Let's hear it for super cheap eyepieces...maybe?

[MKHACHFE]

48 minutes ago, heliumstar said:

I am still not experienced enough to catch all abberations but I directly compared StarGuider 12mm and Tak Abbe Ortho 12.5mm. Once you compare it through the same telescope on the spot it is immediately clear where the money went. What I saw was reflections in StarGuider and absolutely none in Tak Abbe. StarGuider reflections didn't actually bother me until I looked through Tak Abbe

That's exactly what i assume is happening with me. I have no other experience, so this is fine. And it does work. Its FINE. But im really looking forward to peering through my ES when i can convince my wife its a necessary purchase. 

 

Thanks again to everyone for replying. 

[mikeDnight]

On 14/05/2019 at 00:47, MKHACHFE said:

Hello fellow star gazers. 

So, after researching and reading countless eyepiece threads on here and CN forum, I finally decided which one to buy for my new XT8. I chose a ES 9mm to be used with my 2x Barlow. But before i stump up the 100 or so quid, i decided to see what i would, um... see with a 9mm EP and bought this as a dirt cheap "test unit".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B074BR9LY5/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I wasn't expecting it to be like looking through  the bottom of a coke bottle of course, but I also wasn't expecting much at all. I just wanted to see if the power was right for me. But, I must say, I was pleasantly suprised. Very much so in fact. It works well enough, was sharp when in focus and it did what it was meant to do.

Bearing in mind, I have no experience at all with expensive EP's, so I have only the Plossi 25mm that came with my scope to compare it to. I have no doubt that a Nagler or TV or ES will be far far nicer to use, but I must say, this will do for now until I get the funds for one of those. 

I guess, I'm making this thread to say to other beginners that its very easy to get EP fever (I certainly have), but if you are poor, like me, you can get by with something like this (I can only comment on the 9mm i bought)  until you save for the real deal. Basically, it's not total crapola. 

Anyone else agree/disagree? Again, don't get me wrong, I'm in no way suggesting these instead of high quality EP's, but ...it worked. And now I'm even more excited about purchasing my 9mm ES in a few weeks. 

 

 

 

I've owned and used extensively many of the high end, wide angle eyepieces, and spent thousands on them. All introduced false colour to the image and none had the clarity and transparency of my old pseudo Masuyama super plossl's. I may have lost some negligible apparent field but I've gained eye relief, on axis sharpness and  level of transparency that's hard to match in multi element wide angle designs. For lunar & planetary observing in my binoviewer they are truly exquisite! Even on dso's they are a joy to use, although I still use some single wide angle eyepieces on the deep sky.

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by mikeDnight

[Saganite]

I discovered in only the last year or so the quality of pseudo Masuyama eyepieces and 5 of the 8  pairs  in use  are now of this type, and I must say I am more than happy with them. If I could ever find a second 24mm Ultima, the 24 Pans could well go, and increase the percentage. 

[John]

I've owned a range of the pseudo Masuyamas (Celestron Ultima, Orion Ultrascopic etc) and liked them a lot. They certainly were as good as Tele Vue plossls and the shorter focal lengths were nearly as good as the circle-T orthoscopics. They were some of my first good quality eypeieces bought back early 1990's.

Today, after tying many types over many years (like Mike) I feel that the Vixen LVW's, Pentax XW's Tele Vue Delos, Nagler zoom and Tele Vue Ethos's are better eyepieces both for high, medium and low power observing. So that is what I use now and hang the expense.

As ever in eyepiece discussions, concensus is hard to find amongst the experienced observers

Lets hear it again for super cheap eyepieces though - yay !!!!

However, this is a relatively low cost (not super cheap though) approach which does deliver a lot of performance and flexibility I've found:

 

[Saganite]

54 minutes ago, John said:

I've owned a range of the pseudo Masuyamas (Celestron Ultima, Orion Ultrascopic etc) and liked them a lot. They certainly were as good as Tele Vue plossls and the shorter focal lengths were nearly as good as the circle-T orthoscopics. They were some of my first good quality eypeieces bought back early 1990's.

Today, after tying many types over many years (like Mike) I feel that the Vixen LVW's, Pentax XW's Tele Vue Delos, Nagler zoom and Tele Vue Ethos's are better eyepieces both for high, medium and low power observing. So that is what I use now and hang the expense.

As ever in eyepiece discussions, concensus is hard to find amongst the experienced observers

Lets hear it again for super cheap eyepieces though - yay !!!!

