Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

expensive eyepieces on a cheaper telescope?

coffee_prince

Recommended Posts

coffee_prince

coffee_prince

Posted
Posted

Hi all, about to bag me a bargain 8 inch celestron reflector in a few weeks, was wondering does buying a more expensive eyepiece improve quality of image of any telescope regardless of price?

I can't find any information so I am assuming a good eyepiece will improve any telescope regardless of the telescope's cost

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jgs001

jgs001

Posted
Posted

I can't answer specifically on that scope, but I noticed a big improvement in the views going from the bargain bucket Konus ep's I received with my little ST80 Clone to some Super Plossls. And again when I went up to the Baader Hyperions. Thinking back on it, the view through my original ep's was really appalling. I know the Celestron 25mm ep, I got with my C80ED was a whole heapload better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

I would try the scope out with the eyepieces that come with it. There are usually some benefits to be had from getting some eyepieces that are the next step up in quality from the ones supplied as standard but the ones supplied will certainly see you through your first few sessions with the scope.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coffee_prince

coffee_prince

Posted
  • Author
Posted

cool

as said, only one eyepiece supplied, a 20mm plossl.

I am confused because some reviews say x eyepiece isn't good with fast telescope.

** So how do I know which eyepieces will work well with my telescope?**

I have read plossls are generally good all around, but lets say i wanna buy the william optics swan eyepiece with 72degree vision, but one review said this isn't very good with a fast telescope. How am i supposed to know what is good and what is not with f/5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nitram100

nitram100

Posted
Posted

You don't have to spend loads to get a noticeable improvement. I picked it up a 9mm circle T orthoscopic off Astrobuysell a few years back for only £18 and the views it gives me are wonderful, the field of view is a bit narrow, but it is so sharp and contrasty with little to no coma even in my fast F4.8 newt, you should definately pick one up for your newt to view Jupiter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
I have read plossls are generally good all around, but lets say i wanna buy the william optics swan eyepiece with 72degree vision, but one review said this isn't very good with a fast telescope. How am i supposed to know what is good and what is not with f/5?

F/5 is considered a "fast" scope and therefore it's quite demanding on eyepieces. All eyepieces will work with the scope but some will be better than others. Generally the low cost, wide angle eyepieces do not work so well with fast scopes - in particular stars don't look star shaped any more away from the centre of the field of view - this bothers some people more than others. The more expensive eyepiece designs largely eliminate this problem but at a cost - Pentax and Tele Vue equivlents to the WO Swan you mentioned cost £250+ each !.

The Baader Hyperions are considered a good compromise but they are still not exactly cheap at £100 a throw.

Better quality plossls / plossl types such as the Meade 4000 series or the Tele Vue plossls can be picked up for £20-£40 used and may be the best bet for views that improve over the supplied eyepiece but don't cost the earth. Orthoscopics (Orthos) are good bargains 2nd hand as mentioned and excellent in all scopes - they do have a narrowish field of view and, but, like the shorter focal length plossls, you have to put your eye very close to the eyepiece which some don't like.

Buying eyepieces is probably more complicated than buying the scope and often just as expensive. Keep asking the questions though :)

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
great reply, thanks alot!

Probably gonna buy a mid priced second couple then buy a real nice one for xmas!

If you want a real treat ask Santa for one of the Skywatcher Nirvana's - they are really excellent ultra-wide angle eyepieces which work really well even in fast scopes :)

Skywatcher - Skywatcher Nirvana UWA 82-degree FOV

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterW

PeterW

Posted
Posted

Gradually collect as good a set as you can.... you may end up changing scopes over the years, but good eyepieces will continue to see use. I prefer the wider field, but as mentioned you typically pay a lot more.... but the Nirvana seems to break that trend, keep your ears open for more reviews in the coming months.

