Eyepieces for fast telescopes?

[niallk]

I adore my 13mm Nagler Type 6 in my 10" f4.7.  I also love my Panoptic 24mm.  Wonderful eyepieces imho In time I later added a 7mm and a Powermate.  Purchased these over 2yrs saving up money from birthdays/Christmas. The 13T6 was my first 'premium' EP and truly wowed me at first light.

Best of luck,

-Niall

[Eren]

8 hours ago, niallk said:

I adore my 13mm Nagler Type 6 in my 10" f4.7.  I also love my Panoptic 24mm.  Wonderful eyepieces imho In time I later added a 7mm and a Powermate.  Purchased these over 2yrs saving up money from birthdays/Christmas. The 13T6 was my first 'premium' EP and truly wowed me at first light.

Best of luck,

-Niall

The 13mm nagler is out of my price range unfortunately but if I see any secondhand I'll definitely consider it, have you ever used an ES14mm 82 degree ep? I hear it's quite similar to the nagler, love to hear your thoughts 

[John]

The ES 82 degree eyepieces are pretty close to Naglers in performance. Their eye relief can be a little inconsistent across the range though so make sure the focal length you are interested in will be comfortable to use.

The William Optics UWAN / Skywathcher Nirvana's (both the same eyepieces) are another 82 degree range that are well corrected like the Naglers. They don't do a 14mm in those though, 16mm is the closest.

 

[niallk]

57 minutes ago, Eren said:

The 13mm nagler is out of my price range unfortunately but if I see any secondhand I'll definitely consider it, have you ever used an ES14mm 82 degree ep? I hear it's quite similar to the nagler, love to hear your thoughts 

Sorry Eren, I'm not very well positioned to advise on other EPs tbh, as I've only used my own and buy rarely.

I first bought a kit of plossl EPs from TS: kinda money wasted being harsh in hindsight.  In a moment of madness, for 2x the cost of the kit, I purchased a single EP - the 13T6, and was convinced on the 1st night using it.  Beautiful EP.  Since then, I've saved and bought quality - buy once, hope to get decades out of it. Nearly 1 decade down now & no regrets

[alan potts]

At F4.7 the effects of a fast scope are no where near as bad as say F4 but none the less a keen eye will pick the difference between a ES 14mm and a Nagler 13mm at the edge at least. I have owned almost all of the Meade ranges, generally believed to be pretty much the same as the Ex Sc ranges, maybe coatings are different but element I feel are the same. You have other things to consider apart from what an eyepiece will do at F4.7, without a Coma Corrector you will see Coma at the edge, not a lot but it will be there to a degree. Even the lover green and black Naglers will show this as it is a scope failing, it would also show with mine which is F4.3 without the CC but worse. Now I often mess with different eyepieces and for me even at the faster speed of F4.3 a Nagler is acceptable without the corrector, so this effect will be less on your scope in any case.

I feel that either 14mm ExSc or any of the others, including Meade offerings will be great in your scope. Even though I have only TeleVue eyepieces I fully accept this is not necessary to get enjoyment from the hobby. Though the range is small the Nirvana 82's and the same from Williams Optic also perform very well according to John and he is one of the sites finest, especially on eyepieces.

Alan

[Ricochet]

On 12/08/2017 at 00:58, Eren said:

I'm thinking about the 28mm skywatcher Nirvana for the low power, any thoughts?

Having now had a proper first light I can give my initial impressions. However, it's worth noting that FLO now list these as "discontinued" so if that's a manufacturer decision rather than an FLO decision new ones might become a bit scarce.

The first thing that you notice about this eyepiece is the size and weight. My kitchen scales claim 957g which is slightly below the listed 1kg but still a heavy eyepiece, as are all the eyepieces in this sort of category. Depending on how well your scope deals with changing weight at the focuser end (particularly going from heavy eyepiece to no eyepiece and vice versa) you may need to consider some sort of counterweight system or other adjustment.

The size mostly matters in terms of the eyecup, or as John called it, facecup, where they have kept it almost the width of the eyepiece body so that the 28mm looks the same as the smaller 1.25" eyepieces. This facecup is comfortable to use, but the extra width makes it more difficult to centre your eye correctly in comparison to a smaller eyecup. In addition, it is quite important to have your eye at the correct distance from the lens and so careful setting of the facecup height for your individual face is required. After an evening of use I had little problem with eye positioning but it is probably not the best eyepiece to put into service at an astro society open evening.

