Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_30_second_exp_2.thumb.jpg.7719b6f2fbecda044d407d8aba503777.jpg

johninderby

7mm Eyepiece for Skymax 180 & Bresser 127 Mak

Recommended Posts

Have been trying out different eyepieces for the Skymax 180 & Bresser 127 Maks and have settled on a 7mm eyepiece as my high power choice. Have been using an X-cel LX 7mm which does work rather well on these F15 scopes but am looking for something better primarily for lunar observing.  

Am considering a few 82º eyepices such as the ES 6.7mm or Opticstar 6.7mm (same eyepices) or the Nirvana 7mm which is a great buy at the moment or something completely different, the Baader Genuine Ortho 7mm (know where there is one for sale). On such slow scopes would I notice any real difference in performance on the moon? Is the lack of eye relief and narrow fov worth it with the BGO?

Decisions, decisions. 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What issues are you seeing with the X-cel LX? I had one and thought it was pretty good, part of me thinks I should have kept it. At slow focal ratios I don't know if you'll see any improvement in correction from any eyepiece so it would be down to the quality of the coatings and I would guess that only the BGO might be any better optically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ricochet has said, what's up with the X-Cel LX?

My 7mm X-Cel LX is smashing in the 8" dob and the etx90.

The only reason I'm considering changing it some time in the future is for an 82° EP.

Having tried the 4mm Nirvana I'm tempted by the 7mm as a future swap, but not because I'd expect there to be much difference in clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The LX is a good eyepicec but want a wider fov. From what I’ve read the Nirvana is a little bit better so not giving up anything for the wider fov.

Was looking forward to trying this out tonight but the flippin  cloud has moved in.🤬

D991CF9D-C771-4792-A80E-41189E772175.jpeg

Edited by johninderby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're looking to widen the FoV I think you've made a good choice. I look forward to your thoughts on the Nirvana. Hopefully you get some clear nights soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Was reading some threads on CN and they gave the thumbs up for the ES 82 eyepieces in the 180 and the 127 maks so the Nirvana should work out OK. With the 7mm Nirvana available at 75 quid worth a try. 

Cloud improving a bit. Now just high thin cloud. 😕

55A66CB9-B4B8-43AD-9682-395E76486BB7.jpeg

Edited by johninderby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a Pentax XW 7mm John? A cracking eyepiece in any scope and a nice 70 Deg fov..ortho sharpness and contrast but far more comfortable to use.

Another great option is the Morpheus 6.5mm. Even wider FOV at 76 Deg and also very comfortable in use.

More expensive than the other options above, but you WILL see the difference😁.

Dave

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote for the Pentax XW 7mm here. I've found it as good as the Baader GO 7mm in peformance but with a lot more observer comfort. A lot more costly as well of course.

I've owned and used all the UWAN / Nivana focal lengths EXCEPT the 7mm but I don't see any reason that it would not be a very nice eyepiece. I found the 4mm Nirvana an excellent high power eyepiece. I didn't experience the 7mm UWAN / Nirvana because I had a 7mm T6 Nager at that time which was another fine, though expensive, eyepiece.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the Pentax XW but it was more than I wanted to spend. But as it’s for a mak the Nirvana will do for now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Clouds cleared off for a while and was able to try the Nirvana on the moon using the 127 mak. Did a head to head comparison between the 7mm Nirvana and the 7mm XCel-LX. First thing I noticed was that the Nirvana was so much brighter and was much easier to look through. At first I didn’t think the Nirvana was showing more detail, but that was due to the brightness. When I spent time looking realised I could see a bit finer detail. Found I could pull back from the eyepiece a bit which made viewing more comfortable  but when I wanted to look around just move in a bit.The image was whiter and the coatings seemed to give better light transmission.

So overall very pleased with the new eyepiece. A bit sharper and brighter and more comfortable to look through and of course the wider FOV. Tried a barlow element on the Nirvana which made it into a 4.6mm. Quite usable although not as bright. 

 

9BB4940C-6DD4-4F3B-B57A-EEF33FECFE2A.jpeg

Edited by johninderby
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the 7mm Pentax, utterly superb eyepiece I have used many a time a few years back. However with the 180mm being fairly slow and as such kind to all eyepieces what about the Meade 6.7mm, I had this and it was a very good performer.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the 180 Mak, a 7mm EP is giving x385 - I wonder if this is probably near the limit for the scope (50x per inch of aperture), so the scope optics may predominate over EP optics?

Mine certainly starts to run out of steam over x350, although this is sometimes helpful for doubles.

Chris

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tested the 180 with a number of eyepieces and found the 7mm worked really well for lunar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.