Recommdations for budget eyepieces?

[galaxy-gazer]

Hi there!

I just got hold of my first scope, which is a celestron omni AZ 102 (F=660, f/6.5), I need some recommendations/suggestions for my first ep, k10 and 20 came with scope!

I am looking for 1 wide (32 maybe) and another 1 for near enough max magnification.

I am told by celestron cs  that max magnification would be between 306 to 240 (which I highly doubt!) 

so please guide me in the correct direction as to not be disappointed and loose interest!

thanks in advance for all your helpful suggestions!!

best regards 

sam

[Highburymark]

Nice telescope. It will depend on your seeing, but I’d say those magnifications are much too high if you’re only looking for one high power eyepiece. Most nights around 180-200x will be the maximum usable powers on Moon and planets. It’s also quite a fast scope so you’ll need eyepieces that play nicely at F/6.5.

[xvariablestarx]

A 32mm Plossl would be a good idea yes, and a 1.5x or 2x barlow lens, and either a 7mm Plossl or a zoom eyepiece. Nice scope as was stated above.

[Tiny Clanger]

Definitions of 'budget' eyepiece differ widely 🙂 , if you specify what your budget is , it would be easier for answers to be relevant .

The range of prices , makes and models is dizzying, basic plossls from reputable brands come in at around £20-£30 each, and would be a step up from the K (Kellner) ones in your bundle . Apparently there can be difficulties with the short eye relief on higher magnification (low mm ) plossls though for spectacle wearers , no idea if that affects anyone using  your 'scope.

This is a good thread packed with information

 

 

[badhex]

+1 for the info in the "Eyepieces - the very least you need" post. I used that to inform my first new EP purchases when first getting into the hobby and still refer back to the equations when looking at new scope/eyepiece combinations. 

I think for your scope as mentioned the upper limit would be about 200x; 50x per inch of aperture is generally considered to be a good rule of thumb for maximum magnification on a night with good observing conditions.

With that in mind you could consider looking at the 3.2mm BST Starguider which is very reasonably priced (around £50 from First Light Optics), still has decent eye relief and gives you 206x. You may find that on nights with average-ish observing conditions it's too powerful, so the 5mm BST might also be an option at 132x. I have both and they are great eyepieces in a fairly fast focal ratio scope like yours. 

I think actually 4mm would be better as a compromise, giving 165x but there is no BST Starguider in that focal length so you'd have to look at another brand - Vixen do a 4mm Plössl but the eye relief is very tight at about 2-3mm so it may not be very enjoyable. 

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

As above "budget" is slightly vague. Although I'd consider anything up to £50 to be budget.

For instance, new Astro Essentials 10mm and 32mm plossl eyepieces plus a BST three element 2x barlow will cost approx £100.

Those will give you 66x and 20x. Adding the barlow, 132x and 40x. A realistic range of magnification for a 4" aperture f6.5 achromat.

Enough range to enjoy star clusters at low mag to seeing decent lunar detail, Saturn's rings and Cassini division plus cloud bands on Jupiter.

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by ScouseSpaceCadet

[vlaiv]

Indeed - 32mm plossl is very budget but very good eyepiece that will give you nice wide field views.

I also agree that you should limit yourself to say x100 power because you have semi fast achromat (not as fast as F/5 but still rather fast at F/6.5). Above that magnification it will be quite colorful and depending on your eyesight - about x1 per mm of aperture is quite decent level of magnification.

This means eyepiece in 6-7mm range. BSTs are nice budget eyepieces, but they have 5mm and 8mm. Out of the two - I'd probably go with 5mm as high power EP.

[galaxy-gazer]

5 hours ago, badhex said:

+1 for the info in the "Eyepieces - the very least you need" post. I used that to inform my first new EP purchases when first getting into the hobby and still refer back to the equations when looking at new scope/eyepiece combinations. 

I think for your scope as mentioned the upper limit would be about 200x; 50x per inch of aperture is generally considered to be a good rule of thumb for maximum magnification on a night with good observing conditions.

With that in mind you could consider looking at the 3.2mm BST Starguider which is very reasonably priced (around £50 from First Light Optics), still has decent eye relief and gives you 206x. You may find that on nights with average-ish observing conditions it's too powerful, so the 5mm BST might also be an option at 132x. I have both and they are great eyepieces in a fairly fast focal ratio scope like yours. 

I think actually 4mm would be better as a compromise, giving 165x but there is no BST Starguider in that focal length so you'd have to look at another brand - Vixen do a 4mm Plössl but the eye relief is very tight at about 2-3mm so it may not be very enjoyable. 