To help you get an idea of the size here is a photo of the 28mm Nirvana alongside a 25mm Plossl and standard eyepiece measuring device #57.

 

Optically, I like this eyepiece a lot. In my f6 8" Dob (and so your f5 10") it gives a true field of 1.89° which is great both as a finder and for observing some of the larger structures. Looking at star fields show a pretty much flat field, perhaps with just a hint of curvature at the edges and good enough correction that I can see the coma from the telescope mirror coming through without masking from astigmatism or other aberrations. Colour rendition also seems good with one of the clusters around Cassiopeia showing a nice Albireo like pairing at the centre. I should probably start taking notes so that I could tell you which one. Comparing views of the Dumbbell nebula between the Nirvana and a 24mm Meade SWA suggests to me that the coatings on the Nirvana are just as good, if not a touch better than on the Meade (and hence ES) offerings. I'll have to spend some time comparing the visibility of faint stars to get a better handle on this, although with differing focal lengths to account for it's not going to be an exact science. Overall, I am very happy so far with this eyepiece and it does not feel out of place alongside my Pentax eyepieces.

[Eren]

1 hour ago, Ricochet said:

ocHaving now had a proper first light I can give my initial impressions. However, it's worth noting that FLO now list these as "discontinued" so if that's a manufacturer decision rather than an FLO decision new ones might become a bit scarce.

The first thing that you notice about this eyepiece is the size and weight. My kitchen scales claim 957g which is slightly below the listed 1kg but still a heavy eyepiece, as are all the eyepieces in this sort of category. Depending on how well your scope deals with changing weight at the focuser end (particularly going from heavy eyepiece to no eyepiece and vice versa) you may need to consider some sort of counterweight system or other adjustment.

The size mostly matters in terms of the eyecup, or as John called it, facecup, where they have kept it almost the width of the eyepiece body so that the 28mm looks the same as the smaller 1.25" eyepieces. This facecup is comfortable to use, but the extra width makes it more difficult to centre your eye correctly in comparison to a smaller eyecup. In addition, it is quite important to have your eye at the correct distance from the lens and so careful setting of the facecup height for your individual face is required. After an evening of use I had little problem with eye positioning but it is probably not the best eyepiece to put into service at an astro society open evening.

To help you get an idea of the size here is a photo of the 28mm Nirvana alongside a 25mm Plossl and standard eyepiece measuring device #57.

 

Optically, I like this eyepiece a lot. In my f6 8" Dob (and so your f5 10") it gives a true field of 1.89° which is great both as a finder and for observing some of the larger structures. Looking at star fields show a pretty much flat field, perhaps with just a hint of curvature at the edges and good enough correction that I can see the coma from the telescope mirror coming through without masking from astigmatism or other aberrations. Colour rendition also seems good with one of the clusters around Cassiopeia showing a nice Albireo like pairing at the centre. I should probably start taking notes so that I could tell you which one. Comparing views of the Dumbbell nebula between the Nirvana and a 24mm Meade SWA suggests to me that the coatings on the Nirvana are just as good, if not a touch better than on the Meade (and hence ES) offerings. I'll have to spend some time comparing the visibility of faint stars to get a better handle on this, although with differing focal lengths to account for it's not going to be an exact science. Overall, I am very happy so far with this eyepiece and it does not feel out of place alongside my Pentax eyepieces.

Thanks Ricochet, it's good to hear your happy with it. Is it fine to just tighten the tension control on a dob to deal with the weight?

[Eren]

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 16:31, niallk said:

Sorry Eren, I'm not very well positioned to advise on other EPs tbh, as I've only used my own and buy rarely.

I first bought a kit of plossl EPs from TS: kinda money wasted being harsh in hindsight.  In a moment of madness, for 2x the cost of the kit, I purchased a single EP - the 13T6, and was convinced on the 1st night using it.  Beautiful EP.  Since then, I've saved and bought quality - buy once, hope to get decades out of it. Nearly 1 decade down now & no regrets

I'm hoping that the ones I buy will serve me well for some years

[Eren]

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 16:18, John said:

The ES 82 degree eyepieces are pretty close to Naglers in performance. Their eye relief can be a little inconsistent across the range though so make sure the focal length you are interested in will be comfortable to use.

The William Optics UWAN / Skywathcher Nirvana's (both the same eyepieces) are another 82 degree range that are well corrected like the Naglers. They don't do a 14mm in those though, 16mm is the closest.

