82 Degree Price V Quality - Baader, Explore, and Skywatcher

[Zermelo]

8 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Mine worked very well for me, apparently the flaw some folk see is field curvature, something my eyes can accommodate it seems.

I defer to the eyepiece guru https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/692742-ovl-nirvana-16mm-on-short-focal-lengths/#entry9954074

Me too. Opinions on the 16mm seem to be very polarized, but I've had some great views of open clusters with mine, and I don't recall seeing FC. I'd have to check, but I think that would have been with both a F11. 8 Mak and an F5 Newt.

[Ratlet]

34 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

Me too. Opinions on the 16mm seem to be very polarized, but I've had some great views of open clusters with mine, and I don't recall seeing FC. I'd have to check, but I think that would have been with both a F11. 8 Mak and an F5 Newt.

I found it really difficult to use.  Honestly I probably give it a hard time, but it wasn't helped by being part of a testing run I was doing at the time. 

The biggest issue for me was I couldn't get the centre field and edges in focus at the same time and (been awhile since I used it) I seem to remember that when it wasn't in focus the edge stars were pretty comet like.  I was doing a lot of sketching at the time without tracking and adjust scope position and focus whilst trying to sketch just became an exercise in frustration.  I also wasn't particularly enamoured by the wide fov.  It was a bit to much for sketching 

The final nail in the coffin was that I was doing a bit of eyepiece comparing at the time and decided to follow it up with a Morpheus 17.5mm which was basically the end for it.  Not that the Morpheus is perfect (optically it pretty much is to me) as. I find the focus point to be quite sensitive as well as eye positioning.

Actually, I'm going to dig out the Nirvana again and give it a try again.  One thing I didn't try that was suggested at the time was to focus for half way out of the fov rather than for dead centre.  It's certainly a lot lighter and smaller than the Morpheus.

I think at the end of all the testing I did I concluded that for DSO I found the BST starguiders to be my ideal.

[Zermelo]

4 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

the edge stars were pretty comet like

Coma?

5 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

Morpheus 17.5mm which was basically the end for it.

The same, I've not used the Nirvana since I bought my Morph.

[Damo1965]

16 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Mine worked very well for me, apparently the flaw some folk see is field curvature, something my eyes can accommodate it seems.

I defer to the eyepiece guru https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/692742-ovl-nirvana-16mm-on-short-focal-lengths/#entry9954074

Agree,

I've been trying to see if there's any real difference in curvature between the 16mm in my 150mm newt and 254mm newt - both f/5. So far nothing has leapt out although there seems to have been some very 'soft' seeing since I tried do this comparison. 

[Bivanus]

Well, there is also another sad sad thing to ponder regarding EP's and it kinda hit me that I've begun requiring to distance the phone away from my eyes to see it more clearly, so glasses have become just a matter of "when" not "if" 🤓 ... As our illustrious predecessor Descartes (or other) said  "Whoever chases an indeterminate number of rabbits has a chance of catching an indeterminate number of said furies tending asymptotically to zero" (or something like that) so, when I persistently saw listed stock for TeleVue Nagler Type4 22mm at a real brick & mortar store (yeah, rare this days) I've sounded the alarm to all Friends-Acquaintances-Relatives in the area of interest, and one of them (bless him !) did the due and slowly , reaaaaaaaaly slowly...David Attenborough "The Swimming of the Camels" wild life documentary level slowly... it got to me.
Together with the  APM UFF 30mm and using the ES 3x tele-expander and the APM 2x Barlow , I now have a combo line with generous glasses usable ER and AFOV as wide as possible in a range of FL 30/22 (native) - 20/14.6 (with BWx1.5) - 15/11 (with BWx2 ) 10/7.3 (with BWx3) that can be considered "future proof"

EDIT: The 2" Barlow lens from APM can have its cell unscrewed like the 1.25" one and mounted directly on the EP works in 1.5x mode

Edited Sunday at 14:56 by Bivanus

[Don Pensack]

7 hours ago, Bivanus said:

Well, there is also another sad sad thing to ponder regarding EP's and it kinda hit me that I've begun requiring to distance the phone away from my eyes to see it more clearly, so glasses have become just a matter of "when" not "if" 🤓 ... As our illustrious predecessor Descartes (or other) said  "Whoever chases an indeterminate number of rabbits has a chance of catching an indeterminate number of said furies tending asymptotically to zero" (or something like that) so, when I persistently saw listed stock for TeleVue Nagler Type4 22mm at a real brick & mortar store (yeah, rare this days) I've sounded the alarm to all Friends-Acquaintances-Relatives in the area of interest, and one of them (bless him !) did the due and slowly , reaaaaaaaaly slowly...David Attenborough "The Swimming of the Camels" wild life documentary level slowly... it got to me.
Together with the  APM UFF 30mm and using the ES 3x tele-expander and the APM 2x Barlow , I now have a combo line with generous glasses usable ER and AFOV as wide as possible in a range of FL 30/22 (native) - 20/14.6 (with BWx1.5) - 15/11 (with BWx2 ) 10/7.3 (with BWx3) that can be considered "future proof"

EDIT: The 2" Barlow lens from APM can have its cell unscrewed like the 1.25" one and mounted directly on the EP works in 1.5x mode

Be very careful to measure clearances when mounting the lens cell of the APM/Barsta Barlow directly to the 22mm Nagler so the lenses don't touch.  That would be a terrible loss of both eyepiece and Barlow.

Edited Sunday at 22:19 by Don Pensack

[Deadlake]

Has anyone tried the Pentax 16 mm 85 degree model at all?

I have the APM XWAks, however a smaller EP would be more transportable.
 

The Pentax 23 mm is also of interest.

Usuallyhave between SQM 20.5 to 20.7 in the back yard, can make a difference with the amount of contrast an EP will present,

Edited Monday at 20:10 by Deadlake

[hal9550]

Just wondering if anyone noticed this eyepiece - im unfamiliar

https://www.astroshop.eu/eyepieces/omegon-eyepiece-oberon-32mm-2-/p,52940#specifications

Omegon Oberon 82 degree 31mm. I have seen it noted elsewhere that it is similar in quality to the Celestron Luminous 31mm 

Reason i ask is that its currently ON Sale and heavily reduced in price

How would it compare to say, a 28mm Nirvana? Genuinely curious - the prices are comparable - and nearly half the price of the ES82 30mm

[John]

17 minutes ago, hal9550 said:

Just wondering if anyone noticed this eyepiece - im unfamiliar

https://www.astroshop.eu/eyepieces/omegon-eyepiece-oberon-32mm-2-/p,52940#specifications

Omegon Oberon 82 degree 31mm. I have seen it noted elsewhere that it is similar in quality to the Celestron Luminous 31mm 

Reason i ask is that its currently ON Sale and heavily reduced in price

How would it compare to say, a 28mm Nirvana? Genuinely curious - the prices are comparable - and nearly half the price of the ES82 30mm

The Oberon range have same set of focal lengths (except the 32 but that could be just labelling) as the Celestron Luminos 82's so quite possibly the same under the skin ?

Price is very competitive though.

Edited Monday at 21:34 by John

[hal9550]

36 minutes ago, John said:

The Oberon range have same set of focal lengths (except the 32 but that could be just labelling) as the Celestron Luminos 82's so quite possibly the same under the skin ?

Price is very competitive though.

The 31 luminous doesnt seem to get a lot of love at all

Omegon claim this one is corrected for Telescopes F7 and above - 

Just looking at a maximum afov eyepiece around that 30mm mark, - and saw that its on sale

Love to know if anyone has any experience with it - or knows its exact brand siblings - astromania seem to have a similar one

[Don Pensack]

2 hours ago, Deadlake said:

Has anyone tried the Pentax 16 mm 85 degree model at all?

I have the APM XWAks, however a smaller EP would be more transportable.
 

The Pentax 23 mm is also of interest.

Usuallyhave between SQM 20.5 to 20.7 in the back yard, can make a difference with the amount of contrast an EP will present,

There are many reviews on line if you search.

