Should I add (or not) a 5mm planetary eyepiece to my familly ?

[N3ptune]

I am sitting in my chair right now, doing nothing except from listening to some smooth jazz from a custom made CD. And I wonder slowly if I should order a 5mm HD-OR Fujiyama Orthoscopic eyepiece has a new asset. But, this time, I am not completely sure it's going to be a very good purchase I am feeling it more like a luxury option.

For my planetary observation with my 200 x 1000 I have at the current moment a 9mm eyepiece Xcel LX which I find amazing for it's comfort and quality, gives me 111x, that one is a keeper. After, I have the HD-OR 7mm and more recently I bought the HD-OR 6mm. Both of them are very good and impressive on the planets giving 143x and 167x, they are my main tools and they should be sold when I die.

And finally, I have the ES 4.7mm which is still my favourite eyepiece for the moon. Although, most of the time that one has a bit too much magnifications for the planets at  212x.

So the next step might very well be the HD-OR 5mm which would give 200x with a narrower FOV of course. I think it could provide more more sharpness, in a very slight amount, over the ES and it has 12x less to help me with the atmosphere. At the same time it's still very close to the 4.7mm which occasionally offers a good sharpness on the planets (and almost always good sharpness on the moon). The difference between the 4.7 and the 5 might be marginal.

While the addition the 6mm was a huge success.

Would you guys buy the 5mm or leave things has they are?

A picture of my actual family of what I consider to be "planetary" eyepieces:

Thanks for reading.

 

[Demonperformer]

My personal thoughts are that this desire to purchase the 5mm is possibly brought on more by the "doing nothing except listening to some smooth jazz" than any potential benefits it might bring. I suspect the "very slight ... marginal" differences to the 4.7 might end up being "indistinguishable". Just my 2c ...

[Sunshine]

I must add my 1 cent here, the only way I would consider adding a 5mm to my kit if I already have a 4.7mm would be solely based on either FOV, eye relief improvements, or element design,  then I would see no point in keeping the 4.7 anymore.

I doubt you'll notice the difference in magnification so that should not be a factor in your decision.

[Ben the Ignorant]

My Explore 4.7mm/82° is sharper than my TS 4mm/82°. The expensive Myriad 5mm/110° is as sharp as the 4.7. I doubt any other eyepiece in that focal range could be seriously finer than that 4.7.

[Stu]

How about an alternative thought? An ES 5.5mm 62 degree LER? That would give you x181 which could be very nice for Jupiter on regular occasions.

Small increments in magnification are well worth having available at higher powers for planetary observing so you can match the seeing conditions.

[N3ptune]

Thanks for your replies, this is helping me seeing clearer and that the idea of adding the Fujiyama 5mm is not really the best solution.

It's true the 4.7 is quite fine but at some point I believe in the small increments in magnification for planetary observation especially at the end of the maximum usable power of the telescope it's very relevant, (unless the gap is much too close)

Between the 7mm and the 6mm the difference is 23x and the telescope can clearly take advantage of it. Someday on Jupiter it's the 7 and on other day it's the 6 (Same thing with Venus). The goal of adding an orthoscopic was to reach maximum resolution at the highest power possible.

I like your idea with the 5.5mm ES Stu, 181x is a good mid point between the 4.7 and the 6. Perhaps a bit close to the 6 but it's still a 14x step at the very end of the maximum usable power of this telescope. Very affordable too, nice eye relief, large AFOV.

I'll think of it in the next days.

 

[25585]

What's your budget and eye relief requirements?

If respectively larger & small, perhaps a Nagler 3 - 6mm zoom would be good. 

[N3ptune]

Well that's what I understood lately, why amateurs were all hipped about the 6 - 3 zoom, that specific range of power for planetary use and probably with impressive quality advantages. But the Nagler is not appealing too much, it would give me a nice graduation between 6mm and 4.7mm but the price is too high considering I already have some good pieces covering almost everything.

I would prefer to complete my current sequence of powers with something like a simple inexpensive ES 5.5mm honestly. (Especially if it can compete in quality against my orthoscopics)

 

[John]

I find that having packed focal lengths at the short end is useful. My sequence goes:

7mm, 6mm, 5mm, 4mm, 3.5mm and the Nagler 2-4mm zoom filling in all the gaps down to 2mm. They all get used although below 3mm not as often.

With my scopes 5mm gives a really useful power point: 180x in my ED120 and Tak, 240x with my 130mm triplet and 318x (lunar powerhouse !) with my 12" dob. I'd really not be without that focal length. 

[N3ptune]

Nice sequence indeed John, from 7 to 2, it's complete,  I am very tempted by the number 5.5.

[N3ptune]

On 24/06/2018 at 02:42, Stu said:

How about an alternative thought? An ES 5.5mm 62 degree LER? That would give you x181 which could be very nice for Jupiter on regular occasions.

Small increments in magnification are well worth having available at higher powers for planetary observing so you can match the seeing conditions.

@Stu This eyepiece, the 5.5 62d, do you know about it's correction and how good it would be with my F5 Newtonian? The reason I am asking is because when I searched for a low power eyepiece a few months ago, something around 32mm, the lower end of the 62d series was not really shining bright has I read from the comments. My final selection was the ES 34mm 68d which I find nothing less then incredible today.

With the 5.5mm it might be another story because it's a short FL high power EP, perhaps aberrations is less (or not) an issue here. I prefer to ask, because it will compete against orthoscopics and the ES 82d series, which are strong quality and low aberration competitors.

Just want to make sure the 5.5 will blend well in the middle or that. 

thanks

[John]

4 minutes ago, N3ptune said:

@Stu This eyepiece, the 5.5 62d, do you know about it's correction and how good it would be with my F5 Newtonian? The reason I am asking is because when I searched for a low power eyepiece a few months ago, something around 32mm, the lower end of the 62d series was not really shining bright has I read from the comments. My final selection was the ES 34mm 68d which I find nothing less then incredible today.

With the 5.5mm it might be another story because it's a short FL high power EP, perhaps aberrations is less (or not) an issue here. I prefer to ask, because it will compete against orthoscopics and the ES 82d series, which are strong quality and low aberration competitors.

Just want to make sure the 5.5 will blend well in the middle or that. 

thanks

You might want to have a look at reports on the Meade 5000 series 5.5mm plossl. There seems to be a likelyhood that the Meade 5000 plossls and the ES 62's share the same optics ?

 

[N3ptune]

ouffff @John you are sending me on the wild internet. I believe Stu 100% with his recommendation instead.