Review: Generic Chinese Wide Angle Long Eye Relief Eyepieces

iceman (Mike) · #1 16-03-2006, 07:20 AM

Ian Ogilvie (stringscope) has written a review on Generic Chinese Wide Angle Long Eye Relief Eyepieces.

You can read the review on the IceInSpace Reviews page, or directly by clicking on the link below:

Generic Chinese Wide Angle Long Eye Relief Eyepieces

Thanks to Ian for writing the review!

If anyone else would like to contribute a how-to, article, review or other content for the site, please contact me.

iceman (Mike) · #2 16-03-2006, 08:08 AM

Article uploaded.

[1ponders] (Paul) · #3 16-03-2006, 10:37 AM

Ian, from an eyepiece non -officionardo thanks for writing a really easy to read article in plain understandable english. To me an eyepiece is for assisting in lining up the scope ready for imaging and apart for a 16mm T2 nag I bought recently for a specific purpose, I've never really been big on eyepieces. Your article just may just tempt me in keeping my eye out for any second hand ones getting around.

btw that is one stunning looking hire out scope. Great setup and a perfect choice of star atlas for the newbie.

ving (David) · #4 16-03-2006, 10:45 AM

they sound like sound eyepieces... thanks for the writeup

what did you buy the 16mmt3 for paul?

[1ponders] (Paul) · #5 16-03-2006, 12:36 PM

Looking through ving

some dob owners leave themselves wide open

[1ponders] (Paul) · #6 16-03-2006, 12:37 PM

for moderate power widefield DSOs like galaxies and globs ving

ving (David) · #7 16-03-2006, 12:52 PM

so not a paper weight then?

pick on me will ya!

fringe_dweller · #8 16-03-2006, 01:00 PM

excellent well written review, thanks Ian, but once again I note a glaring omission, as I so often do with ep reviews, as to wether these ep's are 1.25" or 2" I see this time and time again! reviews go into great detail afov's, eye relief ect. but leave that out this fundamental detail - not picking on ya mate - your not the first to do that! unless I missed it?

janoskiss (Steve H) · #9 16-03-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

I note a glaring omission, as I so often do with ep reviews, as to wether these ep's are 1.25" or 2"

Or maybe 0.965" for the countless 60mm 575x owners.

To me it is evident from the photos and the references to 1.25" accessories that the EPs have 1.25" barrels. I think it is safe to assume that an EP is a standard 1.25" size unless otherwise stated.

stringscope (Ian) · #10 16-03-2006, 08:30 PM

Thanks for your comments team. Ooops .......... Talk about spot the obvious error.........sorry guys, you are right 1.25"

. I will try and improve next time.

Hi Paul, yes, it was a "blast" turning a battered Tasco into that little dob. It looks great and works well! I hope to replace the primary mirror which is chipped with the one donated by Asimov in the next week or so.

Cheers,

matt · #11 16-03-2006, 09:59 PM

Nice review Ian.

I have the 6mm and include it occasionally when I'm just looking for a quick look at the sky without too much fussing about.

Tuc47 and Omega Cent are framed quite nicely in my 8" f5.

It came as part of an introductory on-line EP set. I've been tossing up whether to sell it because I've got 2 6mms ...but it's just so handy to have a little "hard nut" high mag EP in your kit which can handle the treatment when you don't feel like being too precious

Hammerman · #12 17-03-2006, 05:49 AM

Very well written review, Ian. I've been wondering about the 15mm ep for a while now. Sounds like it should be nice for the price. I wonder how well a pair of them would work in binoviewers?

dhumpie · #13 17-03-2006, 12:26 PM

Hey guys,

You might have seen that I peer reviewed the article Ian wote. These ep's, while not up to the standard of the more "exalted" TV's and Pentax's do quite well for their price. The best of the 4 being the 15mm and the 9mm period (even in fast f/5 scopes )....

Darren

Hammerman · #14 18-03-2006, 05:43 AM

So the 15mm is one of the best of the group? Exactly what I was hoping to hear. Thanks Darren!

ausastronomer (John Bambury) · #15 19-03-2006, 09:15 PM

Firstly let me say that everyones eyes, budget and expectations are different when it comes to eyepieces. I call it as I see it.