 

thanks john, I'll check the eye relief

[Eren]

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 16:50, alan potts said:

At F4.7 the effects of a fast scope are no where near as bad as say F4 but none the less a keen eye will pick the difference between a ES 14mm and a Nagler 13mm at the edge at least. I have owned almost all of the Meade ranges, generally believed to be pretty much the same as the Ex Sc ranges, maybe coatings are different but element I feel are the same. You have other things to consider apart from what an eyepiece will do at F4.7, without a Coma Corrector you will see Coma at the edge, not a lot but it will be there to a degree. Even the lover green and black Naglers will show this as it is a scope failing, it would also show with mine which is F4.3 without the CC but worse. Now I often mess with different eyepieces and for me even at the faster speed of F4.3 a Nagler is acceptable without the corrector, so this effect will be less on your scope in any case.

I feel that either 14mm ExSc or any of the others, including Meade offerings will be great in your scope. Even though I have only TeleVue eyepieces I fully accept this is not necessary to get enjoyment from the hobby. Though the range is small the Nirvana 82's and the same from Williams Optic also perform very well according to John and he is one of the sites finest, especially on eyepieces.

Alan

Thanks Alan, how much is a good coma corrector?

[Ricochet]

15 minutes ago, Eren said:

Thanks Ricochet, it's good to hear your happy with it. Is it fine to just tighten the tension control on a dob to deal with the weight?

I don't know, my dob uses a different system. 

[alan potts]

5 minutes ago, Eren said:

Thanks Alan, how much is a good coma corrector?

A very good question, I being a TeleVue man have one of them and they are silly money, about 400 quid I believe. You can buy cheaper ones and I am sure they work very well. I am of the opinion that if you fork out the money for TeleVue eyepieces, then there seems little point in putting up with Coma. That said I would not imagine that it is that bad on your scope, even I can put up with 68 degree views on mine without, it is when you start buying 100 degree eyepieces that you start to see it at its worst.

For the time being I would keep it in mind but start to collect a S/H set of ExSc eyepieces which will be great for you and hold their value. Take John for example, he has a fine eye and a F5.3 scope he doesn't worry about a CC as far as I know.

Alan

[Richard Hather]

Wow some fantastic advice on here take it all in and take your time.

I started with the eps that came with my C6 then upgraded to Celestron eps then a Pentax zoom.

Then I got bit by the 100 bug and went into an ethos 13mm I sold that then purchased the 20-14-9 ES 100s and I'm looking at getting the ES 30mm 82 and the ES 5.5 100.

My point is try a few eps out and work your way from there in time you will find out what you like ?

Heres a pic of my pride and joy ?

Clear skies ?✨???

[Eren]

4 hours ago, alan potts said:

A very good question, I being a TeleVue man have one of them and they are silly money, about 400 quid I believe. You can buy cheaper ones and I am sure they work very well. I am of the opinion that if you fork out the money for TeleVue eyepieces, then there seems little point in putting up with Coma. That said I would not imagine that it is that bad on your scope, even I can put up with 68 degree views on mine without, it is when you start buying 100 degree eyepieces that you start to see it at its worst.

For the time being I would keep it in mind but start to collect a S/H set of ExSc eyepieces which will be great for you and hold their value. Take John for example, he has a fine eye and a F5.3 scope he doesn't worry about a CC as far as I know.

Alan

Ok I probably won't notice it, they'll be a huge upgrade from my current ones which came with the telescope

[Eren]

1 hour ago, Richard Hather said:

Wow some fantastic advice on here take it all in and take your time.

I started with the eps that came with my C6 then upgraded to Celestron eps then a Pentax zoom.

Then I got bit by the 100 bug and went into an ethos 13mm I sold that then purchased the 20-14-9 ES 100s and I'm looking at getting the ES 30mm 82 and the ES 5.5 100.

My point is try a few eps out and work your way from there in time you will find out what you like ?

Heres a pic of my pride and joy ?

Clear skies ?✨???

Definitely, I wasn't expecting so many replies! I was looking at skywatcher's 100 9mm for a higher power ep, it would be interesting to know if you've ever tried one compared to your ES, thanks for the advice Richard

[Richard Hather]

2 minutes ago, Eren said:

Definitely, I wasn't expecting so many replies! I was looking at skywatcher's 100 9mm for a higher power ep, it would be interesting to know if you've ever tried one compared to your ES, thanks for the advice Richard

I haven't tried any Skywatcher eps but i bet there's a wealth of reviews online.

