Which fl of eyepiece...

[paul mc c]

Hi, I'm considering adding a new eyepiece, I have a gap from 12.5mm to 24mm.I was thinking of around 14mm but not sure of a higher one, probably swa or uwa. Don't want to spend big money, any ideas. 

Paul

[rwilkey]

Not sure what you class as big money, but I can recommend these in the lower/middle price range (best for non spectacle wearers):

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/explore-scientific-eyepieces/explore-scientific-82-degree-series-eyepieces.html

Or these, in the cheaper price range:
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-starguider-eyepieces.html

Good luck with your choices.  Clear skies!

Edited June 8, 2020 by rwilkey

[Ruud]

14 is very close to 12.5!

To fill the gap between 12.5 and 24 I'd choose  √(12.5×24) = 17.3mm or something close to that.

From 24mm to 17.3mm is 38% more magnification, and
from 17.3mm to 12.5mm is again 38% more signification.

So 17.3 splits the gap of in equal magnification steps.

The 16mm Nirvana is an amazing eyepiece: 82° and tremendous value. Flo has it for £69.
 

[paul mc c]

14 minutes ago, Ruud said:

14 is very close to 12.5!

To fill the gap between 12.5 and 24 I'd choose  √(12.5×24) = 17.3mm or something close to that.

From 24mm to 17.3mm is 38% more magnification, and
from 17.3mm to 12.5mm is again 38% more signification.

So 17.3 splits the gap of in equal magnification steps.

The 16mm Nirvana is an amazing eyepiece: 82° and tremendous value. Flo has it for £69.
 

That was my thinking, prod around 17mm,that is a great price... though 30-40 working days delivery. 

[bingevader]

You can probably find it elsewhere.

[Don Pensack]

Also try:

Telescope Service Helios UWA 82° 16 mm 1.25" Ultra-wide Angle Eyepiece

It also goes by the name Nirvana-ES

or Baader Morpheus 76° 17.5mm.

If too much, the 17mm 68° Baader Hyperion is not bad at all

TS Optics 17mm Expanse 70° is a bit nicer though, and 100€

TS Optics UWAN 16 mm 82° Ultra Wide Angle Eyepiece is only 100€

 

[mikeDnight]

17.5mm Morpheus! 

[paul mc c]

Just now, mikeDnight said:

17.5mm Morpheus! 

This keeps coming to mind,i have only read good things about them.

[John]

My 1.25 inch set goes 24mm - 17.3mm - 14mm - 10mm - 7mm - 5mm and 3.5mm (plus a few other "hangers on" !)

To be honest, most of the time I skip the 17.3 and go straight from 24mm to 14mm and then often seem to skip the 10mm and go to 7mm. Two expensive eyepieces that don't get much use but I'm loathed to part with them

[paul mc c]

15 minutes ago, John said:

My 1.25 inch set goes 24mm - 17.3mm - 14mm - 10mm - 7mm - 5mm and 3.5mm (plus a few other "hangers on" !)

To be honest, most of the time I skip the 17.3 and go straight from 24mm to 14mm and then often seem to skip the 10mm and go to 7mm. Two expensive eyepieces that don't get much use but I'm loathed to part with them

I'm not in the same league as you're self John,i have been doing mostly AP,..well attempting...and want to get back into visual....less frustrating...and really feel i am missing something in that fl,and should have give a budget,probably £ 130 and used piece.

[bomberbaz]

Only cos I have owned and used one I think a celestron x-cel 18mm is well under budget and a great performer. IMHO it out performs the BST's too, sharper across more of the fov.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-x-cel-lx-eyepiece.html

[bingevader]

11 hours ago, bomberbaz said:

IMHO it out performs the BST's too, sharper across more of the fov.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-x-cel-lx-eyepiece.html

That's interesting, only used the 8mm BST and thought it was very good, but never compared it to my X-Cel LX.

However, having said that, for the 82°, if the Nirvana 16mm is as good a the 4mm and 7mm, I'd go with that.

[John]

The only X-Cel LX that I've owned was the 25mm which I was not all that impressed with I'm afraid. Maybe it's not the best in the range ? 

I compared the 8mm BST Starguider with my 8mm Ethos at a star party a few years back (both in my F/5.3 12 inch dob) and found the Starguider did rather well.

 

[bomberbaz]

12 minutes ago, bingevader said:

That's interesting, only used the 8mm BST and thought it was very good, but never compared it to my X-Cel LX.

However, having said that, for the 82°, if the Nirvana 16mm is as good a the 4mm and 7mm, I'd go with that.

I think the difference will be less noticeable at the shorter focal lengths Ben. That said, I haven't tried the BSt's below 15mm.

I found the 18 and 25 bst's to be pretty poor in the F4.7 dob.

[jetstream]

On 08/06/2020 at 09:17, paul mc c said:

12.5mm to 24mm.I was thinking of around 14mm

A high transmission low scatter widefield around 12mm would be a great addition for the 12" dob IMHO. The Morpheus comes to mind eventhough I've not used one (yet). Less than 82 deg AFOV EPs seem (in general) to offer less scatter and higher contrast IMHO.

[Don Pensack]

7 minutes ago, jetstream said:

A high transmission low scatter widefield around 12mm would be a great addition for the 12" dob IMHO. The Morpheus comes to mind even though I've not used one (yet). Less than 82 deg AFOV EPs seem (in general) to offer less scatter and higher contrast IMHO.

Try the 84° long eye relief, APM 12.5mm UW eyepiece.  It's a little more than the Morpheus in price, but a little more in other ways too, including outstanding contrast.

[jetstream]

5 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

Try the 84° long eye relief, APM 12.5mm UW eyepiece.  It's a little more than the Morpheus in price, but a little more in other ways too, including outstanding contrast.

Hows the scatter with these Don?

[Don Pensack]

5 hours ago, jetstream said:

Hows the scatter with these Don?

excellent.  it is nearly identical to the Noblex/Docter 12.5mm 84°.

It is not an eyepiece you would use for scanning through the sky, though as the design has some angular magnification distortion, seen as "globe" or "rolling ball" distortion.

other than that, which is different than most astronomical eyepieces, it's a fine eyepiece.

[jetstream]

2 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

excellent.  it is nearly identical to the Noblex/Docter 12.5mm 84°.

It is not an eyepiece you would use for scanning through the sky, though as the design has some angular magnification distortion, seen as "globe" or "rolling ball" distortion.

other than that, which is different than most astronomical eyepieces, it's a fine eyepiece.

Good to know- I was asked about this Docter clone and if it was a contender. Maybe I'll pick one up to compare to my Docter.

[paul mc c]

I have put a wanted add for a Morpheus 17.5,you never know,or try a new Nirvana 16mm,but will see how the quest for a used Baader goes.

[Littleguy80]

1 hour ago, jetstream said:

Good to know- I was asked about this Docter clone and if it was a contender. Maybe I'll pick one up to compare to my Docter.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one, Gerry, if you decide to try one. I’ve seen a couple of comparison reports on the APM and Docter. The Docter, unsurprisingly, comes out on top but the APM is rated closely and is considered very good value given the price difference.