Explore Scientific or Celestron Luminos, Which 82 degree Eye Piece?

[Andy ES]

Hi

I’ve done a bit of reading up on eye piece reviews but still would like some advice and hear any experience anyone’s got of the two lower power Eye Pieces  below and which one would best suit my kit.

Explore Scientific 82 degree 30mm

Or

Celestron Luminos 82 degree 31mm

For use with:

Celestron CPC 925 F10 SCT. (Data sheet attached)

Thanks for any advice, or a view on which one would you get?

Cheers

Andy

 

 

 

[F15Rules]

I can't speak for the ES 30, but I have the Axiom LX 31mm which preceded the Luminos, and is a fabulous (and heavy) eyepiece.

My reading tells me that the Axiom LX range were much  better than the later Luminos, certainly  in longer focal lengths. 

The Axiom LX 31mm is shown on the far right..

HTH,

Dave

Edited June 21, 2023 by F15Rules
Photo added

[John]

This question has been asked before. Here is a link to the thread:

Celestron Luminos 31mm vs. Explore Scientific 82 Series 30mm - Discussions - Eyepieces - Stargazers Lounge

The questioner there had a dobsonian scope in mind but I suspect the ES 30 would be a better eyepiece in an SCT as well.

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by John

[Louis D]

Actually, I would vote for neither and recommend the APM UFF 30mm.  It has a measured 73 degree AFOV, a 69 degree eAFOV, and a 36.4mm diameter field stop.  It is sharp from edge to edge and flat of field with plenty of eye relief for eyeglass wearers.  It has basically no SAEP or CAEP.

My mushroom top ES-82 30mm isn't as sharp in the central part of the field and has loads of CAEP in the outer 10% of the field, rendering that area unsuitable for allowing planets to drift edge to edge.  Planets get split into distinct red and blue images in that region.  Thus, that extra 10 degrees of AFOV/eAFOV and 42.4mm diameter field stop don't really buy you that much extra usable field of view.  It's only pleasing to use by keeping your gaze on axis and allowing the CAEP to disappear in your peripheral vision.  For that use case, the space walk experience is definitely better than that of the UFF.  It really depends on what you want to use it for.  The original version I own is just barely useable with eyeglasses.  The current version is not.

If you don't wear eyeglasses, the 100 degree APM XWA 20mm might be a better choice for an even more immersive experience.  It is sold under multiple brands including Astro-Tech XWA and Stellarview Optimus.  You'll also get a darker background for better contrast.

[Don Pensack]

APM UFF 30mm = Altair Astro UFF 30mm = Meade UHD 30mm = Celestron Ultima Edge 30mm = Sky Rover Ultra Flat 30mm = StellaLyra Ultra Flat 30mm = Tecnosky Ultra Flat Field 30mm.

All are the same eyepiece internally.

 

APM XWA 20mm = Astrotech 20mm XWA = Stellarvue Optimus 20mm = Antares XWA 20mm = Sky Rover XWA 20mm = Tecnosky XWA 20mm = Telescope Service XWA 20mm

All are the same eyepiece internally.

 

There are lots of private label incarnations of the same eyepieces these days.

[cajen2]

I've never used the ES but I have observed through a friend's Luminos 31mil and was less than impressed. I'm with Louis on this one: my Ultima Edge 30mm blew the Luminos out of the water! Half the weight and size and with a sharp image clear across the FOV.

[Louis D]

I believe the Luminos line was designed by the same folks who did the Meade MWA line.  Both suffer from loads of SAEP that limit the easily usable FOV.

Resale value isn't particularly good for either line should you buy new and decide to move it along later, so make sure to buy used to avoid being the one who takes the hit to the wallet.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

If you really want to go to 82 degrees at this length, I can recommend the Nagler 31T5, which is probably my most-used wide-field EP in my Celestron C8. It is also astounding in my Meade SN-6 6" F/5 Schmidt Newton. Very bulky, very heavy, but really good.

[rwilkey]

From an ergonomic point of view I prefer the ExSc, however, the twist-up eyeguard on the Luminos is a great feature which I love (I have the Axiom LX's).  The 23mm which I sold was cumbersome and heavy though.  I think I would prefer the old Axiom's rather than the Luminos.

Edited June 24, 2023 by rwilkey

[bosun21]

IMO the 30mm APM UFF (Stella Lyra and others) is superior to both the Luminos and ES. It's optically superior and physically smaller and lighter. It's an easy choice for me.

[F15Rules]

8 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

If you really want to go to 82 degrees at this length, I can recommend the Nagler 31T5, which is probably my most-used wide-field EP in my Celestron C8. It is also astounding in my Meade SN-6 6" F/5 Schmidt Newton. Very bulky, very heavy, but really good.