Thats the first place I check if I'm interested in any eyepiece or piece of astronomy equipment, second is SGL ?

Are you near any astronomy club or a shop you can try out eps?

[Louis D]

12 hours ago, Eren said:

Thanks Alan, how much is a good coma corrector?

I rather like my GSO CC that I picked up used for about $75.  I had to invest another $20 or so in a 25mm or so spacer ring and time parfocalizing my eyepieces, but it works quite nicely once setup properly.

[Moonshane]

Just to put a different spin on this before you end up bankrupt. ?  I have been down the road of 100° and 82°Televue eyepieces and they are very good indeed. In the end I found the off axis chromatic aberration annoying on the moon so I swapped them out for other Televue eyepieces such as plossls, Panoptics and Delites as I am a keen lunar observer and really want an eyepiece to perform well on all objects if possible (this is important for me at least - and eyepiece choice is a very personal thing). I don't miss the huge fields in truth but most swear by them and don't seem to see the moon issue I mention.

My point is that I can honestly say that I have never had an eyepiece of so called poor quality that has not shown the same things as an equivalent eyepiece of top quality. They all show the same thing it's just that the more expensive options show them ever so slightly brighter or with a cleaner edge and with better build quality and used resale value. 

Don't get me wrong my eyepiece case is full of only Televue as I feel that the additional cost can be justified given this slight edge which  is always expensive with optics. However, you will not be missing out with a set of even the most basic eyepieces if you polish your observing skills. All the choices here, and most others, will give pretty decent views in your scope. Buying used is a good ploy as it will save lots and you can usually resell at almost no loss.

I also prefer less eyepieces at the low power and and bunched up focal lengths at the high power end as it matters more here due to seeing conditions. 

I'd suggest buying just a cheap 2x barlow for now as long at it has a removable cell that can be xcrewed onto eyepieces like a filter. This would give you 

25mm

17mm (25mm with barlow element screwed on)

12.5mm (25mm  in 2x barlow complete)

10mm 

7mm  (10mm with barlow element screwed on)

5mm (10mm  in 2x barlow complete)

This would allow you to establish which focal lengths suit your observing preferences, established over time, and at minimal cost. You can then buy with more confidence and based on known factors.

[Dave In Vermont]

Thank you for the honest 'plug' for lower-cost EP's being capable of doing the same work as their higher-priced relatives with green-lettering. And I fully agree with this - you can get wonderous results with a less-complex £50 EP as with a £300 EP. No reason to get a second job to view the Moon if you can't afford the higher price-point - the skies belong to everyone.

So thank you, Shane! Well explained!

Bravo!

Dave

[Paul73]

20mm 100° SW Nivana on ABS now.......

20mm 100° ES in SGL the classifieds as well......

Buy, try, if you like it, buy, if not, sell for what you paid!?

The ES is excellent. I haven't tried the SW.

Otherwise, I'd still go for the ES 82° or Delos....

Paul

PS. You won't need a coma corrector in this scope unless you are hyper critical and go for 100°. I bought a second hand TV Parracor 1 for about £100 (never quite sure where all the "r's" go). But, it doesn't get used on the F4.7 10".

[John]

I agree and have personal experience that low cost eyepieces can show you just as much as really expensive ones

My only caveat to this is to stick to eyepieces with 50-60 degree fields of view. Cheap 70 and 80 degree eyepieces will not be a happy experience in the OP's F/4.7 scope simply because the outer half of the field of view will be affected by astigmatism.

At 50 degrees you are seeing less off-axis field so both scope produced coma and eyepiece produced astigmatism are much reduced.

Lately I've been using Baader Classic Orthoscopic eyepieces (18mm, 10mm and 6mm), the Baader Q-Turret 2.25x barlow plus the Vixen NPL 30mm plossl as a lightweight set and they have performed excellently in my F/5.3 12" dobsonain as well as my slower refractors. The competition in my eyepiece case includes Pentax XW's and Tele Vue Ethos but I'm enjoying my low cost lightweights too

Such eyepieces can be obtained on the used market for £30 apiece but even at the new prices you can have the whole lot (and thats a lot of focal lengths with the barlow !) for less than the cost of a single premium eyepiece.

So why do we have boxes of expensive eyepieces as shown here in this 133 page thread ?

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/57027-show-me-your-eyepiece-cases/

Hmmm - topic for another thread perhaps

 

[Paz]

Regarding the original query explore scientific 82 degree eyepieces are good eyepieces. I've got a couple which I have used (18mm and 6.7mm). The 6.7mm in particular was my most used eyepiece until I moved to different ones with longer eye relief so I can view easily with glasses. If you don't need to wear glasses then the es82 are great. 

