It's when you are chasing such stuff that the optical quality of your kit, from my experience, starts to make itself felt.

 

Agreed John

[Charic]

I'm not too far past John's age if I re-call from previous texts, but like John says, better scope and better eyes, may have the advantage here, plus his years of experience looking for issues, as part and parcel of evaluating and testing an eyepiece, which takes time, patience and some skill.

I've no doubt some eyepieces will work much better, dependent on scope type too. I may regret selling my Delos in the future ( good eye-relief, large apparent field of view, Dioptrx! )  and  whilst talking about TeleVue, my latest Plössl arrived today with a data sheet dated 2009, no mention of a Delos anywhere (  because they did not exist until 2011 ) but clear instructions are provided with advice on eyepiece selection, where they mention building your collection based on field stop increments, especially for low-med power observations. I'm sure Al Nagler knows his stuff, and I'm certain that the advice bodes well for any brand. I noted the bit where the shorter focal lengths with larger apparent fields yield more detail and fainter Stars, so its not only the aperture  of the scope that's important.

I also like spaceboy's comment, look at the target rather than the equipment is apt. Not every eyepiece is perfect of axis, so we moan and groan and buy something more expensive, only to be let down by our assumed knowledge/expectation that the triple expensive eyepiece will make things so much better?

The only expensive eyepieces I have owned are the Delois! But Im more than happy with what I have to date, and unless I buy something different or get a loan of a certain eyepiece, then  not much will change in my signature. 

I often see several mentions from  folk regretting selling on their prized eyepiece? only wanting to get it back again, and some of those eyepieces are recurring types/brand, but again, that eyepiece may not suit your/my eyes, so  we  live and learn by trial and error.

One thing I have noticed, premium eyepieces can sell  through several hands, so if your going for something expensive, then why not, be it brand new or just plain old used, at least you'll find out for yourself,  how that super/fantastic  EP copes in your situation with the option of moving on, if the eyepiece does not favour your requirement/expectation, at least you'll know yourself!

 

 

[Highburymark]

1 hour ago, John said:

Quality starts to show the more you push the performance of scope / conditions / observer / eyepiece. As you get more experienced in the hobby you start to try for more challenging targets eg: tighter doubles, fainter galaxies, dimmer planetary moons, finer lunar and planetary detail, etc, etc. It's when you are chasing such stuff that the optical quality of your kit, from my experience, starts to make itself felt.

 

Fair point - Also found the quality difference was easier to see in faster scopes - in my case, a f/6.25 Equinox against f/10 SCTs.

[John]

11 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

Fair point - Also found the quality difference was easier to see in faster scopes - in my case, a f/6.25 Equinox against f/10 SCTs.

Agreed Mark

 

[Dave In Vermont]

It's heartening to see folks' writting-up more inexpensive eyepieces for a change. I hope it represents a trend, to be followed with less-expensive gear of all astronomy products.

Great job that shows the night sky is wide-open to all people.

Excellent!

Dave

 

Ditto for astronomy itself!

[niallk]

3 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

Ditto for astronomy itself!

I like that Dave!!

[Dave In Vermont]

Thank you - amusing and oh so true!

Enjoy!

Dave