Are cheaper eyepieces as good as very expensive ones?

[wesdon1]

Hi all. Just wondering if people can tell me is it worth spending £100+ on a eyepiece when there looks to be great ones for around £22-£30? Reason i ask is all my EP's are cheaper £12-£22 ones from SkyWatcher and Celestron and although they give decent views of planets, i'm not sure they will serve me well with Nebulae and Galaxies? I did veiw M42 Orion Neb last winter with them and saw grey fuzzy cloud around stars, which was such a buzz!  Basically all i'm asking really is will i see a noticeable difference in contrast and brightness of objects with more expensive eyepieces, all other variables being equal? Thank You in advance for any advice. 

Wes, Liverpool, UK.

[johninderby]

In a word no. Some cheap eyepieces are usable but paying a bit more will usually bring a big improvement. A £50.00 eyepicece can give very good views. When you get over the £50.00 mark eyepieces do get better but the level of improvement doesn’t keep up with the price increase. 

A lot also depends on the telescope. No point in going for a premium eyepiece on a budget scope. Also the ultra wide type eyepieces can ger very expensive.

[Geoff Barnes]

I was asking this very same question a while back Wes and never really got a definitive answer, so decided to find out for myself.

I already had Skywatcher Planetary 4mm and 5mm EP's and wanted to see for myself if an expensive model was really that much better, because to my eyes the high power views through the SW EP's were superb on Jupiter and Saturn, sharp and detailed.

I had asked around and read countless reviews on here and elsewhere and decided (as my funds are relatively limited) on the Vixen SLV 4mm which seemed to be very highly rated against some illustrious competition.

I spent 3 hours comparing the SW Planetary and the SLV on Jupiter and Saturn (and have done many more since) and could see absolutely no difference whatsoever in the quality of the views through my SW 12 inch Dob.

Now I was using the Go-To tracking so my subjects were always on axis in centre field of view, but that is how I always view.

Now whether a real top end EP like a Teleview or Pentax would improve the views I don't know and probably never will, but the SW Planetary Ep's give me performance that I find totally acceptable.

Others eyes may well see differently!

 

[Raph-in-the-sky]

13 minutes ago, Geoff Barnes said:

I was asking this very same question a while back Wes and never really got a definitive answer, so decided to find out for myself.

I already had Skywatcher Planetary 4mm and 5mm EP's and wanted to see for myself if an expensive model was really that much better, because to my eyes the high power views through the SW EP's were superb on Jupiter and Saturn, sharp and detailed.

I had asked around and read countless reviews on here and elsewhere and decided (as my funds are relatively limited) on the Vixen SLV 4mm which seemed to be very highly rated against some illustrious competition.

I spent 3 hours comparing the SW Planetary and the SLV on Jupiter and Saturn (and have done many more since) and could see absolutely no difference whatsoever in the quality of the views through my SW 12 inch Dob.

Now I was using the Go-To tracking so my subjects were always on axis in centre field of view, but that is how I always view.

Now whether a real top end EP like a Teleview or Pentax would improve the views I don't know and probably never will, but the SW Planetary Ep's give me performance that I find totally acceptable.

Others eyes may well see differently!

 

I see in your signature that you have an ES 82° and a baader morpheus. What do you think about those? I was considering upgrading my BTS's and SW planetaries to the ES 82°.

[Geoff Barnes]

Hi Ralph, it's intriguing that I bought the ES 82 degree EP as my first "quality" purchase and I really don't get on with it. Whether it is just the short eye relief or what I can't put my finger on it, I just don't enjoy using it.

Now the Baader Morpheus 6.5mm is my very favorite EP, I find the views through it and the comfort it affords simply superb. It gives very sharp, detailed views with a huge eye lens and great eye relief, I love it !  

[Ruud]

It's sad, but cheap eyepieces are not as good as expensive ones. You have to be careful though: some expensive eyepieces aren't very good either. In this bench test, the expensive Takahashi and the budget Celestron compete for last place. 201306__6_oculaires_10mm.pdf If you can't read French, just look at the images in the tables on the last two pages.

