Eyepiece help please

[vagk]

I didn't realize that ES has reached so much price. Probably due to the pandemic and because it is one of the few in stock.

Most ES is out of stock and overvalued for some reason, approaching TeleVue's prices....

[jetstream]

On 15/10/2021 at 00:34, vagk said:

Most ES is out of stock and overvalued for some reason, approaching TeleVue's prices....

It takes the best Televues to beat ES eyepieces IMHO- ES are very good, I own both.

[vagk]

21 hours ago, jetstream said:

It takes the best Televues to beat ES eyepieces IMHO- ES are very good, I own both.

Let's hope become available again soon....with normal prices....

[HiveIndustries]

I'm less worried about EPs than mirrors. Every time I look at a project to get started on some time in the future every mirror place is like, "18 months minimum for your place in line"

[jetstream]

1 hour ago, HiveIndustries said:

I'm less worried about EPs than mirrors. Every time I look at a project to get started on some time in the future every mirror place is like, "18 months minimum for your place in line"

Glad I got mine when I did, from Ostahowski- I'm up in Canada, north of Mn. Prices arent going down either...picked up a 15" years ago and a 24" a few years ago, both vg.

[Astro_Nic]

OK so I finally made my initial purchases for my 14" 1,600 FL f4.6 OO dob:

 

• 9mm APM XWA 100 degree
• 13mm Ethos
• 22mm Nagler
• Paracorr 2
• UHC Astonomik filter
• OIII Astronomik filter
• Zebralight H502pr red head torch
• Some cleaning solution/brushes/clothes etc

 

Wife is looking at an eyepiece for Xmas for me....I will of course try out the ones I've got once OO have built my scope, but do you think I am more likely to use a higher or lower FL eyepiece?  I do want some great views of the moon and planets, as well as whatever DSO I can glimpse.  Was thinking either 31mm Nagler or 6mm Ethos (I think the 4.7mm might be too much magnification).  The 31mm would give an exit pupil of 5.9 - not sure if that is too much for Bortle 5/6 in terms of contrast.  It would be (with the Paracorr) 59x mag.  My current lowest is the 22 Nagler with 84x.  Or I could get the 6mm Ethos for planetary stuff with mag 267x no paracorr or 307x with Paracorr.

 

Still mulling over a powermate to increase options.

 

Thanks for all your help!

[Louis D]

You might look for something in the 5mm to 7mm range to get above 200x on nights of good seeing.  Since you don't seem to need long eye relief, that opens up a lot of options for you.  Within the APM XWA line, there are a couple of options in this range (5mm and 7mm).

At the long end, you probably won't find yourself using a widest field eyepiece nearly as much as a mid-power to high-power eyepiece.  I mostly use my widest fields as finder eyepieces to help center objects for higher power observations.  I'll admit, though, that I do sometimes enjoy sweeping rich star fields at low power just to see what I'm missing at higher powers.  However, the 1600mm focal length of your scope doesn't lend itself well to this usage.  As such, I wouldn't spend big bucks at those focal lengths.  A modestly corrected, widest field eyepiece will be good enough for quickly centering bright objects like planets and the moon before swapping it out for a better corrected, higher power eyepiece.

[vagk]

4 hours ago, Astro_Nic said:

OK so I finally made my initial purchases for my 14" 1,600 FL f4.6 OO dob:

 

• 9mm APM XWA 100 degree
• 13mm Ethos
• 22mm Nagler
• Paracorr 2
• UHC Astonomik filter
• OIII Astronomik filter
• Zebralight H502pr red head torch
• Some cleaning solution/brushes/clothes etc

 

Wife is looking at an eyepiece for Xmas for me....I will of course try out the ones I've got once OO have built my scope, but do you think I am more likely to use a higher or lower FL eyepiece?  I do want some great views of the moon and planets, as well as whatever DSO I can glimpse.  Was thinking either 31mm Nagler or 6mm Ethos (I think the 4.7mm might be too much magnification).  The 31mm would give an exit pupil of 5.9 - not sure if that is too much for Bortle 5/6 in terms of contrast.  It would be (with the Paracorr) 59x mag.  My current lowest is the 22 Nagler with 84x.  Or I could get the 6mm Ethos for planetary stuff with mag 267x no paracorr or 307x with Paracorr.

 

Still mulling over a powermate to increase options.

 

Thanks for all your help!

Also Delos 6mm is a good alternative instead of Ethos 6mm and much more comfortable

Edited October 20, 2021 by vagk

[Astro_Nic]

22 minutes ago, vagk said:

Also Delos 6mm is a good alternative instead of Ethos 6mm and much more comfortable

Will the Delos  cause more drift problems and constant adjustments at that magnification in a dob?  Thanks

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, Astro_Nic said:

Will the Delos  cause more drift problems and constant adjustments at that magnification in a dob?  Thanks

If you mean less dwell time on target when manually tracking with a Dob, then yes.  The narrower the true field of view at a particular magnification, the more often you have to nudge the scope.

Generally, true field of view aligns with apparent field of view, but there is some variation due to distortion issues.  Doubling apparent field of view doesn't generally equate to doubling true field of view due to increasing edge distortion.

