Jump to content

stargazine_ep34_banner.thumb.jpg.28dd32d9305c7de9b6591e6bf6600b27.jpg

Recommended Posts

Hi, I am pretty much new in Astronomy. Recently I have bought Meade Polaris 127mm telescope. The Barlow(2x) which Meade has provided is pretty basic. It gives pretty blurry view.

I have read few blogs and get to know that for 127mm, 2x-3x magnification is more than enough. Now I’m confused in its specs(element in it).

Wondering which one I choose, 2.5x Barlow 3 element or 2x Barlow with 2 element to get clear and crisp viewing.

Ryaen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meade Polaris 127mm seems to be Bird-Jones design and has focal length of 1000mm.

Using barlow with this scope is going to bring in very high magnifications - more than atmosphere and scope can support. Things are going to be blurry.

For the time being, just avoid using barlow lens until you get some experience of how different sky conditions impact quality of the image. Once you learn to distinguish between different conditions (good or bad atmosphere) - then you can start using barlow lens and you'll be able to tell if it is atmosphere that is causing the most damage to the view or is it barlow lens.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Philip R said:

Hi @Ryaen and welcome to SGL. :hello2:

+1 above, as per @andrew s.

To add to the confusion of which Barlow lens... 
I have a Klee 2.8x Barlow and a 1.6x Astro-Engineering 'MagniMax' that screws into the filter thread of the eyepiece.

It’s Meade Polaris 127mm aperture, 1000mm focal length of the objective, f ratio 7.9.

I have got 15mm, 20mm GSO super view, Plössl eyepieces. To avoid, buying higher magnification(6 to 10mm), I thought to go for a good Barlow lens.

The Barlow provided by Meade is basic, gives quite dark and blurry viewing even in clear calm Night sky and thus looking to upgrade it.

I even put my telescope out for acclimatisation for about 40mins to an hour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ryaen said:

It’s Meade Polaris 127mm aperture, 1000mm focal length of the objective, f ratio 7.9.

I have got 15mm, 20mm GSO super view, Plössl eyepieces. To avoid, buying higher magnification(6 to 10mm), I thought to go for a good Barlow lens.

The Barlow provided by Meade is basic, gives quite dark and blurry viewing even in clear calm Night sky and thus looking to upgrade it.

I even put my telescope out for acclimatisation for about 40mins to an hour.

In theory, you should be fine with that scope with magnifications of about x120-x150 range. That should give you good sharp image even in average seeing conditions.

With x2 barlow, you'll get x100 and x133 magnification. With x2.5 barlow you'll get x125 and x166 magnification.

This really gives you idea of what barlow you want - one that is x2.5 (but in reality is closer to x2.2), is triplet lens and is sensibly priced - look no further than:

https://www.365astronomy.com/GSO-2.5x-Achromatic-3-Element-Barlow-31.7mm-1.25.html

Given that you already have 15mm and 20mm eyepieces, x2.5 GSO barlow should not be too hard to purchase locally?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

In theory, you should be fine with that scope with magnifications of about x120-x150 range. That should give you good sharp image even in average seeing conditions.

With x2 barlow, you'll get x100 and x133 magnification. With x2.5 barlow you'll get x125 and x166 magnification.

This really gives you idea of what barlow you want - one that is x2.5 (but in reality is closer to x2.2), is triplet lens and is sensibly priced - look no further than:

https://www.365astronomy.com/GSO-2.5x-Achromatic-3-Element-Barlow-31.7mm-1.25.html

Given that you already have 15mm and 20mm eyepieces, x2.5 GSO barlow should not be too hard to purchase locally?

Much appreciated. Thanks mate.

However, my confusion is all about element present in a Barlow. 2 element or 3 element ? Does it really make a big difference in quality of viewing like getting sharp images with a decent field of view.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ryaen said:

2 element or 3 element ?

That topic is rather complicated. You don't need 3 elements, 2 is enough to get a "perfect" barlow.

Barlow is really simple optical design so you can't go wrong much in design itself - but you can in manufacturing. Much more important than number of elements is how good the product is in use.

That x2.5 GSO barlow is very good barlow and certainly very good value for the money. Much better than stock / plastic items that usually come with the scope.

There certainly are better barlows out there like Baader VIP barlow that you can "tune" to required magnification by using extensions but it costs like x3-x4 more than GSO one and difference will be minimal.

