Explore Scientific optical quality across ranges

[Littleguy80]

I have an Explore Scientific 24mm 68 degree eyepiece which is an excellent eyepiece and gets lots of use. I found myself wondering how it compares to the more expensive ES ranges 82, 92 and 100. Are you paying purely for the wider FOV or are improvements to the quality of the views too?

[alan potts]

I have compared ExSc UWA or 82 degrees and the 68 degree ranges on a small selection, I have also compared and owned most of the Meade ranges for the same fields of view. I found them to as good as each other and only really varying in the FOV. Likewise I had the 24mm SWA Meade and the 24mm ExSc and they were as near as makes no difference the same, that is both being a bit seagulls at the outer edges in very fast scopes, stick them in my F 10 and they were great. I did prefer the 24mm UWA meade to the SWA but I can't say I ever had my hands on an ExSc version of this. In general very good eyepieces for the money

[andyboy1970]

Can't compare with the 68 degree ES however my collection of ES 82 degree eyepieces I would put on the same level (Viewing quality) as the Naglers that I have looked through on the same night.

Must say the 30mm 82 degree is outstanding.

[John]

I've owned and used ES 68's and 100's. They are both very good indeed but I've always felt that brands that have 100 degree eyepiece ranges seem to have put all their know how and effort into them - treating them like are their flagship products (which in some cases, they are). You do seem to get a little more on terms of overall performance than just that whopping big view. I've not used any 82 degree ES's so I can't comment on those. The older 70 degree and more recent 62 degree ES ranges don't seem to be of the same standard as the 68, 82 and 100's from what I've read.

 

 

[Louis D]

ES-92 range is basically flawless from edge to edge.  No astigmatism or field curvature that I can detect.  No SAEP or fuzzy field stops, either.

1 hour ago, andyboy1970 said:

Must say the 30mm 82 degree is outstanding.

I have the original 30mm ES-82 with the flush mounted eye lens, and it is not pin sharp anywhere compared to the ES-92, Delos, or XW ranges.  The last 10 degrees fall apart with lots of chromatic aberration.  It is far better than the 30mm KK-Widescan clones which fall apart 50% out, but it also weighs twice as much.  I've already promised John I will spend some time characterizing what I'm seeing as unsharpness.  Stars just don't focus to nice tiny pinpoints anywhere.  I keep racking focus to no avail.  It's always close, but no cigar.

[iPeace]

I struggle to find any performance difference between the ES 24 / 68 and the TV 24mm Panoptic. Haven't tried any others from ES.

[Littleguy80]

24 minutes ago, iPeace said:

I struggle to find any performance difference between the ES 24 / 68 and the TV 24mm Panoptic. Haven't tried any others from ES.

That really is high praise. The 24mm panoptic is one of those eyepieces that I always see rated very highly on threads. I would thought it was an upgrade from the ES

[John]

5 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

That really is high praise. The 24mm panoptic is one of those eyepieces that I always see rated very highly on threads. I would thought it was an upgrade from the ES

I made just that change. The Panoptic is very slightly sharper in the outer 10-15% of the field with my 12" F/5.3 dob but I can't see any notable differences with my refractors. I don't regret buying (or re-buying) the 24 Panoptic though. I love it's shape and size as much as it's performance

In all honesty I don't really like ES as a company all that much so I'm always happy to support the Tele Vue brand who really have contributed to taking the equipment forward and set the bar really high for others to aim at

My choice though and I'd not expect others to feel the same.

 

[iPeace]

12 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

That really is high praise. The 24mm panoptic is one of those eyepieces that I always see rated very highly on threads. I would thought it was an upgrade from the ES

I am not alone in this - you're sure to find other posts to the same effect here on SGL. The Panoptic is lighter and slightly slimmer, but it's mostly the green lettering that gets it the preference from us eyepiece snobs (at least from this one).

P.S. Your mil(e)age may vary

[Littleguy80]

23 minutes ago, John said:

In all honesty I don't really like ES as a company all that much so I'm always happy to support the Tele Vue brand who really have contributed to taking the equipment forward and set the bar really high for others to aim at

 

Thanks John. Can I ask why you don’t like ES as a company? I’m yet to own a Televue eyepiece but then I don’t have a scope that would really take advantage of a premium eyepiece 

[andyboy1970]

2 hours ago, Louis D said:

ES-92 range is basically flawless from edge to edge.  No astigmatism or field curvature that I can detect.  No SAEP or fuzzy field stops, either.

