40 or 32mm EP?

[Star-Gazer]

I need a wider view EP and as a complete newbie I would like to ask what people would recommend and why please?

I am not looking to spend a lot and think that perhaps the Meade 4000 series may be suitable for now?

Should I get 40mm or 32?

Thanks

[GazOC]

If you are going for a Plossl in a 1.25" format then you may as well get the 32mm, it'll give the same FOV as the 40 and also extra the magnification.

[LukeSkywatcher]

The Meade 4000 series give an AFOV of 52 degrees which is good.

I think the 40mm will be a bit too low powered if you are searching for DSO. The 32mm would be better.

IMHO.

[Moonshane]

I would agree, the 32mm would be the better choice of the two.

[Star-Gazer]

I seem to have a good answer!!

Thanks very much folks - will order today.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I have a 40mm Celestron E-lux (second hand). It only has an AFOV of 47 degrees.

I never use it and i find it impossible to sell.

30-32mm with an AFOV of 50-52 degrees is a top notch DSO hunter.

[Star-Gazer]

Thanks Luke thats good info.

Have you used a focal reducer?

[LukeSkywatcher]

Nope. I only bought the 40mm to replace my trusted 32mm Celestron when it died. I didnt know the 40mm only had an AFOV of 47 degrees when i bought it.

A couple of weeks after i bought it, i bought a 30mm Vixen NPL (second hand) with 50 degree AFOV and i couldnt be happier.

I can highly recommend the Vixen NPL 30mm.

The Meade 4000 series are highly regarded. You cant go wrong with them. Ive never used one but have read peoples opinions.

I'm just offering up alternatives to look at.

[gedmac]

the meade 4000 32mm is a decent ep,its what i use as my finder ep

[Damo636]

I am replaceing my Meade 4000 26mm and my GSO 32mm (same as 4000 series) with a Hyperion 24mm. It has a 68 degree AFOV which shows roughly the same amount of sky as the 32mm ( i think )but with higher mag. The Meade (GSO) are both really good EPs though and would serve you well.

[great_bear]

I think people may be forgetting here that the OP has a Mak telescope. In the 127, a 32mm Plossl gives you ~46x magnification, so it's not an overly low magnification by any means.

In a Mak, the 40mm is also a worthy contender, since the extra brightness (something Maks are short on) can come in handy, so the choice is not as clear cut as people may think - especially if someone's already got a 25mm eyepiece.

It's a close call really - although as Paul points out, you may find the smaller apparent field of a 40mm Plossl a bit annoying if the rest of your eyepieces are ~50 degrees.

[Star-Gazer]

So should I get both but go cheaper so it is not much more?

[great_bear]

I think you'll find the 32mm is just fine.

- also, you'll find that the Meade 4000 Plossls are an excellent choice for your scope.

Meade 4000 Plossls are "keepers" and will last a lifetime.

(unless dropped! )

[John]

A nice compromise in focal lengths would be the Celestron Ultima 35mm which gave a respectable 49 degree FoV and a huge eye lens that gave a very immersive experience .....

Unfortunately they are not in production any more though

You might find a used one if you are lucky !.

[great_bear]

Unfortunately they are not in production any more though

[pantomime voice] "Oh, yes, they are..."

This is Baader's version <click> - Baader themselves have confirmed that they supplied these for re-badging as Celestron Ultimas.

Not cheap though... But as you say, a good compromise and acknowledged as a classic.

[John]

Ooops .... I'd forgotton about the Eudiascopics (what a name !).

The FoV on them is a little less than the Ultimas though - unless Celestron were exaggerating of course (not unheard of )

[great_bear]

The FoV on them is a little less than the Ultimas though - unless Celestron were exaggerating of course (not unheard of )

If anything I think that Baader are underestimating the aFOV; these are also sold without modification as Antares UPL and Antares state the aFOV as being a uniform 52 degrees across the range (the Antares range sadly excludes the 35mm though...)

In practice, aFoV specs are normally complete fiction anyway. For example, I note the Circle-T 12.5mm Ortho is specced at 44 degrees as opposed to 43 degrees for the 5mm - but with the naked-eye it can be clearly seen that the 5mm Ortho's aFoV is the larger one.

The only meaningful figure is the one that you get when you measure it yourself with a torch and a tape measure.

[Star-Gazer]

So why should I be okay with a 32mm? If a problem with the SM127 is the focal length for viewing DSO's then am I better off with the 40mm?

[great_bear]

It's the same field-of-view, but the image in the 40mm is smaller and brighter compared to the 32mm. So it's a balancing act really - larger image, or more brightness? No "right" answer really

[Star-Gazer]

Well I can get both (Skywatcher SP PLossl ) the 32 and 40mm for £52 from 365Astronomy as opposed to £46 for the meade 4000 series 32mm - any thoughts bearing in kind my scope is a sm127?

[great_bear]

Having owned both Sky-Watcher SPs and Meade 4000s, I'd go with just the Meade 32mm.

- Just my personal choice though, that's all.

However it's true that most people new to astronomy would see relatively little difference in quality between the Sky-Watcher SP Plossls and Meade 4000 Plossls.

[Star-Gazer]

I think it may be better for me to experience 32 and 40 rather than only 32 but with better IQ at this stage?

[John]

Personally, I prefer the view with a 32mm plossl over a 40mm. The narrower field of view (43 degrees V's 52 degrees) of the 40mm is a bit like looking down a drinking straw (exaggeration) to my mind !.

[great_bear]

I think it may be better for me to experience 32 and 40 rather than only 32 but with better IQ at this stage?

I'm sure you won't be disappointed with the Sky-Watcher Plossls, and it will be interesting over time to get your feedback as to which - the 32mm or 40mm - you found the most useful. It's perfectly reasonable to get both now, and see over time which suits you best.

[Star-Gazer]

What do people think about GSO Plossl v Sky watcher Plossl please?