I would tend to agree..

It was favourable online comparisons with the "Terminagler" 31mm on the other site that convinced me to buy the Axiom LX 31mm. Although even heavier than the T31, the Axiom LX, when decloaked, loses about 1/3 of its weight.. (see photo below).

(Top L-R: Morpheus 9mm, Nagler T2.12mm, Axiom LX 23mm (decloaked) and Axiom LX 31mm (also decloaked). Notice how, when decloaked, the Axioms look much more in size like the Morph 9mm  and Nag 12mm).

I'm not claiming the Axiom 31mm is as good as the T31, as I've not used the Nagler. And I respect the opinions of SGLers such as Michael and John who have used them a lot..

However, a good used Nagler T31mm can cost £400-£500, and an Axiom LX 31mm can be had for £150 or less. So if if I can get 90%-95% of the performance of the Nagler from the Axiom LX at1/3 the price, I'm well happy.😊

Dave

Edited June 24, 2023 by F15Rules
Additional text info and photo..

[The Lapwing]

On 21/06/2023 at 22:43, John said:

This question has been asked before. Here is a link to the thread:

Celestron Luminos 31mm vs. Explore Scientific 82 Series 30mm - Discussions - Eyepieces - Stargazers Lounge

The questioner there had a dobsonian scope in mind but I suspect the ES 30 would be a better eyepiece in an SCT as well.

 

I am in agreement, I would but the ES, amazing value for money, some ES are very close to TV, the 20 mm from the 68 series is as good as any Panoptic in my opinion anyway.

 

 

 

[John]

3 minutes ago, The Lapwing said:

I am in agreement, I would but the ES, amazing value for money, some ES are very close to TV, the 20 mm from the 68 series is as good as any Panoptic in my opinion anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

There are quite a few options that are very close to TV performance these days and often for quite few less £'s 🙂

 

 

[Louis D]

Since the 31mm Nagler has less usable eye relief than the original ES-82 30mm and its brand brethren, I'm in no hurry to plunk down $500+ for one.  That, and being the same basic design (ES copied it in large part), it still suffers from CAEP.

I much prefer my 29mm ES-92 (a surplused 12mm ES-92 missing it's Smyth group of lenses) to the 30mm ES-82.  It has much better usable eye relief, no noticeable CAEP or SAEP, a truly immersive field of view (93 degrees), and a 48.4mm measured optical field stop (52mm physically) yielding a 96 degree eAFOV.  Sure, it has progressively worse chromatic aberration outside the inner 30 degrees or so, but it's not noticeable if you look only on axis.  Sweeping rich star fields with it is an amazing experience.  It's what the old Kasai Super WideView 90° should have been, and more.  If ES could work out how to tame the chromatic aberrations without losing usable field, it would be the complete package.

[The Lapwing]

17 hours ago, Louis D said:

Since the 31mm Nagler has less usable eye relief than the original ES-82 30mm and its brand brethren, I'm in no hurry to plunk down $500+ for one.  That, and being the same basic design (ES copied it in large part), it still suffers from CAEP.

I much prefer my 29mm ES-92 (a surplused 12mm ES-92 missing it's Smyth group of lenses) to the 30mm ES-82.  It has much better usable eye relief, no noticeable CAEP or SAEP, a truly immersive field of view (93 degrees), and a 48.4mm measured optical field stop (52mm physically) yielding a 96 degree eAFOV.  Sure, it has progressively worse chromatic aberration outside the inner 30 degrees or so, but it's not noticeable if you look only on axis.  Sweeping rich star fields with it is an amazing experience.  It's what the old Kasai Super WideView 90° should have been, and more.  If ES could work out how to tame the chromatic aberrations without losing usable field, it would be the complete package.

I agree 

[John]

Personally I love the 31mm Nagler even though I don't use it that much. The Ethos 21 is more effective under my skies, usually. I didn't get on with the ES 92's (I had both the 12mm and 17mm for a few months) although optically they are excellent I agree. 

Lucky that there so many choices around today 🙂

[The Lapwing]

There are indeed John.

 I have never used the APM UFF 30mm, but they are commented upon in the most positive of lights over on the other channel across the pond on CN

[Guest]

My 30mm 82 degree ES eyepiece practically lives in my 16 inch.  Add a coma corrector to it and its a solid eyepiece 

[Andy ES]

Thanks all for your contributions and advice.

Seems like a clear favourite of the two.

 

[Bivanus]

I also like ES from another point of view: they do well if humid conditions arise.  I had the not really wanted chance to test the 68 / 16 mm and 20 mm Ar purged ones …because I forgot them on the garden table...and it rained...