Hello!

May I ask what is the specs for your scope, where you had been using the BST 5mm and 3.2mm ? I think I am going to try one of these fairly soon!

thanks

sam

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

2 minutes ago, galaxy-gazer said:

Hello!

May I ask what is the specs for your scope, where you had been using the BST 5mm and 3.2mm ? I think I am going to try one of these fairly soon!

thanks

sam

3.2mm is likely too much for your f6.5 achromat. The 5mm I'd go for it. I've owned the BST 5mm for a couple of years. It's a nice eyepiece for the money. Although a decent barlow and a 10mm will do the same job more comfortably and you have the 10mm to use alone. Or instead of a 10mm you could go for 8-9mm ep. The 8mm BST is popular and I like mine.

Trying to squeeze out maximum magnification doesn't really work. It's a common mistake newbies make, including me.

At f6.5 you will likely introduce chromatic abberation into the view. Unless seeing conditions are perfect, the view will wibble wobble (that's the proper scientific term honest! 😀) . Brighter objects, Jupiter for instance, will just wash out and you will lose detail. Also if you're prone to floaters then you will have those to contend with.

[badhex]

11 hours ago, galaxy-gazer said:

Hello!

May I ask what is the specs for your scope, where you had been using the BST 5mm and 3.2mm ? I think I am going to try one of these fairly soon!

thanks

sam

I would tend to agree with @ScouseSpaceCadet and @vlaiv - the 5mm is a better bet out of the two. As mentioned seeing has to be good to very good in order to get the highest powers out of the scope, and I did not think to mention chromatic aberration at high powers in your scope (again as others have mentioned).

For reference I have been using them in a William Optics Zenithstar 73 - a small 73mm nearly-APO refractor, 430mm focal length, F5.9.

Edited July 11, 2021 by badhex
Added scope name

[galaxy-gazer]

On 10/07/2021 at 14:43, galaxy-gazer said:

Hi there!

I just got hold of my first scope, which is a celestron omni AZ 102 (F=660, f/6.5), I need some recommendations/suggestions for my first ep, k10 and 20 came with scope!

I am looking for 1 wide (32 maybe) and another 1 for near enough max magnification.

I am told by celestron cs  that max magnification would be between 306 to 240 (which I highly doubt!) 

so please guide me in the correct direction as to not be disappointed and loose interest!

thanks in advance for all your helpful suggestions!!

best regards 

sam

I now have an option of swapping my current scope (as above) with a skywatcher skymax 127mm MAK, what do you guys suggest?

Is it worth? 

thanks

sam

[Louis D]

I have a couple of 127 Maks, one for me and one for my grown daughter to use on camping trips.  You'll definitely go deeper and bring in more planetary detail.  However, you'll lose wide field views since the focal length is about 2.3 times longer.  They're easy to transport thanks to their short physical length, though.

[Tiny Clanger]

Not a guy 🙂 , but I have both a 102 mm achromat refractor and a 127 mak, and the mak is streets ahead for what I use it for.

My refractor has a 600mm focal length, similar to your celestron, which makes it OK for wide field stuff,  star clusters  and so on, but less good for high magnification of bright objects, where the chromatic aberration makes a pretty coloured 'rind'  around the Moon etc.

The mak 127's strength is that it has roughly double the refractor's focal length (1500mm) , so any given eyepiece will offer you roughly double the magnification too. No chromatic aberration either. Also the mak is less picky  about eyepieces at f12 than my refractor at f6

However, the mak's longer focal length is not necessarily an advantage , is 'sees' a narrower piece of sky, so is harder to point to a target, it hugely magnifies any wobbles in the tripod and head, and I'd say a head with slow motion controls are vital for it.  In fact, the mount is a vital factor to any high magnification set up, so the sort of mount and tripod which comes with the mak  would be a vital factor in the decision for me. Also be aware that the mak will  need to sit outdoors to cool for half an hour before you can use it properly,  while the refractor is pretty much, take it out, plonk it down and observe. Oh, and the mak's thick front glass plate will be a magnet for dew. There are advantages and disadvantages to both instruments, which suits you best depends on your circumstances, and interests .

If you are mainly interested in high magnification on bright targets like the Moon and planets, and the mount is up  to the task, go for the mak. If you are more keen on wide field views, stick with the refractor.

Or have both , it works for me !

Heather

 

[galaxy-gazer]

On 07/08/2021 at 14:46, Tiny Clanger said:

Not a guy 🙂 , but I have both a 102 mm achromat refractor and a 127 mak, and the mak is streets ahead for what I use it for.

