Jump to content

2052839955_Mobilephonebanner.jpg.a502a319d7033354d442937f2edd0c2c.jpg

10”Dob ( f4.7) eyepieces


Recommended Posts

Sorry guys just seen the replies .. I am not going to go for EPs that are high end , because I really don’t have that kind of budget at present .. I would like to have one , 30-34mm one 15mm and then maybe a 9mm 

I only have plossl’s at the moment .. I have used Baader Hyperion EPs but I have been warned that they are not good for the scope , which is a shame because I really like them .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't happy with the Hyperion in my Orion Optics 10" f4.7. Quickly replaced them with the Nirvana 7mm and 16mm. Big improvement. Now replaced those with a mix of Morpheus and TV DeLite. But the Morpheus I'm not entirely sold on. So I bought a second DeLite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Russ , I keep reading good reports about the Nirvanas . Thanks for the advice . 
I think they are reasonably priced too

For what they offer they are superbly priced. Especially secondhand. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, F/4.7 is probably a bit fast for the Hyperions.

There are the BST Starguiders of course, which include a 15mm and an 8mm. I've used the 8mm successfully at F/5 for some time, and I've read good things about the 15mm. They would give you around an extra 10° AFOV over the plossls and are still keenly priced.

With a manual dob you might benefit from going wider still, and the Nirvanas at 82° are probably the best value at that AFOV. The 16mm and 4mm have both performed well for me.

At the 30-35mm end there are a few options. The Vixen NPL 30mm is a very good plossl for the money, I find it very comfortable. 

Do you have 2" capabilty? You could also consider the Stellalyra Superview 30mm, which would give a wider field and also works well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say the 30mm which came with my StellaLyra Dob is absolute pants and is best used as a paperweight... I may have gotten a bad one of course.

I've never used a Nirvana but they look good value for money. BSTs have a great reputation from everyone who uses them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the low power 30mm plus EP's are the problem child , so to speak ... i am hopefully taking a plunge on the Nirvana 7 & 16mm , so that will be medium and high power sorted , just the widefield 25-34 mm to sort out ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Seems to me that the low power 30mm plus EP's are the problem child , so to speak ... i am hopefully taking a plunge on the Nirvana 7 & 16mm , so that will be medium and high power sorted , just the widefield 25-34 mm to sort out ?

Stu, I have the Nirvana 7mm and it performs very well in my 10" Orion dob and also good barlowed at 2x 👍

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, callisto said:

Stu, I have the Nirvana 7mm and it performs very well in my 10" Orion dob and also good barlowed at 2x 👍

Nice one , Mark ... Looking forward to using the Nirvanas .. i think i need to get a slightly less chunky Barlow ... i bought an 2" ED barlow from RVO and have hardly used it ... its a bit of a weight . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, callisto said:

Stu, I have the Nirvana 7mm and it performs very well in my 10" Orion dob and also good barlowed at 2x 👍

Yes the Nirvana's Barlow really well, much better than my Morpheus.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Seems to me that the low power 30mm plus EP's are the problem child , so to speak ... i am hopefully taking a plunge on the Nirvana 7 & 16mm , so that will be medium and high power sorted , just the widefield 25-34 mm to sort out ?

What are your priorities for the long FL eyepiece? Are you wanting to get the maximum TFOV from your scope?

At 1.25" you can do this quite cheaply with a 32mm plossl.  Or the NPL 30mm I mentioned before will be close, and probably give a better image. Bear in mind that these will give large exit pupils (over 6mm) which will make the background sky lighter, and which may not help with less distinct targets (but will improve the effectiveness of nebula filters).

You can keep a darker sky and retain the TFOV by moving to 24-25mm and going for wider AFOV, but you will pay more for that larger field if it's sharp. BST do a 25mm Starguider at 60°, which is OK though perhaps not their best (or so I've read). Celestron do a 25mm X-Cel LX but it's almost double the price of the BST. The ES 68° 24mm is popular, but outside your budget.

Going for a 2" format allows for a wider true field, but the more exotic 7/8 element designs get very expensive. The simpler ones like the Superview above are perhaps the best value.

 

   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread and congrats on your new ‘scope @Stu1smartcookie  Look forward to hearing more about it. 
Those Nirvana eyepieces look tempting, and it’s encouraging they work well in f/4.7 ‘scopes. Quite tempted myself. I’ve mainly used BST Starguiders (and recently a Celestron Xcel), with a 10” f/4.7 ‘scope, as they were recommended my many on here. They do indeed perform well in my experience. 
The Hyperion zoom 8-24mm is well liked with this set up too. 
AD

Edited by Astro_Dad
Typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the Nirvanas to be excellent in any scope. Had an ES 4.7mm and just replaced it with the 4mm Nirvana. Just find it a more comfortable eyepiece to use with no problem with floaters unlike the ES.