I have the original 30mm ES-82 with the flush mounted eye lens, and it is not pin sharp anywhere compared to the ES-92, Delos, or XW ranges.  The last 10 degrees fall apart with lots of chromatic aberration.  It is far better than the 30mm KK-Widescan clones which fall apart 50% out, but it also weighs twice as much.  I've already promised John I will spend some time characterizing what I'm seeing as unsharpness.  Stars just don't focus to nice tiny pinpoints anywhere.  I keep racking focus to no avail.  It's always close, but no cigar.

My 30mm is the newer Argon purged version, to my eyes it is good as can be in a cheap F5 SW scope all the way to the edges. 

Put it in my WO Megrez and wow!

[Louis D]

6 hours ago, Littleguy80 said:

Thanks John. Can I ask why you don’t like ES as a company? I’m yet to own a Televue eyepiece but then I don’t have a scope that would really take advantage of a premium eyepiece 

Probably because he likes to support innovators rather than imitators.  Without the former, there would be no latter.

[alan potts]

47 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Probably because he likes to support innovators rather than imitators.  Without the former, there would be no latter.

In a line that's my reasons.

[John]

6 hours ago, Louis D said:

Probably because he likes to support innovators rather than imitators.  Without the former, there would be no latter.

Thats pretty much the main part of it. I was also not impressed with the state of the ES lightweight dobsonians when they were launched in Europe a couple of years back (before they were released in the US). I read many accounts of badly finished ES dobs requireing new holes to be drilled, flaky paint to be redone straight from the box, and also having a focuser positioned in such a way as to be very awkward to use unless the scope was upright. These issues required much more than the usual "dob fettling" to put right. ES has now released a Mk II dob (which I believe is the one released in the US) but many of the purchasors of the Mk I's went through a lot  of bother to get usable scopes. No excuse for this with the dob design being so tried and tested IMHO. Another negative for me was their pricing policy in the UK which was, until comparatively recently, very restrictive on dealers who wished to match EU and US prices - basically they would have had to sell without a margin to achieve this. 

 

 

[Piero]

I only had one ES, and that was the ES30 82deg, likely a clone of the TV Nalger 31mm. It was a very good eyepiece which was sold only because of its weight. Apart from that, it is a nice eyepiece. 

Regarding the TV-ES discussion, I have mixed feelings. I see John's point and fully agree with it. There is a large distinction between innovators and imitators, and I tend to favour the former. 

Said this, there are two things that I disagree with TV and that's also why I only have little TV equipment now. I am aware my comment might arise a lot of criticism, but I believe this is an open discussion and this is just my point of view. People can see differently. 

These two things are: 

1. this boundary between innovator and imitators.  

2. price. 

Regarding (1), it is often said that ES has cloned many TV eyepieces and applied very minor changes to the specs. Based on this, I do not see the TV Delos as innovation, but sort of clones of the Pentax XWs. Essentially they share the same specifications (20mm eye relief - therefore suitable for spectacles wearers, 70 vs 72 degrees AFOV, weight, size..). The focal lengths are slightly different, but essentially the Delos line does what the XW line does.. The major difference (apart from the cost..) is the eye cap mechanism. Personally, I don't think the latter is sufficient for calling the Delos line as innovative. 

Regarding (2), to me TV eyepieces are over expensive. I understand the fact that the invest more money on research and quality control (and therefore they are supposed to cost a bit more). From my point of view and eye, TV are not right now in the top league but they charge as if they almost were. TV Delos vs XW (£330 vs £250), TV Nagler zoom 3-6 vs Zeiss zoom 25.1-6.7 (£389 vs £539), TV Ethos 13mm vs Docter 12.5mm (£595 vs £616), £300 for Nagler T6 which are stuck with a previous technology in coatings and transmission, but sold as if they were very recent (a Delite costs £250!), and so on.. 

Of course every business is free to set the prices they want as well as every customer is free to spend his / her own money in the best way he / she believes.

 

p.s. 

and before someone quotes me complaining with the sentence "if you don't like TV prices, then don't buy them!", I just say that ( a ) yes I tend not to buy them; ( b ) I don't care if people do. Clearly they have their own reasons which differ from mine. Free world. 

