TS Planetary HR vs Vixen SLV

[Ags]

...and I have a 6mm SLV coming to me soon. Will compare it to the Explore Scientific 6.7 and report my subjective findings. I suspect a big factor for me will be the SLV long eye relief and consequent deep retractable eye shield which should make a big difference in the very light polluted location I observe from.

[Ags]

Had my first night with the SLV 6mm. After a tortuous collimation session, the SLV gave me my best split yet of the Double Double in my SCT. I preferred M57 with the SLV versus the ES 6.7 - it seemed brighter and more contrasty. M27 was equally poor in the ES and SLV tonight - nothing more than a slight smudge. The two eyepieces drew on star clusters as well. In summary the SLV did well on the DSOs I would use it for - doubles and tiny objects like planetary nebulae.

I like this eyepiece. It's a nice size and weight and the twist up eye cup makes a big difference in light polluted surroundings. I want to get a few and put them in a turret: the 2.5, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and 20 should do me fine 🙂

Edited July 17, 2020 by Ags

[Geoff Barnes]

+1 for the SLV 2.5mm and 4mm @Agsthese are two of my most recent purchases. With the planets being almost overhead here Downunder in Oz I am rejoicefully able to use very high magnifications on them. I fear they will give too much magnification for you with the planets so low down there. No problem for excellent lunar viewing though with steady seeing. 😁

Edited July 18, 2020 by Geoff Barnes

[Ags]

The next 2 to get would be 9 and 4... That gives three focal lengths spaced by a factor of 1.5. The 4 would be useful on Mars and the Moon and doubles.

2.5 is not immediately useful but I suspect I could use it on the Moon. I'd pick up the 2.5 after I get the 70mm Apo I have been thinking about for the past decade.

[Deadlake]

Anyone know how the 2.5 mm SLV and 2.4 mm HR Planetary compare, when looking at planets (Jupiter excluded) or bright doubles?

I’m presuming better colour correction on the HR planetary due to the higher Strehl ratio. Does it give any flexibility with the scope it’s being used with, the SLV I presume would decrease sharpness as having a lower Strehl ratio? The SLV Strehl ratio is about 10 % less then the HR planetary.

At the same time the HR planetary was designed to work with the AX103S, does it add that much as no point getting any HR planetary’s if using a SD103S? Both would have a theoretical useable magnification of 217, 2.4 mm HR would deliver a magnification or around 341.

 

[jetstream]

15 hours ago, Deadlake said:

Anyone know how the 2.5 mm SLV and 2.4 mm HR Planetary compare

If you mean Vixens 2.4mm HR it belongs to the best series of planetary eyepieces I've used.