buying a new eye peice

[Adidaz 29]

Hi  I have 10 "Orion xti Dob and a variety of eye peices from 6 mm10 mm 18mm 20 mm25 mm40 mm inch and1/4 also a 2 "" 26mm skywatcher need something that I can see more wider veiw do I need a 2inch  Gary barlow  15mm with a 2 inch eye piece. Just want to explore more or have I got enough my eye peice are around the £50 £60 mark many thanks clear skies n pork pies

[ronin]

Somewhat difficult. 2" ones are or should deliver wider views but there is the added complication of switching between 1.25 and 2 inch. Also this may be made "worse" by having a dobsonian as it is not a case of get good at swapping eyepieces but swapping eyepiece adaptors as well as the eyepiece - also putting the removd eyepieces somewhere safe.

What may be most relevant is not the wider potential views but swapping between the 2 formats. If the idea is to go out with a single format on a night then no problem but if the intention is to use both constantly then I would guess it is easier to stay with 1.25".

May seem a bit odd to ask but does the 2" 26mm give significantly wider views then the 25mm  Only ask as many times I read the 2" eyepieces are specified as the same field as the 1.25" ones.

[Richard Hather]

Explore Scientific 82d are excellent eps for the money £118 new you could get your second hand for £70-£80 and stick with the 1.25 apart from the 24-30 apart from that well worth the money best bang for your buck ?

[Adidaz 29]

7 minutes ago, ronin said:

Somewhat difficult. 2" ones are or should deliver wider views but there is the added complication of switching between 1.25 and 2 inch. Also this may be made "worse" by having a dobsonian as it is not a case of get good at swapping eyepieces but swapping eyepiece adaptors as well as the eyepiece - also putting the removd eyepieces somewhere safe.

What may be most relevant is not the wider potential views but swapping between the 2 formats. If the idea is to go out with a single format on a night then no problem but if the intention is to use both constantly then I would guess it is easier to stay with 1.25".

May seem a bit odd to ask but does the 2" 26mm give significantly wider views then the 25mm  Only ask as many times I read the 2" eyepieces are specified as the same field as the 1.25" ones.

 

[Richard Hather]

7 minutes ago, ronin said:

Somewhat difficult. 2" ones are or should deliver wider views but there is the added complication of switching between 1.25 and 2 inch. Also this may be made "worse" by having a dobsonian as it is not a case of get good at swapping eyepieces but swapping eyepiece adaptors as well as the eyepiece - also putting the removd eyepieces somewhere safe.

What may be most relevant is not the wider potential views but swapping between the 2 formats. If the idea is to go out with a single format on a night then no problem but if the intention is to use both constantly then I would guess it is easier to stay with 1.25".

May seem a bit odd to ask but does the 2" 26mm give significantly wider views then the 25mm  Only ask as many times I read the 2" eyepieces are specified as the same field as the 1.25" ones.

This is true one of the main reasons I'm sticking with 2" eps and only plan on having a selection of 100 eps so I don't have to buy as many.

[Adidaz 29]

Great question bright giant I don't know never tried it but I will when we get a clear night these televue eyepiece at £200 to £700  will  they make me see better objects 

[Charic]

27 minutes ago, Richard Hather said:

This is true one of the main reasons I'm sticking with 2" eps and only plan on having a selection of 100 eps so I don't have to buy as many.

Im sure you meant 100° EP's rather than 100 eyepieces in total, that's some collection!, Maybe your right!

I recently sold some Tele Vue 72° afov eyepieces which gave a wider field of view on my scope, and were bought in preparation to use them on the faster  10" or 12" scope I was hoping to buy back then. Delos EP's still appear now and then on the second hand market.

The original post does not mention how wide the present field of view is, therefore, how much further do you need to go? For my needs, I'm quite happy to observe with 60°afov, and the only real wide EP in my collection is my 32mm Panaview with its two inch fitting.

[Richard Hather]

I recently sold my 13mm ethos the main reason being the increase in detail in clarity wasn't enough in my wasn't enough to warrant buying the whole set.

So I've gone with the Explore Scientific 100 range.

Half price and even less second hand.

But if you have the money and want the very best go for ethos quality if you want almost as good at a good price go with ES or equivalent.

Thats true Charic I did mean 100° Eps and again it wasn't stated his preferred Fov.

