Recommend me a nice 10mm

[dannybgoode]

I have a fairly motley assortment of EP’s and have most focal lengths covered but after my monster lunar session the other night I could do with a nice 10mm. 

I mainly used my 12mm in my Meade 10” SCT giving me just over 200x but I could have done with just a little more and think a 10mm would be spot on. I did try my 4.9mm which worked surprisingly well given I was at 500x and clearly overdoing things!

 So, what 10mm mainly for planetary and lunar but one that would also work for general viewing as I’ve also got scopes with a 650mm and 750mm FL?

 Budget is £250-300 max although I’d be very happy to spend much less of there are some good cheaper options

[chiltonstar]

An EP I've been quite impressed with is the 10mm Baader Classic Series Ortho (used with a 180 Mak giving x270). Very sharp and good contrast, but not a lot of eye relief. It has to be said though that Maks are fairly eyepiece-tolerant because of the long fl.

Chris

[NGC 1502]

How about a Vixen SLV 10mm from FLO ?    For lunar / planetary you don’t need wide field, it has comfy eyerelief and at £99 leaves lots of change from your budget 👍

Ed.

[dannybgoode]

9 minutes ago, NGC 1502 said:

How about a Vixen SLV 10mm from FLO ?    For lunar / planetary you don’t need wide field, it has comfy eyerelief and at £99 leaves lots of change from your budget 👍

Ed.

Had been looking at the SLV range. Are they nice and sharp. I like eyepieces that are sharp and contrasty  

 

 

[vlaiv]

Would you consider EPs that have slightly different FL? How about 11mm - not much of a change in FL.

If that is ok, then go for ES82 11mm because you like sharp and contrasty.

[Raph-in-the-sky]

How about a 10mm Televue Delos? That's just in your budget and FLO have a 10% discount right now.

[jetstream]

Would a 10mm Pentax XW or 10mm Delos fit the bill?

I like sharp and contrasty and with little scatter. The 10mm BCO is a very good low cost option that can match most any eyepiece assuming you get a "good" one. I havn't heard of many mediocre ones just a couple.

My 10mm Delos is excellent and will get the 7mm and 5mm XW's to fill the slots someday. The Delos series is rumored to be the "deepest" widefield out there.

Televue has a nice discount going on...

[John]

Another vote for the 10mm Pentax XW here and the 10mm Delos is just as good as well. On a somewhat tighter budget I agree that it's hard to beat the 10mm Baader Classic Ortho for sheer optical quality. The Vixen SLV's are sharp and contrasty as well - rather like a 50 degree XW or Delos.

 

[dannybgoode]

4 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Would you consider EPs that have slightly different FL? How about 11mm - not much of a change in FL.

If that is ok, then go for ES82 11mm because you like sharp and contrasty.

I had considered a 9 or 11 but I have a 12 already so 11 may be just a bit close. I do like ES eyepieces though. I have the 1.25” 16mm and 2” 24mm MaxVision and they’re lovely   

 

[Louis D]

Another up-vote for the 10mm Delos.  However, if you can handle a bit more power, the 9mm Morpheus is just about its equal.  Magnification-wise, it's not all that different as you can see in my test photos below.

[Rob Sellent]

Interesting review of Morpheus & Delos.

My own tuppence, purchased my first Delos (14mm) just under a decade ago and since then have never felt the slightest inclination of moving them on or moving on from them. The only other eyepiece I've owned that manages to keep up optically are Baader's Genuine Orthos.

[mikeDnight]

The Pentax 10mm XW or the 9mm Baader Morpheus would be my choice.

[Stardust1]

The Pentax XW 10mm is really a nice eyepiece. It’s comfortable eyepiece to look through. It’s sharp and I have never had fog on the lens unlike some other eyepieces.

[Alan White]

I would go for a 9mm TeleVue DeLite and use similar FL scopes as well as a 1200mm FL Dobsonian.

I have had a Pentax XW 10mm, very nice indeed, but it and I did not gel.
We will all recommend something different, we all have differing eyes, scopes and opinions after all.
 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Alan White
typos of course

[jetstream]

8 minutes ago, Alan White said:

I have had a Pentax XW 10mm, very nice indeed, but it and I did not gel.

As an interested, potential XW customer can I ask why?

[Alan White]

14 minutes ago, jetstream said:

As an interested, potential XW customer can I ask why?

Eye placement and comfort, just didn't work for me.
Kidney bean hell, but wow what clarity.

The DeLites are more comfortable for me, don't kidney bean with me and deliver great clarity too.
As I said, we are all different and what suits one, does not suit another.
 

[John]

XW's can kidney bean or have black outs when the eye cup section is not adjusted to the correct position for your eye.

