What's the next eyepiece you are going to... get rid of?

[Don Pensack]

5 hours ago, Alan White said:

I have churned eyepieces for many years looking for the ones that work as a small set,
sadly with changing scopes and tastes the collection has grown and shrunk at times, but never done.

I often regret selling items though, sometimes buy another and then realize why I sold the other one on.

The most likely of my collection to go is the Pentax XW 5mm, it is not often used and I have others at this length.
I might even do the same with the 7mm XW as well.

I went back to Delites for easier balance with the Refractors, and this may be the path I take, undercuts and all.

 

Fortunately, the undercut has a cylindrical cut, so it can be filled with metal tape (copper or aluminum), which essentially does away with the undercut.

I've done that with all my eyepieces with undercuts, and they slide into and out of the focuser/adapter/Paracorr without issue.

I even did that to the adapter provided in the Paracorr, and it slides in and out without catches.

It's a shame you have to do this, but it is a way to solve the problem of undercut barrels without harming re-sale down the road because the tape can be removed.

[Guest]

Orion included a 9mm and  30mm eyepiece with my Skyline.  They are just ok eyepieces and are basically just taking up room in my eyepiece cases.  Eventually they will get taken out and used as paperweights

Edited May 19, 2022 by Guest

[niallk]

20ES100 ... displaced by N31T5 & 17E.  It has only been used a few times, and is just sitting in its box.  I've never sold anything on the Internet before though... 🙈  Might see if anyone wants to buy it at the Skellig Star Party in August.

I gave away a few TS plossls and a nice enough 15mm 70° 'super wide' EP & barlow.

[Starwatcher2001]

For a long time I've used cheap plossls and similar for my observing, but their limitations (mainly eye-relief) no longer work well with my aging eyes. Now the kids are gone and finances are better, I've been trying out various better eyepieces. Some work better than others for me, so it's beeen a bit of trial and error, but I've finally settled on the Pentax XW. They are just so comfortable and should last as long as I've got eyes. But what to do with the rest of the herd?

I was going to keep them, but I'm mindful of something Don Pensack said about spending too much time at the telescope auditioning eyepieces. I have found myself spending more time swapping eyepieces some evenings than actually observing. So some of the collection has gone to a new astronomer, and I'll probably offer some on SGL when I get around to sorting them. I'll likely start with a few BSTs, not because they are the worse, but because they are pretty good. It will give me incentive to actually clear the rest out.

As soon as I've done that I'll no doubt feel relieved... and regret it. 🙂

Edited March 20, 2022 by Starwatcher2001
missed the end of a...

[Don Pensack]

After acquiring too many eyepieces, with magnifications too close together, it behooves all of us to seriously look at which eyepieces we actually use, and to space out the eyepieces a bit farther apart, magnification-wise.

If you have eyepieces at 100x, 120x, 140, 160x, etc, then changing eyepieces becomes as time consuming as observing the objects.

I always tell people: buy eyepieces far enough apart you can see a visible difference in the object when changing.  If, after quite a bit of time with such a set, you find yourself constantly wanting an eyepiece in between two of the ones

you have, it is certainly easy enough to acquire another eyepiece.

But reading Mark's comments merely makes me aware I have too many eyepieces and that I need to "cull the herd".  The question is, which one(s)?  It's a Sophie's choice.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Don Pensack

[Franklin]

12 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

and to space out the eyepieces a bit farther apart, magnification-wise.

What do folks think an ideal mag jump actually is? 

[Ags]

I believe in the 1.4 rule - so when you change eyepieces to the next one in sequence, the sky background doubles or halves in brightness, and you see an area two times bigger or smaller.

So I have eyepieces at 4.9, 6.7, 10, 13.4, 20 and 30 mm. Those are my wide angle eyepieces - I also have another sequence of plosslike eyepieces - 6, 9, 12, 20, 30.

[JeremyS]

7 minutes ago, Ags said:

I believe in the 1.4 rule - so when you change eyepieces to the next one in sequence, the sky background doubles or halves in brightness, and you see an area two times bigger or smaller.

So I have eyepieces at 4.9, 6.7, 10, 13.4, 20 and 30 mm. Those are my wide angle eyepieces - I also have another sequence of plosslike eyepieces - 6, 9, 12, 20, 30.

Yes 1.4x makes absolute sense and what I tried to stock to.
It’s just that the OCD kicks in with eyepiece sets. E.g. I’ve ended up with Naglers at 3.5, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20 and 26. Crazy!

[Franklin]

14 minutes ago, Ags said:

I believe in the 1.4 rule - so when you change eyepieces to the next one in sequence, the sky background doubles or halves in brightness, and you see an area two times bigger or smaller.

So I have eyepieces at 4.9, 6.7, 10, 13.4, 20 and 30 mm. Those are my wide angle eyepieces - I also have another sequence of plosslike eyepieces - 6, 9, 12, 20, 30.