[Littleguy80]

Thanks @Piero. Very interesting reading and good counter points. I've only ever bought the more budget eye pieces new. My ES68 24mm is my most expensive eyepiece and bought second hand. At some point, probably next year, I'd like to upgrade my scope and then my thoughts will no doubt then move onto some more premium eyepieces. Baring a sudden influx of cash, I'll be working to a budget so value for money will be a priority. At this point, I really don't know which eyepiece manufacturer/model would give the most bang for the buck! I wouldn't want to pay £50/£100 more for marginal gains. I guess that's the question we all face when considering how much to spend on an eyepiece! 

[Louis D]

31 minutes ago, Piero said:

Regarding (2), to me TV eyepieces are over expensive. I understand the fact that the invest more money on research and quality control (and therefore they are supposed to cost a bit more). From my point of view and eye, TV are not right now in the top league but they charge as if they almost were. TV Delos vs XW (£330 vs £250), TV Nagler zoom 3-6 vs Zeiss zoom 25.1-6.7 (£389 vs £539), TV Ethos 13mm vs Docter 12.5mm (£595 vs £616), £300 for Nagler T6 which are stuck with a previous technology in coatings and transmission, but sold as if they were very recent (a Delite costs £250!), and so on.. 

US Pricing:

Delos vs XW ($340 vs $359)

TV Nagler Zoom vs Zeiss 20-75x vs Leica ASPH ($399 vs $723 vs $849)

13mm Ethos vs 12.5mm Docter vs 12.5mm Nikon NAV-HW ($610 vs $729 vs $910)

Nagler T6 vs Vixen SSW ($310 vs $349)

DeLite vs Vixen LVW ($250 vs $269)

So in their homeland, Televue products are priced right in line to somewhat cheaper than the other premium alternatives.  It's also pretty clear why Vixen eyepieces don't sell well here.

[Piero]

28 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

Thanks @Piero. Very interesting reading and good counter points. I've only ever bought the more budget eye pieces new. My ES68 24mm is my most expensive eyepiece and bought second hand. At some point, probably next year, I'd like to upgrade my scope and then my thoughts will no doubt then move onto some more premium eyepieces. Baring a sudden influx of cash, I'll be working to a budget so value for money will be a priority. At this point, I really don't know which eyepiece manufacturer/model would give the most bang for the buck! I wouldn't want to pay £50/£100 more for marginal gains. I guess that's the question we all face when considering how much to spend on an eyepiece! 

My advice is to buy second hand so that you can recover most (if not all the costs) in case you need to re-sell the item. On the other hand, buying in the second hand market allows you to experiment several options, which is an important advantage when is understanding his/her own tastes.

 

[iPeace]

58 minutes ago, Piero said:

Nagler T6 which are stuck with a previous technology in coatings and transmission

For the record, it's really nice being stuck here in the past. 

Is there anything else that will give me that nice and wide a view in that light and compact a package? I wouldn't mind spending less, but on what? 

[cloudsweeper]

1 hour ago, Littleguy80 said:

 I wouldn't want to pay £50/£100 more for marginal gains. I guess that's the question we all face when considering how much to spend on an eyepiece! 

That's a valid point, Neil.  Principle of diminishing returns and all that.

I too have the ES 24/68, but don't tend to use it much on account of having an ES 30/82 (nearly 1kg, but that's no problem) and a Meade 5000 UWA 20/82.  Other ES 82deg models I have are 18, 14, 11, 8.8, and 6.7.  I am very satisfied with all of these EPs, although the 18/82 has a smallish eye lens and eye relief.

Good news is that on recent acquisition of a WO SPL 3mm, I don't need any more...........

Doug.

[alan potts]

Piero, I do not wish to entre into any form of argument with regards to what you have said, you are fully intitled to your opinion. What I would say though with regard to developement costs, and I agree TV's are costly, but look at the price of those where ExSc have done the R&D, 25mm 100 degree, 3 inch 30mm, 9mm 120 degree, all very inflated compared to other offerings.I am sure there are others too.

I also feel it is the market position of a company like FLO that have to thank for the price of the XW in the UK, in Europe they are 369e.

 

alan

[alan potts]

22 minutes ago, cloudsweeper said:

That's a valid point, Neil.  Principle of diminishing returns and all that.