I do think concerning eps less is better and a good way to do that especially if you enjoy WF eps 100° is a good way to go.

[Stu]

30 minutes ago, ronin said:

Somewhat difficult. 2" ones are or should deliver wider views but there is the added complication of switching between 1.25 and 2 inch. Also this may be made "worse" by having a dobsonian as it is not a case of get good at swapping eyepieces but swapping eyepiece adaptors as well as the eyepiece - also putting the removd eyepieces somewhere safe.

What may be most relevant is not the wider potential views but swapping between the 2 formats. If the idea is to go out with a single format on a night then no problem but if the intention is to use both constantly then I would guess it is easier to stay with 1.25".

May seem a bit odd to ask but does the 2" 26mm give significantly wider views then the 25mm  Only ask as many times I read the 2" eyepieces are specified as the same field as the 1.25" ones.

Swapping between 1.25" and 2" eyepieces isn't a big deal. The other thing is that you will normally use them for different types of objects e.g. Low power/larger objects with 2", mid to high powers for 1.25" so don't have to be constantly swapping.

Do you have the 26mm SWA which is 70 degree apparent field of view (afov)? The normal benefit of switching to 2" is that you can get a wider afov at the same or similar focal length e.g. a 32mm Plossl in 1.25" is 50 degrees afov, whilst in 2" there is the 30mm Explore Scientific which is 82 degrees so gives a significantly wider view.

 

[Charic]

10 minutes ago, Richard Hather said:

But if you have the money and want the very best go for ethos quality if you want almost as good at a good price go with.........

Also, 'almost as good'  could  be the Delos! Their based on the same design, brand, quality,  just a smaller field, but thats the clincher, if your needing more than 72°.

[Richard Hather]

Just now, Charic said:

Also, 'almost as good'  could also be the Delos! Their of the same design, brand, quality,  just a smaller field, but thats the clincher, if your needing more than 72°.

I've hear of many Delos are the best for clarity and detail blacker backgrounds and flatter correction.

As you put all depends what FOV you want and how much your willing to pay as is life ?

[Adidaz 29]

What size 2" pan veiw is it

[Charic]

As the reports suggest, their very good ( TV-D) however for me under my local conditions, all I noticed was the wider field of view! the images appeared  just as detailed as they do using my  60° ED's.

Its probably more of an age thing, my eyes, their not 20/20 like they used to be, and on a mediocre f/6 scope, the advantages did not show themselves, and even at second hand prices, its not cheap owning the full set. One new Delos alone can equal one  full set of Starguiders.

[Charic]

6 minutes ago, Adidaz 29 said:

What size 2" pan veiw is it

I have the 32mm.

You can only go so low on a reflector, unlike a refractor. I suggest to folk that their telescopes focal ratio multiplied by their eye  (dilated pupil size) will give you a  suitable/satisfactory  guide number in mm for selecting your low powered, wide-field eyepiece.
With  this method, I should be using around 30mm, but give or take,  and on recommendations from those who had better knowledge than me back then, I have no regrets purchasing the Skywatcher Panaview.

[John]

Expensive eyepieces don't enable you to see more I'm afraid.

Dark skies and experience are the best aids to that.

With expensive optics you can get slightly wider views and the stars across the view will be better corrected in your F/4.7 10" scope. The background sky might be a little darker as well.

Most deep sky objects will fit into a 1 degree true field which your current longer focal length eyepieces deliver now.

 

[alan potts]

18 hours ago, Richard Hather said:

I've hear of many Delos are the best for clarity and detail blacker backgrounds and flatter correction.

As you put all depends what FOV you want and how much your willing to pay as is life ?

Richard,

I spent ages about 2 years ago writing reviews on matched pairs of Delos and Ethos as I had almost all the Ethos range and all the Delos range. I honestly could not call them apart on most subject, so good are the Ethos'ssss. If I had to point the finger at one area it would be Delos stole the gold on planets but that's it for me. This was under good skies, no LP and no Moon. I kept the E's and sold many of the D's, they are very good eyepiece though without a doubt, maybe a better observer than me is needed to part them.

BTW in the end I didn't post my reviews because there was too much use of the words same and identical.