(@Raph-in-the-sky ES 82° have much too short eye relief, only when I get so close that my eyelashes brush the eyepiece can I see the field stop. The excellent Morpheus 17.5mm is my best eyepiece, followed by Delos 12, Delos 8mm and Morpheus 6.5. My best budget eyepiece is the wonderful 82° Nirvana 16mm)

[Raph-in-the-sky]

2 minutes ago, Ruud said:

It's sad, but cheap eyepieces are not as good as expensive ones. You have to be careful though: some expensive eyepieces aren't very good either. In this bench test, the expensive Takahashi and the budget Celestron compete for last place. 201306__6_oculaires_10mm.pdf If you can't read French, just look at the images in the tables on the last two pages.

(@Raph-in-the-sky ES 82° have much too short eye relief, only when I get so close that my eyelashes brush the eyepiece can I see the field stop. The excellent Morpheus 17.5mm is my best eyepiece, followed by Delos 12, Delos 8mm and Morpheus 6.5. My best budget eyepiece is the wonderful 82° Nirvana 16mm)

Nirvana 82° seem like a good deal but how would they perform in my f4.7 dob?

[Ruud]

18 minutes ago, Raph-in-the-sky said:

Nirvana 82° seem like a good deal but how would they perform in my f4.7 dob?

Don't know, Raph, but it is mighty good in my f/5 refractor. It Barlows well too. (The refractor is flat field and has little to no coma. In an 82° eyepiece, if your eyes can't accommodate very much you may notice the field curvature of your Dob. Also, for best views using wide afov eyepieces in a Dob, a coma corrector is recommended.)

I think @John may know more. He probably tried it in a fast Newtonian.

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Ruud

[johninderby]

The Nirvanna eyepieces are a great buy and while not a Nagler aren’t far off really in an F/5 or slower. 

Wish people would stop mentioning the  Morpheus eyepieces. May have to buy one. 🤣

[Rob Sellent]

In general, I think astronomers/stargazers are quite intelligent, discerning and rather astute. If you have a look at long running threads showing eyepiece cases, it quickly becomes apparent what eyepieces/brands are considered good year after year. Eyepieces that did not deliver outstanding results, year in, year out for this broad spectrum of folk, would quickly be avoided and criticised on the threads.

Other than that, buy once and make it count.

Although initially expensive, premium eyepieces will turn out to be the cheaper option and are never going to be a waste of money.

Many astronomers - myself included - have followed quite a predictable path when it comes to buying EPs. We start out buying new and cheapish stuff but if we stick at this hobby, soon enough we want to check out one of the more premium eyepieces and so we find ourselves in a rather curious situation. 

We have this one quality EP and a case full of relatively cheap EPs that on the secondhand market have lost a considerable amount of value. Little by little we start upgrading but each time we upgrade, we're not only forking out more cash on eyepieces, but we're also losing cash on that cheaper eyepiece we're now selling on. So with hindsight it would have been better just to buy premium and be done with it. When buying premium you only cry once. Or again, paradoxically speaking, "a poor man cannot afford not to buy premium."

Generally speaking, premium eyepieces - unlike scopes - become lifers, you never have to upgrade again or you can always re-sell them without losing much money, especially if you have bought them already secondhand. Premium eyepieces simply hold their value more than cheaper ones. They also offer a very important psychological benefit. After a session, you are not left with any nagging feeling of 'what if...', for you know that this end of your optical system is about as good as it is going to get. If the view was poor, if you didn't get the expected detail, it will not be due to the eyepiece itself.

Finally, for general DSO viewing, you don't need more than three decent eyepieces.

That's my two pennies worth and if it's TeleVue you're considering, well, that's my fifty pennies worth 😊

Edited September 4, 2019 by Rob Sellent

[Raph-in-the-sky]

19 minutes ago, Rob Sellent said:

In general, I think astronomers/stargazers are quite intelligent, discerning and rather astute. If you have a look at long running threads showing eyepiece cases, it quickly becomes apparent what eyepieces/brands are considered good year after year. Eyepieces that did not deliver outstanding results, year in, year out for this broad spectrum of folk, would quickly be avoided and criticised on the threads.

Other than that, buy once and make it count.

Although initially expensive, premium eyepieces will turn out to be the cheaper option and are never going to be a waste of money.

Many astronomers - myself included - have followed quite a predictable path when it comes to buying EPs. We start out buying new and cheapish stuff but if we stick at this hobby, soon enough we want to check out one of the more premium eyepieces and so we find ourselves in a rather curious situation. 

