Televue 32mm Plossl - Best eyepiece ever !

[Jarvo]

OK so maybe some might disagree.

I took the plunge last week an purchased my first Televue eyepiece.

I wanted a low power eyepiece as I have a 150mm Skywatcher Mak (focal length 1800mm) which is spot on for bright things but struggles with the standard eyepieces provided with the telescope when looking for fainter objects.

Started out looking at Mizar - pin point stars right to the edge of the field of view.

Then moved onto M35 in Gemini. The number of stars was truely awesome. Stars were sprikled over the field of view. Mesmerising.

Then moved onto the Moon. Viewed the Moon with the AE Apochromatic Barlow. Details were unbelievably crisp. Spent ages studying the Lunar Surface.

Next went onto Saturn with the Televue and Barlow. I though this would give me good magnification whilst the Barlow corrected any chromatic abberation. Again Saturn was point point sharp with a hint of the Cassinin division visable as well as a number of moons (I counted six).

As for the eyepiece itsself, even though it is one of the less expensive Televue products, it really is a quality piece of craftmanship. From the coatings on the glass to the green line on the barrel this really is an excellent eyepiece.

I suppose my point is this. There are cheaper eyepieces out there but the Televue ones really are a class apart. (And yes I am on a budget which is why I'm not reviewing an Ethos !!)

Hope this helps anyone considering their next eyepiece.

Jarvo

[dweller25]

I have 2 TV Plossls - the 8mm and a 10.5mm smoothside, both are excellent in my F8 scope. Very sharp and excellent value for money.

[John]

Good report Jarvo

I've been a fan of Tele Vue products for years now. Even though I've now got Naglers and an Ethos I still feel tempted to add a TV 32mm Plossl to the collection - a classic !.

John

[ZOG]

I have a TV 40mm plossl and i love it.

[acey]

I use nothing but TeleVue plossls - the 32mm has served as my low-power finding eyepiece for a number of years. In my 80mm short-tube frac it's on the verge of being too low power (ie too large exit pupil) for my middle-age eyes, but in my 8" F6 and 12" F5 dobs it's great. The 8mm plossl serves as my highest power - great planetary eyepiece. With the 8" dob I particularly like the views I get with the 20mm ep, so far with the 12" it's the 11mm that I seem to use most. They're all top notch, it's just that you find that for any given scope one ep tends to suit more than another. During an observing session with a single scope I'll use generally use just 2 or 3 eps for everything.

I've never looked through the more expensive TeleVues and maybe it's good for my bank balance if I don't. But my understanding is that what you pay for is wider field. I've not yet felt enough need for that to justify the outlay. Well, not yet...

Andrew

[ollypenrice]

I'm one of the converted as well. TeleVue EPs never disappoint. I have four and would love an Ethos as well. On the big f4 Dob we use here the TeleVues give a cleaner edge of field than anything else I can remember trying. Newcomers to the scope are often surprized that there is no coma corrector in place and the mirror is of quite humble origins. Lesser Plossls do show coma.

Also TV are a lovely firm to deal with and helped me over the phone with an accident damaged Genesis.

Olly.

[neptuneblue]

I enjoy my 32mm

[Leegsi]

Sounds like my next upgrade from my standard eye pieves.

What is a Televue EP? Is it the make of one or a style?

[John]

Sounds like my next upgrade from my standard eye pieves.

What is a Televue EP? Is it the make of one or a style?

Tele Vue are a small company based near New York. They market quality refractors, eyepieces and other astro optical gear. Their stuff is top notch but does cost more than many other brands. They have been around since the early 1980's and one of their most famous products is an eyepiece design called a Nagler after the company founder Al Nagler. They also market an excellent range of eyepieces of the plossl design, including the 32mm.

John

[Darren B]

I'm going to upset the apple cart to say that i preferred the Celestron 30mm Ultima to the TV32mm Plossl. When I veiwed with the TV32, the image seem to be at the bottom of the eyepiece giving that viewing through a tube experience. The Ultima seemed to bring the image to the top of the eyepiece. That is the only reason as both gave very sharp and clear images. I gave the TV32mm to my brother who uses it in his 90mm Mak. It is his most used eyepiece and he's more than happy with it.

[John]

It's funny you should say that Darren ...... I've often read that the Ultima 30mm is a superb eyepiece (the other Ultimas are not too shabby either) but I've not had the pleasure of actually trying one. I have owned a couple of Ultima 35mm's though which were excellent but (unlike the rest of the Ultima range) do need a lot of additional inward focusser movement which means they have trouble coming to focus in some scopes - that would not be a problem in a Mak though.

John

[Darren B]

Hi John, I use to own the mak that my brother now owns and don't recall having to turn the focus that much when I change eyepieces or with any other Telescope that I owned. I tried the comparision with my present telescope WO80 at x18. With the mak it would be around x41 and I wonder with the mak longer focal length would the difference be less or even noticeable.

[John]

Hi John, I use to own the mak that my brother now owns and don't recall having to turn the focus that much when I change eyepieces or with any other Telescope that I owned. I tried the comparision with my present telescope WO80 at x18. With the mak it would be around x41 and I wonder with the mak longer focal length would the difference be less or even noticeable.