[John]

A lot of folks (including me) reference a report made a while back by an observer called Alvin Heuy who observes with massive dobs (22 - 48 inches) under the darkest of skies. He and his group of deep sky enthusiasts compared a number of top brands at length and concluded that the very best for "going deep" are Zeiss ZAO orthos followed by the Baader Classic 10mm ortho, followed by the Delos and then the Ethos close behind that.

These differences were very subtle of course and on very very challenging objects even for these experienced observers with that very larger apertures and very dark skies.

There are some notes on the Delos vs the Ethos at the bottom of this page from their web site:

http://www.faintfuzzies.com/ObservingAids.html

And more notes on the other eyepieces mentioned here:

http://www.faintfuzzies.com/AboutUs2.html

An interesting website I find despite the fact that I suspect the chances of replicating their skies and scopes are slim in the UK !

It's worth noting that their comparison targets are often around magnitude 17+

It's also worth noting that for >£50 you can buy a Baader Classic Ortho 10mm (and the 18mm is great too) and have top rank deep sky performance, albeit in a "normal" field of view rather than wide or uber-wide

[alan potts]

21 minutes ago, John said:

A lot of folks (including me) reference a report made a while back by an observer called Alvin Heuy who observes with massive dobs (22 - 48 inches) under the darkest of skies. He and his group of deep sky enthusiasts compared a number of top brands at length and concluded that the very best for "going deep" are Zeiss ZAO orthos followed by the Baader Classic 10mm ortho, followed by the Delos and then the Ethos close behind that.

These differences were very subtle of course and on very very challenging objects even for these experienced observers with that very larger apertures and very dark skies.

There are some notes on the Delos vs the Ethos at the bottom of this page from their web site:

http://www.faintfuzzies.com/ObservingAids.html

And more notes on the o as the Z word, proably 10 times the price if not morether eyepieces mentioned here:

http://www.faintfuzzies.com/AboutUs2.html

An interesting website I find despite the fact that I suspect the chances of replicating their skies and scopes are slim in the UK !

It's worth noting that their comparison targets are often around magnitude 17+

It's also worth noting that for >£50 you can buy a Baader Classic Ortho 10mm (and the 18mm is great too) and have top rank deep sky performance, albeit in a "normal" field of view rather and wide or uber-wide

Many thanks John for the links, I see my mistake I was only using 12-18 inch scopes and trying objects around 14.5-15. It is a very interesting point and one that probably we should flag up more often that a 50 quid Baader Classic can be used in the same senteance as the word Zeiss, no doubt at 10 times plus the price. I just have BGO's and Hutechs, they do for me. Last night though I was worn out and did miss that extra ER that Delos gives over the Ethos.

Alan

[alanjgreen]

On 7/28/2017 at 13:04, ronin said:

Somewhat difficult. 2" ones are or should deliver wider views but there is the added complication of switching between 1.25 and 2 inch. Also this may be made "worse" by having a dobsonian as it is not a case of get good at swapping eyepieces but swapping eyepiece adaptors as well as the eyepiece - also putting the removd eyepieces somewhere safe.

What may be most relevant is not the wider potential views but swapping between the 2 formats. If the idea is to go out with a single format on a night then no problem but if the intention is to use both constantly then I would guess it is easier to stay with 1.25".

May seem a bit odd to ask but does the 2" 26mm give significantly wider views then the 25mm  Only ask as many times I read the 2" eyepieces are specified as the same field as the 1.25" ones.

Richard,

To overcome this issue, I purchased some of these baader 1.25" to 2" to low profile adapters. You can permanently fit them to all your 1.25" EPs to convert them into 2" EPs. They have a little grub screw that you tighten with an allen key so they are attached permanently from that point on (you can discard the thumb screw seen in the picture, it is not needed if you use the grub screw!)

Now they are easy to swap over in the dark and no faffing with adapters.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/baader-low-profile-eyepiece-adapter-for-steeltrack.html

They are not cheap but are high quality and work well if your objective is to convert all EPs to 2" fitting.

HTH,

Alan

[PeterW]

I can't help thinking that going back to the original post that getting your scope out into a darker sky would give you the most benefit. More expensive eyepieces might have wider fields and the stars round the edges might be a bit sharper, but reducing light pollution will enable you to see deeper with what you have. Spend the money on petrol/diesel.

 

PeterW