Meade Series 5000 26mm or Televue Plossl 25mm?

[greglloyd]

Hi all!

My first posting on here! Hopefully the first of many!

I've got a question for you all. I recently ordered a Meade Series 5000 eyepiece from Warehouse Express and unfortunately they sent me the wrong item (Meade Series 4000, 26mm).

I've been on the phone to them this morning and they do not have the correct eyepiece so are going to refund me.

In the meantime, since ordering the Meade 5000 I have been looking at the Televue Plossl 25mm eyepiece. This seems to get raving reviews from people and I'm wondering if when I go to place a new order elsewhere, should I get that eyepiece instead?

What are people's thoughts and experiences of the two?

For info, my scope is a Skywatcher 200P (F/6). My main interest is in deep sky so it's mainly for galaxies and nebulae. Light transmission, contrast, and sharpness are the most important factors for me. Although I do like the idea of a larger FOV.

[russ]

Never used the 5000 but always been tempted to give it a try. But have owned the TV 25mm and what a wonderful eyepiece it is. It ticks all your boxes (light transmission, contrast, and sharpness) and is beautifully made, as you would expect from TV.

Can't comment on a TV vs 5000 showdown but can say with 100% confidence, you won't be disappointed with the TV Plossl.

Russ

[acey]

Hi Greg - welcome to SGL.

I have the TV 32mm, 20mm, 11mm and 8mm Plossls - not the 25mm - but all the ones I have are excellent, and I've been happily using them for years, first with an 8-inch F/6, now with a 12-inch Flextube, almost exclusively on deep-sky (though I found the 8mm very nice for planets). They're great in terms of light transmission, contrast, sharpness (plus colour on stars and planets), and the only issue is whether you need a wider field of view. Personally I only need that at high power (because of the problems of tracking with a dob) so I use a TMB Planetary 6mm and Nirvana 4mm to fill out the top end. In most of my observing sessions these days (generally pursuing small, faint galaxies) it's just the 32mm for finding the field, 20mm or 11mm for finding the object, then the 6mm TMB for a close-up view. If I had the 25mm then I'd probably use that instead of both the 32mm and 20mm. With the 8-inch I never went higher than the 8mm eyepiece and did most of my viewing with the 20mm: if I were still using that scope then I reckon I could manage everything with 25mm and 11mm eyepieces. So while I have no experience with the Meade 5000 I agree with Russ - you'll never be dissapointed with TeleVue Plossls, and the 25mm would be a good choice for what you want to do.

Andrew

[John]

I've owned a TV 25mm plossl as well and agree with Russ's assessment. I've not used any of the Meade 5000's but I've heard and read very good things about them and they do give you an extra 10 degrees apparent FoV than the TV does, which can come in handy with a dobsonian.

You do realise that the TV 25mm plossl will show you less sky than your 19mm Antares W70 does already ?. The Meade 5K 26mm will show you a little bit more than the Antares does. Both the TV and the Meade should be better corrected at the field deges than the Antares is in your F/6 scope.

[russ]

John, i think you may have read my sig, I'm the one with the W70

Russ

[greglloyd]

Thanks for the replies guys! (and warm welcomes!)

Yes, it was Russ with the Antares eyepiece

I had a pair of Meade 4000 eyepieces (32mm and 6.4mm) - however I have now sold these on Ebay and I currently only have the stock Skywatcher eyepieces that came with the scope.

I'm looking to build a new collection of high quality but reasonably priced eyepieces. I'm looking for the following :-

For Deep Sky :-

1 x 25 - 26mm plossl (48x)

1 x 9mm to 10mm plossl (120 to 130x)

For Planets :-

1 x planetary eyepiece giving approx (200 to 240x)

I think the first two should either by Televue plossl's or Meade 5000's.

I have the following in mind for the planetary eyepiece :-

TS Planetary HR (4mm or 5mm) from Modern Astronomy

What do you guys think of that line up?

[greglloyd]

p.s. Russ, I see that you have the Lumicon OIII filter with your 8" scope. How does that work for you? Do you get good results using it?

[russ]

Hi Greg,

The OIII works like a charm. I haven't had a chance to try it on the Veil (which has to be the ultimate reason for buying one) but using it on M97, M76 and M42 were all very worthwhile. It's worth the money from what i have seen so far. M97 was a very dim object without the filter but bright and easy to spot with the filter. There was a hint of the Owl eyes (could have been my imagination though). M76 responded extremely well too. Mine is only the 1.25" model and is very well used indeed. I picked it up for only £20 delivered. If i had the money i would go with the 2" Skywatcher version and then go Veil hunting in the summer using the 32mm 2" eyepiece.

I think your plan for the eyepieces is perfect. It's a plan i had for myself but one which has become slightly derailed for the moment.

The 25mm TV will be spot on at the low power end. Take a look at the Paradigm 12mm for your medium power. It's well corrected for use in an f6, has a nice 60deg FOV and plenty of eye relief. I have just sold a set of Paradigms (8mm, 12mm and 18mm), they were great eyepieces and it was a blow being forced into that move.

