Which Eyepiece Set?

[G2EWS]

Hi All,

S.A.M. - Peter has just left having explained how to set up my Skywatcher 80ED pro with EQ6 and GOTO. How easy is that then!!!

Thanks Peter, it all makes sense now!

I feel it would be a good idea to get some more eye pieces if I decide to do more visual viewing rather than the astro photography that I am going to do. It will also be good for the family to look rather than wait for me to take photos.

Looking at what is available I feel it would be better to stick with 2" and a set makes sense as a barlow and moon filter would be good.

Has anyone used or can you recommend or not this one:

Celestron Eyepiece and Filter Kit - 2 in [94305] - £226.73 : 365Astronomy: Discovery for every day!

If not what do you suggests?

Thanks for your help.

Best regards

Chris

[LukeSkywatcher]

£226?

Is that not a BIT expensive?. The 1.25" set sells for about £100 these days.

[G2EWS]

Hi Paul,

This is the lowest price 2" set I have found. I understand that 2" is better hence it costs more, but stand to be corrected.

Best regards

Chris

[LukeSkywatcher]

I cant argue. Many people say 2" is better. I know this will cost more also. I just didnt think the difference was so much. There is a kit also, by Revelation. I'm not sure if it comes in the 2" format. Its regarded as the better of the 2 kits.

[John]

2" is not better. Those eyepieces are basically kellners and not worth anything like that money I'm afraid.

Pick a couple of decent 1.25" eyepieces for medium - high power and one 2" for low power. Much better use of your £'s.

[G2EWS]

Hi John,

As a newbie I can only go on what you guys tell me. Are you able to explain why it is not better being a 2"? I may have it wrong but thought it was something to do with more light = better optics?

I 1.25" is OK and based on what you say can you advise both what you mean by high power and low power. Sorry to be a newbie bore, but it is really all a bit new to me.

I would like to buy a kit if possible and have seen the ones that Paul is suggesting:

Eyepiece Sets - Revelation Photo-Visual Eyepiece kit

Is this OK? But won't I need an adaptor as well?

Many thanks for your help.

[Doc]

This is a little hard to call, while I agree the eyepieces are not fantastic, you do get three 2" eyepieces, one 2" barlow, five 2" filters, one 2" diagonal and a case.

For a beginner thats not bad, but IMO a couple or even one top quality 2" eyepiece will be better.

But I can see what appeals to you.

[John]

The only advantage the 2" eyepiece format offers is that it can deliver a wider field of view at low magnification than the 1.25" equivalents. If you have not already done so, I'd have a read of this primer on eyepieces:

http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/80772-eyepieces-very-least-you-need.html

I don't think you will need a moon filter with an 80mm aperture scope. I'm assuming you already have a 2" diagonal as you expressed an interest in 2" eyepieces - is that correct ?.

By low power I mean 20x - 30x, medium power 50x - 100x and high power 130x - 160x (which is the maximum that the 80mm scope can really use).

[malc-c]

Looking on the net, average prices for Revelation 2" eyepieces are around £35 each

Telescope House Revelation Eyepieces

So that's approx £140 for 4 eyepieces - plus £42 for a set of 2" filters

Colour Filter set - basic 2"

Then add the diagonal at £86

Diagonal Dielectric 99% Quartz 2"

So that's not far off the price of the Celestron kit. However if you don't need the filters, and have no need for the diagonal, then buying individual eyepieces would work out cheaper

[G2EWS]

The only advantage the 2" eyepiece format offers is that it can deliver a wider field of view at low magnification than the 1.25" equivalents. If you have not already done so, I'd have a read of this primer on eyepieces:

http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/80772-eyepieces-very-least-you-need.html

I don't think you will need a moon filter with an 80mm aperture scope. I'm assuming you already have a 2" diagonal as you expressed an interest in 2" eyepieces - is that correct ?.

By low power I mean 20x - 30x, medium power 50x - 100x and high power 130x - 160x (which is the maximum that the 80mm scope can really use).

Hi John,

Many thanks for taking the time to explain.

Will read the linked thread shortly.

I am a bit confused as to why an 80mm scope is no good for the moon though. Am I missing something?

