What is your top 3 eyepieces under $100?

[Second Time Around]

On 15/04/2022 at 14:57, jetstream said:

The 10mm BCO will pull away from many other eyepieces under the right conditions ie cooled, collimated accurately and great seeing. Honestly the 10mm BCO hangs right in there with my Docter 12.5mm UWA for sharpness and contrast.

The 10mm BCO goes deeper than the Docter however.

The BCO is a Zeiss design and some say it is not a "true" ortho. The field is opened up to 50 deg and will show some small distortion with ortho purists quick to point this out. Years ago I tested many orthos with some also showing hints of distortion....

Just for reference balancing distortion is a function of eyepiece design- TV chooses pincushion distortion over barrel distortion- Many Televue enthusiasts dislike the Docter 12.5mm UWA for this reason as it shows a small bit of it at the edges, squeezing stars together a tiny amount.

In my large dobs I use a 10mm Delos a lot and when wanting to confirm very faint objects I use the 10mm BCO as it shows a tiny, but real amount deeper than the Delos.

Yes, the Baader Classic Ortho has been criticised because the very edge of the field of view isn't perfectly sharp.  However, I feel this is unfair as the inner 43 degrees (that a standard Abbe ortho has) is just as sharp as the latter.  So the extra FOV is just a bonus.

Additionally, the volcano top that the 6 and 10mm BCOs have is more comfortable than orthos that don't have this feature.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Second Time Around

[cajen2]

13 minutes ago, Second Time Around said:

Yes, the Baader Classic Ortho has been criticised because the very edge of the field of view isn't sharp.  However, I feel this is unfair as the inner 43 degrees (that a standard Abbe ortho has) is just as sharp as the latter.  So the extra FOV is just a bonus.

Additionally, the volcano top that the 6 and 10mm BCOs have is more comfortable than orthos that don't have this feature.

It's just a shame that the FOV is so narrow - in a dob, you're constantly nudging to keep the target in view and the eye relief is so small on the lower F/L ones.

I wish Baader or anyone else would make an EP as cheap but sharp, with a better FOV and eye relief, but I realise that's unrealistic unless you spend megabucks.

[Second Time Around]

6 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

It's just a shame that the FOV is so narrow - in a dob, you're constantly nudging to keep the target in view.

 

This is of course where the wider FOV of the BCO compared with standard orthos pays off.

Luckily, my OOUK Dob mount is lovely and smooth, so nudging is easier than with mass market Dobs.  That said, I do track with my equatorial platform when I'm observing one object (such as a planet) for some time.  This makes it easier to catch fleeting moments of good seeing.

The equatorial platform also costs less than expensive wide field eyepieces!

[cajen2]

Absolutely. I have an EQ platform on my shopping list for when I'm feeling a bit more flush. Shortly after that, there'll be a BCO.

Oh and my StellaLyra 8" also had an incredibly smooth azimuth action - I have to keep adjusting the tension knob or it'll slew if I breathe too heavily! 😆

Edited April 16, 2022 by cajen2

[spcookiee]

I got the 15mm and 8mm BST eyepieces. I might look at the Baader boo eyepieces when the planets are at opposition.

[Guest]

While it is over 100 bucks a good variable and Barlow wouldn't be a bad idea at all.  It give you a legitimate catch all eyepiece.  It is worth a thought at least.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Guest

[russ]

My favourite sub-£100 eyepieces by a country mile are the set of Nirvana eyepieces (4mm, 7mm and 16mm). Find they perform well at f5, nice and sharp. Great field of view. And all for £70 each.

Last year I tried a bunch of eyepieces I thought would suit the planetary role better. Baader Classic Ortho, Vixen SLV, Tak LE. All had one thing in common, they were claustrophobic. Or just plain uncomfortable (BCO). And yet offered no more detail over the 7mm Nirvana. So this year I have bought a Nagler. A 12mm T4. Only the second time I have owned one. Eager to see how it stacks up against the 16mm Nirvana and also barlowed (with a TV 2x) against the 7mm Nirvana. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by russ

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, russ said:

So this year I have bought a Nagler. A 12mm T4. Only the second time I have owned one.

I much prefer the APM Hi-FW 12.5mm to the 12mm NT4.  It has much less SAEP exit pupil finickiness, much less EOFB (which extends to the center of the NT4), better eye relief, and it's sharper to the edge at f/6.  Of course, I prefer the 12mm ES-92 to either, but it's much bigger and 2"-only.  Some folks prefer the 12.5mm Morpheus to either the APM or NT4, but I've never looked through one to comment on it.  Then there's the Docter/Noblex 12.5mm that's supposed to be terrific except for price and the presence of AMD.

[Deadlake]

APM 10 nn and 24 mm UFF.

The APM 10 m really hold their own when used in a BV, amazing. 

[russ]

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

I much prefer the APM Hi-FW 12.5mm to the 12mm NT4.  It has much less SAEP exit pupil finickiness, much less EOFB (which extends to the center of the NT4), better eye relief, and it's sharper to the edge at f/6.  Of course, I prefer the 12mm ES-92 to either, but it's much bigger and 2"-only.  Some folks prefer the 12.5mm Morpheus to either the APM or NT4, but I've never looked through one to comment on it.  Then there's the Docter/Noblex 12.5mm that's supposed to be terrific except for price and the presence of AMD.

If it doesn't work out or doesn't put enough clear air between itself and the Nirvana, the T4 will be going. I paid a good price, so will be just a no cost try out at the end of the day. Those other eyepieces sound epic but guessing they cost a lot more than the £150 I paid for the T4. Probably out of my reach. I did notice someone on here is selling an ES-100 14mm for what seemed a steal.