That sounds like a totally logical solution and in use I have found I use 30, 18, 12, 9, 6, the most, which is a very similar ramp to yours. A lot depends on the focal length of the scope being used of course. Come to think of it now, I could do away with over half of the eyepieces i have and probably not miss them at all. 

[Franklin]

10 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

It’s just that the OCD kicks in with eyepiece sets.

Very, very true and that's the problem. The manufacturers produce a very wide range in a set to give options for differing scope focal lengths but us OCD sufferers end up collecting the whole set and in use, we just don't need them.

[Franklin]

22 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I’ve ended up with Naglers at 3.5, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20 and 26. Crazy!

My Vixens are 42, 30, 25, 20, 18, 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 and 2.5. Absolute madness!

Edited March 20, 2022 by Franklin

[badhex]

On 17/03/2022 at 20:52, Zermelo said:

I haven't been going long enough at this game to be brave enough to sell anything yet. I try to compare at least two eyepieces on any observation, and I certainly have 'overlaps'.

Until this month, I would have said that the first to go would be my BCO 6mm. It's bigger sister is superb, but I've struggled in the past with the 6mm, the eye relief being very tight and the views affected by (what I thought was) light scatter. But in recent outings it's performed better, so perhaps I was mistaken; and I'm getting used to the (lack of) eye relief.

The BCO 10mm is the only EP I have in my main set that duplicates another FL, but it's so tiny that I'm happy to keep it as a 'fewer elements' option for planetary, double stars etc.

I also have the 6mm and the eye relief is a challenge at times in certain scopes, but as well as the obvious targets already mentioned, I've also found it to be quite interesting to use on nebulae for the higher contrast. 

[badhex]

11 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

After acquiring too many eyepieces, with magnifications too close together, it behooves all of us to seriously look at which eyepieces we actually use, and to space out the eyepieces a bit farther apart, magnification-wise.

If you have eyepieces at 100x, 120x, 140, 160x, etc, then changing eyepieces becomes as time consuming as observing the objects.

I always tell people: buy eyepieces far enough apart you can see a visible difference in the object when changing.  If, after quite a bit of time with such a set, you find yourself constantly wanting an eyepiece in between two of the ones

you have, it is certainly easy enough to acquire another eyepiece.

But reading Mark's comments merely makes me aware I have too many eyepieces and that I need to "cull the herd".  The question is, which one(s)?  It's a Sophie's choice.

My main 1.25“ EP case is quite small and I'd like to keep it like that for portability, so I have ended up with a sort of one-in-one-out system. It does mean however that I can't operate to the sensible 1.4x system and have to have bigger jumps, which sort of fits with what you're saying. Currently for non-orthos it is 4.5mm, 10mm, 17.5mm, 24mm. 

If I had one EP I use least it would be the 24mm MaxVision SWA. It's a good EP but the Morpheus and XWs of this world have highlighted its shortcomings a bit, plus I do most of my observing in Bortle 7/8 skies, so at 24mm the sky starts to become obtrusively light. 

[F15Rules]

On 16/03/2022 at 22:47, Stu said:

I’ll make that laughable statement and say that ‘I’m done’ changing eyepieces, but I don’t even believe myself so don’t expect you guys to either 🤪🤪🤣🤣

Been there, said that Stu..it's rubbish!!🥴😜😂

Dave

[F15Rules]

On 16/03/2022 at 23:06, Louis D said:

You and me both.

You must get through GALLONS of Baader Wonder Fluid!! 😱😂

Dave

[F15Rules]

On 16/03/2022 at 21:46, JeremyS said:

Every time I move an eyepiece on I come to regret it.

So the collection grows

If you really want to slim down your collection Jeremy, you could perhaps offer a free Tak scope with each purchase?..that would soon clear a few dozen? 

Dave

[Louis D]

4 hours ago, F15Rules said:

You must get through GALLONS of Baader Wonder Fluid!! 😱😂

Dave

I actually only clean my eyepieces about once a decade or so because I always observe with eyeglasses, so my eyepiece eye lenses tend to remain pristine.  Even when I do clean them, I prefer Windex because it has a bit of detergent and leaves no streaking.  Pure alcohol solutions like BWF don't seem to cut through tree sap spots which are my main grunge.

If I put a fingerprint on an eyepiece eye lens, I immediately wipe it off with a dry microfiber cloth after blowing off dust and then huffing on the lens to give it a bit of moisture to lubricate the cloth.  It's the same technique I've been using for 40 years with my photography lenses to good effect.  If you don't immediately clean off a fingerprint, it seems to harden over time and becomes a much bigger problem to remove.

[Louis D]

15 hours ago, Franklin said:

My Vixens are 42, 30, 25, 20, 18, 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 and 2.5. Absolute madness!

Wow, the rare 7mm Vixen LV!  They rarely come up for sale on this side of the pond.  Vixen dropped that focal length for the NLV and SLV lines for some reason.