The eyepiece is the other half of the optical system, good ones are not going to make the view worse, but cheap ones can. The most ludicrous case I have seen is a $15 Galileoscope with a $600 Ethos in one end. The 'blurring' round the edge of the field also has the effect of reducing the visibility of fainter stars by smearing them out.

All the best

PEterW

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lsastro

lsastro

Posted
Posted
Gradually collect as good a set as you can.... you may end up changing scopes over the years, but good eyepieces will continue to see use.

100% agree with Peter.

Good border correction and wide field are EP lasting for a lifetime. From Hyperion onwards would be my advise... if wallet allows of course :). TV Panoptic (used) are also a good entry point, nagler/ethos will take you to another quality step.

Luis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oceanheadted

oceanheadted

Posted
Posted

I was disappointed by my cheap Tal barlow, even though it is reputed to be good for the price. It gave quite a big loss of contrast and the clarity of the image seemed a bit degraded so maybe skip the barlow until you have some more cash to splurge on a good quality one. I've been really pleased with a Meade 4000 32mm, but I have been using it in slower scopes than than your f5. Warthog's got a good article on choosing an eyepiece. 3 well chosen eyepieces seem to cover most eventualities so maybe aim for 3 better ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Warthog

The Warthog

Posted
Posted

I would say eps and barlow first, then collimator, then the Moon filter. You can use the aperture mask for a while if the light from the Moon bothers you, and you can do an adequate job of collimating the scope with a film canister or even with just your eye, until you can afford a Cheshire collimator. OTOH, Moon filters aren't expensive, and a Cheshire costs less that a bottle of decent scotch.

Putting a great ep in a cheap scope is always a better idea than putting a cheap ep in a great scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Again I can't help with your specific set-up but our large Newtonian (20 inch) is very fast at f4.1 and the benefit of premium eypieces is ENORMOUS. The edge of field is greatly cleaned up and shows little coma in EPs like our Panoptics and Radians. I have also had visitors bring the odd 13mm Ethos along and there you really ARE talking! Can't honestly call myself a Plossl fan, though. Personally I'd wait a bit and skip the intermediate Plossl stage to go for gold. Very easy to spend other people's money, though!

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acey

acey

Posted
Posted

There are Plossls and there are Plossls. The TeleVues are excellent and I've been using them for years. The mid-power (20mm, 25mm etc) no-name Plossls that came with my various scopes are all OK, the high-power ones (c10mm) are poor.

The Plossl design has very few elements (four lenses) so it's comparatively cheap. More expensive eyepieces generally have more glass in them, to create a wider field of view. More glass means potential loss of brightness and contrast, which means you need fancy glass, careful design etc. Which means more cost.

So with more expensive eyepieces you're often paying for field of view, plus contrast and brightness equal to what you'd get with a good Plossl.

As I'm a dob user, I find a wide field of view useful at high power (so that objects don't drift out of field too fast), but that's all. At anything less than high power I don't need it for the kind of work I do, and my TeleVue Plossls are just fine.

I recently got a 6mm TMB planetary for high power work. Tiny bit less contrast on planets than my 8mm TeleVue Plossl, but the wider field is better for deep-sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

I once took apart a comes-with-the-scope eyepiece and it seemed to have but three (at most) elements - I suspect, hardly even a generic Plossl? But I personally sense it is good to (eventually anyway!) INVEST a significant fraction of any budget in eyepieces? :)

I think, for mid-range eyepieces, I am happy with my Baader Hyperions. The Aspheric 31mm is an "interesting" beast... but I'm not completely convinced. <G> Idem my 5mm Hyperion, which is a "bit big" (physically) too. For my two MODEST scopes, I think I will replace these two (the upper and lower limits) with a 35mm PAN and some TMB(?) "planetary" types resp. :)

I also think it worthwhile contemplating potential use of eyepieces in a variety of (future) scopes. It may be that, one day, I'll have a "TMB" and some... "monster MAK" - Or NOT, as life's rich tapestry dictates! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.