Gone Full Circle! (Back to 1.25" and Plossls.)

[Roy Challen]

2 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

I got by with nothing fancier than a set of Meade Plossls for 15 years, and today I use TV Plossls more than any other eyepiece. I bought an Astro Essentials plossl (£20) from FLO recently just to see how it performed and it’s very nice. For all our forum debates, eyepieces are far more similar than they are different - astonishingly so, considering the cost differences. Currently, the most expensive hyperwides are 45 times more expensive than the humble plossl I bought, yet on axis sharpness is pretty similar.

Totally agree, my most expensive eyepiece currently in use is a Hyperflex zoom, it's fantastic not just on axis but almost to the edge even in a f/5.9 frac. The only reason to spend more is for a wider field and more eye relief, not better quality.

[Ags]

Agreed mostly, but I've had some duds too. A Nirvana 16 enraged me with its curvature and asigmatism, while some SkyWatcher 66° wide angles were unusable with intense internal reflections.

[Froeng]

Here is my set of 50deg goodness…

I am wearing glasses, so the short fl Plössls don’t do it for me. I may sell off the 10.5mm TV and the 7.5mm Ultima as you have to crawl into the eyelens!

Edited April 30, 2023 by Froeng

[John]

I agree with much of what is being said in this thread but I have to say that in my experience todays hyper-wide eyepieces are superb optical performers. Yes they are bulky and yes they are expensive and no, not everyone enjoys the very wide field of view. But there is much more to their optical performance than just the huge width of the view.

I do enjoy eyepieces with fields from 45 degrees and upwards although I don't own any plossls now. I have owned and enjoyed dozens in the past though. Maybe I've not yet come around the circle 🙂

Sorry to be an "outlier" but I can only speak as I've found 🙂

[The Lapwing]

I get this, me too. I find changing eyepieces a bit of a drag at the best of times, changing from 1.25 to 2 inch and then rebalancing in the dark on a freezing cold night is something I could do without. I went back to old of my old favourites, the 32 mm TV plossl. Works for me anyway 

[mikeDnight]

4 hours ago, Roy Challen said:

How's the eye relief on the 5 and 3.8mm? I have owned 30, 12.5, and 7.5mm Ultimas in the past. They were good but not better than equivalent orthos. Just curious, as I'm looking for a good 5mm and maybe <2.5mm without having to use a barlow. Possibly, using a barlow with a slightly longer focal length is actually better.

I don't need to wear glasses while observing, so find both the 5mm and 3.8mm quite comfortable to use. I prefer the comfort of the 5mm to that of the 7.5mm. I think the 5mm & 3.8mm incorporate some kind of barlow into the design. 

[JeremyS]

1 hour ago, John said:

I agree with much of what is being said in this thread but I have to say that in my experience todays hyper-wide eyepieces are superb optical performers. Yes they are bulky and yes they are expensive and no, not everyone enjoys the very wide field of view. But there is much more to their optical performance than just the huge width of the view.

I do enjoy eyepieces with fields from 45 degrees and upwards although I don't own any plossls now. I have owned and enjoyed dozens in the past though. Maybe I've not yet come around the circle 🙂

Sorry to be an "outlier" but I can only speak as I've found 🙂

Indeed, John. I’ve only recently come to the Ethos and am flabbergasted how good they are for planetary observing. Previously I’d gone for simple lens EP.

The Ethos are darn bulky tho!

[cloudsweeper]

Yeah, I had AFOV fever and acquired a few bruisers.  Still got some, and they are good for extended views and for tracking, but I now really like the simpler, lighter EPs, and using the GoTo mount means tracking with a reduced field is not much of an issue.

Upshot of studying this thread - I fancy a 35mm Eudiascopic to expand my range further into the low power region!

Doug.

[Elp]

Good luck trying to find one.