Eyepieces to avoid for a SW 200p

[RICHJ]

Being a total novice I'm finding it hard as hard to choose eyepieces as I am the scope.

It seems there are advocates for pretty much all eyepieces available so I thought I'd attack the the question from a different angle.

Has anyone found any particular eyepieces to perform poorly with the above scope ?

I'd also appreciate any recomendations from anyone who owns this scope too

I'm finding the TMB Planetary II and BST Explorers attractive at their price , are they a worthwhile first upgrade from supplied ? or are there others for a little more that are better ?

Sorry to waffle , your help is much appreciated

[RICHJ]

Oops should probably add that I'm on a real tight budget and do second hand better EP's come up for sale at around this price range ?

[Neilius]

One that Ive just tried in mine that is more or less useless is a 4mm no-name, bought of amazon for 13 quid!

I suppose second hand is a good way to go, but if your buying new, remember FLO is your friend!

[John]

Assuming your scope is the EQ mounted F/5, I'd avoid:

- Skywatcher LER's (the ones that come in a set)

- Moonfish 30mm 80 degree eyepiece (and clones)

- The Revelation 5 element 2" wide fields

- Any Kellners and MA's

- The Meade QX 26mm 2"

[Space Beagle]

I usa a 6mm TMB Planetary II and a 4mm TMB Clone in my 200P dob, both work very well when the seeing conditions are good .

I also have the 5mm and a 18mm BST Explorers and they also work very well in the dob. All bought from Alan at Skys The Limit.

I recommend these eyepieces for the 200P without any hesitation at all! They are not embarrassed at all by the smattering of Televues I am lucky enough to have either!

Doc

[RICHJ]

One that Ive just tried in mine that is more or less useless is a 4mm no-name, bought of amazon for 13 quid!

I suppose second hand is a good way to go, but if your buying new, remember FLO is your friend!

Thanks Neilius thats one for the avoid list

[RICHJ]

Assuming your scope is the EQ mounted F/5, I'd avoid:

- Skywatcher LER's (the ones that come in a set)

- Moonfish 30mm 80 degree eyepiece (and clones)

- The Revelation 5 element 2" wide fields

- Any Kellners and MA's

- The Meade QX 26mm 2"

Thanks jahmanson added to my list of unsuitable

[RICHJ]

I usa a 6mm TMB Planetary II and a 4mm TMB Clone in my 200P dob, both work very well when the seeing conditions are good .

I also have the 5mm and a 18mm BST Explorers and they also work very well in the dob. All bought from Alan at Skys The Limit.

I recommend these eyepieces for the 200P without any hesitation at all! They are not embarrassed at all by the smattering of Televues I am lucky enough to have either!

Doc

Thanks Doc , looks like these EP's are a good place to start then

[russ]

Assuming your scope is the EQ mounted F/5, I'd avoid:

- Skywatcher LER's (the ones that come in a set)

- Moonfish 30mm 80 degree eyepiece (and clones)

- The Revelation 5 element 2" wide fields

- Any Kellners and MA's

- The Meade QX 26mm 2"

That's a great list of eyepieces to avoid with an F5 scope.

Also add the 1.25" Adler Swan clone and the Revelation version of the same eyepiece. Neither worked well at F5. I also wouldn't recommend the original William Optics SWAN, quite poor at F5.

On a budget it has to be the BST Explorer (Paradigm). In the sub £50 bracket there's simply no other new eyepiece to touch it.

But an alternative would be a secondhand Televue Plossl for £40-60 depending on model. Smaller field and tighter eyerelief but superior optics, although not really that much superior.

[RICHJ]

Are they a marked improvement from the original supplied kit ?

[russ]

Are they a marked improvement from the original supplied kit ?

What the BST Explorer or the TV Plossl?

[brianb]

Unfortunately many budget eyepieces are not good in faster scopes ... f/5 is pretty marginal for ordinary Plossls ... one reason why I reccomend beginners to go for "slower" scopes is that they're much more friendly to budget eyepieces.

[ronin]

the original William Optics SWAN, quite poor at F5

In defence of WO SWANS they were rated for f/6 and above by WO, so never claimed as any good at f/5. Would also suspect that f/6 was the limit and even there they would start to show problems.

If the makers says not f/5 it pays to listen. The Adlers are clones of the WO SWANS so they would be the same.

[RICHJ]

What the BST Explorer or the TV Plossl?

Sorry the BST's and TMB's

[SiriusB]

By poor performance i guess you mean edge distortions?

In which case avoid cheap wide angle ep's.

I agree with Brian's comments about slower scopes being kinder on the eye & pocket for visual use.

I've found a barlow lens useful in my f5 refractor,almost any ep then works "well", though you won't get wide low power views with a barlow in place.

Just to confuse you totally, i routinely use a 20mm kellner in my f5 refractor (without the barlow) as it gives me the brightest,highest contrast deep sky views of any eyepiece i've tried to date.

So it does help to define in your head by which criteria you are judging "good" or "poor" performance.

I guess edge distortion would be the important factor for most people.

[RICHJ]

Thanks Guys for all your input so far

Hopefully I can put some sort of table/list at the end of this thread of ones to avoid, good budget upgrade, and also maybe higher end upgrades.

[RICHJ]

By poor performance i guess you mean edge distortions?

In which case avoid cheap wide angle ep's.

I agree with Brian's comments about slower scopes being kinder on the eye & pocket for visual use.

I've found a barlow lens useful in my f5 refractor,almost any ep then works "well", though you won't get wide low power views with a barlow in place.

Just to confuse you totally, i routinely use a 20mm kellner in my f5 refractor (without the barlow) as it gives me the brightest,highest contrast deep sky views of any eyepiece i've tried to date.

So it does help to define in your head by which criteria you are judging "good" or "poor" performance.

I guess edge distortion would be the important factor for most people.

Thanks for this, more food for thought and valuable info again.

I think the main criteria is firstly must be an improvement over supplied EP's and as you mention brightness and high contrast.

Can I ask which kellner and barlow you use ?

[RICHJ]

Can I just re-iterate for people looking through this thread in the future that the EP's being listed are ones to avoid just for the Skywatcher 200p or I think any F5 scope.

This does not mean they are poor eyepieces (I'm sure most of them are unbatable in the right scope) just that the scope mentioned does not perform well with them.

[RICHJ]

Also thanks again for everyones input so far, I know it will save me and probably many others a lot of time and money.

Your guidance is much appreciated

[Astro_Baby]

Something else to consider is some people have different 'limits' as to what they consider acceptable.

For instance I happen to like my Skywatcher Panaviews, they are comfy, have a good wide field, have a good contrast on deep sky objects and I find them really rather nice.

However they do suffer a bit from coma at the edges, personally I never notice this at all as its right on the edge of my view but some people would say it disqualifies the eyepiece as being any good at F5 - I would disagree.

In matter of taste theres no dispute and each to their own but it does make it hard for a beginner to have an idea of what looks good and works well for them. EPs are far harder to choose than a scope in many ways.

[sixela]

However they do suffer a bit from coma at the edges,

Not coma, edge of field astigmatism.

Coma is what you see and is generated by the scope if the eyepiece is perfect and you don't have a Paracorr (or Skywatcher or Astrotech come corrector).

[rwilkey]

I would agree with Astro_Baby on the Panaview, this is my most used EP, great for deep-sky