Best barlow x2 ?

[tooth_dr]

1 hour ago, TareqPhoto said:

Sure it does, but even with the equipment, isn't possible with 3X or 5X at all? let's say for imaging, can't i use 5X for a purpose to have maximum magnification for a certain scope for example 8"? i won't ask 3X-5X for visual even if it is possible, but it is mainly for imaging, and the camera is a camera, does it has something to accept higher power Barlow?

Dont want to drag this off topic, as the OP is asking about the 'best barlow x2'.  I suggest you make a new topic, and you should get some advice on this.  But, if you think a 'camera is a camera' then you should read the book by Steve Richards - Making Every Photon Count.  HTH.

[TareqPhoto]

Just now, tooth_dr said:

Dont want to drag this off topic, as the OP is asking about the 'best barlow x2'.  I suggest you make a new topic, and you should get some advice on this.  But, if you think a 'camera is a camera' then you should read the book by Steve Richards - Making Every Photon Count.  HTH.

I can't get the book from FLO or Amazon, sorry for that, and you are right about not going off topic, then let's put it on topic, what is the best 2X barlow if budget is not an issue?

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, TareqPhoto said:

I can't get the book from FLO or Amazon, sorry for that, and you are right about not going off topic, then let's put it on topic, what is the best 2X barlow if budget is not an issue?

For me it is either the Zeiss Abbe Barlow, or AstroPhysics Barcon, both very high quality and with extenders will go up to x4 too. The Baader VIP is probably next in line.

[TareqPhoto]

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

For me it is either the Zeiss Abbe Barlow, or AstroPhysics Barcon, both very high quality and with extenders will go up to x4 too. The Baader VIP is probably next in line.

Oh i see, so you rate them as better than Tele Vue ones? or do you rate them because you only used them and didn't compare to Tele Vue for example?

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, TareqPhoto said:

Oh i see, so you rate them as better than Tele Vue ones? or do you rate them because you only used them and didn't compare to Tele Vue for example?

I've not used Televue Barlows, but have used Powermates. I think I would still put these two about the PowerMates, although it's not by huge amounts.

[TareqPhoto]

1 minute ago, Stu said:

I've not used Televue Barlows, but have used Powermates. I think I would still put these two about the PowerMates, although it's not by huge amounts.

I didn't understand what is underlined i did, does it mean they are coming closer or similar to Powermates or are they better than Powermates? forget about huge amount different because i believe most high end Barlow are already amazing quality compared to each other, but there is always a slight winner among them.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, TareqPhoto said:

I didn't understand what is underlined i did, does it mean they are coming closer or similar to Powermates or are they better than Powermates? forget about huge amount different because i believe most high end Barlow are already amazing quality compared to each other, but there is always a slight winner among them.

Sorry. I meant that I think the Zeiss and AP are a little ahead of the PowerMates.

[TareqPhoto]

Just now, Stu said:

Sorry. I meant that I think the Zeiss and AP are a little ahead of the PowerMates.

Ah ok, good to know.

Thank you very much!

[Louis D]

14 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

That's odd, Louis. That's the one thing I don't like about the TV-Barlows. On mine at least - the nose-pieces don't fit in other eyepieces and/or filters. Or diagonals. They seem to be some proprietary threading.

I use a GSO Shorty 2X Barlow-nosepiece to screw into most eyepieces to add 1.5X or 1.6X magnification factor. I created it's own case. Keep the tube it came with if I need to add about an inch of focus for whatever.

Dave

 

16 hours ago, Louis D said:

the optical nosepiece is filter threaded unlike the TV

Agreed, the TV is not filter threaded.  I suspect it was my convoluted sentence structure that threw you off.  That was my point, that the Meade is more versatile than the TV.

[Louis D]

As far as pure barlows go, I did a shootout between my 1.25" TV 2x barlow and my Japanese made 2" Orion 2x Deluxe barlow years ago.  For 1.25" eyepieces, the Orion left no artifacts in the image whilst the TV added a bit of unsharpness toward the edge.  I was a bit astounded at the result, so I swapped multiple times with multiple eyepieces and always came to the same conclusion.  Perhaps it was the 2" nature of the Orion, perhaps its internal baffling, perhaps its 6" length, I don't know.  All I do know is it is my preferred barlow for shorter 1.25" eyepieces in my Dob.  It's useless in a refractor (won't come to focus).