You're missing the Vixen 30mm LV or LVW and the 50mm LV to fill in a couple of 2" gaps. 😉😁

[Louis D]

16 hours ago, Franklin said:

What do folks think an ideal mag jump actually is? 

Starting out with limited funds (by my current standards) a quarter century ago, I bought a 38mm Rini MPL 2" eyepiece, a 14mm Pentax XL, a 9mm Vixen LV, and a 5.2mm Pentax XL.  What's that, 2.7x, 1.6x, and 1.7x jumps?  I never felt the jumps were too large.

Even today, I don't use my 20mm to 30mm eyepieces very much because my most used telescopes are operating at somewhat shorter focal lengths.  If I was regularly using my 15" Dob, I would probably use them much more.  Thus, I don't think think there's much of a need for eyepieces between a widest field 2" finder eyepiece in the 35mm to 42mm range and mid-power 1.25" eyepieces in the 12mm to 17mm range for most folks using sub-1500mm focal length scopes.

Today, I'm more of an astro tourist staring out the window at the overall beauty of the scene rather than being a detailed observer looking to make microfine observations and logging them.  As such, I prize the overall presentation and quality of the view over having the absolute sharpest on axis view possible given the moment by moment seeing conditions.  I sometimes enjoy observing with multiple eyepieces of nearly the same focal length just to experience the different viewing esthetics of each.  Given my ever brightening backyard skies, there are fewer and fewer objects I can observe, so different eyepieces with different presentations can spice things up.

I am looking to buy a second home out and away from most light pollution.  At that point, I may reassess my eyepiece collection and usage.

[Ags]

Precisely! I find I pick eyepieces to have a different experience at the telescope, rather than flipping between eyepieces chasing the "best" view.

Also looking at a second home

Edited March 21, 2022 by Ags

[Franklin]

2 hours ago, Louis D said:

You're missing the Vixen 30mm LV or LVW and the 50mm LV to fill in a couple of 2" gaps

Oh no, not more eyepieces to hunt down and buy! What's even more crazy is that 9/10 times, for actual viewing, I use a 24Panoptic and a Baader MkIV zoom and barlow. My eyepiece collection seems to be just that, a collection.🤣

[Don Pensack]

Three things influence magnification sequencing:

1) aperture.  Larger apertures can use higher powers than smaller scopes, so the jumps between high power eyepieces can be larger without excessively dimming the image.  In essence, the larger the scope, the bigger the steps can be.

2) apparent field.  Larger apparent fields can have bigger jumps without making the true fields too small.  A 20mm to 10mm 100° jump is the same magnification jump as a 20mm to 10mm 50° jump, but many would find the 10mm 50° field is too much smaller than the 20mm.  This is a logical reason to increase apparent fields of the eyepieces as you go shorter in focal length.

3) choice of targets.  Lunar/planetary specialists might want the high power jumps close together to bump up against the seeing limit slowly and to keep magnifications from getting excessive.  A 40% jump at 50x is not that much.  A 40% jump at 300x is huge.

 

#1 points to smaller jumps on smaller scopes.  An 8" might move upward in 50x jumps, but a 20" might be able to handle 100x jumps (commensurate with seeing, of course).

#2 points to smaller jumps with smaller apparent fields.

#3 points to having multiple high power eyepieces if your viewing tends toward moon, planets, double stars, small planetary nebulae.  It points to multiple low power eyepieces if your viewing is large, faint, nebulae with filters.

 

So there is no perfect rule.

In my own case, I have a nearly ideal medium power eyepiece and I gradually increase the magnification spread each direction that I move away from it, so the magnification changes look a bit like a "U".

I use low powers and high powers about equally but I spend most of my time with medium powers so it made sense to optimize the view there.

 

Even jumps (even #, not even %) make a lot of sense.  It results in smaller % differences as magnifications go up (benefitting moon, planets, double stars), and noticeable magnification changes at low power (where even % results in close magnifications that provide no observing benefit.

But, the even jumps might be adjusted for aperture, like 50x jumps in an 8" scope, but 30x jumps in a 4" scope.  Experience will teach you what's best for your own viewing style and scope size.  A 40% jump probably works between 100x and 300x, but above and below that, it's a bit questionable.

[Paz]

I agree with the idea of smaller jumps the higher the magnification gets to be able to tune in to the seeing.

I ought to get rid of my short focal length plossls as I never use them due to eye relief.

[Franklin]

On 21/03/2022 at 14:01, Louis D said:

You're missing the Vixen 30mm LV or LVW

Now look what you've made me do. Lovely eyepiece though.

 

[Elp]

Maybe my Meade uwa 8.8. it's a good eyepiece, just don't use it much. I prefer my WO 9mm swan (even though it's riddled with black specs which I can't seem to remove).

And maybe my TV 11mm plossl, view seems a little restrictive, don't know if a BST 12mm or Xcel 12.5mm would be better...