What would the “best of each range” set be?

[John]

9 minutes ago, IB20 said:

Oooh. 😁 

Do they have the same twist barrel mechanism as the Delites, as I wasn’t a huge fan of that style?

Yes they do. I prefer the XW approach than the Delos / Delite approach but it's not a showstopper for me. Once I had my Delos eye cup in the position I liked, that was it.

[IB20]

16 minutes ago, John said:

Yes they do. I prefer the XW approach than the Delos / Delite approach but it's not a showstopper for me. Once I had my Delos eye cup in the position I liked, that was it.

I found it didn’t take much pressure to move the barrel and sometimes replacing the eye caps moved it. Perhaps I just had a loose outlier of a Delite? 

[John]

11 minutes ago, IB20 said:

I found it didn’t take much pressure to move the barrel and sometimes replacing the eye caps moved it. Perhaps I just had a loose outlier of a Delite? 

Once locked the Delos eye cup section seems to stay firmly in place, at least in the ones that I have used. It is a two handed operation to lock it though. I have yet to use a Delite but I believe that it is the same.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by John

[JeremyS]

11 hours ago, RobertI said:

If I had one of these beauties, it would be on show in a cabinet on my wall, so I could admire it in between sessions! 🙂. 

It is. Viewing, touching and smelling. Total sensory immersion 😊

[Ricochet]

11 hours ago, IB20 said:

I found it didn’t take much pressure to move the barrel and sometimes replacing the eye caps moved it. Perhaps I just had a loose outlier of a Delite? 

I don't think so. I've got six of them andI think they're all like it, particularly in dewey conditions. 

[Don Pensack]

17 hours ago, IB20 said:

Oooh. 😁 

Do they have the same twist barrel mechanism as the Delites, as I wasn’t a huge fan of that style?

They do.  That eyecup style originated with the Delos.

[Don Pensack]

5 hours ago, Ricochet said:

I don't think so. I've got six of them and I think they're all like it, particularly in dewey conditions. 

1) the lower (black) caps on Delites require too much pressure to install and remove.  I suggest changing the lower caps to a type that fits looser.

2) Remove the collet and rings and make sure the eyepiece is cleaned of all grease or oil.  I used a small alcohol pad.

3) always use two hands to loosen and tighten the collet in the eyecup.

I was able to tighten the Delite eyecups sufficiently it would take a hammer to move the eyecup.

4) When removing the lower cap, grab the eyepiece below the shoulder so that pulling the bottom cap off doesn't put upward pressure on the eyecup.

The top cap comes of so easily you needn't worry about that.

[IB20]

If anyone wants a fantastic 12.5mm, there are two Celestron Ultimas available in the classifieds section. Wonderful glass; I love mine. Great for Ha too!

[Louis D]

16 hours ago, JeremyS said:

It is. Viewing, touching and smelling. Total sensory immersion 😊

[Stu]

I’m going to be a bit of a party pooper on this thread although I’m sure I am alone in my thoughts so don’t let that stop the fun 😊.

I know that there are design differences between different focal lengths in a range, but to me across the range they do different jobs so different aspects are important and I’ve never really thought to compare them. They all provide different mags so the results will vary depending on seeing etc, and different exit pupils so eye astigmatism, field curvature and background sky brightness will come into play in the larger ones and floaters get in the way in smaller ones. For planetary eyepieces I’m largely looking for on axis sharpness, contrast and low light scatter, for widefield it’s again about contrast but edge sharpness is as important probably.

For instance a 3.5mm XW vs a 40mm XW, how do you realistically compare a high power planetary eyepiece with a widefield one? On this particular range, I’ve always steered clear of the XWs above 10mm out of concern over field curvature; I know some of them don’t play nicely with certain scope types so I avoid them. I have the 3.5 to 10mm though and find them all excellent; again  a lot changes between a 3.5mm and a 10mm so I find them hard to compare.

In terms of Naglers, there are many different types but the 31mm Type 5 is wonderful I think. Unlike Mike, I’ve found it very sharp to the edge in my Televue Genesis (Phil 😉), whereas a comparable ES 30mm showed a fair amount of field curvature so wasn’t as nice. The 22mm and 17mm Type 4s I have and like, but find eye placement tricky with them. I used to have the 2.5, 3.5 and 7mm Type 7s and they are little gems, amazingly compact for such a good performing 82 degree but I never chose a favourite between them.

