Meade 56mm 2" EP

[chiltonstar]

Anyone tried the Meade 56mm Plossl with a Mak? I realise the FoV will be no larger than with a shorter focal length EP, but the potential exit pupil gain looks worthwhile. Fiddling round last night with a reversed 50mm camera lens as an EP, it was clear there was a very much brighter view of M1 and of nearby NGC 2022 than with my longest FL eyepiece that I use regularly (40mm Plossl), and going all the way to 56 mm looks potentially promising, as it would give an exit pupil of 4.3 or so with the 180 Mak.

Chris

[Stu]

Interested to hear the responses to this Chris. I'm currently looking for a 55mm Plossl for similar reasons, but if the 65 works even better then it makes total sense. A bit like looking through a straw, but worth it for the extra brightness.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

On a slow scope like an F/15 Mak it might well work. I found my Vixen LVW 42mm gave the best views of the Horsehead Nebula in my C8 (exit pupil 4.2mm) in the Alps some years back.

[chiltonstar]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Interested to hear the responses to this Chris. I'm currently looking for a 55mm Plossl for similar reasons, but if the 65 works even better then it makes total sense. A bit like looking through a straw, but worth it for the extra brightness.

The "65mm" may in fact be a typo ("56mm") from one advertiser, as it looks as though 56mm is the largest that Meade make. I found a review* by Peter Besenbruch on Amazon which seems to indicate that the EP does its job, with an apparent FoV of about 45 degrees, and a good exit pupil.

Chris

* https://www.amazon.co.uk/Meade-Instruments-07178-02-56-Millimeter-Eyepiece/dp/B00020XDTI

[nicoscy]

For long focal length eyepieces, you can also check Russel Optics in the US.

[Stu]

Interesting. Yes, now you mention it, I do recall it being the 56mm not 65mm. That's a pretty good price compared with the TV 55mm, I wonder how they compare?

[nicoscy]

Stu,

I recall reviews that state that it has a wee bit better performance than the 55mm TV Plossl.

However, the Meade has no eye guard. Combined with the long eye relief, this would make it a bit harder to keep the exit pupil and avoid blackouts. Also, no eye guard = more ambient light affecting image contrast.

[nicoscy]

Oldie but still good I guess.

[nicoscy]

Having a largish exit pupil helps a lot though and while it may not be an eyepiece that you use extremely frequent, it does have its uses!

I traded my 22 Nagler T4 for a Masuyama 45mm for this reason. While my Nagler 31mm yields the same true FOV, the Masu at a smaller Apparent FOV but same True FOV maxes out the exit pupil.

[Stu]

34 minutes ago, nicoscy said:

For long focal length eyepieces, you can also check Russel Optics in the US.

Thanks Nicos. Those prices look amazing, I assume they are good quality?

[nicoscy]

Fairly good quality - had the 56mm 2" plossl myself for a bit and donated it to a local observatory, where it sees action as the main eyepiece on a 14" Edge SCT.

At such relatively small magnifications such an eyepiece offers, most aberrations become irrelevant. Such "largish" exit pupils are useful for faint stuff (for me bright and dark nebula) with or sans filters.

If quality is of paramount concern, there's a 60mm Masuyama out there as well.

[Saganite]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Interesting. Yes, now you mention it, I do recall it being the 56mm not 65mm. That's a pretty good price compared with the TV 55mm, I wonder how they compare?

Can't be too bad Stu, the smoothie version of this eyepiece was preferred over the TV 55mm by Bill Paolini in his field test.

[Saganite]

1 hour ago, nicoscy said:

Oldie but still good I guess.

Sorry Nicos, I posted my bit without seeing your post, but it is an interesting read. I have a mint smoothie 56mm which I use in my  F15 frac, and it is superb.

[Stu]

1 minute ago, Saganite said:

Sorry Nicos, I posted my bit without seeing your post, but it is an interesting read. I have a mint smoothie 56mm which I use in my  F15 frac, and it is superb.

