TMB planetary EP’s

[bosun21]

I have a friend who is asking me about whether the TMB range of planetary eyepieces are worth buying or not. I told him that I have no idea and that I would ask on here on his behalf.( 2.5mm up to the 8mm). Thanks 

[bosun21]

I’ve done a little research on these and they appear to be cheap eyepieces and that’s usually a good measure of the quality of them. I’ll tell him to give them a miss 

[Zermelo]

TMB eyepieces are a complicated topic. There's much discussion out there, for example:

 

[bosun21]

Oops, trust me to step on this hot potato. Thanks for the heads up 

[Mr Spock]

I have a 6mm TMB Planetary II. It's decent enough and well built. The screw up eye cup is a nice feature for the price.

They don't deserve a bad reputation that is for sure.

[bosun21]

4 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

I have a 6mm TMB Planetary II. It's decent enough and well built. The screw up eye cup is a nice feature for the price.

They don't deserve a bad reputation that is for sure.

Thanks 

[Zermelo]

Other recent threads on planetary eyepieces:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/383675-eyepiece-for-planetary-observing/#comment-4144274

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/365072-planetary-eyepiece-recommendation-possibly/

 

[mikeDnight]

I seem to remember that the design changed, with at least some of the planetary ll's having fewer elements  than than the original Burgess TMB Planetaries. Having said that, i have a 2.5mm ll version and its very good.

Edited November 9, 2021 by mikeDnight

[johninderby]

I picked up one of the 2.5mm ones last week brand new for £20.89 delivered. If it works will buy a better quality eyepiece in that focal length.

[bosun21]

10 minutes ago, johninderby said:

I picked up one of the 2.5mm ones last week brand new for £20.89 delivered. If it works will buy a better quality eyepiece in that focal length.

That’s the ones. That’s a really good price you got 

[bosun21]

16 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

I seem to remember that the design changed, with at least some of the planetary ll's having fewer elements  than than the original Burgess TMB Planetaries. Having said that, i have a 2.5mm ll version and its very good.

Yes I forgot to mention that they were version II

[Mr Spock]

LOL, this is turning into a 'show us your TMB' thread 

[wulfrun]

45 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

LOL, this is turning into a 'show us your TMB' thread 

Identical to mine, assuming it says "Planetary" on the side, with a "II" through it. Performs well enough, to my eye anyways.

[Tiny Clanger]

I have a 6mm, looks exactly the same as Mr. Spock's photo, I bought it as a cheap way to see if I'd get a distracting level of eye floater intrusion with that focal  length in my mak . (The answer was , probably best not invest in a flashier eye piece at that length, it's right at the edge of what I find acceptable, and defo. no point in me going for any higher mag.)

I've used it to view the Moon several times , and very occasionally a planet, but the seeing isn't often capable of taking the 250x it gives me in the mak. It's not a bad eyepiece at all, (I appreciate this is heresy, but I actually prefer using it over my 6mm Baader ortho )   I did have some loose paint flakes inside the TMB clone, , between elements, which needed careful disassembly to get at , but for the price I paid was OK with that.

I bought mine from Alan at Sky's the Limit , they are around £35 from him now I think, but I've seen plenty suggested to me by amaz. , outwardly identical, and some at crazy high prices.

Heather

[wookie1965]

I have the 4.5mm and 6mm I like them alot very good in my scopes plenty of eye relief and easy to position your eye. 

[Ags]

I had the 6 and 9mm in the TS HR Planetary incarnation. Lovely eyepieces - comfortable, easy to use and relaxing. I was using them in a Maksutov, which is easy on eyepieces. I wonder how they would hold up in a more demanding scope?

[Ricochet]

1 hour ago, Ags said:

I wonder how they would hold up in a more demanding scope?

Correction wise, they should do pretty well. Essentially they are all something like a 20mm Plossl with a barlow in the nose so if you've got a 10mm Planetary then it's like a 20mm Plossl and 2X barlow. If you put that into a fast f5 scope then so far as the "Plossl" part of the eyepiece is concerned it is in an f10 scope, which is still quite slow. As you go shorter it get's more extreme, with a 5mm Planetary "seeing" an f5 scope as f20. This is the same design method in similar eyepieces like the BST Starguider and Celestron X-Cel LX. Where the Planetaries fall down is the same as with other cheap eyepieces; transmission, scatter and stray light control, which will impact the image in all scopes irrespective of speed.

[HollyHound]

I have this one and it does perform very well indeed… was great on Mars last year 👍

However, since getting XWs and Ethos around this focal length, I use it less frequently now, which is a bit of a shame 😬

[bosun21]

6 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

I have a 6mm, looks exactly the same as Mr. Spock's photo, I bought it as a cheap way to see if I'd get a distracting level of eye floater intrusion with that focal  length in my mak . (The answer was , probably best not invest in a flashier eye piece at that length, it's right at the edge of what I find acceptable, and defo. no point in me going for any higher mag.)

I've used it to view the Moon several times , and very occasionally a planet, but the seeing isn't often capable of taking the 250x it gives me in the mak. It's not a bad eyepiece at all, (I appreciate this is heresy, but I actually prefer using it over my 6mm Baader ortho )   I did have some loose paint flakes inside the TMB clone, , between elements, which needed careful disassembly to get at , but for the price I paid was OK with that.

I bought mine from Alan at Sky's the Limit , they are around £35 from him now I think, but I've seen plenty suggested to me by amaz. , outwardly identical, and some at crazy high prices.

Heather

Thanks for that feedback Heather. I also have a new 127 Mak and was wanting to ask you about the maximum useful magnification that works for you? Seeing allows obviously. Thanks 

[Tiny Clanger]

3 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

Thanks for that feedback Heather. I also have a new 127 Mak and was wanting to ask you about the maximum useful magnification that works for you? Seeing allows obviously. Thanks 

As I said, the 6mm gets used very occasionally when the seeing is steady, mostly for lunar detail, but the magnification it gives (250x in the 127 mak) is usually too much for the conditions (and my eyes) . Much of the time for planets I use an 8mm (a BST starguider )  which gives 187.5x . My next eyepiece is a 12mm (BST) which gives 125x, which feels like a big step down,  I'd rather like to add a 10mm sometime to offer an intermediate magnification .

Hope that answers your question 🙂 

Heather

 

[bosun21]

3 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

As I said, the 6mm gets used very occasionally when the seeing is steady, mostly for lunar detail, but the magnification it gives (250x in the 127 mak) is usually too much for the conditions (and my eyes) . Much of the time for planets I use an 8mm (a BST starguider )  which gives 187.5x . My next eyepiece is a 12mm (BST) which gives 125x, which feels like a big step down,  I'd rather like to add a 10mm sometime to offer an intermediate magnification .

Hope that answers your question 🙂 

Heather

 

Thanks Heather 

[Louis D]

Also, be aware that not all planetary copies are the same:

 

[wookie1965]

These are mine. Two different finishes inside one much more black than the other. 

[catburglar]

I had a SkyWatcher planetary EP in 7mm FL used in an ETX and MakNewt190…Faired pretty well to my eyes, very similar to a Fujiyama HD ortho in the same FL, perhaps a touch more light scatter but much easier to use…

I’d have no reservations about buying another in the same range.

[doublevodka]

23 hours ago, Zermelo said:

TMB eyepieces are a complicated topic. There's much discussion out there, for example:

 

Lots of things are a hot topics "over there" with strong reactions, hence why I spend all my time on SGL instead 😉 There's some useful info kicking around on there but lots of strong opinions to put it politely, SGL is much nicer 👍