High power, widefield eyepieces?

[Franklin]

Call me old fashioned, well just old really! But what do you guys/gals think of modern widefield eyepiece designs at HIGH powers?

I've spent most of my observing career using bog standard Plossls and Orthoscopics but recently I've splashed out on a couple of pretty smart widefield eyepieces.

The TeleVue 24mm Panoptic has completely lived up to everything I've read about it and is a definite keeper for me. Trying to stay away from 2" kit for weight reasons, so the 24Pan is my default low power, widefield eyepiece in the 1.25" format and I couldn't be more pleased with it's performance. 

So I've picked up a Vixen SSW 5mm 83deg and yes, it is very obviously a nice eyepiece, but I'm finding it difficult to see the point. My 4mm and 6mm SLVs are both excellent performers for high power use and the SSW 5mm is just as good, if not a bit better. But I don't get the need for such a wide FOV at those kind of powers. Maybe there is a knack to using these kind of eyepieces, a knack which I haven't got, because I struggle to see everything that they offer to be seen with their massive FOVs. I find myself holding my eye further out so i'm only seeing part of the view. I can understand how they would be useful for those who use mounts without tracking but is that the only benefit?

Edited January 23, 2022 by Franklin

[Mr Spock]

I used to have a 7mm T6 Nagler. It was nice and sharp but the odd shade and colour changes as you moved your eye around were distracting. 

I much prefer using Orthos, SLVs and LVWs due to their more consistent image quality. Each has its advantages and disadvantages of course, but I can be happy with any one of them.

[F15Rules]

I'd agree regarding the 5mm SSW Tim..I had one for a fairly short time and to be sure it was a nice eyepiece..but I sold it and bought a Vixen HR 3.4mm with a much narrower fov, but to my eyes the views through that eyepiece were essentially perfect. I later sold it, stupidly, but hope to replace it again at some point.

I like wide fields, but if the wide field comes with lots of other compromises such as you described, then what indeed is the point?

I have an excellent 9mm Morpheus which I use a lot..if I want high power I can barlow it quite successfully, but for that kind of magnification I'd be looking at mainly doubles, planets and occasionally the moon..and for close doubles and planetary detaiI I have a 5mm BGO which, as a specialist high power eyepiece designed for maximum sharpness and contrast, would deliver the very best views of such objects, albeit with a narrower field of view.

There are some extended objects that view well in high power wide fields.. M42 is a case in point..that really does look great at 150 - 200x in a good high power widefield like the 70deg Pentax 5mm or my barlowed 82deg Nagler T2 12mm. And some Barlows such as my Baader Hyperion zoom 2.25x do really "get out of the way" 

I do think there are a few really excellent high power eyepieces available, also with pretty wide fields..two that spring to mind are the Pentax XW 3.5 and 5mm..I've owned the 5mm and it was right up there with the BGO in image quality, and I believe the 3.5mm is of a similar standard.

Dave

Edited January 23, 2022 by F15Rules
Additional text info

[Franklin]

Yes Dave, I think I'll stick with my SLV's. I know it's a narrower fov but they just seem so clear to me and the eye relief is a major plus. With the wide fields at high mags I'm only looking at the central part of the field anyway. Both my mounts have tracking so it seems like a lot of expense for something I don't really need. Also, having been used to 50deg views all these years when I use an eyepiece in the 60-70 deg range, it seems that that's the most I can see. Anything over 70deg just seems overwhelming to me. What folk do with the 100-110deg monsters I don't really know. It must be like poking your head through a window and having a look around🙂.

[JeremyS]

For high power views of planets, Orthos are very good. Vixen HRs even better (and longer eye relief). 
But where wide angle HP eyepieces can help is with undriven mounts. I use Naglers for that purpose 

For extended objects, like DSOs, wider fields can also be preferable.

[F15Rules]

I think your point ref the driven mount is a good one.. I too use a driven mount, but I know a lot of observers these days use Dobs and Altazimuth mounts..for these observers I can see the appeal of a wide or ultra wide fov whereby the observed object stays in view longer between nudges..

Dave

Edited January 23, 2022 by F15Rules

[vagk]

+1 regarding Pentax XW . Perfect eyepieces especially 10mm and below 

[John]

I reviewed the Vixen SSW eyepieces for the forum a while back:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/255080-vixen-ssw-ultra-wide-angle-eyepieces-review/

And also some of the SLV's:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/217971-vixen-slv-eyepiece-report-6mm-12mm-and-20mm/

I've also had lots of experience with really good quality ortho's and plossls over the years and posted reports on those here as well.

My scopes are all used on undriven, alt azimuth mounts so having a wider, well corrected, field of view when observing at high powers is an advantage I feel but I'm also happy to use narrower field of view eyepieces too. I don't tend to use orthos or plossls much these days because of their tight eye relief and small (often tiny !) eye lenses in the shorter focal lengths.  