As some others have said try and establish if you are impressed or not by wide field views. I realised I'm not so I settled on eyepieces with smaller fields if view.

[Eren]

10 hours ago, Moonshane said:

Just to put a different spin on this before you end up bankrupt. ?  I have been down the road of 100° and 82°Televue eyepieces and they are very good indeed. In the end I found the off axis chromatic aberration annoying on the moon so I swapped them out for other Televue eyepieces such as plossls, Panoptics and Delites as I am a keen lunar observer and really want an eyepiece to perform well on all objects if possible (this is important for me at least - and eyepiece choice is a very personal thing). I don't miss the huge fields in truth but most swear by them and don't seem to see the moon issue I mention.

My point is that I can honestly say that I have never had an eyepiece of so called poor quality that has not shown the same things as an equivalent eyepiece of top quality. They all show the same thing it's just that the more expensive options show them ever so slightly brighter or with a cleaner edge and with better build quality and used resale value. 

Don't get me wrong my eyepiece case is full of only Televue as I feel that the additional cost can be justified given this slight edge which  is always expensive with optics. However, you will not be missing out with a set of even the most basic eyepieces if you polish your observing skills. All the choices here, and most others, will give pretty decent views in your scope. Buying used is a good ploy as it will save lots and you can usually resell at almost no loss.

I also prefer less eyepieces at the low power and and bunched up focal lengths at the high power end as it matters more here due to seeing conditions. 

I'd suggest buying just a cheap 2x barlow for now as long at it has a removable cell that can be xcrewed onto eyepieces like a filter. This would give you 

25mm

17mm (25mm with barlow element screwed on)

12.5mm (25mm  in 2x barlow complete)

10mm 

7mm  (10mm with barlow element screwed on)

5mm (10mm  in 2x barlow complete)

This would allow you to establish which focal lengths suit your observing preferences, established over time, and at minimal cost. You can then buy with more confidence and based on known factors.

Thanks Shane, getting a second hand barlow and trying different focal lengths sounds like a great idea as it looks as if I won't have enough money for EPs until maybe the new year (unless some come up cheap second hand) so it will be plenty of time for me to find the focal lengths I like

[Eren]

9 hours ago, Paul73 said:

20mm 100° SW Nivana on ABS now.......

20mm 100° ES in SGL the classifieds as well......

Buy, try, if you like it, buy, if not, sell for what you paid!?

The ES is excellent. I haven't tried the SW.

Otherwise, I'd still go for the ES 82° or Delos....

Paul

PS. You won't need a coma corrector in this scope unless you are hyper critical and go for 100°. I bought a second hand TV Parracor 1 for about £100 (never quite sure where all the "r's" go). But, it doesn't get used on the F4.7 10".

I think they'll probably be sold by the time i have the money, but when i do I'll have a look for them. I'm not gonna get a coma corrector, will save the money for EPs

[Eren]

9 hours ago, John said:

I agree and have personal experience that low cost eyepieces can show you just as much as really expensive ones

My only caveat to this is to stick to eyepieces with 50-60 degree fields of view. Cheap 70 and 80 degree eyepieces will not be a happy experience in the OP's F/4.7 scope simply because the outer half of the field of view will be affected by astigmatism.

At 50 degrees you are seeing less off-axis field so both scope produced coma and eyepiece produced astigmatism are much reduced.

Lately I've been using Baader Classic Orthoscopic eyepieces (18mm, 10mm and 6mm), the Baader Q-Turret 2.25x barlow plus the Vixen NPL 30mm plossl as a lightweight set and they have performed excellently in my F/5.3 12" dobsonain as well as my slower refractors. The competition in my eyepiece case includes Pentax XW's and Tele Vue Ethos but I'm enjoying my low cost lightweights too

Such eyepieces can be obtained on the used market for £30 apiece but even at the new prices you can have the whole lot (and thats a lot of focal lengths with the barlow !) for less than the cost of a single premium eyepiece.

So why do we have boxes of expensive eyepieces as shown here in this 133 page thread ?

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/57027-show-me-your-eyepiece-cases/

Hmmm - topic for another thread perhaps

 

If I see one for £30 I might buy it and sell it when I have enough to get some better ones, but I think I'm going to get a cheap barlow and see what focal lengths i prefer then get EPs when I have the money, I'm in no rush