Misplacement of the eye can cause this in many wide field designs though. I have recently found this with the ES 92 12mm especially, which has now gone to a new home. Others have reported the ES 92 / 12 to be supremely easy to use

I find the XW's (I have the 10, 7, 5 and 3.5) very consistent in terms of comfort, ease of use and performance. I find that I need the eye cup sections in the uppermost position with all of them - I dont wear glasses to observe.

As has been said - eyepiece choice / preference is a very personal thing though

[jetstream]

1 hour ago, Alan White said:

Eye placement and comfort, just didn't work for me.
Kidney bean hell, but wow what clarity.

The DeLites are more comfortable for me, don't kidney bean with me and deliver great clarity too.
As I said, we are all different and what suits one, does not suit another.
 

Thanks Alan, I value honest opinions and related experience. We all have likes and dislikes when it comes to equipment and for me scatter control is on the top of my list.  Congrats for owning the DeLites, a very nice choice.

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, John said:

Others have reported the ES 92 / 12 to be supremely easy to use

With eyeglasses.  I can see how they might be finicky to view through without glasses to keep your eye spaced at the correct distance.  Conversely, I find most short eye relief ultrawide field eyepieces exceeding frustrating with eyeglasses because I can't mash my eye in tight enough with glasses to see the whole field, so what's the point?  Without glasses, the field is an astigmatic mess negating any benefit of a premium eyepiece.  Dioptrx get expensive if you have to buy one for every eyepiece or irritating if you have to move it from eyepiece to eyepiece during an observing session.

Sorry to hear you didn't get on with the 12mm ES-92.  How about the 17mm version?

[John]

19 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Sorry to hear you didn't get on with the 12mm ES-92.  How about the 17mm version?

I find the eye position easier to find and hold with minimal effort with the 17mm so I've slotted that into my eyepiece case between the 21mm and 13mm Ethos currently.

Trouble is, the case is getting rather heavy .....

 

[Don Pensack]

On 11/12/2019 at 00:50, dannybgoode said:

Had been looking at the SLV range. Are they nice and sharp. I like eyepieces that are sharp and contrasty  

 

 

A shiny spacer inside the eyepieces makes these inappropriate for lunar viewing.

They work fine for everything else, though.

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, John said:

I find the eye position easier to find and hold with minimal effort with the 17mm so I've slotted that into my eyepiece case between the 21mm and 13mm Ethos currently.

Trouble is, the case is getting rather heavy .....

 

I like the 17mm better of the two.  Perhaps a bit more stable exit pupil, a bit sharper at the edge, a wider true field of view, and it's closer to parfocal with my other eyepieces that focus at the shoulder.

My A-team case is pretty hefty as well with the two ES-92s, decloaked 30mm ES-82 (orignal style) and 40mm Meade 5000 SWA, 22mm Nagler T4, 30mm APM UFF, 10mm Delos, 9mm and 14mm Morpheus, 7mm and 3.5mm Pentax XW, 5.2mm Pentax XL, 9mm Vixen LV, and three 1.25" medium and long barlows, and half a dozen filters.  There's still space for a 20-something ES-92 if they ever make one (or it just displaces the NT4) and possible one or two other giants.  I really like my 35mm Baader Scopos, but I can't justify the enormous space it would take up to add it to this case, so it lives in a large secondary case of eyepieces.  It's physically bigger around than either ES-92 and slots between them in weight.

[Don Pensack]

If you view without glasses, long eye relief eyepieces can be hard to use.

The cure is for the eyepiece to have an eyecup design that allows the eyeguard to be raised to a height preventing drifting too close to the eyepiece.

Good examples: Delites, Delos, Pentax XW, Baader Morpheus with extra spacer added.  All these are usable with or without glasses.

Examples of eyepieces hard to use without glasses: ES 92s, APM 84°, Baader Hyperions, TeleVue 32mm Plössl.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

My favourite planetary EPs are my Pentax XWs (5, 7 and 10 mm) and the Tele-Vue Delos series (I have the 6, 8, and 14 mm). Cannot fault these in any way: excellent comfort, contrast, and sharpness over a really nice wide FOV

 

On 12/12/2019 at 19:18, Don Pensack said:

A shiny spacer inside the eyepieces makes these inappropriate for lunar viewing.

They work fine for everything else, though.

Never noticed that in any of the three SLVs I have in my travel set. I wonder if this was an issue with earlier versions that has been corrected.

[mikeDnight]

The 10mm Pentax XW is superb having great contrast and orthoscopic clarity and sharpness. A 9mm Baader Morpheus may be too much power for your needs but the Morpheus is also a spectacular eyepiece.