My high power eyepieces currently range from 110 degrees Ethos SX to the 50 degrees Nagler 2mm-4mm zoom with a bunch of Pentax XW's in between and I enjoy using them all. I tend to use the XW's and the Nagler zoom with my refractors and the Ethos / Ethos SX with my 12 inch dobsonian but I don't have any hard and fast rules about that !

I've had plenty of opportunity to compare the views between high quality orthos / plossls and the wide field designs and, for me, I don't feel todays high quality wide field designs give away anything in terms of optical performance over the simpler standard field designs.

So I do see the point of them but also I appreciate that others prefer alternatives

We are lucky that we have such a lot of choice these days

[Louis D]

For me, it's a pain trying to reacquire an object in narrow-field eyepieces at high power using undriven mounts during eyepiece swaps.  Even with widefields, I have to position the object at the very edge or just off the edge of field, swap eyepieces, and then quickly find the object again before it drifts out of field.  This is made especially difficult if the alt-az mount swings upward slightly while swapping out heavy eyepieces or if the eyepiece snags in the focuser taking the scope upward with it.

That aside, I much prefer my 9mm Morpheus to my 9mm Vixen LV despite the views and eye relief being very similar.  The view is more immersive, less claustrophobic, and offers better context in the Morpheus.

[Second Time Around]

Ease of reacquiring an object is yet another advantage of zoom eye pieces.

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Second Time Around said:

Ease of reacquiring an object is yet another advantage of zoom eye pieces.

I almost pointed that out as one serious advantage of zooms at high power in my post above.  It's one of the main reasons I often use a pair of 8-24mm zooms in my BV.  Operating at 3x with the Meade 140 Barlow nosepiece, I'm getting a 2.7-8mm zoom range without changing eyepieces.  This is very useful for high power BV observing.

It's also why I like photographing wildlife with a long telephoto zoom on my DSLR.  I can acquire the target at low power and then zoom in as needed to properly frame the subject without losing it while swapping lenses since I can't always use a tripod.  High resolution sensors are also nice because I can crop in post while still having plenty of resolution for printing or web usage.

It's simply not possible for me to swap two eyepieces in a BV on an undriven scope at high power without losing the object, so a pair of zooms it is.  Thanks for bringing up zooms in this context.

[vagk]

Is it worth buying an eyepiece giving 430 mag with SW Dob 12inch or it is waste of money ? I don't use barlow. I want it for planetary (especially Mars) and double star observation

Edited January 25, 2022 by vagk

[John]

53 minutes ago, vagk said:

Is it worth buying an eyepiece giving 430 mag with SW Dob 12inch or it is waste of money ? I don't use barlow. I want it for planetary (especially Mars) and double star observation

I do occasionally use 450x with my 12 inch (Orion Optics) dob but not all that often. More frequently I find that 350x is the highest useful magnification. Your location and seeing conditions might be different to mine of course.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by John

[Louis D]

When I was regularly using my 15" Dob, I would quite often use 350x thanks to our often steady Texas skies.  At an exit pupil of 1mm, it was quite usable.

For your 12", that would equate to 300x.  Thus, I would say 300x for sure.  430x?  Probably not very commonly considering the 0.7mm exit pupil which is right at what I consider the usable lower limit for exit pupil size.  If your skies are steady, though, it should be doable.  I have a 3.5mm Pentax XW that I rarely use in my f/6 scopes to produce a similar exit pupil.  Such an eyepiece would probably be my last eyepiece purchase while building a set because it gets used the least, at least by me.  I only have it because I snagged mine for $212 off of Amazon a few years back during a flash sale.  I couldn't resist. 😁

Unless it's something you're passionate about, you'll probably regret splashing the cash on such a specialty eyepiece.  I rarely find that I can see any more detail at a 0.6/0.7mm exit pupil than at a 1mm exit pupil.

I'd splash for a binoviewer if you want to tease out detail at high powers.  I always find two eyes are better than one for such purposes.

[Mr Spock]

It's all down to seeing conditions and quality of the optics at hight powers. Double star observers (and users of small apo refractors) often use 0.5 exit pupil. So x430 for double stars is not unusual.

My 102mm apo gives lovely lunar views at x200.

There's a lunar observer in the BAA Lunar Section who regularly uses x450 in a large scope. I've never felt the need to go beyond x300 though.

[bingevader]

On 23/01/2022 at 20:44, F15Rules said:

I think your point ref the driven mount is a good one.. I too use a driven mount, but I know a lot of observers these days use Dobs and Altazimuth mounts..for these observers I can see the appeal of a wide or ultra wide fov whereby the observed object stays in view longer between nudges..

Dave

The added drift time is very useful in a non-driven mount.

20 hours ago, vagk said:

Is it worth buying an eyepiece giving 430 mag with SW Dob 12inch or it is waste of money ? I don't use barlow. I want it for planetary (especially Mars) and double star observation

I have used 400x in my 8" on the moon when the sky is steady and it's super.

To put it another way, it's like being in orbit (1,000km) around the moon.