Show me your mismatched EP collection

[JOC]

1 hour ago, Ricochet said:

a matched set is defined as one containing only eyepieces from a single manufacturer or even a single eyepiece range.

That's right, that's kind of what I had in mind.  I guess a single set has the advantage of nearly being parfocal, but is every set perfect across the whole range or does every set have it's 'ringer' - do people just collect them all just because they look fabulous or are they all worth owning.  John has been kind enough to note that I have already found some nice glass in amongst what I have, is there anything to be said for picking the best from a number of different ranges? 

[happy-kat]

How can you find out what you like of you don't brave buying singular specimens.

[Timebandit]

15 minutes ago, JOC said:

     John has been kind enough to note that I have already found some nice glass in amongst what I have, is there anything to be said for picking the best from a number of different ranges? 

 

This is what I do , pick the best from eyepieces from a particular range.

That's why I only have one complete set , The Badder Genuine Orthoscopic 

The Pentax XW I have about a half sets 3.5mm to 10mm, the best of the bunch IMO.

All other of my eyepieces are here there and everywhere, due to the quality of a particular quality glass of focal length, or fov and eye relief, to fit in where I need an eyepiece. 

That's the only reason I own one complete set, the Badder Genuine Orthoscopic, as they are all good?

If it works for you and it's quality who needs complete sets of a particular design from a particular manufacturer, when they may not all be of equal quality. Then you are a collectionist and not an viewing astronomer☺

 

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Timebandit

[F15Rules]

I know many people like the symmetry and order of a single brand eyepiece line up.

Personally, I go by what I think are the best eyepieces for optical quality and for my needs at a given time.

I know from experience that you can't assume that all eyepieces in a given range are as good as each other. 

For example, take the Pentax XW range.. few would argue that the XW range is a top class one, but I am convinced that (in my scopes, to my eyes), the shorter 5,7,10mm focal lengths are noticeably better performers than the 14 and 20mm versions.  

I've found a similar situation with the LVW range (in reverse, ironically, with the longer LVWs outperforming the shorter ones, but with less of a difference to the XWs though).

Budget also plays a part for me too, as does field of view. I don't mind a narrower field for high power, as I view planets, moon and doubles mainly, whereas at lower powers I do like a wider field (the widest I have ever used is a 76deg Morpheus).

So, much of this is, I feel, subjective... going back to the original post, my current lineup consists of:

Tak 3.6, 7.5mm, Pentax XL 10.5, XF 12mm, Pentax SMC 8-24mm zoom, Vixen LVW 22m and GSO Superview 30mm..so, quite a variety of brands.

I also have a Baader Hyperion zoom 2.25x Barlow.

Interestingly, the Tak's, Pentax's and LVW are all pretty much parfocal to within a mm or 2 of each other. But even if they weren't, I'd rather turn my focuser a bit more but have the views I want, than have less good performance but with perfect parfocality?..

Dave

[John]

1 hour ago, JOC said:

That's right, that's kind of what I had in mind.  I guess a single set has the advantage of nearly being parfocal, but is every set perfect across the whole range or does every set have it's 'ringer' - do people just collect them all just because they look fabulous or are they all worth owning.  John has been kind enough to note that I have already found some nice glass in amongst what I have, is there anything to be said for picking the best from a number of different ranges? 

I tend to cherry pick from ranges.

Some ranges are pretty consistent across all the focal lengths but most that I've tried have some variation with some "stand out" ones and one (or sometimes more) not quite so good.

Pentax XW's are an interesting range because of the variation in optical design. They are not a "scaled design" so the characteristics vary focal length to focal length. None are actually bad eyepieces though, as far as I'm aware.

Incidently, not all ranges are par-focal thoughout by any means. The Delos 17.3 and 14 rech focus around 8mm further in than the rest. Ethos eyepieces have a widely varying focal plane range.

 

[25585]

My LVW collection was started as I liked the original LVs & first was the big 42, it is good & cheaper than a Panoptic with more FOV than the TV Plossl. No kidney beans. 

There is a CN thread saying not all XW eps are good for all scopes - they failed in longer FL scopes i.e. SCTs, but were good in shorter. 

In my photo the Nikon 17mm is, of all my collection, the odd one out. I bought it for its advertised high eye relief & mainly satisfied user reviews. Also Japanese eps seem to offer more comfortable viewing than others. Orion 20mm going against LVW 22mm will be a big session - both Lanthanum, 20 is 2 inch 80 deg, 22 is 1.25 65 deg. The Orion if good could be a Nagler T4 beater. 

My 30mm NLVW has for now taken my swapped 35 Panoptic's place - big shoes to fill. 

