40 or 32mm EP?

[LukeSkywatcher]

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

If i am not mistaken, i think they are fairly much for much. Dont hold me to that though.

[Star-Gazer]

Quite a big difference in price of around £28 for two Eps (32 and 40). SW = £52 and GSO = £80.

[great_bear]

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

I've had both types in the same focal lengths before. It's worth me commenting that the Plossls in the Revelation Photo-Visual Eyepiece Kit are GSO Plossls rebranded as Revelation by Telescope House.

As suggested by Paul, I think that Sky-Watcher Super Plossls and GSO Plossls are very closely related. Optically, they are so remarkably close that I suspect that they might even have exactly the same optical lens assemblies inside them.

Compared to Sky-Watcher Super Plossls, the improvements of the GSO/Revelation Plossls are as follows:

• Soft rubber eyeguard, rather than synthetic rubber
  
• Aluminium barrel, instead of chrome-plated brass
  
• Better quality printing on barrel
  

- and that's about it.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I've had both types in the same focal lengths before. It's worth me commenting that the Plossls in the Revelation Photo-Visual Eyepiece Kit are GSO Plossls rebranded as Revelation by Telescope House.

As suggested by Paul, I think that Sky-Watcher Super Plossls and GSO Plossls are very closely related. Optically, they are so remarkably close that I suspect that they might even have exactly the same optical lens assemblies inside them.

Compared to Sky-Watcher Super Plossls, the improvements of the GSO/Revelation Plossls are as follows:

• Soft rubber eyeguard, rather than synthetic rubber
  
• Aluminium barrel, instead of chrome-plated brass
  
• Better quality printing on barrel
  

- and that's about it.

That's what i meant by them being much for much. They are very similar optically. They most likely are the same but just re-branded. Both i think are GSO

However

The Plossl's (Kellner) i got with my Celestron scopes are far worse then the Plossl's i got with my SW scope.

So i would say that the SW are slightly better then the standard GSO.

Hope this makes sense.

P.S.~~~i even bought a Celestron EP kit and the EP quality is much better then the EP i got with my Celestron scopes.

[Star-Gazer]

So you are saying that I should go with SW SPs 32 and 40 and will not notice any benefit from the GSO ones?

As I continue investigating I have discovered that my two Eps from my Scope are not both SW SP's but a 25mm SW Super MA and a 10mm Super Plossl with both indicating LER.

[great_bear]

So i would say that the SW are slightly better then the standard GSO.

Erm... Nope it's the other way around - the GSOs have a superior build quality compared to the Sky-Watcher SPs.

They most likely are the same but just re-branded.

The thought crossed my mind - but close inspection reveals otherwise. Whilst it's true that GSO could supply Sky-Watcher with synthetic, rather than latex eyeguards, and they could downgrade their nice aluminium barrels to chrome-plated ones, the main body of the eyepiece itself feels slightly different and cheaper on the SWs - indicating that it was produced on different tooling.

So whilst its possible that the lenses are the same (GSO supply optical primitives to a number of different companies), the standard of metalwork is different.

The GSO just feels like a properly finished product, whereas the Sky-Watcher SPs feel like some corners have been cut.

I have discovered that my two Eps from my Scope are not both SW SP's but a 25mm SW Super MA and a 10mm Super Plossl

The 10mm isn't a Plossl - but is an MA (Modified Achromat), like the 25mm. Design-wise these are Kellners (confusingly sometimes with reversed lenses, sometimes not) and offer wide, bright, and reasonably sharp views. Where they fall down is poor contrast and very poor scatter characteristics. Sky-Watcher Super Plossls are a noticeable step up from those.

It's worth noting though, that all Plossls apart from the Tele Vue ones will struggle a little bit with an F5 scope, and when used without a Barlow will show some astigmatism on stars towards the edge-of-field.

So you are saying that I should go with SW SPs 32 and 40 and will not notice any benefit from the GSO ones?

Visually? No noticeable benefit - they seem the same. With the GSOs however, you'd notice that their construction is a bit nicer - slightly less crude that's all.

In terms of price/performance ratio - or "bang for buck" as the Americans would say - I think the Sky-Watcher Super Plossls are the best value-for-money eyepiece on the market, and offer superb optical performance that's the equal - or better - than more expensive eyepieces.

They're certainly good enough to keep many (if not most) people happy for a lifetime of observing.

[dobbie]

32mm for visual 40mm for afocal photography thats the advice all the ppl in the know tell me i got a 32mm celestron plossel from flo when on promo its a great ep with my 102mm evostar ..

[great_bear]

32mm for visual 40mm for afocal photography

Yes as mentioned earlier, in MOST scopes, there's no point in a 40mm Plossl for visual. But with a slow scope that's restricted to 1.25" eyepieces - such a Mak - a 40mm can give you the brightness boost you need for very dim objects.

[Star-Gazer]

Great_Bear.

How do you know it is a 10mm MA please?

[LukeSkywatcher]

Sorry. My opinion really does not count.

My experience with EP's is starting off with 10,20mm Kellner. I then moved on to the Celestron EP kit. Then i experienced the SW Plossl's.

My new direction in EP's is the Vixen NPL range. They to me are top quality afforable EP's.

The 32mm EP in my Celestron EP kit was my favourite EP.

Now my 30mm Vixen NPL is.

[great_bear]

Great_Bear.

How do you know it is a 10mm MA please?

It's an MA if it's the one that's shown in the middle here:

(and the reason why I know that, is because I've dismantled a few in the past and studied the lens configuration. They are not all the same)

- or is yours a different one?

[Star-Gazer]

Mine is different - I was going to differ to your experience but I did check today and the image that matched was the SW super plossl:

[Star-Gazer]

But I accept that the image I saw to match mine to could be the wrong one!!

[Star-Gazer]

But the 25mm in your picture is mine and confirms it's MA status.

[great_bear]

Mine is different - I was going to differ to your experience but I did check today and the image that matched was the SW super plossl:

Erm nope - that picture is of a 10mm MA as well.

It's not a Plossl.

[Star-Gazer]

I did wonder today if the web site I used actually bothered to use the right image and I would not know if not!! I am confused.

So just so I am clear what have I got if I have a 25mm like the one in your photo and the 10mm is the one from my photo?

And thanks for all your excellent help so far btw.

[great_bear]

Both of your EPs are MAs - Modified Achromats.

A Modified Achromat is a variant of a Kellner eyepiece. Many people mistakenly believe that since many cheap and nasty eyepieces are Kellners, then all Kellners are cheap and nasty. Not so! Some Kellners are very good. One of my favourite Lunar eyepieces is a Circle-T (Tani) 18mm Kellner I bought off SGL for about £10

The 10mm Super supplied with Sky-Watcher eyepieces is a bit variable. Older versions of it were pretty awful, but today's one is OK - just suffers from contrast and scatter issues mainly.

With a slow scope such as yours, most eyepiece designs can turn in a reasonable performance so long as the individual lens elements are of good quality and have been well-polished.

[SiriusB]

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 !.

Hi Stargazer,

I have a mak 127 & 35mm Ultima- if you are keeping the Mak for a while this would be my top recommendation.(or the Baader version?)

I've seen it stated as fact that the 35mm Ultima has the largest true field of any 1.25" ep. How?, i don't know, but it does indeed squeeze a few more arc minutes fov out than my konig 32mm 52afv, itself a heavyweight in the widest true field for 1.25" stakes.

40mm might give a slightly brighter image, but i think you'd enjoy using the wider afv of a 35/32mm.

I'm quite happy with 35/32mm in the mak.

The 35mm Ultima also works very well at f5, worth bearing in mind in case of a future scope change?