I too have the ES 24/68, but don't tend to use it much on account of having an ES 30/82 (nearly 1kg, but that's no problem) and a Meade 5000 UWA 20/82.  Other ES 82deg models I have are 18, 14, 11, 8.8, and 6.7.  I am very satisfied with all of these EPs, although the 18/82 has a smallish eye lens and eye relief.

Good news is that on recent acquisition of a WO SP 3mm, I don't need any more...........

Doug.

Interesting point you make about the 18mm, I read somewhere that Meade who offered this as 1.25 inch eyepiece where as ExSc gave it a 2 inch treatment, many believe the elements are the same, don't know how true this is but given the fact all the others are apart from the 11mm, which Meade didn't carry, are like for like there maybe legs to it.

.

[John]

I don't think Tele Vue eyepieces are over expensive to be honest. I'm surprised that they don't cost more these days

If Tele Vue prices had kept up with the rate of inflation since, say, 2000, their eyepiece ranges would cost over £100 more than the current pricing.

I think ES have been selling a number of their lines at cost (ie: no profit) to undermine Tele Vue's share of the market. And it's worked to some extent.

On the diminishing returns thing, I agree that the performance return for the additional investment does diminish as the cost rises. It's interesting to reverse that thinking though and consider how much diminished performance we are prepared to accept in return for some cost savings

I wonder sometimes if it can become a sort of "race to the bottom" rather than pushing standards upwards. Manufacturers might consider what they can get away with for a price rather than what performance value they can add

Possibly controversial stuff I know and probably not how others think, but there you go !

[iPeace]

2 hours ago, Piero said:

From my point of view and eye, TV are not right now in the top league but they charge as if they almost were. TV Delos vs XW (£330 vs £250), TV Nagler zoom 3-6 vs Zeiss zoom 25.1-6.7 (£389 vs £539), TV Ethos 13mm vs Docter 12.5mm (£595 vs £616), £300 for Nagler T6 which are stuck with a previous technology in coatings and transmission, but sold as if they were very recent (a Delite costs £250!), and so on.. 

With due respect...

Who else but TeleVue offers a 3-6 zoom? And those who offer zooms which can be barlowed to the same effect - add price of barlow here - how wide, varied and innovative are their product ranges?

So Docter offers a single eyepiece - without caps - which some prefer but doesn't do the same thing as a 13mm Ethos.

And no one offers anything that the Nagler Type 6 does.

Right, so the Delos and the Pentax XW are similar. The Delos was developed from the Ethos, and led to the DeLite.

Just who is it doing the innovation and product development here? Just who is it offering excellent quality based on original designs? TeleVue and the others, in that order.

You conclude with "and so on". Is there really anything more?

Goodness.

[Piero]

41 minutes ago, alan potts said:

Piero, I do not wish to entre into any form of argument with regards to what you have said, you are fully intitled to your opinion. What I would say though with regard to developement costs, and I agree TV's are costly, but look at the price of those where ExSc have done the R&D, 25mm 100 degree, 3 inch 30mm, 9mm 120 degree, all very inflated compared to other offerings.I am sure there are others too.

I also feel it is the market position of a company like FLO that have to thanked for the price of the XW in the UK, in Europe they are 369e.

alan

Thanks for your comment Alan. 

I also don't want to enter in any form of argument and that's why I always try to do my best to state my opinion as mine rather than a general statement. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't! I'm glad it has been received in the right way and nothing more than my humble opinion. 

 

About the ES eyepieces you cited, I'd say that their cost seem inflated to me as well. And there are some other top notch glass that I consider inflated in price..

Nowadays I believe there are two great things for us, customers. One is the availability of forums where we can discuss our equipment, findings, opinions, etc, enabling us to make the wisest choice based on a rather significant amount of knowledge and experience. The other is that there are many products out there. Most of them are acceptably good and sold at a more or less affordable price. As I said before, I don't care whether one prefers to have a collection of ES, TV,  or even ZAOII (very expensive!). To me the most important thing is that people from different economical backgrounds and with different interests can get involved in this hobby and afford some decent equipment without spending too much. Investing after some saving is worth in my opinion, but it is great that people can show some beauties in the sky to their neighbours, relatives, family, friends and these other people might just say "wow, why not.. maybe I will also get my own telescope!"