Eyepieces and Barlow choices

[Swillis]

Hi,

I got a secondhand astromaster 130eq a few months ago and have been enjoying the views so far. I'm thinking of upgrading the original eyepieces/barlow and looking for a little advice. Unfortunately it didn't come with the usual 2x Barlow, but a plastic 3x one which I can't get to focus. So this is probably first on the shopping list. I've been looking at the Baader Classic Orthoscopics and the celestron X-cel LX's and their respective barlows.  Both sets appear to be well recommended for the price, does anyone have opinions either way?  The x-cels have more eye relief but if I don't require that are they worth the extra ~£15 each?

Thanks in advance for any advice. 

[heliumstar]

Baader Classic Orthos are very very good. 18mm especially is one of my favourite eyepieces. Get the whole set if possible and you will be set for life for many scopes.

This is my 'failsafe' set. No matter what other eyepieces I buy, try and sell...this one stays and so I am never left without eyepieces (it actually happened I had a scope and no proper eyepices). With this affordable set that is to my eye high quality you cover a lot.

[Swillis]

Thanks @heliumstar, looks a nice case too. 

I was looking at the whole set earlier and thinking that might be the way to go.

 

[John]

I did a review of the Baader Classic orthos for the forum a few years back:

 

[Alan64]

12 hours ago, Swillis said:

Hi,

I got a secondhand astromaster 130eq a few months ago and have been enjoying the views so far. I'm thinking of upgrading the original eyepieces/barlow and looking for a little advice. Unfortunately it didn't come with the usual 2x Barlow, but a plastic 3x one which I can't get to focus. So this is probably first on the shopping list. I've been looking at the Baader Classic Orthoscopics and the celestron X-cel LX's and their respective barlows.  Both sets appear to be well recommended for the price, does anyone have opinions either way?  The x-cels have more eye relief but if I don't require that are they worth the extra ~£15 each?

Thanks in advance for any advice. 

I've never gone above a 12.5mm in an orthoscopic.  I probably should've stopped at the 9mm even, but 12.5mm is closer to 9mm than an 18mm, so I went ahead and got it...

To me, that's a well-rounded set of orthos, from 5mm to 12.5mm.  Orthoscopics are best for critical high-power observations, and with the telescope on a motorised mount, so that the object doesn't drift out of sight.  Orthoscopics have a narrow field-of-view, generally an AFOV of around 43°, and rather short eye-relief.  If your CG-3 mount is not motorised, which it can be after adjusting/loosening it up(of the utmost importance), then you may wish to consider eyepieces at 60° AFOV and perhaps wider even.

As you go up in power, the telescope, and the rest, has to work harder to produce sharp, pleasing views.  That will require a spot-on collimation.  I don't think that the primary-mirror of the "AstroMaster" 130/650 is centre-spotted.  If not...

https://garyseronik.com/centre-dotting-your-scopes-primary-mirror/

That will require removing the primary-cell from the back of the telescope's tube, then to use a Cheshire and/or a collimation-cap to align the optical-system.  You may already know how to collimate a Newtonian, I do not know.  

For your lowest power, for the hunt, a 32mm Plossl serves best.

The rather short focal-length of the telescope, at 650mm, will probably require another 3x-barlow, albeit one of better quality; that is if high-powered observations are to be regularly enjoyed.

[Swillis]

Thanks again,

@John I read your excellent review before on FLO when I started looking but I didn't find the whole thread on SGL. Great to see your additional thoughts (and everyone else's) as you got more use out of them.

@Alan64 I have the motor drive for the mount but took it off as I found it got in the way. So I am currently using the manual controls. I guess as I get to higher magnifications I might want to put it back on... It does have a centre spot, which as you say is very useful/essential for collimation. The Baader classic set comes with a 32mm plossl, which I guess is what you are suggesting. 

[Alan64]

14 minutes ago, Swillis said:

Thanks again,

@Alan64 I have the motor drive for the mount but took it off as I found it got in the way. So I am currently using the manual controls. I guess as I get to higher magnifications I might want to put it back on... It does have a centre spot, which as you say is very useful/essential for collimation. The Baader classic set comes with a 32mm plossl, which I guess is what you are suggesting. 

I have a CG-2(EQ-1), as well as a larger Meade EQ-2, and what Meade calls their "Large Equatorial", but it's nothing of the sort.  The EQ-1 is the smallest on the planet, and with the EQ-2 only the next size up.  The largest is an EQ-8, and then there are the even larger ones within the professional observatories, staggeringly large.  Your CG-3 is the same as my Meade, and an EQ-2 as well.  I have a Celestron CG-4, which is an EQ-3; just a bit of rambling there.  Pay me no mind.

Yes, I have that same 9V-battery motor-drive, although I haven't used it yet; and yes, the Baader 32mm is among the choices at that focal-length.  A while back I was wanting a 32mm myself, and had decided on the Baader, but I was swayed towards the Vixen 30mm.  Quite recently, I just got another, and a 32mm this time, a GSO...

This is the same eyepiece, there in the UK...

https://www.365astronomy.com/32mm-GSO-Plossl-Eyepiece.html

Edited October 27, 2019 by Alan64