Can you recommend an eyepiece?

[stonewalled]

Hi,

So I've become relatively interested in astronomy of late.

Firstly, purchased a real real cheap 3" Newt (f-9 I think) which came with really cheap eyepieces 4mm, 12mm, 20mm and barlows. Good enough purchase to determine if I wanted to spend more on this pursuit, which I did.

Recently purchased a Celestron Omni xlt 150 (f-5) for not too much money. Much better (Has a really good mount!! Recommend!!). However, has only come with a 25mm Celestron eyepiece, which is quite good but doesn't really allow for good closer viewing of planet details. Nice eye relief though.

Over time I intend to upgrade this scope as well as my interest progresses.

Im looking for a suggestion for eyepieces that will help give better views mainly of solar system objects and primarily the major planets. Don't want to influence replies but Im thinking of maybe looking at something around the 4-6mm size as well as around the 12mm size.

Being a glasses wearer I guess Im also looking for some reasonable eye relief. I am also "lucky" with usually dark skies living in a rural area if that fact helps.

Budget. Prepared to pay for a medium quality eye piece say $150 -$200ish each but certainly not $500+.

Would I be better to initially Buy a "Kit" with 5 or so eyepieces for not too much more money, which I can then levitate to one or two that I can then acquire a much better quality lense?

Appreciate any suggestions and your time. Thank you and pleasant viewing.

Paul

[janoskiss]

For your purposes, I'd recommend a 12mm UO HD ortho and an Orion Deluxe 1.25" internally baffled barlow. 15mm Parks Gold or Televue Plossl are also great.

...or if you don't want to use a barlow, Burgess planetaries are great too - excellent value.

[dannat]

I agree with steve about orthoscopic ep's - give good views at cheap rices - even thought the fov is limited at ~50 degrees. I personally don't like cheaper ep's at high mag like 4-7mm, eye relief probably won't be good either for you. I secong the barlow - I have just bought a second hand Meade #140 (thanks michael) and I much prefer using it than high mag ep's. I would give frontier optics an email/call - they have a good range of well priced ep's, and I think they give good advice also. They have burgess & UO ep's.

[Prickly]

Consider also the ability of your mount to track. If it is less than optimal a narrow field of view means moving the scope quite frequently (as you are operating at very high power). Orthos certainly would be sharp and a good choice but they do have a narrow field of view. Also eye relief and use with eyeglasses is a consideration with any eyepiece (although the UO orthos are pretty good from memory). Eyepieces can range from quite low eye relief (eg. my Nagler type I 4.8mm) which is around 6mm to up to 20mm which is much better really.

So its all a balance. Some of the vixen LVs get reasonable reviews too and the LVWs/stratus/hyperions are good too but probably a bit over the $200 (and quite heavy too).

To be honest I love the sharpness of my 4.8mm type 1 Nagler. I think it is even better than my LVW 3.5 (marginally). However you really need to use the 4.8mm barlowed or the eye relief sends you nutty (It wasnt too bad 15 yrs ago - my eyes are ageing). I'd imagine the more recent Nagler 4.8mm type 6 is a classic but you do pay a lot more for it.

Cheers
David

[stonewalled]

Ok thanks guys for the advice.

Very much appreciated.

Just to let you know (in case your interested) I am going to order a 4mm Burgess Planetary TMB (very well priced) and also have a Vixen NLV 12mm on the way.

I'll probably go with the Barlow (which explains the Vixen) as the next acquisition but I think I'd like to see how these guys go first.

Again thanks for the info.

Paul

[ausastronomer]

Hi Paul,

I am also a glasses wearer and I can tell you those orthos don't have enough eye relief to use with glasses on. I know cause I own a full set of them, amongst many other eyepieces.

If you wear glasses I recommend you stick with eyepieces having 20mm of eye relief or very close to it. In the cheaper price bracket you can't go past the Orion Stratus/Baader Hyperion or the Vixen LV series or its recent replacement. You have indicated a budget of $200 per eyepiece and that will get you the Baader Hyperions and I wouldn't even consider going anywhere else with the exception of the 8.5mm Pentax XF.

Cheers,

[ausastronomer]

If you buy a barlow buy a good one. That doesn't necessarily mean expensive.

The good expensive ones are the Televue Powermate, Televue 2X, Televue 1.8X, Dakin 2.4X, TMB, Zeiss, Takahashi and Astrophysics.