My refractor has a 600mm focal length, similar to your celestron, which makes it OK for wide field stuff,  star clusters  and so on, but less good for high magnification of bright objects, where the chromatic aberration makes a pretty coloured 'rind'  around the Moon etc.

The mak 127's strength is that it has roughly double the refractor's focal length (1500mm) , so any given eyepiece will offer you roughly double the magnification too. No chromatic aberration either. Also the mak is less picky  about eyepieces at f12 than my refractor at f6

However, the mak's longer focal length is not necessarily an advantage , is 'sees' a narrower piece of sky, so is harder to point to a target, it hugely magnifies any wobbles in the tripod and head, and I'd say a head with slow motion controls are vital for it.  In fact, the mount is a vital factor to any high magnification set up, so the sort of mount and tripod which comes with the mak  would be a vital factor in the decision for me. Also be aware that the mak will  need to sit outdoors to cool for half an hour before you can use it properly,  while the refractor is pretty much, take it out, plonk it down and observe. Oh, and the mak's thick front glass plate will be a magnet for dew. There are advantages and disadvantages to both instruments, which suits you best depends on your circumstances, and interests .

If you are mainly interested in high magnification on bright targets like the Moon and planets, and the mount is up  to the task, go for the mak. If you are more keen on wide field views, stick with the refractor.

Or have both , it works for me !

Heather

 

Thank you for your comments! have you tried focal reducers to increase the fov on the mak? I can only have one, I do like the mak for its portability and it’s long focal length, but then sometimes I want to browse the sky for galaxies and DSOs too, very confused honestly!

[Tiny Clanger]

2 minutes ago, galaxy-gazer said:

Thank you for your comments! have you tried focal reducers to increase the fov on the mak? I can only have one, I do like the mak for its portability and it’s long focal length, but then sometimes I want to browse the sky for galaxies and DSOs too, very confused honestly!

No, I've never worried about doing anything with the mak other than higher mag. stuff, because I'm lucky enough to have a couple of cheap refractors and my little tabletop heritage dob  for wide field. I've no experience of focal reducers, so can't comment on them ,  although I have seen it suggested a wider field can be had in a mak by using a  setup with a different visual back, a 2" diagonal and 2" eyepieces, which would be an expensive way to go, and probably cost far more than my next suggestion

If you can only have one 'scope because money is tight, you could keep your eyes open for a used ST80, a short tube 80mm achromat. There are many makes, all similar under the paint, they suffer chromatic aberration if the magnification is pushed , but are nice for widefield. I've seen them go second hand for between £50 and £90 There's a member on here @SuburbanMak who uses precisely that pair of complementary 'scopes (altho' he has pimped his st80 somewhat !) have a look at his posts, they may help  with your decision about the 127 mak as well.

Alternatively, could you go for the mak for high mag., and use binoculars for wide field ? If the rule is 'Thou shalt have only one 'scope' , it could be argued that binoculars are an entirely different species , so do not  constitute a second 'scope 

If you absolutely have to decide on one 'scope  or the other, decide on the targets you most want to see. and go for the one which will do that best.

The ball is back in your court !

Heather

[galaxy-gazer]

1 hour ago, Tiny Clanger said:

No, I've never worried about doing anything with the mak other than higher mag. stuff, because I'm lucky enough to have a couple of cheap refractors and my little tabletop heritage dob  for wide field. I've no experience of focal reducers, so can't comment on them ,  although I have seen it suggested a wider field can be had in a mak by using a  setup with a different visual back, a 2" diagonal and 2" eyepieces, which would be an expensive way to go, and probably cost far more than my next suggestion

If you can only have one 'scope because money is tight, you could keep your eyes open for a used ST80, a short tube 80mm achromat. There are many makes, all similar under the paint, they suffer chromatic aberration if the magnification is pushed , but are nice for widefield. I've seen them go second hand for between £50 and £90 There's a member on here @SuburbanMak who uses precisely that pair of complementary 'scopes (altho' he has pimped his st80 somewhat !) have a look at his posts, they may help  with your decision about the 127 mak as well.

Alternatively, could you go for the mak for high mag., and use binoculars for wide field ? If the rule is 'Thou shalt have only one 'scope' , it could be argued that binoculars are an entirely different species , so do not  constitute a second 'scope 

If you absolutely have to decide on one 'scope  or the other, decide on the targets you most want to see. and go for the one which will do that best.

The ball is back in your court !

Heather

Thanks Heather!

you’ve made it simple for me, I do have a pair of celestron Binos (25x) and I could indeed use it alongside the MAK 127..seems like a load off chest 😊

have a good night!

best wishes

sam