The other part that is equally important in the equation is the scope being used of course, it’s a complete system after all, not just the eyepiece or scope individually. I have used a 31mm Nagler to give me a five degree field in the Genesis, but have even used it as a mid/high power eyepiece in my OMC200 where it gave x129 given the 4000mm focal length. Coming back to the XWs, I believe the longer focal length versions play better in some scope types vs others as the field curvature either cancels or reinforces, so the eyepiece performance will be judged differently depending on the scope used.

I have had 3 Docter 12.5mm UWAs now, and intend to hold onto this one, it cost me enough! Such a foolish decision to sell them before. I recall seeing five moons around Saturn, four of which were visible at x59 in the Docter with no scatter and great contrast.

So, in summary after all my rambling, I can confidently say that the Docter 12.5mm UWA is the best model in the range (😉), beyond that I have no comment to make 😝

[Mr Spock]

I agree the best eyepiece depends on how you use it.

For a magnification just above x200 which is ideal for Saturn and Jupiter, I have a number of options. For the Tak I use the Tak prism and a 3.3mm TOE for x224; I find this great for the moon too.
The 4mm TOE is also an option for x185. I was using this on Jupiter  a few nights ago and was struck by the clarity of belt detail and a delicate festoon.

For the 12" Dob I have a couple of 7mm choices; I have a 7mm Circle-T ortho which is very good, and a 7mm Nirvana which is its equal (x217). However, the orthos take on a new life when used with a 2.5x Powermate and the 18mm gives x211 - I've not seen anything better. The 8mm LVW is also good at x190.

At short focal lengths I'm torn between the TOE range I have and the Circle-Ts with Powermate. Common sense says I should have stuck with the orthos and saved a grand... 

For doubles I just use the Nirvanas. Their wide field of view and being parfocal make observing so much easier than other eyepieces.

This is why I have a selection of eyepiece makes. One does not do all and they also vary from scope to scope. What I have does allow me to get the best out of my scope and that's all I need 

[IB20]

So here’s where we are at:

• Vixen HRs or TOE range (I don’t care, I’m including them all they are that good!!)
• 5mm XW
• 6mm Ethos 
• 7mm APM XWA
• 9mm Morpheus
• 10mm Delos and a BCO for travelling
• 11mm Apollo
• 12.5mm Docter
• 15mm BST Starguider
• 18.2mm Delite
• 22mm LVW
• 24mm Panoptic
• 30mm APM UFF
• 35mm Celestron Ultima

[Stu]

6 hours ago, IB20 said:

So here’s where we are at:

• Vixen HRs or TOE range (I don’t care, I’m including them all they are that good!!)
• 5mm XW
• 6mm Ethos 
• 7mm APM XWA
• 9mm Morpheus
• 10mm Delos and a BCO for travelling
• 11mm Apollo
• 12.5mm Docter
• 15mm BST Starguider
• 18.2mm Delite
• 22mm LVW
• 24mm Panoptic
• 30mm APM UFF
• 35mm Celestron Ultima

Do we have a contender in the Nagler and Ethos ranges? I would vote for 31mm Nag but have only tried the 3.7, 4.7, 13, 17 and 21 Ethosesseses (or whatever the plural is) so can’t fully comment. Didn’t get on with the short ones as I spent most of the time looking at my eyelashes to see the full fov. Either 13 or 21mm I guess.

[IB20]

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

Do we have a contender in the Nagler and Ethos ranges? I would vote for 31mm Nag but have only tried the 3.7, 4.7, 13, 17 and 21 Ethosesseses (or whatever the plural is) so can’t fully comment. Didn’t get on with the short ones as I spent most of the time looking at my eyelashes to see the full fov. Either 13 or 21mm I guess.

I’ll defer to Don on the Nagler front. He recommended the 22mm T4, 13mm & 5mm T6. Tempted to have that really massive hand grenade one (31mm?) in there just for giggles though. Ethos wise, John picked the 6mm.