The TMB is spot on for high power in the dob. I would stick to that option.

Regards

Russ

[acey]

For Deep Sky :-

1 x 25 - 26mm plossl (48x)

1 x 9mm to 10mm plossl (120 to 130x)

For Planets :-

TS Planetary HR (4mm or 5mm) from Modern Astronomy

For planets, I'd repeat that with the 8-inch I never felt the need to go higher than an 8mm eyepiece (and a Barlow just ruined the view), though the 6mm TMB Planetary is great and workable with an 8-inch. So I'd suggest: TV Plossls 25mm, 11mm; TMB 6mm. (TS is meant to be the same eyepiece as TMB though there seems to be some disagreement about whether it's identical or a clone).

I used the Lumicon UHC filter with my 8-inch and found it excellent. It allows H-beta as well as OIII (if I remember rightly). I've seen the Horsehead using that filter on the 12-inch - couldn't manage with the 8-inch but saw plenty else.

Russ - you got a good deal, I think I paid about £70 for mine.

[John]

John, i think you may have read my sig, I'm the one with the W70

Russ

Ooops ! - sorry Russ and Greg - reading too quickly

Greg - your proposed eyepiece selection makes sense but I think I might be thinking about a 32mm plossl for widefield / low power and I'd probably go for 200x (6mm) for high power as it would get more use. I find I do much planetary observing with my alt-az, "nudge powered" 10" newtonian and 6" refractor at 170x ie: a 7mm eyepiece.

The TS Planetary HR's are a good choice

[greglloyd]

Ok thanks guys. Sound like good advice all round.

Regarding the planetary, yes maybe it's pushing it to go above 200x as I find it difficult to get steady enough seeing often for these magnifications. I find that planets glare quite a bit at lower magnifications though. Is that a problem for the rest of you?

For example, when looking at mars at 100x or less the bright glare of the planet combined with seeing conditions often results in a lot of the detail being washed out from the view?

Regarding M97, I actually get quite dark skies here from late evening onwards with a limit magnitude approaching +6 on the best nights, so M97 can be picked out quite easily without a filter and the eyes are visible with averted vision and higher magnification. I bet the filter would boost these nebulas for a superb view.

I'm right in thinking that there is nothing that can boost galactic detail though? (other than more aperture!). I can get hints of structure in M51 on the best nights with a hint of the bridge and one other arm, but they are very subtle in the 8" incher and only show themselves on the best nights after midnight when the skies are darkest.

I can usually see good detail in M82 with the dark rifts, etc. What are your favourite galaxies for ease of spotting detail?

[russ]

Actually i would make a slight alteration to the eyepiece selection also:

2" 30-32mm Superwide (70-74deg) for ultimate widefield vistas. Yes there's some abberations but for some reason they don't detract from the view. My 32mm Adler gives a true FOV of 1.87deg in the dob....that's huge! It's flippin awesome for M31, M33, Double Cluster, M45 and finding most things.

20mm or 25mm TV Plossl as the lower power 1.25" eyepiece.

12mm Paradigm as the medium power workhorse eyepiece. Will give 100x and be great for those smaller DSO targets. Nice FOV and nicely corrected too. Very comfortable to use with plenty of eye relief and easy eye placement.

6mm TMB for the planets. 200x is spot on for the 8" dob and the 60AFOV means less nudging than with an Ortho or Plossl. Also plenty of eye relief and no eye placement issues. You can buy the original Burgess TMB 6mm Series II from a number of sources in the UK. Or buy the TS clone from Bern at Modern Astronomy.

Russ - you got a good deal, I think I paid about £70 for mine.

The OIII was being sold on SGL by someone from Portugal. He had loads of old Lumicon filters for £35 but i was in first and grabbed the one without a box for £20.

Russ

[acey]

Greg - You've evidently got the right kind of sky and you're seeing a very good level of detail on M51. I've seen a hint of spiral structure with the 8-inch but the bridge is to some extent an illusion created by the shape of the arm in the main galaxy: I realised this when I looked more closely with the 12-inch. M51 and M82 are certainly among the best galaxies for seeing detail, though there are lots that show something, e.g. you could try looking for the dust lane in NGC4565. Other than the Messier list, the Caldwell has a lot of very interesting objects (as well as some very uninteresting ones, at least in an 8-inch). A filter will certainly help on nebulae, though on objects such as M42 you might get a better view without.

As for boosting detail, it comes down to having the darkest possible background sky, i.e. getting away from light sources if you can, using high-contrast eyepieces (like TV Plossls) and also looking at contrast factors in your scope. I recently baffled my Skywatcher to improve contrast - it's most noticeable on planets (which no longer look washed out) but the enhanced contrast should also have improved deep-sky views a little (hard to say, though, without a direct comparison).