However, this is a relatively low cost (not super cheap though) approach which does deliver a lot of performance and flexibility I've found:

 

I have twice owned The Baader 8-24 zooms in the past and as good as they are I have parted with them because I do more binoviewing than single eyepiece, and felt it was a waste, however after your appraisal of the Hyperflex 7-21.5mm with the 2.25 barlow, I bought one just for those odd occasions, and it is indeed a very useful addition, and not expensive, so it has, I believe, a permanent place in my box.

[johninderby]

The cheap little SvBony 23mm dustplug....err eyepiece arrived this morning. Very plasticy indeed but at least came with dust caps. Daytime testing shows it works very well in the mak. 

Screwed a Tal crosshair reticle into the eyepiece and it works just fine with the crosshair in sharp focus so it will make a useful crosshair eyepiece if nothing else. 👍🏻 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by johninderby

[Louis D]

Just don't clean the eye lens.  Reports are that it is a soft acrylic aspheric element.  Cleaning can wipe the coatings right off of it.  If it gets too dirty, toss it and buy a new one for $10.

[johninderby]

Indeed a throwaway eyepiece. 😀 

[MKHACHFE]

15 hours ago, johninderby said:

The cheap little SvBony 23mm dustplug....err eyepiece arrived this morning. Very plasticy indeed but at least came with dust caps. Daytime testing shows it works very well in the mak. 

Screwed a Tal crosshair reticle into the eyepiece and it works just fine with the crosshair in sharp focus so it will make a useful crosshair eyepiece if nothing else. 👍🏻 

 

Exactly. It works well enough and is def worth buying as a stand in until you purchase a better one. 

[Geoff Barnes]

Maybe not super cheap, but for only £37 from FLO my new Skywatcher Planetary 4mm has just proved itself to be an absolutely stunning bit of kit!

(I'll do a write up in Observing : Planetary).

Edited May 17, 2019 by Geoff Barnes

[MKHACHFE]

1 hour ago, Geoff Barnes said:

Maybe not super cheap, but for only £37 from FLO my new Skywatcher Planetary 4mm has just proved itself to be an absolutely stunning bit of kit!

(I'll do a write up in Observing : Planetary).

Thanks for the heads up. Sadly, in the UK, planetary viewing is a bit rubbish this year.  So jealous of you guys down under, you have the best things to look at. 

[maw lod qan]

This is the first set I bought for my 8" OTA. On my shoestring budget, I was pleased with them.

The good thing with them is they fit my camera adapter for eyepiece projection imaging. 

Slowly, I'm acquiring more expensive eyepieces, but these are still my primary eyepieces.

This is a single image through the 23mm and a 1.5 barlow.

Definitely not the superb images I see here by others, but you start somewhere.

[joe1950]

I have two of the 10mm aspherics to use in my budget binoviewer. I found a couple replacement brass/chrome coated barrels on eBay and replaced the plastic originals. My binoviewer does not like eyepieces with cutouts. The brass replacements are straight barrels, work better and give a little heft to the EPs. They have been known to blow away in a stiff breeze! 😀

Anyway the 10mm pair work wonderfully using them at f/21 with the Barlow.

The aspheric elements are made of an optical plastic but work very well. Glass aspheric lenses are quite expensive to produce, putting the eyepiece closer to $1000 than $10. But care is needed with the plastic.

I did have the 4mm version, but it was terrible. It made a better spectroscope than an eyepiece. I don’t know if they have improved them as of late.

Good seeing!

joe

[Ags]

On 25/05/2019 at 16:10, maw lod qan said:

Definitely not the superb images I see here by others, but you start somewhere.

In the class of afocal planetary images, that is actually superb!

[Rob]

On 15/05/2019 at 10:45, mikeDnight said:

I've owned and used extensively many of the high end, wide angle eyepieces, and spent thousands on them. All introduced false colour to the image and none had the clarity and transparency of my old pseudo Masuyama super plossl's. I may have lost some negligible apparent field but I've gained eye relief, on axis sharpness and  level of transparency that's hard to match in multi element wide angle designs. For lunar & planetary observing in my binoviewer they are truly exquisite! Even on dso's they are a joy to use, although I still use some single wide angle eyepieces on the deep sky.

 

MMMmmm. Parks Gold!. I miss mine

[joe1950]

Wonderful map, Agnes.

 

I failed to mention, with the 15 and 23mm aspherics, if you don’t like the undercut in the eyepiece barrel, you can turn it upside down and retread it onto the eyepiece body. Then the undercut is on the bottom of the barrel and does not affect the eyepiece holder securing device. Just be cautious not to cross thread it on.

j

[Stub Mandrel]

I have a pair of the aspherics. A/B test against good eps and they are not as good, but for the price (almost free!) they are very good, certainly not rubbish.