[Mr Spock]

I used to have a 22mmT4. They are very sharp. I sold it to fund purchasing a 22mm LVW because, apart from the fov, the LVW is better 

[Stu]

3 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

I used to have a 22mmT4. They are very sharp. I sold it to fund purchasing a 22mm LVW because, apart from the fov, the LVW is better 

Not disputing this as I’ve not tried the LVW but in what way is it better?

[Mr Spock]

22 minutes ago, Stu said:

Not disputing this as I’ve not tried the LVW but in what way is it better?

The LVWs as a whole are more comfortable to look though. The T4, as good as it is, still suffers from SAEP and associated blackouts requiring careful eye placement. The 22mm LVW has none of that; it's like looking though an open window. Stars are also more pinpoint and colourful. It's only 65° though, but I don't mind that in exchange for image quality.

[Saganite]

59 minutes ago, Stu said:

Do we have a contender in the Nagler and Ethos ranges? I would vote for 31mm Nag but have only tried the 3.7, 4.7, 13, 17 and 21 Ethosesseses (or whatever the plural is) so can’t fully comment. Didn’t get on with the short ones as I spent most of the time looking at my eyelashes to see the full fov. Either 13 or 21mm I guess.

We do Stu.  Early on my vote was for the 13mm T6 , a superb eyepiece.  I have never tried the Doctor 12.5mm but  I binoview most objects and for that a pair of Nagler 13's are perfect.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Saganite

[Zermelo]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Ethosesseses (or whatever the plural is)

I can't find my dictionary, so I asked Chatgpt:

The word "ethos" is a Greek term, and its plural form in English is "ethoses" or "ethe" (pronounced as "ee-thay"). Both forms are considered correct, but "ethoses" is more commonly used.

I rather like "Ethe".

[Stu]

35 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

I can't find my dictionary, so I asked Chatgpt:

The word "ethos" is a Greek term, and its plural form in English is "ethoses" or "ethe" (pronounced as "ee-thay"). Both forms are considered correct, but "ethoses" is more commonly used.

I rather like "Ethe".

Ethe it is! That has oft been a discussion point, unresolved until now 👍

[Stu]

47 minutes ago, Saganite said:

We do Stu.  Early on my vote was for the 13mm T6 , a superb eyepiece.  I have never tried the Doctor 12.5mm but  I binoview most objects and for that a pair of Nagler 13's are perfect.

I do like the Type 6s I must say. Might have to try those in a binoviewer but might find that the extra field of view is wasted as I just tend to look on axis when binoviewing.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

The LVWs as a whole are more comfortable to look though. The T4, as good as it is, still suffers from SAEP and associated blackouts requiring careful eye placement. The 22mm LVW has none of that; it's like looking though an open window. Stars are also more pinpoint and colourful. It's only 65° though, but I don't mind that in exchange for image quality.

Hmmm, yea I do find the eye placement critical either the 17 and 22 that I’ve got. Might try the little placement guides that come with them to see if that helps.

[bosun21]

3 hours ago, Stu said:

Ethosesseses (or whatever the plural is)

The plural is Ethea or Ethoses.

[Piero]

On 09/09/2023 at 22:14, John said:

Tele Vue have a parfocal group called "B" and quite a lot of their eyepieces reach focus there - it's about 8mm further out than many other brands of eyepiece (eg: Pentax XW's).

TV plossls, Radians, 1.25 inch Panoptics, T6 Naglers, Nagler zooms and a few others are included in this group. 

I think you meant "D".

I never tried a Pentax XW, but following your argument (some of?) these should reach focus at around "A" (3 x 0.1" ~ 8mm) in the PC2.

[Piero]

My favourites based on what I tried:

- docter

- Zeiss zoom d-vario 20-75x (at f6, not at f4)

- Vixen HR 2.4mm (also had 3.4mm and 2.0mm)

- Vixen SLV 5mm (also had 9mm)

- Delos 6 (also have/had 12mm, 8mm, 4.5mm)

- N22T4

- N9T6 (also have /had 2x 13mm and 2x 7mm)

- 24 Pan (also had 35mm)

- 7mm APM XWA (also have/had 20mm branded Lunt, 9mm and 4.77mm)

- 30mm APM UFF

 

I tried many others of course, but these are/were those that I would call the best ones I tried.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Piero