[Astro_Nic]

Now thinking maybe Delos would would be better at that mag - won’t be used as much so paying ethos money for it to sit in a box is maybe not the wisest decision. Sis is coming over from the US shortly so the cost would be c£200 so basically throw away money so can’t lose! 

[vagk]

3 minutes ago, Astro_Nic said:

Now thinking maybe Delos would would be better at that mag - won’t be used as much so paying ethos money for it to sit in a box is maybe not the wisest decision. Sis is coming over from the US shortly so the cost would be c£200 so basically throw away money so can’t lose!

+ Much more eye relief and whole field of view at a glance 

[TheLookingGlass]

On 13/10/2021 at 22:00, Louis D said:

Since the eye lens is about the same diameter for both (~30mm), I wouldn't doubt you would be able to see at least as much of the field in the XWA as in the NT4 (~82°) while wearing eyeglasses.  However, can you actually see the entire 100° of the XWA with eyeglasses?  I can just take in the 92° field of my ES92s by resting my glasses against the folded eye guard of each, and they each have a 43mm diameter eye lens!  I tried an Ethos at a star party while wearing eyeglasses and could only see the inner 70° or so with ease, and it also had a ~30mm diameter eye lens.

Yes, I can "*just* see the entire 100 degrees with glasses, with the glasses just touching the rubber eye guard folded downwards. I put a baader morpheus eyeguard on my 20mm XWA.

[Louis D]

27 minutes ago, TheLookingGlass said:

Yes, I can "*just* see the entire 100 degrees with glasses, with the glasses just touching the rubber eye guard folded downwards. I put a baader morpheus eyeguard on my 20mm XWA.

Man, I envy your face structure then.  I can barely manage seeing the entire field of NT4 eyepieces with my deep set eyes.  I've thought about using a monocle 🧐 for astigmatism correction since my really tall and narrow nose bridge wouldn't come into play as much with one.  I've never been keen on wearing contacts, so that's not an option for me.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Louis D

[TheLookingGlass]

3 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Man, I envy your face structure then.  I can barely manage seeing the entire field of NT4 eyepieces with my deep set eyes.  I've thought about using a monocle for astigmatism correction since my really tall and narrow nose bridge wouldn't come into play as much with one.  I've never been keen on wearing contacts, so that's not an option for me.

I just tried it with glasses for a friend who needs them while observing to help him out. I don't use glasses, so I am even more lucky, lol.

[TheLookingGlass]

4 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Man, I envy your face structure then.  I can barely manage seeing the entire field of NT4 eyepieces with my deep set eyes.  I've thought about using a monocle for astigmatism correction since my really tall and narrow nose bridge wouldn't come into play as much with one.  I've never been keen on wearing contacts, so that's not an option for me.

Out of curiosity, do you have a 31mm Axiom LX? I'm curious as to how much it weighs with the cover off of it.

[Louis D]

4 minutes ago, TheLookingGlass said:

Out of curiosity, do you have a 31mm Axiom LX? I'm curious as to how much it weighs with the cover off of it.

I have the original mushroom top 30mm ES-82 which is most similar to the 30mm Meade 5000 UWA.  Decloaked, mine weighs 973g, a savings of 396g.  In a recent thread here on SGL, another member reported their decloaked 31mm Axiom LX weighs about 10%, or 100g, more than my ES-82.  It was reported to weigh 1082g in that thread.

[TheLookingGlass]

33 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I have the original mushroom top 30mm ES-82 which is most similar to the 30mm Meade 5000 UWA.  Decloaked, mine weighs 973g, a savings of 396g.  In a recent thread here on SGL, another member reported their decloaked 31mm Axiom LX weighs about 10%, or 100g, more than my ES-82.  It was reported to weigh 1082g in that thread.

Thanks for that !!!

[vagk]

Hi again 

I need your advice

I have the chance to get a used but in excellent condition ES 20mm 100° at the price of a new APM 20mm 100°.

I have read that APM may be slightly better regarding optical performance but I think that ES is better constructed, waterproofed so will be more durable over time...

What would you do? A new APM or the used ES ?

 

[John]

I've owned the ES 20mm 100 for a while. It was pretty good. From what I've read I think the APM might be a little better though so, for the same price, I would go for a new APM over a used ES.

I ended up with the Ethos 21.

 

 

 

[Louis D]

Don't forget, the ES is also heavier than the APM by 290g (43% heavier).  The ES also has a bit less usable eye relief by having its eye lens more recessed.  I've never had an issue with non-waterproofed eyepieces relative to my waterproofed ones.

[vagk]

I read somewhere here ( or in other similar forum, I don't remember where) that an ES 20mm 100° had fallen from the height of the telescope down and was not damaged. 

It seems to me that this extra weight means a more robust construction. That's why I am in dilemma.

Anyway, I trust you. APM seems better option. 

Thank you 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by vagk

[Louis D]

4 hours ago, vagk said:

I read somewhere here ( or in other similar forum, I don't remember where) that an ES 20mm 100° had fallen from the height of the telescope down and was not damaged.

It depends on what it hits at the bottom.  I've dropped heavy eyepieces onto grassy soil from 5 feet with absolutely no ill effects.  I would not try the same on concrete with any eyepiece.

[Don Pensack]

The APM 20 is a much better eyepiece than the ES in the outer 50% of the field.

It is also sealed, just not submersible.  There are differing degrees of waterproofing standards.