Different shapes make picking the correct ep out of a bag first time easier.

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by 25585

[YKSE]

25 minutes ago, John said:

not all ranges are par-focal thoughout by any means.

From what I can get from Tammy's measurement, all the Nikon NAV-SW are par-focal within 1mm, and all Pentax XWs from 3.5mm to 40mm are par-focal within 1mm if the 2" to 1.25" adapter doesn't add any length).

[JOC]

1 hour ago, 25585 said:

Different shapes make picking the correct ep out of a bag first time easier.

Now this is what I do find useful.  If all mine were the same design I'd need a torch to find them in the dark.  As it is, so far, I've been able to tell which focal length I've got hold of just by the shape of the EP - there are certain advantages to being able to do this :-D

[Piero]

So here is.. I love how they mistmach!

Edited December 3, 2017 by Piero

[Dave In Vermont]

13 minutes ago, Piero said:

So here is.. I love how they mistmach!

Now that's a great miss-match! Looks similar to my extended and mostly miss-matched entourage.

Well done!

Dave

[Piero]

Cheers Dave!

[Piero]

Here is my 1.25" mismatch set..

[cloudsweeper]

This lot has grown "organically" and comprises: ES, Meade, Celestron, Revelation, Baader, TV, WO, and Skywatcher.  It's now all I need to cover a good mag range in my 'scopes, and the Dobsonian 'scope-to-come!

Some have semi-permanent adaptors for smooth change-over at low mags.

They are all good performers, although the wide angle Revs are a bit weak off-axis.

How do I know which is which when in action?  Easy - I've printed a little "key" which goes in the EP box, indicating their positions.

Doug.

[25585]

I have semi-permanent adaptors for some eps, mainly longer fl ones 1.25 barrel. Especially useful for switching eps with & without filters of similar fl. 

[JOC]

13 hours ago, Piero said:

So here is.. I love how they mistmach!

Piero, that is an admirable collection and a fine photo of them :-D

6 hours ago, cloudsweeper said:

ES, Meade, Celestron, Revelation, Baader, TV, WO, and Skywatcher

Doug that's a fair grouping - though its a bit 50/50 in terms of whether it matches or not LOL

Good efforts both!

[cloudsweeper]

.......and there was me thinking eight different brands constituted a mismatch! 

Doug.

[Littleguy80]

My first instinct on reading this post was that my eyepiece collection was quite uniform with 3 BST’s. On closer inspection, there’s 4 diff manufacturers in there: Celestron, Explore Scientific, BST and Baader! 

[JOC]

3 hours ago, cloudsweeper said:

and there was me thinking eight different brands constituted a mismatch!

It's the 7 with orange swirls which kind of draw the eye ;-)

[YKSE]

This is my one case of mismatched eyepieces, which has been stable for some years except the pair of binoviewing zooms

10 different brands

[JOC]

1 hour ago, YKSE said:

10 different brands

Not a bad effort at all

 

19 hours ago, Littleguy80 said:

there’s 4 diff manufacturers in there: Celestron, Explore Scientific, BST and Baader! 

I think that qualifies for getting there, you do have some set matches in that lot as does YKSE, but like YKSE and Doug its a good effort :-D

[cloudsweeper]

OK - now that I understand the rules, how about this collection? -

(I've just sold the other nine EPs, honest!) 

Doug.

[Timebandit]

40 minutes ago, cloudsweeper said:

OK - now that I understand the rules, how about this collection? -

(I've just sold the other nine EPs, honest!) 

Doug.

 

 

That's more like it . Following the rules now. See nothing matches up ??

 

 

[JOC]

4 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

That's more like it . Following the rules now. See nothing matches up ??

 (I don't know if we'll call it 'cheating' though ;-)   )

[25585]

You could almost design a chess set around all the different, brands, shapes & colours of eps these days!

[Charic]

Sorry..................Let the battle begin!

 

 My collection was all over the place earlier this Year, trying to find what felt comfortable, producing a decent image  to my eyes and  cost effective! but as you can see from my signature, some user favourites have all been sold'
Those eyepieces are  often sought after, but  I'm really happy with the collection that remains.
My earliest decisions set the path for a Plössl set?  but I bought an 8mm Starguider, the  first set acquired, but still could not make up my mind for a Plössl brand, then  I needed a 6mm to match the focal ratio, hence the WO SPL, set  two complete, and finally settled for the Revelation Plössl's. Oh and I needed a wide angle, but only one Panaview is required, so still slightly mis-matched,  but  only because the BST Starguider  set fails to provide (my) missing focal lengths! 
 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Charic