Thinking that it's time for me to try other eyepiece options.

[Guest]

For quite a few years now the backbone of my eyepiece collection has be Explore Scientific 82 degrees. I have the 4.7, 6.7, 8.8 and 11mm. Added to this is a 16mm Nirvana and a 22mm T4 Nagler. For sometime now I have been slightly dissappointed in the planetary views offered. For example the Cassini division on Saturn's rings has not been resolved at all. I use an 80mm Equinox, 150mm Skymax Maksutov and an eight inch f4.5 Newtonian. I choose wider field eyepieces as I observe with manual alt/az mounts.So the object has time in the field of view. I have been pondering the possiblility of trying out other options for planetary observing.

The most pleasing planetary view is with the 8.8 mm ES. I  wonder if an 8 mm Plossl would give a clearer,sharper view ? Televue or Vixen Plossl's. I am certainly going to be on the lookout for additions to my collection.I will keep the Explore Scientific eyepieces.They serve well enough. The 16mm Nirvana and 22 mm Naglar are gems for wide field stargazing. I always had the traditional view that wider field eyepieces with multiple elements were not favourable for viewing planets. Perhaps this is an old fashion view.

[scarp15]

DeLite range of eyepieces provide excellent eye relief / eye placement and an observing experience by which you can see the field stop. With 62 degree AFOV, adequate drift time and glass element characteristics as Delos, considered excellent for planetary observing, revealing refined detailing and sharp contrasting views. Began with a 4mm when first introduced, since included a 5mm, 7mm, 18.2mm.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

DeLite range of eyepieces provide excellent eye relief / eye placement and an observing experience by which you can see the field stop. With 62 degree AFOV, adequate drift time and glass element characteristics as Delos, considered excellent for planetary observing, revealing refined detailing and sharp contrasting views. Began with a 4mm when first introduced, since included a 5mm, 7mm, 18.2mm.

Thanks Scarp.Interestingly I was just reading about these.

[faulksy]

pentax xw are amazing for planetary viewing. ortho with 70*

[pregulla]

I don't think your eyepieces are the ones to blame. On nights of reasonable seeing I had no problem getting clear views of Cassini division with ES82, or celestron zoom and even stock plossl.

Maybe you have been observing when the planets are low above horizon or on nights of poor seeing. Or maybe collimation of your scopes is off

[Highburymark]

Don’t think you could go wrong with Delites (my particular choice for planetary - I have 18.2, 7, 4 and 3mm - excellent performers), XW or Morpheus Martin. But I tend to agree that you should be able to see Cassini with your existing kit, particularly with the 150 Mak. Though it’s obviously harder when the planet’s low. I wonder if you got better views of Mars recently as it’s been higher?

I wouldn’t necessarily advise a plossl at 8mm (or orthos below 10mm) unless you’re happy with tight eye relief. The TV 8mm plossl is too tight for me. What you really need is to try a few new eyepieces at the same time as your current ES EPs. I would expect them to be pretty good, though I’ve never tried them before.

[John]

I think there are better eyepieces around for planetary viewing, but the differences are slight.

The positioning of the planets over the past couple of years has made a really substantial difference to the quality of the views that we are getting in the UK. That is a much larger impact than changing eyepieces or even scopes as has been discussed on this forum many times.

By all means try alternatives but don't be surprised if there are no "magic bullets" out there while the planets remain low

 

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by John

[Don Pensack]

As a general rule, when planets are below 30° off the horizon, the best image you will get will be the equivalent of adding 1/4 wave of error to the image.

At 10° off the horizon, it's the equivalent of 1 wave of error.

And that is just due to the thickness of the atmosphere.  Add coma, chromatic aberration, atmospheric chromatic smear, astigmatism, misfocus, dust, smog, heat waves,

and simple turbulence, and an 80mm scope, for which resolving Cassini's Division even in the ansae is difficult, not being able to resolve Cassini's Division sounds quite normal.

Ergo, don't expect good planetary images when the planets are low in the sky.

http://www.damianpeach.com/simulation.htm

But, there is always value in looking.  You won't catch those magic nights of perfect seeing or transparency without looking often.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Don Pensack

[Dantooine]

On 26/12/2020 at 20:58, Don Pensack said:

As a general rule, when planets are below 30° off the horizon, the best image you will get will be the equivalent of adding 1/4 wave of error to the image.

At 10° off the horizon, it's the equivalent of 1 wave of error.

And that is just due to the thickness of the atmosphere.  Add coma, chromatic aberration, atmospheric chromatic smear, astigmatism, misfocus, dust, smog, heat waves,

and simple turbulence, and an 80mm scope, for which resolving Cassini's Division even in the ansae is difficult, not being able to resolve Cassini's Division sounds quite normal.

Ergo, don't expect good planetary images when the planets are low in the sky.

http://www.damianpeach.com/simulation.htm

But, there is always value in looking.  You won't catch those magic nights of perfect seeing or transparency without looking often.

That an interesting read thanks.