Best regards

Chris

[G2EWS]

Looking on the net, average prices for Revelation 2" eyepieces are around £35 each

Telescope House Revelation Eyepieces

So that's approx £140 for 4 eyepieces - plus £42 for a set of 2" filters

Colour Filter set - basic 2"

Then add the diagonal at £86

Diagonal Dielectric 99% Quartz 2"

So that's not far off the price of the Celestron kit. However if you don't need the filters, and have no need for the diagonal, then buying individual eyepieces would work out cheaper

Hi Malcolm,

Many thanks for taking the time to provide the links. No I don't think I need the diagonal as I have one already, but the remaining items look good. Are you saying these are better quality than the Skywatcher ones I linked to?

I am always interested in buying better quality, buy once right rather twice cheapily!

Best regards

Chris

[G2EWS]

This is a little hard to call, while I agree the eyepieces are not fantastic, you do get three 2" eyepieces, one 2" barlow, five 2" filters, one 2" diagonal and a case.

For a beginner thats not bad, but IMO a couple or even one top quality 2" eyepiece will be better.

But I can see what appeals to you.

Hi Mick,

Thanks for commenting. Can you advise if the Revelation eye pieces are of top quality? If not what do you suggest?

Best regards

Chris

[malc-c]

Chris,

I have the 1.25" set that retails for around £125 - £130. I find they are bright, sharp and very good value for money. I need glasses for reading and close work, but tend to not to wear them when observing and compensate by focusing the image with the scopes focuser. Most of the eyepieces I tried last night gave a flat field without any issues near the edges... having said that, the 25mm eyepiece that came with the scope also compared well. Can't say how well a 2" eyepiece will perform as I haven't got one to try.

[kniclander]

Hi John,

Many thanks for taking the time to explain.

Will read the linked thread shortly.

I am a bit confused as to why an 80mm scope is no good for the moon though. Am I missing something?

Best regards

Chris

a nice 80mm scope will give you lovely views of the moon but the magnification you will be able to use will be limited because of the small aperture and the relatively short focal length.

[G2EWS]

a nice 80mm scope will give you lovely views of the moon but the magnification you will be able to use will be limited because of the small aperture and the relatively short focal length.

Hi kniclander,

Many thanks for that.

So what you are saying is f7.5 is a problem?

And 600mm is not good enough?

Sorry to be a bore, just trying to get my head around this.

Best regard

Chris

[G2EWS]

Chris,

I have the 1.25" set that retails for around £125 - £130. I find they are bright, sharp and very good value for money. I need glasses for reading and close work, but tend to not to wear them when observing and compensate by focusing the image with the scopes focuser. Most of the eyepieces I tried last night gave a flat field without any issues near the edges... having said that, the 25mm eyepiece that came with the scope also compared well. Can't say how well a 2" eyepiece will perform as I haven't got one to try.

Hi Malcolm,

Many thanks for your personal experience.

Would be good if I could work if they were better than the skywatchers. I have no problem paying for quality as long as I know what is quality

Best regards

Chris

[G2EWS]

Hi all,

So what about Meade eye pieces are they better?

Best regards

Chris

[John]

Hi kniclander,

Many thanks for that.

So what you are saying is f7.5 is a problem?

And 600mm is not good enough?

Sorry to be a bore, just trying to get my head around this.

Best regard

Chris

It's not the focal ratio or the focal length but the aperture that will restrict the amount of magnification that can usefully be used, the amount of detail that can be seen and how faint the objects are that can be detected.

There is nothing wrong with the ED80 - it's a good imaging scope but it's capacity for observing will be constrained.

[John]

Hi all,

So what about Meade eye pieces are they better?

Best regards

Chris

For premium quality think Tele Vue or Pentax. Priced accordingly of course.

The Baader Hyperions are a very nice range of eyepieces for their price (aorund £90 each) and have a wide range of focal lengths which will work well in your scope.

[SiriusB]

Hi Chris,

I think John was saying you don't need a moon filter with an 80mm, not that an 80mm is no good for the moon

(moon filters cut down the glare when using larger scopes, as the moon can be blinding(temporarily) in a large scope, & helps pick out the fine detail....Well not literally blinding, but you get a strong after image,& no night vision in that eye for a bit.

Thankfully 80mm's are a bit tamer )

I have the older version of your scope, it gives me, subjectively at least, the best views of the moon i've ever had. Even if other scopes i've owned/own provide more resolution.& 150x on the moon is easy with an 80ed.