[John]

The best pure barlows that I've owned and used were the Baader VIP 2x and the 2" (old style with set screws) Antares 1.6x. The best extenders were the Powermate (I've owned the 2.5x 1.25" and the 2x 2") and the Explore Scientific 2x Focal Extender which I was loaned for a few weeks and was very impressed with.

In the field of lower cost units, I felt that the GSO/Revelation 2.5x was pretty good and the Baader Q-Turret 2.25x is also great value. For around the same price on the used market you can get the Celestron Ultima 2x barlow which is another with nice glass in it.

[TareqPhoto]

I really don't know what is that about Barlow different than extender, so in imaging does it matter if it is a Barlow or an extender? or Barlow is Extender as someone told me?

 

[Piero]

2 hours ago, TareqPhoto said:

I really don't know what is that about Barlow different than extender, so in imaging does it matter if it is a Barlow or an extender? or Barlow is Extender as someone told me?

Major differences: 

Tele-extenders preserve focus position. Therefore, an eyepiece with / without tele-extender will not require major focus adjustment (said in another way, it is (nearly) parfocal). This is not guaranteed with a Barlow. The Zeiss Barlow 2x is (nearly) parfocal when used at 2x. Parfocality is generally a desirable feature.

Tele-extenders preserve eye-relief of eyepieces, whereas barlows tend to increase it. This can be an advantage and disadvantage in barlows though.

Barlows like the Baader VIP and the Zeiss Abbe Barlow are modular systems. With spacers users can change the magnification factors. This can be very useful for some (e.g. myself!  ).

To achieve these features, the optical design between barlows and tele-extenders is different. 

 

I am not into imaging. My guess is that in imaging an extender can be useful because it does not shift the focus position. You should really ask this question in the imaging section. 

As mentioned above, I also consider the VIP and Baader Zeiss above the TV powermates. I have not tested the VIP vs Baader Zeiss above 3x, but below 3x, they are so close that I haven't been able to distinguish them. Ergonomically, they are rather different in my opinion. I prefer the VIP with heavy equipment attached via the Baader T2 system (e.g. zoom), whereas I prefer the Baader Zeiss barlow with 1.25" eyepieces. I don't like the VIP much when used in 1.25" mode (e.g. with 1.25" focusers) as this requires a significant amount of inward travel.

Just my two pennies

[Jimmy Rocket]

So Baader Q is the one I will plum for I reckon.

 

[MarsG76]

If you have no luck with the Celestron Ultima than I'd recommend the Televue Barlow/powermate if you want to or could spend a bit more than 70 pound...

I got a 2" 2X PM for few $ under  $400 , the 1.25" is a bit cheaper, so doesn't look like it's too much more than your budget.

The TeleVies are awesome... one of if not the best focal extenders on the market.

I recommend save up for a bit longer if need be and get the best right from the start. It'll serve you for years, it not indefinitely and you will never look to upgrading it.

[TareqPhoto]

6 hours ago, Piero said:

Major differences: 

Tele-extenders preserve focus position. Therefore, an eyepiece with / without tele-extender will not require major focus adjustment (said in another way, it is (nearly) parfocal). This is not guaranteed with a Barlow. The Zeiss Barlow 2x is (nearly) parfocal when used at 2x. Parfocality is generally a desirable feature.

Tele-extenders preserve eye-relief of eyepieces, whereas barlows tend to increase it. This can be an advantage and disadvantage in barlows though.

Barlows like the Baader VIP and the Zeiss Abbe Barlow are modular systems. With spacers users can change the magnification factors. This can be very useful for some (e.g. myself!  ).

To achieve these features, the optical design between barlows and tele-extenders is different. 

 

I am not into imaging. My guess is that in imaging an extender can be useful because it does not shift the focus position. You should really ask this question in the imaging section. 

As mentioned above, I also consider the VIP and Baader Zeiss above the TV powermates. I have not tested the VIP vs Baader Zeiss above 3x, but below 3x, they are so close that I haven't been able to distinguish them. Ergonomically, they are rather different in my opinion. I prefer the VIP with heavy equipment attached via the Baader T2 system (e.g. zoom), whereas I prefer the Baader Zeiss barlow with 1.25" eyepieces. I don't like the VIP much when used in 1.25" mode (e.g. with 1.25" focusers) as this requires a significant amount of inward travel.

Just my two pennies

Thanks!