Explore Scientific eyepieces

[gregbradley]

I read a good review about these.

Anyone using them can let me know what they thought of them?

Greg.

[wavelandscott]

I have used a few in slower scopes. They are good...not quite Televue or Pentax good but reasonably close and less expensive.

In a statement meant to offer controversy...if you have not spent time with the high end of town you will find them wonderful. But they do fall just a smidge short comparatively so if you want the best view without any doubt, then move up to the Televue and Pentax class of gear. For an occasional look see they will be fine.

The differences are on the edge and in the finishes...just a little rougher in both instances.

[ab1963]

I have had the 8 ,13 and 21mm Ethos sold them and got the 9 and 14 Explore Scientific and personally prefer them they are as sharp to the edge as the Ethos in my scope I only have a 106mm refractor so subtle differences might not stand out the same as a 16” dob but I am more than happy with the 2 i have...

[gregbradley]

Thanks for the replies.

Greg.

[Outcast]

I own a 30mm, 18mm, 14mm & 4.7mm in the 82 degree series.

I use them in f5 newts, f6 refractors & an f15 Mak & they work well in all of these scopes.

I find them sharp to the edge in all of my scopes, clarity is good & I have not observed any flaring on bright targets...

Hope this is helpful

Cheers

[DarkArts]

I have 40mm and 28mm in the 68d series and 18, 11, 8.8 and 6.7 in the 82d series.

I've used them in SCTs, refractors and Dobs and think they're pretty good - I also didn't notice particular aberrations. The 8.8 has a little reflection issue in the older model allegedly fixed, but I don't own a newer (fixed) model. I do notice on the moon or planets, but it's not too bad - I've seen worse. I've heard the 14mm (available in the 82d series) has minor curvature issues, but I've never owned one.

They also make a 100d series. I looked through one ... 30-ish mm, I think, can't quite remember ... at a star party and was a bit nonplussed - it's not worth the ... ahem ... astronomical cost! I'd save the money and stick with the 82d or 68d series, which, other than the two issues noted above, have pretty good reputations and are, IMHO, a good bang for the buck.

Oh, one other thing: in the SCT, I got some minor kidney beaning with the 40mm but only because the eye relief is pretty long and the optimal eye position is above the rubber eye cup. My solution was to make a second rubber wrap-around (from neoprene) just the right height for me, which pretty much eliminates the issue. It's a big hunk of glass, but a nice view.

[Max Vondel]

I have the 4.7 and 6.7 ES 82 degree EP's and the 14mm 100 degree.
They are all good to my eyes. Not quite up to the Nagler/Delos/Ethos lines
But I suffer from diabetic eye bleeding so my eye sight in not the best.
Well worth it from an economic viewpoint IMHO

[The_bluester]

I have 30 and 18mm 82 degree ones. I find them comparable but not quite a match for the Nagler originals and they work well with pleasing views in my C925 SCT and my sons 10" dob.

Not quite up to the Nagler 31 I had a loan of at one point in my SCT, but good enough to make the extra cost very hard to justify.

[Don Pensack]

As is the case with all eyepieces, performance varies across the ranges.

In 100°, the 5.5, 9, and 14 are quite good, while the 20mm suffers from a lot of edge astigmatism and the 25 has a lot of problems, including vignetting.
In the 82° series, edge of field astigmatism is the primary problem, but it is less in shorter focal lengths. The 82° LER series has a lot of scattered light and chromatic aberration problems.
The 68° series is very nice in 16, 20, and 24mm, but suffers from significant light scatter in longer focal lengths as well as edge astigmatism.
And, it's the same in the 52° and 62° series as well--best to read reviews of a particular focal length because they vary in performance across the focal lengths.

So, overall, ES eyepieces represent good values, but it depends a lot on the f/ratio of the scope (they perform a lot better at f/8+) and scope type (people notice field curvature in refractors, often), and focal length of the eyepiece.

I do have to add that, by and large, they are significant upgrades over the entry-level eyepieces, like the ubiquitous 66°-70° eyepieces that can be bought for very low prices.

[ngcles]

Hi Greg & All,

I bought the 30mm 82 deg second hand here on IIS for about a quarter the cost of a brand-new 31mm Televue T5. It was practically brand new. The eyepiece box is absolutely enormous. If you keep your eyepieces in their boxes in a case, you'll need a suitcase.

With my Newtonian(s) (f/4.85 and f/5) I find it to be an excellent performer with good sharpness nearly to the edge. If I did a direct comparison with the 31mm T5, I think it would be a lesser performer, but not a lot in it. I am very happy with it.

All the other eyepieces in my collection are Televue. I saved about $800 over the new price for a 31mm T5.

Best,

L.

[mandragara]

I'm fairly new to the hobby but I have an ES68 24mm, ES82 14mm, ES82 8.8mm and ES82 LER 4.5mm - as well as a Tele Vue 32mm Wide Field and Plossl (courtesy of a kind person on IIS)

The ES are excellent eyepieces to my eyes. The Tele Vue ones are just that little bit better in edge correction, plus star colour seems just a tad more vibrant. However I don't think they're worth the price difference new.

I got my ES68 24mm and LER 4.5mm from Proastroz and my ES82's from Aliexpress under the 'Maxvision' brand. They cost $105 apiece on sale, a LOT cheaper than their Tele Vue equivalents