We have this one quality EP and a case full of relatively cheap EPs that on the secondhand market have lost a considerable amount of value. Little by little we start upgrading but each time we upgrade, we're not only forking out more cash on eyepieces, but we're also losing cash on that cheaper eyepiece we're now selling on. So with hindsight it would have been better just to buy premium and be done with it. When buying premium you only cry once. Or again, paradoxically speaking, "a poor man cannot afford not to buy premium."

Generally speaking, premium eyepieces - unlike scopes - become lifers, you never have to upgrade again or you can always re-sell them without losing much money, especially if you have bought them already secondhand. Premium eyepieces simply hold their value more than cheaper ones. They also offer a very important psychological benefit. After a session, you are not left with any nagging feeling of 'what if...', for you know that this end of your optical system is about as good as it is going to get. If the view was poor, if you didn't get the expected detail, it will not be due to the eyepiece itself.

Finally, for general DSO viewing, you don't need more than three decent eyepieces.

That's my two pennies worth and if it's TeleVue you're considering, well, that's my fifty pennies worth 😊

Haha, I think you ve perfectly descibe the situation I am in. I am at the stage were I m just starting to think about upgrading my EPs (BSTs and SW planetaries and a couple of plossls). Hopefully I bought mostly second hand, so not much money to be lost.

I totally get your point of buying once premium EPs  and never buy again but don't you think that the is something you learn as you move up in quality? Maybe your eye gets sharper? At least you learn to enjoy the premium EPs!

Obviously you don't want to make too many babysteps but buying something like Nirvanas or ES 82° (second hand) before going full on black and green could make sense.

Am I completely wrong?

[JTEC]

It may be worth pointing out, to add to the above, that not all Televue eyepieces are expensive. The Televue Plössls, for example, are relatively inexpensive but, if you don’t mind the modest eye relief and fairly narrow field of view (and I don’t) they are very sharp indeed. I had a best ever view of Mars in 2016 with a pair of of 11mm TV Plössls in the binoviewer. The other contenders at the time were Tak LEs (slightly more complex design) that cost at least twice as much. Not all eyepiece designs are as expensive to produce as, say, an Ethos and perhaps that’s worth bearing in mind. I don’t use a lot of wide field eyepieces, but among the narrower field offerings there are one or two ranges I’ve come across that punch well above their weight in relation to cost - these are the Sterling Plössls that used to be sold by Smart astronomy and I think are made by Long Perng. Then there are the Edmund RKEs which seem to have gone off the radar a bit (perhaps because they don’t advertise much and make extravagant claims) but are very sharp and contrasty with excellent throughput.  Many people like the Baader Classic Orthos and imv they are exceptional vfm. I don’t share the view though that they’re as a good as the older BGOs and they’re not as good, imv, as the Taks of similar design. I think you have to compare like with like in terms of design: orthos with orthos, plossl with plossl, 82* with 82*, etc. There are bargains to be had and others on this forum are well-placed to tell you what they are, but, generally speaking, I’ve concluded, after some decades of doing this 😐, that design for design, the cheap option is rarely quite as good as the more expensive one. I agree with Rob that it’s best if you can to buy good stuff and keep it.  That said, I’ve certainly blundered along the more expensive zig-zag route before arriving at what I personally think is best. It’s also worth remembering that quality differences that might be obvious in, say, a high-end apo will not stand out in, say, a badly collimated Newtonian. And, of course, the fr and other qualities of the scope contribute as well. And then there is the whole issue of ‘feel’, personal preference and taste, which sounds vague but can turn out to be surprisingly important.

Edited September 4, 2019 by JTEC

[Trikeflyer]

4 hours ago, johninderby said:

The Nirvanna eyepieces are a great buy and while not a Nagler aren’t far off really in an F/5 or slower. 

Wish people would stop mentioning the  Morpheus eyepieces. May have to buy one. 🤣

I have the Morpheus 17.5. Very very nice eyepiece indeed. Great field of view and I wouldn’t be without it now. Go on you know you want to....

[johninderby]

A couple of more things to sell and then.......🙂

[alan potts]

The simple answer is no but with some differences are not as dramatic as some think, centres are normally fairly good, not as sharp as say a Vixen HR or a TV Delite but good enough, it is when you get to the edges that the wheels often come off, even fairly pricey eyepieces like Meade SWA, and I had the full set, cannot quite get to the edge preforance of the likes of TeleVue or Pentax, and possible some Vixen models I have not used.