In fact - I'm more concerned with fact that you are using Bird-Jones type scope than anything else. Again similar thing with that - in itself Bird-Jones design is not a bad design - only problem is that it is often poorly executed design and advice that you'll find most often on such scope is to stay clear of them.

Not saying that your particular model is poor - I've neither seen Meade model nor read review of it so far. It could be rather decent, but there is a chance that scope simply provides blurred image at higher magnifications (having cheap plastic stock barlow won't help either).

Knowing this, I don't think you should go overboard with expensive barlows - as it might not result in improvements that you are after.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Don't most people report the GSO 2.5x to be closer to 2.2x?

So I've heard:

3 hours ago, vlaiv said:

This really gives you idea of what barlow you want - one that is x2.5 (but in reality is closer to x2.2), is triplet lens and is sensibly priced - look no further than:

https://www.365astronomy.com/GSO-2.5x-Achromatic-3-Element-Barlow-31.7mm-1.25.html

Mind you, I've have had that barlow and did not do measurements of how much magnification it gave. Also - my sample was not as good :D. Cemented pair was not properly cemented together - there was something like 1/4 of mm of decenter and that produced chromatic dispersion at very high power.

I used it as ADC one time because it countered atmospheric dispersion perfectly :D

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vlaiv said:

That topic is rather complicated. You don't need 3 elements, 2 is enough to get a "perfect" barlow.

Barlow is really simple optical design so you can't go wrong much in design itself - but you can in manufacturing. Much more important than number of elements is how good the product is in use.

That x2.5 GSO barlow is very good barlow and certainly very good value for the money. Much better than stock / plastic items that usually come with the scope.

There certainly are better barlows out there like Baader VIP barlow that you can "tune" to required magnification by using extensions but it costs like x3-x4 more than GSO one and difference will be minimal.

In fact - I'm more concerned with fact that you are using Bird-Jones type scope than anything else. Again similar thing with that - in itself Bird-Jones design is not a bad design - only problem is that it is often poorly executed design and advice that you'll find most often on such scope is to stay clear of them.

Not saying that your particular model is poor - I've neither seen Meade model nor read review of it so far. It could be rather decent, but there is a chance that scope simply provides blurred image at higher magnifications (having cheap plastic stock barlow won't help either).

Knowing this, I don't think you should go overboard with expensive barlows - as it might not result in improvements that you are after.

Hey that’s a quite an information for me being a noob. Thanks a lot.

I will stick to GSO 2.5x Barlow lens as of now.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vlaiv said:

So I've heard:

6 hours ago, vlaiv said:

This really gives you idea of what barlow you want - one that is x2.5 (but in reality is closer to x2.2)

Totally missed that. 🤣  It's just one of those days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To yield a short barlow means the curves on the lenses must be deep.

This makes the barlow harder to make (read: more expensive to manufacture).

If a 3rd lens is added, the barlow can be shortened without the deep curves on the lenses that would be required of a 2-element barlow.

That is the reason why some short focal length barlows have 3 lenses.  A 2 element can be free of false color, so 3 elements are not necessary for that.

4 element barlows are typically telecentric, and have a positive lens following the negative lens.  This is done to allow the barlow to have the same magnification

at various distances from the lens, whereas a regular barlow's magnification increases with distance from the lens.

I haven't really figured out the why of a 5 element barlow (there are some), but perhaps the configuration merely added a positive lens to a 3-element barlow to make it telecentric.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Rchurt
      Hello,
       
      I recently purchased my first telescope and camera, and now I want to make sure I have the correct Barlow or reducer to couple them together to achieve Nyquist sampling on the camera (or slight over-sampling). In case it’s important, I’m interested in planetary imaging—in theory that shouldn’t matter for this sampling question, but maybe there are other considerations to take into account.
       
      I used this calculator (https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability) and plugged in my info:
      Telescope: Celestron 8 SE
      Camera: ZWO ASI462MC
      Seeing: experimented with this one, but would like to get optics that allow for poor or very poor
      Binning: prefer 1x1 to preserve spatial resolution, but could consider higher if SNR is a problem
       
      I’ve seen on several forum posts that people often use a 2x Barlow to couple the two. However, according to this calculator, that will always lead to over-sampling. If anything, it says I should use no intermediate optics or even a reducer.
       
      So my questions are:
       
      Binning: Will I be able to see anything with 1x1 binning, or should I expect to need to bin to collect enough light?
       
