Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_6_banner_jupiter_2021.jpg.eacb9f0c2f90fdaafda890646b3fc199.jpg

 

 

New eyepieces


Recommended Posts

Hi,

Well you can sell either one of the 9mm or the 10mm depending on which one you like the most. As James as said, the next should defineatly be a low power widefield view, either the 2" 40mm that James recommened or (cheaper) a 1.25" 32mm.

Other than that its hard to know what else would suit you without knowing what type of objects you like to observe as you will have a pretty good spread of EP's when you get the widefield.

Gaz

EDIT: Sorry did'nt read the bit about the 2" being a must. :insects1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

id go for a 26mm, 32mm or 40mm, looking at your eyepeice set skip the 26mm since you have a 20mm 1.25, id probly go for a 32mm or a 40mm,

i just stick to one 26mm 2" , but then again my set of 1.25's is alot larger then yours. i skiped 20mm 25mm range with 1.25's thats why i went with a 26mm 2"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lunator,

We had a similar discussion a while ago; here are a couple of links that might be helpful:

http://tinyurl.com/9jdyn

http://tinyurl.com/bfd5l

Steve :)

Thanks Steve

I have just seen the offer from the Widescreen centre for 4 lanthanum eyepieces + case for £290.

I do not know how these rate against the Meade 4000/5000 range.

Any views always welcome.

Regards

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ian,

The real appeal of Lanthanum eyepieces is their eye-relief, which if I remember right, is about 20mm throughout the range.  That and the fact that there are so many to choose from, particularly in the short focal lengths - right down to 2.5mm! 

The long eye-relief will appeal to those wearing glasses and is achieved by each eyepiece essentially having a built-in barlow.  However, this is also their weakness in that a Lanthanum has nearly twice the number of elements than an equivalent Plossl, which inevitably makes the image slightly darker.  Also, if you don't wear glasses you might find it awkward to place your eye further away than would be normal. 

The regular Lanthanums field-of-view is similar to a Plossl but narrower than a Super Plossl.  For sharpness and resolution you can expect the Lanthanums to be similar to the Meades. 

So, if you wear glasses or need a range of short focal lengths and don't mind losing a bit of brightness and F.O.V, the Lanthanums are a good buy.  Otherwise, the Series 5000 Super Plossls (and the Series 4000) are the better choice ... IMHO. 

Hope that helps,

Steve :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers Steve

I don't wear glasses so eye relief is not a prob.

Looks like a good Plossl will work just as well.

My best eyepiece is the 12.5 Ortho it's only draw back is the narrow FOV, but this is not really an issue if you are doing double star observations.

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My best eyepiece is the 12.5 Ortho ...

I also have one and it gets used just about every time I'm out. 

Considering the Orthoscopics amazing quality and cheap price it is a shame that it has become one of astronomys best kept secrets!  Al Naglers clever 'Space walk' marketing must have something to do with it ...

Steve :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon I have a plan now.

The 2" eyepiece will be either a William Optics Swan 33mm (£85) or a Celestron E-lux 32mm (£55)

I have also decided to get an 2x Apo Barlow, the choice seems only between Meade and Celestron.

And I am going to replace the

25mm/10mm/9mm Plossls that came with the scope with either more orthoscopics or Meade 4000 super Plossls.

I really like the Ortho I have, I know that the AFOV isn't great but as I spend most of my time looking at quite tight Double Stars that isn't an issue :)

Any thoughts appreciated.

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 9.7mm for sale:

http://stargazerslounge.co.uk/index.php/topic,688.0.html

Heres a review of the Swan eyepieces:

http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/swan.pdf

Also, Russ had this to say about barlows on a previous thread:

So that leaves £55 in the pot. Just enough for a really top notch barlow. In this case the Orion 2x Shorty Plus for £52 from www.scsastro.co.uk It's one of the best barlows around. It's a 3 element Apo barlow and a fantastic addition to any eyepiece collection.

Hope that helps,

Steve :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Have a 18mm Orthoscopic that requires the 1.25" adapter and it's a fantastic little eyepiece i wouldnt sell it! Very nice views and the contrast and focus through out is excellent funny because it's prob worth about 20 quid Tops.

The William Optics Swan eyepiece's are great i had a 28mm EP 1.25" it was the best eyepiece in my collection at the time but alas i had to let it go with a camera i sold because it screwed into the camera len's thread. I may invest in one again...

Now the Celestron E-lux 32mm is a nice EP for the Price 55 quid my friend had one and offered excellent view's not the best 32mm EP i have used but for 55 quid you wont go wrong.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Have a 18mm Orthoscopic that requires the 1.25" adapter and it's a fantastic little eyepiece i wouldnt sell it!

I know what you mean James, I feel the same way about a Zeiss Jena 16mm orthoscopic (with front-fitting moon filter) I bought on ebay for about £40.  I had to buy a .965" - 1.25" adaptor and not being able to use regular filters is a nuisance but it is still one of my favourite eyepieces.  My other Orthos are all the Japanese Circle T type that you see in various guises. 

Steve :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon I have a plan now.

The 2" eyepiece will be either a William Optics Swan 33mm (£85) or a Celestron E-lux 32mm (£55)

I have also decided to get an 2x Apo Barlow, the choice seems only between Meade and Celestron.

And I am going to replace the

25mm/10mm/9mm Plossls that came with the scope with either more orthoscopics or Meade 4000 super Plossls.

I really like the Ortho I have, I know that the AFOV isn't great but as I spend most of my time looking at quite tight Double Stars that isn't an issue :)

Any thoughts appreciated.

Cheers

Ian

good choices on the 2" BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just been reading the latest Sky @ Night mag and it has a quite timely article on buying a low power widefield 2" eyepiece. To cut to the chase, forget the Celestron E-Lux.....definately not the best for the money. The group winner was the Moonfish 30mm Ultrawide. Although the Nagler and Meade 5000 UWA have it beat on quality of optics. But the price differential is huge, actually not huge but astronomical. The Moonfish is only £59 inc VAT......simply unbeatable. I've seen this verdict many times before around the web.

If you have lots of money to burn buy the 31mm Nagler Type 5.......best low power wide field in the world bar none. But you'll need £500.

The Meade 5000 UWA is almost as good and a relative steal at £244.

But the Moonfish has the measure of all other 2" eyepieces for quality but throws in that unbeatable price to clinch it. Just make sure its the Moonfish 30mm Ultrawide not the Moonfish 30mm Superview!!!!

The ortho's are almost invincible but in my opinion the Celestron Ultima range offer equal contrast, sharpness but with superior eyerelief. The best all round eyepiece for high/medium power without spending silly money. I have 2 orthos (9mm & 18mm) but i haven't used them for observing now for 3 years. Their narrow field make good eyepieces for centering the webcam.

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add:

The Celestron E-Lux is a good eyepiece, as S@N said. But it costs the same as the Moonfish and the Moonfish is in another league.

And i would never sell my orthos. They probably do have the slightest edge in performance for contrast/sharpness over the Celestron Ultima/Orion Ultrascopic but the Celestron/Orion counters by being a far nicer eyepiece to use.

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking at the Moonfish and was going to ask this very question.

Out of interest, why not the Superview?

I have a 2" 42ml GSO superview and i think it is a good eyepiece.

Is it because of the field of view that you recomend the ultra wide over the superview Russ ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.