Some are not troubled by this but personally I am and are happy to pay the extra.

[Floater]

This is a perennial question and one almost all amateur astronomers will ask or have asked. Above is sage advice but here’s my attempt to ease any frying of the brain:

We have members here who are expert in the field of evaluating eyepieces. To name one or two would be to exclude, unfairly, the many. And from some of those experienced observers I was given good and sound advice. (Thank you again; you know who you are.)

It’s the ‘what if’ syndrome mentioned above that drove my buying when starting out. The green and blacks I bought were never going to leave me wondering if I would have had better views with another eyepiece. They were/are universally accepted as being at the high end and, being baffled with so much choice, I took the plunge.

Almost all of my TVs were bought used. Even then, they are not inexpensive. But what price does one pay for constantly buying and assessing more and different eyepieces? ... And left still wondering ‘what if?’

If you can, go for the top. And that doesn’t necessarily mean TV. Many excellent EPs don’t sport green black. (I’m led to believe and accept. 😈)

Next I would repeat something I brought up in a thread a long time ago - and which is also touched on above: How ‘educated’ is your eye? It’s almost a cliche now to say ‘the more you look the more you see’. But it’s only a cliche because it’s true. Some observers can distinguish so much more than I can because they’ve learned through many hours of looking through an eyepiece. I draw the analogy of hi-fi audio - some hear more and better than others and so justify better kit. If it’s only rock ‘n roll at parties you don’t need the best.

All that said, have fun with your quest (that’s the most important part of this too long reply!) and I wish you clear skies to view through your eyepieces. 🙂

 

[RT65CB-SWL]

23 hours ago, wesdon1 said:

Hi all. Just wondering if people can tell me is it worth spending £100+ on a eyepiece when there looks to be great ones for around £22-£30? Reason i ask is all my EP's are cheaper £12-£22 ones from SkyWatcher and Celestron and although they give decent views of planets, i'm not sure they will serve me well with Nebulae and Galaxies? I did veiw M42 Orion Neb last winter with them and saw grey fuzzy cloud around stars, which was such a buzz!  Basically all i'm asking really is will i see a noticeable difference in contrast and brightness of objects with more expensive eyepieces, all other variables being equal? Thank You in advance for any advice. 

Wes, Liverpool, UK.

Here's my take on this.

If you are satisfied with your present eyepieces and are serving you well on planetary views, then maybe a Neodymium, UHC or O-III filter may well tease that little bit extra detail on DSO's. Individually they cost about the same as some mid-range price Plossl's for a reputable brand, i.e. Baader Planetarium, Explore Scientific, etc.  

I am a TeleVue fan, (though don't own every one or type they have made and that would be financial suicide). I do own eyepieces by other brands. The filters I mentioned above do make a difference on DSO's, even with my small TeleVue eyepiece collection, which incidently comprises of the following...

• 13mm, 11mm & 8mm Plossl
• 13mm Nagler / Type 1 & Type 6
• 3-6mm Nagler zoom
• 6mm Radian

Edited September 5, 2019 by Philip R

[Louis D]

It kind of depends on how wide you want your apparent field of view to be and how well corrected you want it to be to the edge.  Wider and better corrected is going to cost more.

It also depends on how fast your scope is.  Lower f-ratios put more demands on eyepiece design to maintain good correction across the field of view.

It also depends on whether or not you have a tracking mount to keep objects centered.  If you always observe on-axis, many low cost eyepieces do quite well against the higher cost alternatives.

Then, there's the issue of poor contrast and ghost images in some low cost eyepieces that many beginners fail to even notice because they've never seen better.

And then there's the issue of sufficient eye relief for eyeglass wearers that tends to add to the cost.

Add it all up, and premium eyepieces end up costing a lot more because you get wider fields of view, better correction to the edge, better ability to handle steep light cones, better polish/coatings/stray-light-control, and longer eye relief.  An example of this differential would be the 17mm ES-92 compared to a 17mm ebay Plossl.  The ES-92 is breath-taking from edge to edge while peering into with eyeglasses.  The Plossl is frustrating to use with eyeglasses providing a straw-like view.  I won't even get into the other differences, as they become apparent with use of each.

[Geoff Barnes]

3 minutes ago, Louis D said:

It also depends on whether or not you have a tracking mount to keep objects centered.  If you always observe on-axis, many low cost eyepieces do quite well against the higher cost alternatives.

