Jump to content


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Mine, too.  although, it must be noted that if the views are of deep-sky objects, light scatter will not be the problem it is with Moon or planet viewing.

One of the worst eyepieces I've seen for light scatter, the 34mm 68° Explore Scientific eyepiece, gets decent reviews despite the light scatter, showing that the target is the determinant.

In your large scope, you also have the light grasp to make evident problems that go unseen in small apertures.

In the same league as orthos are the TeleVue Delites, where light scatter is concerned.  I'd also add the TeleVue Apollo 11 to the list of ultrawides with great control of light.

Would you add your Morpheus to the "super wide" category in the same regard ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For lunar observing nothing beats a binoviewer and a pair of ortho's or plossl's, if you can get along with them. Not much more pricey than a single high end eyepiece either!

Yes, save up and get a Delite for Moon viewing or planets, or a Morpheus for widefield DSO observing.

I found that the 4mm Radian showed a sort of halo of light when observing the moon's terminator that extended on the opposite side of the field of view to the illuminated portion of the lunar surface.

Posted Images

Yes, for the 17.5mm and 14mm though I have only a little experience using the 4 shorter focal lengths.

The thing is, though, my lunar and planetary viewing starts at 11mm and goes shorter.  An eyepiece that shows virtually zero light scatter on deep sky may or may not do well on the Moon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a series of SLV EPs and they perform well in all my scopes (APM 80 F/6 triplet, Meade 6"F/5 Schmidt-Newton, Celestron C8). No reflections observed, and neither could I see the reflective metal edge Don Pensack has seen in his EPs. Apparently, there are different series. Apart from field of view, they performn as well as my Pentax XW and Tele-Vue Delos EPs



  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the older NLVs in 9mm, 10mm and 12mm. They are all very sharp and contrasty. I've not observed any scatter. I believe the optics haven't changed between the NLV and SLV, just the cosmetics. 

For the moon with my 150mm f12 Mak I'm using my 8mm LVW. It's a very comfortable eyepiece for long spells and gives x225. There's no need to go higher than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I want to keep under £200 so that is ruling out Delite and Pentax.

Really considering Morpheus 9mm and 17.5mm. Would Morpheus 9mm be a better lunar eyepiece than what I have.


Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all different. Think hard what's acceptable & what's not to you.

Absolutely my 1st choice for moon has always been one of my volcano top orthos.

Generally i'm not very fussy about distortion in the outer field of view, however on lunar i really notice it in a bad way,hence the orthos win out.

Whether you'll get on with the narrow field of view is another matter. A Fujiyama should be a little better than my orthos performance wise.

If you want a wider field, i think suggestions have already been made, something around 60deg with good sharpness to the edge?

That said, last time i looked @ moon was with a £20 plossl & it really did look very good IMO.  Quite suprised.

Slightly off topic, but flocking seems to work well for the moon.

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.

  • 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.