      Is there some other consideration that’s more important here than achieving correct sampling? It seems like most others are over-sampling, and perhaps there’s a good reason for this. If so, is there another formula that would let me determine the appropriate optics to buy?
       
      Thanks in advance for any help!
    • By Corpze
      Hi, i have made a video where i show a coople of eyepieces that i use and like, and also show how a barlow works, compared to the "Powermate" from Televue. And how is the FOV affected when changing the magnification with different eyepieces?

      Feel free to comment and give me feedback - I hope you like the video!
      /Daniel
       
       
    • By Zermelo
      I picked up a Celestron Omni last year quite cheaply and had originally been using that with stock eyepieces, which was fine.
      Since then I've bought a couple of BST Starguiders and a Hyperflex zoom, and I'm now wondering if I'd notice any difference with a better barlow (this is now being used on an F/5 150mm Newtonian). Otherwise, the pennies can be directed elsewhere.
      I'd not considered it before as the next rung up seemed to be around the £90-£100 mark, which seemed out of line with the rest of the spend. But I've seen some positive reviews of 3-element models in the region of £35-£40.
      In particular, I've read good things about the Revelation/GSO Astro 2.5x (though apparently closer to 2.2x) and the Baader Classic Q 2.25x.
      - does anyone have experience with both of these, and have a preference?
      - would I notice any significant difference with either, compared with the Omni?
      - I read somewhere that the Baader in particular required focussing the tube into the OTA to an extent that caused some image degradation. Obviously I'd want to avoid this if true, so is this a feature of the Baader, or of both, or of all (shorter?) barlows? (to be honest, I'd not thought to see whether this was happening with the Omni, I'll try to remember to check, if this weather ever breaks).
      Thanks in advance.
    • By LondonSi72
      Hi SGL,
      My lovely wife bought me a SW Explorer 130 with the basic RA drive for my 40th birthday 8 years ago, and I've enjoyed using it on and off ever since.  I've started getting more into it - it's a great beginner scope, but I'm - like lots of others on this forum - looking at upgrading.  One of the things I found tricky with the scope was getting the focus just right at high magnification (I'm sure that's kind of obvious!).  It does wobble quite a bit on the EQ2 mount when focusing.  I get pretty good - if small - views of Jupiter, Saturn, (the Moon, of course) and have had hints of seeing some DSOs.
      I bought a 8mm BST Starguider, and it's a great improvement on the standard 10mm that comes with the scope, but if I push the scope by adding the 2x Barlow and the 8mm it's a blur and the focus seems to keep missing the sweet spot.  I saw a post elsewhere on this forum by MakTheNight, (looks like they've left now - last post was 2 years ago) who added a Baader Helical Focuser that attached directly to the T-thread on the focusing apparatus on the SW. Link to that post is below. I got one and it is indeed a great improvement on fine tuning - the problem is I can't use it with the Barlow as the helical focuser is about an inch long and the focuser can't move far enough into the scope to focus with the Barlow and any of my eyepieces (the 8mm BST, or the 10 or 25mm standard eyepieces)
      .
      Clearly MakTheNight managed to get their setup to work with some specific eyepieces (a Luminos 10mm and 32mm Plossl) and a specific Barlow, so I tried looking up how I could work out what combination of eyepieces and Barlow would work, rather than randomly buying kit and having to return it because it won't work with my scope, but I haven't found anything useful yet.  So I thought I'd take the plunge and ask here

      Can anyone help me figure out how I can calculate what combinations of eyepiece and Barlow would work with this setup?  I'm also looking at upgrading the OTA and mount to a 200P and EQ5 at some point, so ideally would have a combination that could work with that too - the focal length and mirror is quite different - 1000mm on the 200P parabolic vs 900mm spherical on the 130.
       
      Many thanks!
      Simon
       
       
    • By StarGazingSiouxsie
      Hi  
      Tonight I was looking at Jupiter and got some nice views with a range of eyepeices. The best image detail wise and for clarity of image was a 15mm, which on my 8" Evolution gives me appx 135X 
      I tried using my Televue 2X Barlow which normally works fine. I can't remember exactly which eyepiece this happened with, maybe the 15mm or a 9mm, but when I used the barlow the planetary image would soon disappear out of the eyepiece. The mount seemed to otherwise be tracking OK although notice the planets seem to move out of the eyepiece view after a while. So did I have too much magnification with the Barlow? I think I did manage to get focus, the image just wouldn't stay put.
      Thanks for any insights or advice 
       
      Siouxsie 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.