Might give that a go then, would be in the f15 178mm mak.

[Louis D]

I would just be concerned about the secondary shadow becoming intrusive.  It would definitely be an issue during solar or lunar observations because your iris would close down considerably.  For nebula when fully dark adapted, it would probably be okay.

[johnturley]

2 hours ago, Saganite said:

Can't be too bad Stu, the smoothie version of this eyepiece was preferred over the TV 55mm by Bill Paolini in his field test.

I've had both, the reason for this was that my observatory shed was broken into many years ago, and my eyepiece case (which I now keep indoors), including the TV 55mm was stolen. I subsequently decided to replace it with the Meade 56mm, as at the time Astro Systems (Luton) had the Meade Series 4000 eyepieces on offer.

Of the two I much preferred the Meade 56 mm, as it gave a slightly wider field of view, and less aberations at the edge of the field, depsite being cheaper. I should however point out that the Meade 56 mm in question (which I still have), was one of the original 5 element, made in Japan plossls, and not sure whether the quality is as good with the current 4 element made in China ones.

John

[alan potts]

I have used a 55m televue and found that a cracker on the same scope and on my LX 200, well made, even survived a drop on to concrete with only minimal damage, I have never seen the 56mm from Meade but have seen a few about over the years.

Alan

[Saganite]

3 hours ago, johnturley said:

I've had both, the reason for this was that my observatory shed was broken into many years ago, and my eyepiece case (which I now keep indoors), including the TV 55mm was stolen. I subsequently decided to replace it with the Meade 56mm, as at the time Astro Systems (Luton) had the Meade Series 4000 eyepieces on offer.

Of the two I much preferred the Meade 56 mm, as it gave a slightly wider field of view, and less aberations at the edge of the field, depsite being cheaper. I should however point out that the Meade 56 mm in question (which I still have), was one of the original 5 element, made in Japan plossls, and not sure whether the quality is as good with the current 4 element made in China ones.

John

I had a 56mm Meade which had the rubber eye cup, much the same as the current ones made in China, but it was a Japan made eyepiece, which I purchased with my F15 refractor. It was a very fine eyepiece, and I thought they were 4 element, but I may be wrong. The one I have now is the 5 element, the so called smoothside, which has no rubber eye cup.

Both versions, Japan made , are excellent.

Sorry to hear of the theft that you suffered.

[johnturley]

12 minutes ago, Saganite said:

I had a 56mm Meade which had the rubber eye cup, much the same as the current ones made in China, but it was a Japan made eyepiece, which I purchased with my F15 refractor. It was a very fine eyepiece, and I thought they were 4 element, but I may be wrong. The one I have now is the 5 element, the so called smoothside, which has no rubber eye cup.

Both versions, Japan made , are excellent.

Sorry to hear of the theft that you suffered.

Yes, mine was one one the original 5 element smoothsides.

Fortunatley the insurance paid out at the time of the theft, so I ended up getting a new set of eyepieces, consisting mainly of the then new Meade Series 4000 5 element plossls.

John

[chiltonstar]

Many thanks to all for the replies. It certainly looks worth trying to gain a bit more exit pupil with the Mak for those fainter/more diffuse targets.

Chris

[Stu]

I have a 56mm in as a request for my birthday next week, so fingers crossed!

[JeremyS]

20 hours ago, Stu said:

I have a 56mm in as a request for my birthday next week, so fingers crossed!

I think that would amount to a Birthday and Christmas pressie in my household, Stu ?

 

[Stu]

57 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I think that would amount to a Birthday and Christmas pressie in my household, Stu ?

 

Depending how flush my dear lady is feeling, that may well be the case!

[chiltonstar]

My b'day fairy has already arrived early (this am), so now all I need is some clear sky........

Chris

[Don Pensack]

It obviously was a typo for the 56mm.

If it had been a 65mm, the apparent field would have been only 39° max.

Talk about a narrow field!  About the same as a 40mm 1.25" Plössl.