SGL EPDb

[Andrew*]

As promised, I am going to collect an eyepiece database in order to make a list of the best eyepieces according to budget, targets, and other requirements. Once completed, this will be an essential resource for anyone buying new eyepieces, whether beginner or pro.

Just download the MS word document, fill in as many details as possible, one line per EP, and email it back to me.

Any comments/suggestions/questions for this project, please include in the document or email.

Thanks all!

Andrew

SGLEPDb.doc

[Brass n glass]

A very good idea - I'll certainly do mine. I'd suggest another column: "This eyepiece is the same as ... " There are so many clones about these days, with the same product pretending to be a lot of different ones at different prices eg Celestron Ultrascopic, Parks Gold, Baader Eudiascopic, Antares something-or-other are all the same Japanese Plossls with different-coloured lettering.

[Andrew*]

a very good point, thanks! I can't seem to be able to update the attachment, so anyone who has such an eyepiece, fill in the form for the one you have, and include any details of clones that you know of either in "additional details" or elsewhere. Feel free to widen/add columns etc. to your heart's content.

Andrew

P.S. If you wouldn't mind to state what level of experience you have of different eyepieces, just for reference.

[SteelRat]

Will have a crack at it tomorrow mate 8)

[Zeffer]

When we rate it out of 10, are we basing this on performance to cost, generally comparing to other eyepieces out there or something else?

I ask because I would have given my series 4000 plossls 9 out of 10 etc. but now I have looked through my near £300 Axiom I realise they were good but certainly no competition and I haven't ever looked through a Nagler (I'd go bankrupt if I did!)

I love the idea but want to get it right.

[Andrew*]

Another good point Zeff. I didn't think of that when making up the form, but when I filled in the first example, I realised how much I was overrating it. Ignore my ratings, and rate it instead with 1 being the worst unbranded 0.96" eyepieces, and 10 being £500 naglers, even if you haven't tried them. The idea is basically to give each EP a value for money and an idea which ones are better for different targets. I think in this range, series 4000 plossls might come out between 6 and 8, but you can decide that for yourself.

It doesn't have to be accurate. Value for money is a purely personal thing, so make it as accurate as possible in your opinion. The other ratings are just to draw up an idea of how it scores and won't be taken too literally.

Hope that helps, and makes sense.

Thanks for the support.

Andrew

[Zeffer]

Righto, I'll get onto that ASAP.

[John]

Another good point Zeff. I didn't think of that when making up the form, but when I filled in the first example, I realised how much I was overrating it. Ignore my ratings, and rate it instead with 1 being the worst unbranded 0.96" eyepieces, and 10 being £500 naglers, even if you haven't tried them. The idea is basically to give each EP a value for money and an idea which ones are better for different targets. I think in this range, series 4000 plossls might come out between 6 and 8, but you can decide that for yourself.

It doesn't have to be accurate. Value for money is a purely personal thing, so make it as accurate as possible in your opinion. The other ratings are just to draw up an idea of how it scores and won't be taken too literally.

Hope that helps, and makes sense.

Thanks for the support.

Andrew

I don't want to complicate this further but some eyepiece designs work great with a longer FL scope but are poor with a shorter one - eg: my Widescan III's which are fabulous and Nagler-like at f10 but I really would not recommend them at all for a f5 scope - there are some EP's that are just poor, period but most I have tried are capable of performing well - with the right scope.

I think I'll give a rating based on my experience with my scopes and make a comment where appropriate where I know that the EP in question might perform better or worse with a different scope.

John.

[FLO]

There has been some interesting points raised here.

If you state that one eyepiece is simply a re-badged version of another you could find yourself rattling some cages! For example: I am often told that the Antares Orthoscopic is the same as the Baader Genuine orthoscopic... Not true! The Antares gives 40 degree FOV whereas the Baader delivers 47 degrees and has seven-layer dielectric coating.

John is also spot-on when he points out that an eyepieces performance will alter depending on the telescope that it is used with (I personally pay very little attention to eyepiece reviews where the reviewer is using a slow SCT or similar)

And Zeffer makes a good point when he recalls how his perception altered dramatically when he had the opportunity to compare eyepieces. I was testing an 8mm Baader Hyperion a while back and was very impressed (they are remarkably good for the price) until I compared it to a Nagler...

I don't wish to dampen your enthusiasm for the project, just make you aware of the difficulties.

[GazOC]

It s not as active as it used to be but the below is a good resource.

http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/section.php?sectionid=22

[Andrew*]

Thanks all for the support,

I'm taking it all into consideration. That's quite a site, Gaz. I don't think I'll be able to match up to it. But I think the idea with EPs is combining them with the right scopes and targets etc. With enough info, I should be able to get some results.

