Recommendations for a cheap Cheshire and 4mm eyepiece

[sockatume]

I’ve got one of those FirstScope baby telescopes and I’m thinking of getting a little more out of it before I move up, probably to a Heriage 130 (Onesky 130 equivalent), in the future. Can anyone recommend a cheap 4mm lens that’s still good enough to keep using with future scopes? Amazon U.K. is inundated with random off-brand ones and the reviews are all over the place. I already have a decent 10mm and 20mm 

On a similar note, is it worth bothering with the cheap <£10 Cheshire eyepieces on eBay or is the 2-3x price jump for a branded one justified? I never did get around to taking this thing apart, marking and collimating it but it will be good practice and the eyepiece handy thing to have for the future scope.

Thanks in advance!

[rwilkey]

If you live in the UK it will be better to by any astronomy products from an astronomy retailer like FLO, the forum sponsors, or if you live in the USA from AgenaAstro.  Both will give you good service and sound advice.  I always find that buying over-cheap products of any kind is often a false economy. 

[cloudsweeper]

Re collimation - I bought a Premium Cheshire eyepiece, but hardly ever use it.  I do the process by eye, then do a final check (mainly for the Primary Mirror) with an Aline Collimation Cap - great bit of kit, for just a few ££!

4mm EP - Revelation or Celestron Omni Plossls are decent, at the low end.

Doug.

[sockatume]

Thanks both, I should stress that I'm not beholden to Amazon/eBay, they're just a convenient reference point for off-brand crap which was about my speed just now. I'll have a go at the low-end Celestron I think and leave the random nonsense.

I'd tried to get a collimation cap on its own before and somehow failed to spot one at a UK stockist, yet there's that Aline one at FLO for under a fiver. Who knows what I was doing. A Cheshire is probably overkill at this stage then, I'll get one with my next scope.

[Alan64]

It is preferable not to cheap-out on the eyepieces, especially if an upgrade is in the stars...

https://www.365astronomy.com/4mm-the-planetary-uwa-eyepiece-58-degrees-1.25.html

That one should be more comfortable to use, now and in future.

[Alfian]

If an upgrade is planned then penny pinching now will be wasted money. However you can get quite a good barlow (GSO/Revelation) at Astroboot ,who are reputable and I have used several times, for not much. You can also get a a 4mm plossl and plossls are fine BUT at 4mm the eye relief  will be small and uncomfortable so something like the EP that Alan mentions would be better.

[Charic]

I have the Revelation Astro 4mm Plossl which costs about £12GBP, available from Astroboot, just search for 4mm GSO.
This is as good as any 4mm Plossl, and compared to other well known Plossl's of high repute, I found the revelations ( GSO manufactured ) are very good for their price, and can be used on other scopes too.

To be honest, an eyepiece alone, except for its field of view and eye-relief, will not make a huge difference to your starter scope, so don't be too alarmed, if your seeing images similar to that offered from your existing eyepieces.

Visual astronomy benefits highly from having as large an aperture as possible, but do consider the price and weight and whether you can move, carry a larger telescope.
Even with your present eyepieces, a larger aperture, capturing more light, providing more detail, would  bring a more immediate effect to what your seeing now. 
Lastly, in most cases of visual astronomy, its not high magnification, small mm eyepieces, but just how much detail and how sharp the image is, so more often than not, better to start with a longer focal length eyepiece and work toward the shorter one, until the image is as good as it gets. 

The seeing conditions will play havoc too, so its not all just down to getting a single eyepiece.

You also mention a collimation tool/cap? The dust cap in the focuser tube will suffice! Just needs a 1mm hole dead centre, then tape over when not required as a tool. The only reason for having the 1mm hole is to better align your eye to the axis, that exists to align the optics of a scope. It can be done by eye alone, or  find an old 35mm film case, does the same thing, pop a 1mm hole in the lid, slice of the base, and it should fit snug inside the focuser tube!

I still have a 35mm cap,  a Cheshire, a Laser (used with a Barlow lens) but favour the simple and reliable Cheshire tool, followed with a Star test, for confirmation ?  

I bought my Cheshire ( long tube version, not the short one ) from ebay, the same place I bought my Staguiders, which leads me to mention Starguiders again, as their now additionally available from our site sponsor, and other outlets, same eyepiece, different jacket, so to speak?

They (FLO) have the 5mm and 8mm  Starguider and to be honest, one of them over the short eye relief provided by that of the  4mm Revelation, is maybe a better bet, however about £50, not as cheap as the Revelation's.
For a Plossl, the Revelation is great value. For me the Starguider's are good all-round with respect to their value, weight, comfort, eye-relief and the quality of the image they produce.

 

[sockatume]

Thanks for the terrific advice everyone. The 4mm is likely to be beyond the practical limits of my current 'scope but I'm curious and it'll be handy when I move on.

For my next scope I'm definitely aiming for something simple and light enough that I'll use it, hence the Heritage/Onesky or one of the other cheap 4- to 6-inch dobsonians. (My house is flanked by LED streetlights, so mobility is essential.) I'll see if the bug sticks with me for long enough to justify understanding equatorial mounts and all that stuff.

[cloudsweeper]

5 minutes ago, sockatume said:

Thanks for the terrific advice everyone. The 4mm is likely to be beyond the practical limits of my current 'scope but I'm curious and it'll be handy when I move on.

For my next scope I'm definitely aiming for something simple and light enough that I'll use it, hence the Heritage/Onesky or one of the other cheap 4- to 6-inch dobsonians. (My house is flanked by LED streetlights, so mobility is essential.) I'll see if the bug sticks with me for long enough to justify understanding equatorial mounts and all that stuff.

I've had the bug for a few years now, but would only ever have alt-az mounts!  ?

Doug.

[cloudsweeper]

13 hours ago, cloudsweeper said:

I've had the bug for a few years now, but would only ever have alt-az mounts!  ?

Doug.

.......but it is of course worth knowing about  different mounts and co-ordinate systems - relative merits, reasons for using, etc..  (I did own a Newt on an Eq, briefly!)

D.

[Alan64]

From personal experience, of course, I've been using an alt-azimuth for several years now.  The bump-and-nudge routine is getting old, and has been for quite some time.  An equatorial eliminates the routine, but the trick with that is in not getting a beast of an equatorial.  An EQ-2 is the sweet-spot, perhaps an EQ-3 for others, but an EQ-2 will only support the smaller and shorter telescopes effectively.  If a larger aperture is desired and required, and under an illuminated dome, as is oft the case, then the escape from said routine would be supplementary; as when one takes the canoe rather than the barge, on occasion.  

In my case, I'm tired of seeing only fleeting glimpses.  I want to see and study these wonders instead, to improve the detection of their details.  It is known that observing over time improves one's visual acuity.  A manual alt-azimuth simply cannot allow for that.