There is a current thread on the 16.5mm on cloudynights.com

[Don Pensack]

1 hour ago, hal9550 said:

Just wondering if anyone noticed this eyepiece - im unfamiliar

https://www.astroshop.eu/eyepieces/omegon-eyepiece-oberon-32mm-2-/p,52940#specifications

Omegon Oberon 82 degree 31mm. I have seen it noted elsewhere that it is similar in quality to the Celestron Luminous 31mm 

Reason i ask is that its currently ON Sale and heavily reduced in price

How would it compare to say, a 28mm Nirvana? Genuinely curious - the prices are comparable - and nearly half the price of the ES82 30mm

It is the Luminos from Barsta eyepiece in a different housing.  It is not the equal of the 28mm Nirvana from KUO.  The 28mm is sharper across the field, even at f/8.

[Don Pensack]

20 minutes ago, hal9550 said:

The 31 luminous doesnt seem to get a lot of love at all

Omegon claim this one is corrected for Telescopes F7 and above - 

Just looking at a maximum afov eyepiece around that 30mm mark, - and saw that its on sale

Love to know if anyone has any experience with it - or knows its exact brand siblings - astromania seem to have a similar one

It is available under a few different labels.  My Eyepieces Buyer's guide (see cloudynights.com>Eyepieces Forum>2024 Eyepieces Buyer's Guide) has a column for mfr and you can sort by focal length and mfr to see all the brands that Barsta makes this eyepiece in.  BST only makes one line of 82° eyepieces but they are available under a few labels.

[globular]

4 hours ago, Deadlake said:

Has anyone tried the Pentax 16 mm 85 degree model at all?

I have the APM XWAks, however a smaller EP would be more transportable.

I have an XW 16.5 and love it. Wonderful immersive fov with stars sharp from centre to edge. 

I wouldn’t describe it as a small EP, but it is all relative I guess.

[Don Pensack]

The 16.5mm XW is heavier than all the XWAs except the 20mm.

[hal9550]

10 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

It is available under a few different labels.  My Eyepieces Buyer's guide (see cloudynights.com>Eyepieces Forum>2024 Eyepieces Buyer's Guide) has a column for mfr and you can sort by focal length and mfr to see all the brands that Barsta makes this eyepiece in.  BST only makes one line of 82° eyepieces but they are available under a few labels.

Really appreciate the clarification Don!

The Astroshop sale is underway, and that Oberon is marked down. It looks inviting but, obviously once you know the inside track, its less so!

What i will say is that the 17mm Redline 70 degree is also reduced to 108euro - which is an excellent price this side of the atlantic. I can personally vouch for this piece, so - definitely worth getting hold of!

[John]

24 minutes ago, hal9550 said:

Really appreciate the clarification Don!

The Astroshop sale is underway, and that Oberon is marked down. It looks inviting but, obviously once you know the inside track, its less so!

What i will say is that the 17mm Redline 70 degree is also reduced to 108euro - which is an excellent price this side of the atlantic. I can personally vouch for this piece, so - definitely worth getting hold of!

You are lucky that your scopes are quite forgiving on eyepieces - most types that I've used at F/10 work pretty well 🙂

 

[hal9550]

30 minutes ago, John said:

You are lucky that your scopes are quite forgiving on eyepieces - most types that I've used at F/10 work pretty well 🙂

 

Its an interesting point - im trying to future proof in what i am buying, so im looking for Eps that are corrected well enough down to about the F6/F7 point - 

The 22mm Redline qualifies as VERY well corrected even for fast scopes - honestly i have yet to see one descenting voice on that EP - it was the easiest choice when it came to that focal range, 

The 17mm is NEARLY as well corrected down to F4 or so i have been told. If you are familiar with Ernests Tests, the redline family is listed as Ultima LX - 

Celestron Ultima LX - while he didnt test the 22, which is a shame, he tested the rest of the family, including the 32, 17, 13, and 8 - In line with what i have been reading, the 13 is horrid, as is the 8 - the 32 isnt much to write home about  

