4000 or 5000?

[Demonperformer]

With the new scope comes the need to expand my eyepiece set a little [or maybe that is just an excuse:)] Anyway, currently my shortest is 10mm which is a little limiting. I have been looking in the 4-6mm bracket and was wondering if anyone had any comparative experience of the Meade 4000 and 5000 series?

The 4000 6.4mm would give me 234x with 13.3' fov.

The 5000 5.5mm would give me 272x with 13.2' fov, but a price tag of £76 rather than £42 [FLO website prices].

Of course, I would really like the 5000 4.7mm wide angle, giving me 319x and 15.4' fov [the best of both worlds], but the £169 price tag would probably be stretching the current budget a bit!

I am not averse to paying for quality, but wonder if the 5000 series is really so much better than the 4000 to warrant the higher price.

Any experiences or opinions on this would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

[John]

To be honest you might find you rarely use magnifications much above 250x because of the seeing conditions in the UK so my advice would be to get the 4000 series 6.4mm (which can be found 2nd hand for £25 or so) and leave the shorter focal lengths for now. I believe that the 5000's are an improvement but more so if you use a shorter focal ratio scope. In your F/10 the difference will be much less noticable I think.

John

[beetlejuice]

I have both the 4000 6.4 and have just recently aquired a 5000 5.5mm. Optically, I don't think there is a huge difference, though I haven't had much chance yet to do a proper comparison, but I think the contrast of the 5000 is slightly better. However the eye lens of the 5000 is bigger and eyerelief slightly better, plus the adjustable eyecup, so I prefer it. As to cost, I bought my 5.5 s/h but appears little used for half the new price. The 5000's are also nicely made.

[albedo0.39]

I have a 9mm Meade 5000 Super Plossl (5 element) and it's got a nice FOV, pin sharp in the centre and not too mad at the extremities. Very underrated EP...

[beetlejuice]

Here's a link to an Astromart review Astromart Reviews - Meade 5000 Series 5.5mm Plossl

[lunator]

Hi DP

I would agree with John.

You will find that x250 or more magnification only possible on very rare nights in the UK.

I would think a 7-8mm eyepiece would be more useful.

Cheers

Ian

[Demonperformer]

Thanks to you all for your responses.

I get the point about the upper useful power. One of the things I want to do is get my scope collimated [i am as sure as I can be without actually doing it that it badly needs it]. One of the reports I was reading said you needed a power between 2x and 3x your aperture in mm, which puts me into the 3.3-5mm eyepiece bracket.

But thinking about it, a 2x barlow with my 10mm would do that and would probably be cheaper. It would also make my 32 a 16 and my 26 a 13 so give me two further useful focal lengths. However, I was always taught that a barlow lens + eyepiece will never be as good as an eyepiece purpose-made for the resultant focal length. Having splashed out on what is really a very nice scope, I don't want to skimp on things and end up with a very mediocre system.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

[John]

It is useful to have a high power eyepiece when making the final collimation adjustments to a SCT but you won't be able to use it very often for regular viewing due to the relatively poor seeing conditions we get in the UK most of the time.

Fortunately an F/10 scope is not too fussy about eyepieces so you don't need to go overboard. Good quality barlow lenses (or Barlow types such as the Tele Vue Powermate) are a good way of getting additional magnfication - with the best you really don't notice thet are there. There is the extra hassle of adding them into the optical path, in the dark, though which can be fiddly. With the relatively long focal length of your scope (1500mm) you may not need a barlow as a 7mm eyepiece will give you ample power for all but the very best of nights.

John

[Merlin66]

For those sort of prices you could get a TV Plossl...

I've had a set of TV for the last twenty years, now use them on everthing from the 6" f3.6 Cometracker to the 12" lx200.

Never really found the need to "upgrade"

[beetlejuice]

I have tried the 5.5 5000 with my Megrez 90 which gives a mag. of x113. It seems to suit it fine with slight coma towards the edges, but nothing objectionable. With my C9.25 it's x427, which is a bit, er, big. My most commonly used eyepiece with the C9.25 is the 5000 14mm which I like a lot at x167. 60 degree field is fine by me.

[Demonperformer]

Thanks guys for all your input. I have decided to opt for a celestron ultima 2x barlow, on the basis of its quality and flexibility - will be able to use it on the neximage as well - presumably the processing will flatten out the atmospheric distortions to make the higher magnification practical.

On a practical note, has anyone had any dealings with an internet firm called 'Crazy Cameras'? They are selling the lens for £67 and the cheapest I can find anywhere else on the internet [in the UK] is £87 [subject to any SGL discount from FLO]. I know there is always second hand, but over the internet I am very wary of that. I know cheap isn't always the best deal [don't get me started on scopes'n'skies!!] but £20 seems quite a difference, if they are a decent company.

Any experiences, good or bad, that people can relate would be appreciated.

Thanks.