Steve, once I've gathered enough information, I'll sort it very carefully before making any generalisations. The last thing I want to do is mislead anyone.

Andrew

[proflight2000]

Just out of curiosity and for the laymen in me, F lengths etc, what are the best sizes when viewing from an F5 and an F10.

[John]

Just out of curiosity and for the laymen in me, F lengths etc, what are the best sizes when viewing from an F5 and an F10.

Do you mean "best sizes" of eyepiece ?.

[Andrew*]

I think that solely depends on the magnification you want and what you want to view.

[Andrew*]

So far I've only got 2 entries. Thanks to those. Is everyone else still working on it, or is there simply a lack of interest? If this is to be successful, I'll need a lot of info, so I'd really appreciate some more results.

Thanks,

Andrew

[Brass n glass]

I'll send in my lot tonight

[Andrew*]

Right guys, I've still only got two entries. B&G, I didn't get your lot. Did anyone else send their lot? Roger, I got yours too.

If there is any skepticism of the project or a lack of interest, I will abandon it.

Thanks to those with the quick responses.

Andrew

[Alan D]

Andrew

I sent one over did you get it?

Cheers

Alan

[Andrew*]

I believe I didn't. And yes, I always check my junk inbox.

It's ridiculous how many threads pop up everywhere with folk asking for recommendations for EPs. If there was a secure resource, we wouldn't have to compose new answers for every new thread that pops up.

This is my last effort to strongly encourage everyone to take half an hour to fill out my form and email it to me.

Thanks

Andrew

[John]

Andrew,

With respect, I did have a look at your form but I could not see how I could complete it in a way that would be useful when aggregated with other data. I have used a wide variety of eyepieces in a wide variety of scopes and some combinations work well and others don't. In a long focal length scope many eyepieces will perform quite well wheras in a short FL scope they would be poor.

In many ways it is easier to provide advice to ad-hoc enquiries on SGL as we can ask about the person's scope, viewing preferences, whether they wear glasses, budget etc and then make recommendations taking those factors into account. I think it's going to be very difficult to create a database that can provide the same degree of "bespoke" response.

I think what would be useful would be a database of the key specifications of current and past eyepieces so that potential buyers could have a single point of reference. This web site http://www.klhess.com/teleindx.htm attempted to do this, and is still a useful resource for older models - it has fallen behing the times though and the data is incomplete - something like this, bought up to date and accompanied with some general guidelines on the significance of eye relief, exit pupils etc would be very valuable.

I understand and support what you are trying to achieve with this but maybe a slightly different approach would be more beneficial.

Regards,

John

[Stormwatch]

Hi Andrew,

I think perhaps the thread title is a problem here. I've been coming to this site for a wee while now, but this is the first time I've ever looked at this thread. I never noticed it before, as the thread title means nothing at a glance.

Maybe change it to mention "eyepiece reviews"?

I would give my own reviews but I'm far too inexperienced and a beginner, it wouldn't be fair. Besides, pretty much every eyepiece I've used seems quite good, even the so called rubbish ones!

[Stormwatch]

BTW Andrew, I believe you bought a Meade 2" eyepiece from me on eBay. Hope you liked it!

[philsail1]

I'll give you my details Andrew. Will post them midweek.

Regards,

philsail1.

P.S. I'm still compiling my simple eyepiece survey - it will not be anywhere near as comprehensive as yours!

[beamish]

With respect to all, I think Phil's has a little more relevance, bearing in mind the comments made by John, since it reflects how the observer feels the EP performs specifically with a scope. It will always be subjective but like John said, when questions are raised on threads, others have the opportunity to ask about set-ups and targets.

In short, and please don't be offended Andrew, I think the survey is attempting too much whilst being quite simple in it's data collected. So many variables come into play that I can't see how a comprehensive data base can work.

Karlo

[Andrew*]

Thanks guys,

Phil, I wouldn't bother as there's not been enough interest and I realise now that it is badly thought out. This was put forward when I had little idea about how to judge an eyepiece. There are loads of variables, and it either needs a very complicated survey (which many people could not complete accurately, or not be bothered) or a very simple one. Phil has gone down a better route so well done for that and I hope you get an excellent response!

With any survey like this - it really needs a huge response to become worthwhile. It needs to cover most eyepieces in most scopes. That is hundreds if not thousands of combinations. With a large forum like SGL, this is possible, so I would thoroughly encourage everyone who reads this to give Phil his info.

Please could a moderator "de-sticky" this thread as it will not serve its purpose any more.

Andrew