But the 17 receives good scores at F10, and modest scores even at F4 - my take away from this is that it should be reasonably well corrected from about F6 upward? Which for me qualifies it as bargain territory - I can tell you having used it, that its VERY comfortable - and you can remove the rubber top, if u prefer an open format for eye relief - so its quite adaptive. I knew all of these facts before buying it, but you really only get the sense of its comfort when you use it. I was sitting on the fence when it came to the 17, until astroshop put it on sale, from 150 down to 108 - then i went with it without a second thought - so yea i highly recommend it. And the 22 of course-

My take away from this is that, if at some future point, i decide to get a faster scope - I will try and aim for F6 or 7 (or in between), and most of what i am currently acquiring will serve me well enough - 

In order to keep to the plan, i have turned down a few second hand bargains. There is a Luminous 15mm going at a decent second hand price, which i have avoided - while it might be ok, with the 2 slow scopes, im painfully aware that its shortcomings will be realized at that future time, in a fast scope - I think in Ireland, Celestron seems to have an auora of respectability. But seemingly, most of their eyepiece lines are very average, with a few notable exceptions 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:09 by hal9550

[Deadlake]

6 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

The 16.5mm XW is heavier than all the XWAs except the 20mm.

Yep, it’s either the 20 mm XWA or 21E that is super heavy, fine for the back garden but super heavy I’d need another case given their size.

The 20 mm 70 degrees is at 355 grams, maybe a better option as I have no plans to get rid of the 20 mm XWA.

Edited Tuesday at 10:35 by Deadlake

[Don Pensack]

On 22/10/2024 at 03:03, hal9550 said:

Its an interesting point - im trying to future proof in what i am buying, so im looking for Eps that are corrected well enough down to about the F6/F7 point - 

The 22mm Redline qualifies as VERY well corrected even for fast scopes - honestly i have yet to see one descenting voice on that EP - it was the easiest choice when it came to that focal range, 

The 17mm is NEARLY as well corrected down to F4 or so i have been told. If you are familiar with Ernests Tests, the redline family is listed as Ultima LX - 

Celestron Ultima LX - while he didnt test the 22, which is a shame, he tested the rest of the family, including the 32, 17, 13, and 8 - In line with what i have been reading, the 13 is horrid, as is the 8 - the 32 isnt much to write home about  

But the 17 receives good scores at F10, and modest scores even at F4 - my take away from this is that it should be reasonably well corrected from about F6 upward? Which for me qualifies it as bargain territory - I can tell you having used it, that its VERY comfortable - and you can remove the rubber top, if u prefer an open format for eye relief - so its quite adaptive. I knew all of these facts before buying it, but you really only get the sense of its comfort when you use it. I was sitting on the fence when it came to the 17, until astroshop put it on sale, from 150 down to 108 - then i went with it without a second thought - so yea i highly recommend it. And the 22 of course-

My take away from this is that, if at some future point, i decide to get a faster scope - I will try and aim for F6 or 7 (or in between), and most of what i am currently acquiring will serve me well enough - 

In order to keep to the plan, i have turned down a few second hand bargains. There is a Luminous 15mm going at a decent second hand price, which i have avoided - while it might be ok, with the 2 slow scopes, im painfully aware that its shortcomings will be realized at that future time, in a fast scope - I think in Ireland, Celestron seems to have an auora of respectability. But seemingly, most of their eyepiece lines are very average, with a few notable exceptions 

 

The rubber eyecup can be folded down for more clearance.

Celestron's Ultima Edge is the same as the APM UltraFlatField.  In that line, the 30mm is superb, the 24 and 18 are very good.  I'd avoid the 15 and 10 (10.5).

[Don Pensack]

On 22/10/2024 at 03:21, Deadlake said:

Yep, it’s either the 20 mm XWA or 21E that is super heavy, fine for the back garden but super heavy I’d need another case given their size.

The 20 mm 70 degrees is at 355 grams, maybe a better option as I have no plans to get rid of the 20 mm XWA.

The 17.5mm (actually 17.2mm) Morpheus is a better eyepiece than the 20mm XW.