As far as eyepieces go, does it have to be a set? a pic'n'mix might be better performance wise & possibly the pocket.

I'm sure people could chip in with a few suggestions.

If your set on 2"ers so be it, you'll probably need a barlow with 2"ers to get the high powers,as i'm not sure you get 2" ep's in the 6mm & less focal lengths??

With a low power 1.25" ep i can get about 2.8deg true fov with the 80ed, which is plenty for me.

Finally whether you go for 1.25" or 2", might be best sticking to one size. I personally find it a pain swapping between sizes,so my 2" ers don't come out to play very often. That's just me though,i'm sure it doesn't bother everyone, but worth considering.

[kniclander]

It's not the focal ratio or the focal length but the aperture that will restrict the amount of magnification that can usefully be used, the amount of detail that can be seen and how faint the objects are that can be detected.

well, yes and no. a 600mm focal length will mean you're using very short focal length e/ps (say 4mm for x150) which can be a little uncomfortable as opposed to say, an 8mm e/p and a 1200 mm focal length. As they say, let the scope do the magnifying, not the e/p. I know you know that but maybe op doesnt so it's just another point to consider. But I suppose if you want to get purely technical on my head then you're 100% correct:)

[G2EWS]

For premium quality think Tele Vue or Pentax. Priced accordingly of course.

The Baader Hyperions are a very nice range of eyepieces for their price (aorund £90 each) and have a wide range of focal lengths which will work well in your scope.

Thanks John, looking at all the variants now.

Regards

Chris

[G2EWS]

Hi Chris,

I think John was saying you don't need a moon filter with an 80mm, not that an 80mm is no good for the moon

(moon filters cut down the glare when using larger scopes, as the moon can be blinding(temporarily) in a large scope, & helps pick out the fine detail....Well not literally blinding, but you get a strong after image,& no night vision in that eye for a bit.

Thankfully 80mm's are a bit tamer )

I have the older version of your scope, it gives me, subjectively at least, the best views of the moon i've ever had. Even if other scopes i've owned/own provide more resolution.& 150x on the moon is easy with an 80ed.

As far as eyepieces go, does it have to be a set? a pic'n'mix might be better performance wise & possibly the pocket.

I'm sure people could chip in with a few suggestions.

If your set on 2"ers so be it, you'll probably need a barlow with 2"ers to get the high powers,as i'm not sure you get 2" ep's in the 6mm & less focal lengths??

With a low power 1.25" ep i can get about 2.8deg true fov with the 80ed, which is plenty for me.

Finally whether you go for 1.25" or 2", might be best sticking to one size. I personally find it a pain swapping between sizes,so my 2" ers don't come out to play very often. That's just me though,i'm sure it doesn't bother everyone, but worth considering.

Hi SiriusB,

No I am not set on anything as I have absolutely no idea at this stage what the difference is between 1.25" and 2" apart from I was told 2" is better and I have a 28mm 2" eyepiece that came with the scope.

All I want is to buy the right product for the scope. At the moment I am a bit confused as to which is the best eyepiece for me. I only went for the kit because it looked easier but happy to buy individuals if that is the best and most cost effective solution.

Based on the linked threadm with my scope I need the following:

5mm high power

9.375 - I guess 10mm medium to high power

15mm medium to low power

22.5mm for low power

Damn tough when you have no idea what you are talking about

Best regards

Chris

[G2EWS]

well, yes and no. a 600mm focal length will mean you're using very short focal length e/ps (say 4mm for x150) which can be a little uncomfortable as opposed to say, an 8mm e/p and a 1200 mm focal length. As they say, let the scope do the magnifying, not the e/p. I know you know that but maybe op doesnt so it's just another point to consider. But I suppose if you want to get purely technical on my a**e then you're 100% correct:)

Thanks kniclander,

You are right this OP knows very little and is trying to take it all on board

I bought the 80ED as opposed to the 120ED which I originally choose because it was explained that this would be a better bet for a newbie. I will be happy to upgrade once I get used to it.

Oh and I am ostensibly interested in astro photography but realise that visual is going to be where I begin and as mentioned I want the family to be able to view things rather than waiting for me to take a photo!!

Best regards

Chris

[great_bear]

The Meade 5000 UWAs and SWAs are generally held in high regard - but the 5000 Plossls, less so.