I think it's only the 35mm Ultima that needs the additional inward focus travel - the others in the range all seem to focus at a relatively "normal" position. Focus travel is rarely an issue with Mak's and SCT's though.

John

[Michael Rapley]

My 32mm Televue plossl should be arriving in the post any day now. I've been slowly picking up TV plossls second hand, they are markedly better that most of the other plossls that i have looked through

[david o]

The TV Plössls, quite apart from their undisputed optical qualities, have a certain... heft to them. A rather pleasing feel, that lets you know they'll last a lifetime.

So, over the last couple of months I've been building toward a full set of them. Now just waiting for the last (11, 32 & 40mm) to arrive. I made use of that bank holiday discount at Telescope House

Those, and the set of volcano top Orthos I've built up, are the backbone of an EP collection that'll work well in almost any 'scope.

[John]

I've owned a set of the smooth-side TV plossls and a set of the later versions and they are really well made eyepieces. Personally I don't think I'd invest in the 40mm again though - it's a fine quality eyepiece but it's way off from par-focal with the rest of the range and shows no more sky than the 32mm does. It's long eye relief is good for glasses wearers (it was designed for this purpose I believe) but can make it awkward to find the right eye positoning if you don't wear glasses.

[acey]

Interesting, I have the 8,11,20 and 32mm notch-sided TV plossls and wouldn't call them remotely parfocal - in fact I've just put some parfocalising rings on them to save me re-focusing. Also the notch drives me nuts and I'd much prefer if they had smooth sides. Maybe the old ones would have been better for me!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I've owned a set of the smooth-side TV plossls and a set of the later versions and they are really well made eyepieces. Personally I don't think I'd invest in the 40mm again though - it's a fine quality eyepiece but it's way off from par-focal with the rest of the range and shows no more sky than the 32mm does. It's long eye relief is good for glasses wearers (it was designed for this purpose I believe) but can make it awkward to find the right eye positoning if you don't wear glasses.

The plossl design has an eye relief of about 80% of the focal length, so anything above about 25mm has plenty of eye relief. The design was never intended with eye relief in mind though. In my personal experience, my 26mm Celestron Plossl was quite a nice piece of kit, but the 10 mm annoyed the hell out of me because of short eye relief. The 36 mm Vixen had too much eye relief, with te image hovering uncomfortably far behind the tube (the Vixen had no eye cup at all, unlike the TeleVues).

[John]

Interesting, I have the 8,11,20 and 32mm notch-sided TV plossls and wouldn't call them remotely parfocal - in fact I've just put some parfocalising rings on them to save me re-focusing. Also the notch drives me nuts and I'd much prefer if they had smooth sides. Maybe the old ones would have been better for me!

Thats odd - the two TV plossl ranges that I've owned were spot-on par focal (with the exception of the 40mm as already mentioned). That's one of the main reasons I bought them

I agree about the undercut barrel though - I much prefer the smooth ones but that seems to have gone out of fashion !.

[acey]

Yes, that's very odd. Wonder if there have been successive versions of the "same" series?

TBH I've always wondered why all EP series aren't parfocal - surely just a case of machining rather than optics.

Or maybe I've got really weird eyes.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Getting eyepieces parfocal is a mechanical issue, but it is not just the machining. If your EP has all its lenses at the observer side of the focal plane of the scope, machining is really the only issue, but even then you may want to watch the balance of the EPs.

In many long eye relief EPs (LV and Speers-Waler I think) there is a barlow-like negative lens in front of the focal plane. Getting things parfocal with other types of EP becomes hard, due to limitations in the barrel length (you do not want to crach your EP barrel into your diagonal now, do you).

Within one series it is more of a matter of machining

[pbyrne]

The 32mm was my first Televue, and I was bitten by the quality, I sold it to purchase a 27mm Panoptic for my dob, a truly wonderful eyepiece. I have owned Radians and Naglers as well as the Panoptic and I have never been disappointed.

I now have an ETX 105 and I will be on the look out for a 32 TV Plossl.

I have owned a 30mm Ultima and it is a fantastic eyepiece:headbang:, very sharp across the field of view and every bit as good as the Televue.

The reason I'll go for the Televue is that all my eyepieces are Televue, and it's just a little quirk that I have.

[John]

....The reason I'll go for the Televue is that all my eyepieces are Televue, and it's just a little quirk that I have.

I have that quirk too ......

[LukeSkywatcher]

I thought my Celestron 32mm Plossl was the best EP ever until it died and i bought a Vixen NPL 30mm EP from a fellow SGL user.

It gives me about the same FOV but even I as a complete prat can see the difference between both visually. Crisp sharp image right to the egde of the FOV and i'm convinced that it can also detect much fainter stars then the Celestron ever did.

One of these years i will bite the bullet and invest in a TV Plossl of 32mm or so because i really do like widefield views.

What is the apparent FOV of this EP?

[John]

One of these years i will bite the bullet and invest in a TV Plossl of 32mm or so because i really do like widefield views.

What is the apparent FOV of this EP?

It's 50 degrees - it's a standard plossl design, just well executed.

For wider fields of view you have Radians = 60 degrees AFoV, Panoptics = 68 degrees AFoV, Naglers = 82 degrees AFoV, Ethos = 100 degree AFoV and now the Ethos SX = 110 degrees AFoV