Agree Louis, I think this is the crucial point that applies to my situation. I almost always track my targets and with my scope well collimated I get fabulously sharp, clear and detailed views at high powers and with fairly modest FOV with my SW Planetary EP's. 

I reckon if I'm clearly seeing Saturn's Encke Minima, C Ring and Enceladus with these lenses then there can't be much wrong with them.  

[wesdon1]

Thank you all for your advice and views. I really like the look of Televue and Baader Eyepieces, but they're quite expensive, especially Televue! What i think i'll do is buy a decent Baader Eyepiece, and see how in compares to my current EP's? That way hopefully i will see if the extra cost is a worthwhile investment in terms of viewing pleasure? I'm obsessed with and love my new hobby and only wish i would have bought a telescope years ago cos i've always been fascinated with night sky/planets/DSO's but for different reasons i never bought a telescope!?? I think every child in the country should be given a decent telescope and taught how to view night sky because it really gives you an insight into the beauty of the Universe, how fragile our tiny planet is, and how important the planet is to us and the Science behind our very existence! to think that in oredr to travel to plto, even if you somehow managed to travel at speed of light, 186,000 Miles PER SECOND! It would still take you FOUR HOURS TO GET THERE!!!??? and thats just in our Solar System!!!??? The size of the place just fries the brain trying to comprehend the numbers!!!??? 7 laps of planet earth PER SECOND and yet it's still FOUR HOURS at that insane unfathomable speed to reach our farthest Planet!!!??? and in cosmological terms our Solar System is TINY!!!!???  I think i need to go have a lie down...haha!

[wesdon1]

On 04/09/2019 at 11:31, johninderby said:

In a word no. Some cheap eyepieces are usable but paying a bit more will usually bring a big improvement. A £50.00 eyepicece can give very good views. When you get over the £50.00 mark eyepieces do get better but the level of improvement doesn’t keep up with the price increase. 

A lot also depends on the telescope. No point in going for a premium eyepiece on a budget scope. Also the ultra wide type eyepieces can ger very expensive.

Thanks mate. I'm thinking along the lines of buying a nice Baader Planetarium eyepiece as they're relatively cheap from what looks to be a quality brand? Or maybe a Celestron Omni EP? 

Wes.

[Louis D]

The Celestron Omni eyepieces are average Plossls.  A very minor step up in quality.  If you were going to buy Plossls, I would recommend the Revelation line made by GSO in Taiwan.  I find them to have a bit better polish and coatings and better attention to stray light control.

The Baader Planetarium eyepieces are classic orthoscopic eyepieces which yield a nice jump up in planetary observing.

Other options for upgrades would include the various TMB Planetary eyepiece clones and the BST Starguider eyepieces.  They will have wider apparent fields of view with better eye relief, especially at the shorter focal lengths.

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

Wesdon, I've no doubt the Televues etc are brilliant, but you will see an immediate improvement over the very cheap end of EPs & the supplied stocks with BST Starguiders and Celestron X-Cels for around £40 and £70.

I believe you're in an urban area observing with an Explorer 130p?

To me it doesn't seem prudent to go ape on one or two high ends when the midrange EPs will provide 60 degree afovs and decent clarity. The money saved you can put toward a larger aperture scope, which ultimately, given your location, will provide more bang per buck.

 

 

 

 

[RT65CB-SWL]

Just to follow up from my earlier post earlier this week, here is a list of my branded & unbranded eyepieces...

Branded...

• Meade 26mm & 20mm Plossl
• Meade 8.8mm UWA (series 4000).
• SkyWatcher Apex 28mm 
• Circle-T 12.5mm & 6mm Ortho
• Fullerscopes 6mm Ortho (0.965" with 1.25" adaptor).

 

...and the cheap...

Unbranded...

• 'unknown' / 'made in China' 6mm WA (2x via ebay).
• 18mm wide angle (via AstroBoot).
• 7-21mm zoom (via AstroBoot). 

Edited September 7, 2019 by Philip R

[jetstream]

7 hours ago, wesdon1 said:

I'm thinking along the lines of buying a nice Baader Planetarium eyepiece

Hi Wes, which Baader eyepiece are you thinking of? I own the 18mm BCO- very good, the 10mm BCO- excellent and the 6mm BCO- pass on that one...IMHO