SCT 8" Eyepieces

[Coco]

Can anyone spec me a nice xmas prezzy for around £200, I have a Moonfish 2" diagonal and celestron 1.25" standard diagonal..

Am looking for a nice eyepiece for my Celestron CPC800 XLT and 80mm APO/Frac

Maybe eyepieces?

Cheers

Guy

[arad85]

Skywatcher Nirvana - whichever size you prefer to complement your scopes focal lengths...

[russ]

What eyepieces have you already got? And is this a low/medium/high power eyepiece purchase?

I was going to suggest a 16mm 82deg eyepiece. Huge field in the Apo and medium power with nice field in the SCT. A UWAN 16mm fits nicely in the budget with plenty to spare. Or the Skywatcher Nirvana clone. Perhaps a secondhand Nagler 16mm T6.

[Coco]

Silly me...

Ive got a moonfish 30mm SuperView 70° 2" eyepiece

And the x-cel standard 40mm celestron 1.25

I was after a more mag...

Guy..

[arad85]

16mm and the 7mm then if you can squeeze it in

[russ]

The UWAN/Nirvana is a cracking eyepiece. That 16mm gives 125x in the SCT.

I have a 10.5mm Ortho for higher mag in the Meade SCT. But must admit, i would like a widefield eyepiece with good eyerelief. A nice 11mm Nagler would do it, gives 182x. So a nice usuable mag most nights. 11mm T6 is £225 new. Only downside is the eye relief is a bit poo on the T6 Naglers. And the T4 costs a lot more.

[John]

Silly me...

Ive got a moonfish 30mm SuperView 70° 2" eyepiece

And the x-cel standard 40mm celestron 1.25

I was after a more mag...

Guy..

I guess with your Moonfish the X-cel 40mm is virtually redundant.....

I agree with the suggestion of an UWAN / Nirvana - a real treat to view though in whatever scope you use them in.

The 16mm gives you 125x and the 7mm 285x (the practical max on most nights) in your SCT.

John

[Coco]

Ive googled this sort of question and found tele vue website to claim perfect eyepieces for an 8" SCT?

Tele Vue Optics Article Page

The 13mm Nagler looks nearly on budget

[russ]

And to think i once owned both 7mm and 16mm UWAN......seems such a long time ago.

I thought the coatings were nicer on the UWAN with a warmer feel. The Naglers have a cold feel to the view, off course that's a matter of opinion. And the tighter eye relief on the Nagler makes them a little more uncomfortable to use but again that's just personal preference.

[russ]

I can hear your finger tapping on the GO button

154x is a good magnification for using just about any night.

[John]

Ive googled this sort of question and found tele vue website to claim perfect eyepieces for an 8" SCT?

Tele Vue Optics Article Page

The 13mm Nagler looks nearly on budget

To be honest many eyepieces work very well with SCT's due to their relatively slow focal ratios. You don't need to pay Nagler money to get really good performance.

Having said that the 13mm Type 6 Nagler is a lovely eyepiece - and will work well any any scope you might own in the future ...

John

[John]

And to think i once owned both 7mm and 16mm UWAN......seems such a long time ago.

I thought the coatings were nicer on the UWAN with a warmer feel. The Naglers have a cold feel to the view, off course that's a matter of opinion. And the tighter eye relief on the Nagler makes them a little more uncomfortable to use but again that's just personal preference.

The Nagler Type 6's have the same eye relif as the UWAN's although the different design of the eyepieces may make them feel different. The 16mm T5 Nagler has 2mm shorter eye relief than the 16mm UWAN and felt a bit tight to me too !.

John

[russ]

To be honest many eyepieces work very well with SCT's due to their relatively slow focal ratios. You don't need to pay Nagler money to get really good performance.

I have a 15mm GSO Superview you can have for £20

[Coco]

I have a 15mm GSO Superview you can have for £20

Same as moonfish

I'm tempted but is 1.25 isnt it?

[John]

Same as moonfish

I'm tempted but is 1.25 isnt it?

So are all the others we have been discussing here.

Were you specifically looking for a 2" then ?.

John

[Coco]

So are all the others we have been discussing here.

Were you specifically looking for a 2" then ?.

John

I want future proof tackle, so I dont have to sell in the future when I upgrade the scope or buy a nice big refractor.

[Helen]

I'd recommend the 16mm UWAN, I love mine with both my 8inch SCT and my Megrez 90, and its by far my most use eyepiece. There's no need for it being 2inch. I'd say its future proof.

Helen

[John]

I want future proof tackle, so I dont have to sell in the future when I upgrade the scope or buy a nice big refractor.

Thats a good plan - a good eyepiece collection will stay with you even when your scopes change

Most folks end up with a collection which is a mixture of 1.25" and 2" eyepieces - the larger format only really offers advantages in focal lengths over 15-20mm. There are very few 2" eyepieces with focal lengths less than that available in fact.

2" eyepieces are not intrinsically better quality than 1.25" ones.

John

[russ]

Same as moonfish

I'm tempted but is 1.25 isnt it?

hehe I was only joking. Get yourself a good quality jobby. The good thing with a 16mm UWAN or 13mm Nagler, they won't become redundent if you switch scope. A 16mm is a useful size eyepiece for all scopes. And something like a UWAN or Nagler is an eyepiece for life (unless you are an idiot like me and sell it). Something like a Superview will work well in the SCT but be completely poo in a fast frac or newt.

[FLO]

You don't need to pay Nagler money to get really good performance.

Particularly when buying for an SCT which works well with pretty-much any eyepiece. If you owned a fast Dobsonian then the small difference between a UWAN/Nirvana and a Pentax/Televue would be more pronounced.

[great_bear]

I want future proof tackle, so I dont have to sell in the future when I upgrade the scope or buy a nice big refractor.

2" eyepieces are not "better" nor "upgrades" relative to 1.25" ones - they're just bigger for squeezing in low-power, wider fields of view.

But for high-magnification, 1.25" (or even 0.965" in the case of rare, collectable eyepieces)- are usually necessary

[great_bear]

To be honest many eyepieces work very well with SCT's due to their relatively slow focal ratios. You don't need to pay Nagler money to get really good performance.

Particularly when buying for an SCT which works well with pretty-much any eyepiece.

But - and it's a big but - there's a lot more to eyepieces than a sharp view. Other aspects are not helped by the telescope F ratio, such as:

- Light transmission

- Ghosting

- Glare

- Scatter

- Build quality

So whilst it's possible to "get by" on cheaper eyepieces, you still can't beat the "fit and finish" of a top-quality eyepiece.

(having said that - my current favourite eyepiece for my 180 Mak Pro is a GSO 25mm Plossl for £19!)

[FLO]

Yes, I agree, its just that eyepiece glass, coatings and manufacturing techniques have improved enormously in recent times so the difference between something like a Nirvana and Pentax is smaller than most people realise.

Rest assured, I sell both so if there is a good argument for buying posh/expensive glass then I will find it

[great_bear]

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that you consider (as I did) a 12.5 Baader Genuine Ortho (at £80) which will give you excellent high-power views.

At 162x magnification in your scope it will probably see quite a lot of use.

[russ]

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that you consider (as I did) a 12.5 Baader Genuine Ortho (at £80) which will give you excellent high-power views.

At 162x magnification in your scope it will probably see quite a lot of use.

Depends what you want to do with the eyepiece. If this is just purely for planetary, then the Ortho is fine. But if it's more a general thing, taking in the planets but also viewing other objects, then you can't beat seeing them at high power but set against a wide field. The Ortho will feel terribly retricted, I love my Ortho's but i yearn for a good quality Ultra Wide again.