I can't comment on all of these eyepieces but I did own the 20mm for one month. At the time I owned an 8"/F6 newtonian. Why did I own it for one month ? That was how long it took me to get back to Sydney to Lee Andrews and get my money back on it. To be honest I thought it was woeful. Compared to a 20mm Orion Sirius Plossl (a good budget plossl also made by Synta) I also owned at the time, it didn't begin to compare. Compared to my 18mm UO HD ortho it wasn't in the race despite having a wider AFOV. What is the point of a 66 deg AFOV when only 40 deg of it is useable in a fast scope and that useable 40 deg is not as good as a good plossl or orthoscopic? I can't comment on any of the other focal lengths. From what I have subsequently read in forum reviews the other focal lengths are better than the 20mm. I did try the eyepiece in a Celestron C8 at F10 and it did a reasonable job in an F10 scope so may not be a bad option if your on a limited budget and own a slow scope.

Sorry guys but I think they are very average and if I was on a limited budget there are a lot of eyepieces out there that I would be buying before I bought those. eg Orion Sirius Plossls and barlow them to preserve eye relief to get shorter focal lengths. FWIW I rate the 15mm and 20mm GSO Superviews at about the same level, very ordinary.

CS-John B

mickoking · #16 19-03-2006, 11:03 PM

Great review Ian. I believe these Asian wide angles do a great job for their price. Some people put down the 20mm SV's but in my opinion, for their price you really can't complain. You don't need to spend a fortune to enjoy the night sky, that's what it's all about

janoskiss (Steve H) · #17 19-03-2006, 11:35 PM

John, I think the more experience you gain the quicker you notice what is wrong with an eyepiece and the less tolerant you become to aberrations.

I tried a 20mm Superview in an f5 scope at the Snake Valley meeting. I thought it was a shocker, a virtually useless eyepiece in this scope. Even a cheap plossl would have been considerably better. However, three newcomers to the hobby were very pleased with it (and the 15mm one too) and Jodie sounded pretty much convinced that she will be buying some. They looked through my 19mm Panoptic in the same scope, and they said it was nice, nicer even, but they were not suddenly "enlightened" to how bad the 20mm superview is.

I think one observes differently when starting out, maybe fixing the gaze in the centre and not looking around too much. It took me a few weeks to become displeased with my 30mm Superview (it is not as bad as the 20mm though), which was my first eyepiece after the GS and Andrews 500 Plossls that came with my scope. When I first got the Superview I thought it was fantastic. Now I think it is a usable finder but no more.

Constant (David) · #18 10-04-2016, 08:59 AM

Given that I am a Scope Junky its unsurprising I have a number of these generic pieces in my collection. In my finder scopes I typically will use either a 40 or a 32mm piece. The views are excellent! They are by any measure very useful wide-field pieces, I am very fond of the pieces.
I am certain that part of the reason I find these generic pieces so appealing is their price, the inner Scrooge in me reasons that they are better than they actually are.
Only this week I purchased from Visionking (eBay) a x5 Barlow. Having looked quite widely I am certain Visionking is the actual manufacture as number of resellers and bigger named brands sell the identical Barlow
At $120 it's not a "bargain" it is a 4 element Barlow, there is a lot of glass in the Barlow. Expressed as function over cost it is an excellent piece. If it was rebranded under a green label I am certain it would be a goto Barlow.

Don Pensack · #19 15-04-2016, 08:15 AM

These eyepieces are available world-wide, under at least 8 different labels.
They work fairly well above f/7, but have ever-increasing amounts of edge-of-field astigmatism under that.
By f/5, they are barely acceptable.
In contrast, there are many 60° eyepieces in the same general price range that will give much better images.
And there are 70-82° eyepieces for not that much more that will dramatically outperform them in an f/5 dob.

My last use of these "generic" widefields (~66°) was in an f/12.75 Maksutov, and, in that, they worked quite well.

So, caveat emptor. Base your decision on the f/ratio of your scope and on realistic expectations.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #20 15-04-2016, 04:11 PM

Resurrection. This is a 10 y.o. thread. Funny though that budget EPs offered by Chinese/Taiwanese mfrs have not changed much. There is only so much that can be done with 5 lens elements unless exotic glass and aspherical surfaces are used (= too expensive).

30mm 7-element generic ultra-wides are not too bad. Coma and CA in the outer 1/3 of the FOV at f/6 or faster, but stick one in a long 2" barlow and you'll have a very nice abuse-tolerant public-friendly 13-15mm 80-degree EP. But these EPs have gone way up in price. Andrews used to sell them for $79, and now they're closer to $200. The 20mm version used to be the best bang for buck (identical to the 30mm but also had a bonus removable/reusable 2" barlow group on the end of it).

These days there are better options for similar money.