Good advice on baffling here:

http://www.urania.be/forum/download....e=baffling.pdf

[russ]

Greg, your skies sound awesome.....wow +6! I think you are already over the biggest hurdle with galaxy hunting.......poo skies! Only aperture will improve your view now. My skies vary hugely depending on the quality of the night and just how many of the local lights are switched on. On the best of nights when everything falls into place i may hit +5 on the eastern sky. And i can see some detail in the Milkyway.

My fav region for galaxy hunting is Ursa Major but Virgo/Leo run it close. I know i'm onto a good night when M101 is easily visible. M108 is one of my favs when framed with M97. It's such a thin sliver, a wonderful galaxy to see visually. M81/M82 are the all time best ever, especially on a good night framed with NGC3077.

Russ

[greglloyd]

I'm lucky enough here to be almost 30 miles west of Belfast and with only small villages around me. Though off to my south things deteriorate as there is a town approx 8 miles away which throws up some glare into my SW sky.

re: M51 - yes I read before about the controversy as to whether that bridge exists or not. As mentioned it could just be the other spiral arm.

I sometimes wonder if when you stare at an object for a period of time and the detail starts to come out - are you *really* seeing extra detail or does the mind fill it in for you from seeing photos of it??

[John]

....I sometimes wonder if when you stare at an object for a period of time and the detail starts to come out - are you *really* seeing extra detail or does the mind fill it in for you from seeing photos of it??

Thats a good point - I've often wondered if there is a case of "seeing what you expect to see" sometimes. Wherever possible I try not to look at images of objects (eg: the positions of Saturns fainter moons, features on Mars etc) until after I've observed and made notes.

It's difficult with familliar objects like M51 though.

[russ]

Yes, i wondered that too, especially with DSO objects. I thought that when i saw the eyes in the Owl. Can i actually see them or has my brain inserted them in there from memory. I also had a few of those moments with Mars when i thought i could see signs of some cloud on the limb. The following day I was happy to see some of the imagers posted images that confirmed what i had seen.

Russ

[WayBig]

I've a meade 5000 plossl, 26mm. I like the wide angle (60 degrees) view and use it for spotting befire increasing the magnification.

Although, I find that the focus isnt sharp around as much of the view as i would have expected. It's about the same as the paradigms that I have (although I dont have the 25mm paradigm so cant do a direct comparison). I would have expected it to be a bit better than it is, given that it's almost twice the price of a paradigm.

The construction feels a bit more solid than the paradigms though.

[greglloyd]

Sorry, one other question!

Regarding the filters, are there any preferences over OIII and UHC?

[John]

Sorry, one other question!

Regarding the filters, are there any preferences over OIII and UHC?

They are both useful in their own ways although, with an 8" scope, if you can just have one the OIII has the most dramatic effects. In saying that I find I only use mine on planetary nebulae - it does have an effect on other nebulae types but I tend to prefer the unfiltertered views of those.

For the Owl and Veil nebulas an OIII is excellent and really enhances the contrast, albeit at the expense of dimming the background stars. Do some reading around though - different brands of OIII's and UHC's have their own characterisitics, they arn't quite all the same.

[pvaz]

I have an 8" and an OIII. I'm also lucky to have limiting mags of 5.5 to 6+ on clear nights and been able to spot galaxies down to mag 13 with my scope on excellent nights.

As to the OIII the veil nebula is nearly impossible to spot unfiltered but with the filter it just pops out. The rosette also becomes visible but with much less detail. Aside those I find the filter to be very strict and to make the views very dark so, having never used an UHC, I suspect it would be better suited for an 8", unless you have LP and you really need the filter to block that out as well. I prefer the unfiltered view on bright nebula.

As to EPs, as other said TV guaranties quality, however I have a few Agena SWA (Orion Q70 with another brand printed) and they are also really nice to use if you don't mind the softness (lack of sharpness) to the outer 15% of the FoV (on an 8", f/5.9 scope).

[greglloyd]

Two Televue eyepieces are on the way! (despatched today)

TV 25mm Plossl

TV 11mm Plossl

Looking forward to getting them, but the next few days will see the sky washed out with the moon for the most part.

Will pick up a TMB Planetary eyepiece in a month or two. Any ideas where best to pick up the TMB? Scopes N Skies hav them at £48.99 but I've been put off by reviews of the service.

[John]

Modern Astronomy stock the TS Planetaries:

Eyepieces @ Modern Astronomy

I bought a filter from them last year and the service was good.

I've also bought those eyepieces direct from Telescope Service in Germany in the past and that went smoothly as well.

[russ]

Astronomica also have the original TMB Planetary Series II 6mm that Scopes'n'skies sometimes stock. I know SnS are not expecting stock for some time despite what their website says. But it maybe worth giving Astronomica a try.

But Bern is also good with the TS Clone version.

Russ

[greglloyd]

The Televue's arrived today

They look the business. Nice quality and definitely a step up from the Meade 4000's I used to have (quality of build wise).

Can't wait to get out and use them now! Hopefully there will be a clear slot or two over the next few days and I'll be out testing them full moon or not!!