The good cheap ones are the Orion Ultrascopic 2X and the Orion Deluxe 2X.

Some barlows to avoid are:-

1) Klee 2.8X. Because of its very short focal length and its narrow clear aperture it vignettes with medium to longer focal length eyepieces. Moreso with some designs than others. With long focal length plossls it has major problems. With short focal length eyepieces it is an excellent barlow.

2) Another to avoid is the Meade #140 (sorry Dannat). I believe there can be some variation in quality with these, possible due to poor QC and some show a definate darkening of the target due to reduced light transmission.

With the other cheap barlows you get what you pay for.

Also keep in mind that if there are no mechanical requirements for a short barlow, a long barlow will always outperform a short barlow.

Cheers,
John B

[Fox]

Hey Austronomer/John B - way harsh! :hi:

Dannat secured my Meade 140 for a song, he he ! - so I believe he got a good deal. Agreed, it's no Powermate, but it does the job. I never noticed any 'darkening' in the Meade sample that I sold onto Dannat - although the Powermate is certainly well above the Meade 140.

With respect to EP selection, for the money you wish to spend Stonewalled, those TMB Planetary's and Hyperions are both excellent suggestions within your budget - you would not go wrong with either, particularly considering the eye relief you want.

Cheers, Fox (aka 'michael') ;)

[ausastronomer]

Hi Michael,

It's not harsh at all. You were probably lucky and had a good sample. The problem with the Meade #140 is it varies in quality from sample to sample. I have seen two samples side by side, on more than one occasion, that looked identical from the outside, which were clearly not equal optically. From 7 samples I have used 2 were duds. The problem here is that the owner had no reference piece to compare against, didn't know they had a dud and were out of warranty. When you have products that can vary in quality like this, you're better off avoiding them in my opinion to reduce the risk of getting a dud. If the sample you had was a good one then it will work fine without issue. For someone looking to buy a new barlow sight unseen and untested, my advice remains the same, "look elsewhere".

Cheers,
John B

[Fox]

Hi John , just kidding, no problemo! Yeah, Meade stuff does seem to vary significantly in QC. By today's standards if buying new, IMHO you could much better then the Meade 140 as you said.
Stonewalled, its a good idea to assess the few EPs you have purchased before buying lots of other EPs, as you said above. As you find what you like and don't like about each purchase it may well guide your next acquisition or replacement. Fox.

[wavelandscott]

With eye relief and budget constraints, I'd also add in the Burgess/TMB Planetary eyepieces. They are available locally from Frontier Optic. I have a few and find them to be better than I expected for the price.

There is also a "clone" (or something near it) floating around in the USA (subject to much ethics discussions elesewhere on the web)...I can't remember the other company making and selling them at the moment. I've heard that in the US right now these "clones" are selling for around USD$59 each for multiple units.

While not quite in the same league as the Pentax, the are good value, in my opinion.

[ausastronomer]

Hi Scott,

I have never used them so I don't comment on them. However, enough people whose opinion I respect rate them as excellent value, so they also have to come into the mix.

Cheers,
John B

[stonewalled]

A Reprise!!!

Just by way of an update and "product review", last night I was able to use both the Vixen NLV 12mm and Burgess Planetary 4mm.

Obviously had to make do with the full moon around so really only looked at the Planets and M42, but what good value eyepieces. Both gave suffient eye-relief and were very crisp so far as detail and image were concerned.

The 4mm Burgess was especially impressive indeed.

As there would have been no way I would have purchased these eyepieces without the above advice - again a big thanks!

Paul

[Starkler]

I have a couple of these and whilst the eye relief is great compared to orthos/plossls of similar focal length, you could probably achieve as good a result with a 12mm ortho and a barlow doing double duty.

Neither will give you enough ER if wearing glasses. If you want long ER you would have to go to Vixen LV, LVW, Baader Hyperion or into the more expensive ones like Pentax XL or XW.

[wavelandscott]

Fair statement and clarification...

I do not wear glasses so sometimes sufficient eye relief for glasses wearers is hard for me to judge or appreciate...I should have stated that I was comparing this feature (eye relief) to plossls of similar focal length giving the advantage to the TMB Planetary eyepieces and similar eye relief, maybe slightly better than the T6 Naglers I've used (11 and 13 mm).

As a non-glasses wearer I find them to be comfortable to use and good value.

Cheers!