B0D01E3D-9931-4450-888D-9CEBD75B71E7.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zermelo said:

What are your priorities for the long FL eyepiece? Are you wanting to get the maximum TFOV from your scope?

At 1.25" you can do this quite cheaply with a 32mm plossl.  Or the NPL 30mm I mentioned before will be close, and probably give a better image. Bear in mind that these will give large exit pupils (over 6mm) which will make the background sky lighter, and which may not help with less distinct targets (but will improve the effectiveness of nebula filters).

You can keep a darker sky and retain the TFOV by moving to 24-25mm and going for wider AFOV, but you will pay more for that larger field if it's sharp. BST do a 25mm Starguider at 60°, which is OK though perhaps not their best (or so I've read). Celestron do a 25mm X-Cel LX but it's almost double the price of the BST. The ES 68° 24mm is popular, but outside your budget.

Going for a 2" format allows for a wider true field, but the more exotic 7/8 element designs get very expensive. The simpler ones like the Superview above are perhaps the best value.

 

   

I would like a 2" EP for low power , 30- 34 mm .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, johninderby said:

I find the Nirvanas to be excellent in any scope. Had an ES 4.7mm and just replaced it with the 4mm Nirvana. Just find it a more comfortable eyepiece to use with no problem with floaters unlike the ES.

B0D01E3D-9931-4450-888D-9CEBD75B71E7.jpeg

Nice , John , although the 4mm may be a bit powerful for me with the Mak and the Dob ... the F7  Frac though , hmmm 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would give consideration to one of the 8 to 24 variable eyepieces in 1.25 inch eyepieces.  The Celestron model is around a hundred dollars US, but since it will be the only eyepiece you will be buying this is where you want to think about spending some money. 

As for 2 inch there are numerous decent  low power eyepieces out there.  I personally run eyepieces from 20mm up to 38mm and will eventually be adding a 14mm.  A couple things you might want to add are a nice 2 inch Barlow and a coma corrector.  I would suggest saving up a bit for one of the better Barlows as while eyepieces come and go Barlows tend to stay around a while.  So give some thought to getting a better one.

Edited by Mike Q
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this. The zoom eyepiece works for me. Admittedly I spent a fair amount of money on the Baader but I’ve got so used to it’s convenience, I couldn’t go back. It’s not a choice for everyone of course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/06/2022 at 09:50, Mike Q said:

I would give consideration to one of the 8 to 24 variable eyepieces in 1.25 inch eyepieces.  The Celestron model is around a hundred dollars US, but since it will be the only eyepiece you will be buying this is where you want to think about spending some money. 

As for 2 inch there are numerous decent  low power eyepieces out there.  I personally run eyepieces from 20mm up to 38mm and will eventually be adding a 14mm.  A couple things you might want to add are a nice 2 inch Barlow and a coma corrector.  I would suggest saving up a bit for one of the better Barlows as while eyepieces come and go Barlows tend to stay around a while.  So give some thought to getting a better one.

I like Zooms , the SVBony 8-24 i tried was very good and very reasonable ... SVBony also offer a 34mm Aspheric EP which i will probably buy .

 

11 hours ago, Spile said:

I agree with this. The zoom eyepiece works for me. Admittedly I spent a fair amount of money on the Baader but I’ve got so used to it’s convenience, I couldn’t go back. It’s not a choice for everyone of course.

The Baader zoom is probably the king of zooms and i tried it out when comparing with the SVBony ... of course the price is way above the SVBony though . Many people have decried the use of Zooms but they are indeed a very enjoyable and practical way of observing . I reckon a wide angle low power , a mid range and a high power , plus a zoom seems like the perfect set up , to me 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an Antares Speers-Waler zoom a while back. The thing was physically massive, almost as big as the scope (WO SD66) itself. But the views were great and it was a constant 80deg afov right through the zoom range. I loved it, no idea why I sold it. And never seen one since. 

It was a hoover for dust though.

Edited by russ
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ES 2” 28mm/68 eyepiece works well at this focal ratio too - appears well corrected and gives a good wide view without the exit pupil being too large. (But above budget). I slightly regret selling the one I had - miss it more than I thought! 


Have a follow up question on the thread above as been looking into different ocular options for my own 10” - I’m interested in unpacking the different perspectives on the 2” SL 30mm  Superview - I’m assuming it “works well” as noted by @Zermelo relative to its very affordable price (£59) but is “absolute pants” as commented by @Mr Spock due to inherent edge softness or coma, or as suggested could be just a particularly bad example. I guess like many affordable wide AFOV pieces they give a good sense of the wide field experience whilst only being sharp on axis (at “fast” focal ratios) - perhaps how much of a problem or how distracting this is depends in the individual ? Not wanting to go down a rabbit hole on this one but would like a bit more info from those with experience of using the SL Superview to help potential onward purchase. 

Thanks in advance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.