The TV ethos set question

[icytailmark]

if i were to buy the full ethos set of eyepieces would i be able to view all objects that my telescope is capable of seeing? If i had great seeing and could view the whole sky of course.

[AG Hybrid]

Well you dont need a full set of ethos eye pieces to get the full potential out of your telescope. But since you have removed viewing conditions as a factor... The 100 AFOV will provide you the largest FOV possible. Ive read the 13 mm is absolutely brilliant though. A great mixure of FOV and magnification. A bit of magnification brings out extra detail compared to low magnification. So you can see more of the capabilities of your scope that way.

Unfortunately, I havnt had the privilage of looking through one personally. Maybe a member here who has deep pockets can tell you more about it!

[Lismore Bloke]

Hello Mark,

What type of telescope are you using? As a comparison, I use a collection of Naglers with the 12" dob. (22, 17, 12, 9, 7) and the 82 degree field is as wide as I need. Some observers are put off by the Ethos 100 degree FOV, as the eye can't take it in all at once.

With premium eyepieces, weight is another consideration, for example:
Naglers 9, 11 and 13 are all 180 grams, Nagler 17 - 725g, Nagler 22 - 680g.
Ethos 10 - 500g; Ethos 13 - 565g; Ethos 17 - 700g.

I am only just getting away without tube balance weights and excess weight is a definite consideration with small scopes and light tubes.

[icytailmark]

i havea 12" Dob and im currently using a 13mm Nag, 25mm Plossl and i have a pentax 7mm XW on its way.

[Miaplacidus]

No one is going to tell you that an extended family of ethoi won't give you tremendous views. Almost certainly you will have removed the eyepiece as a factor when wanting to optimize your viewing system. But some people might question whether it is the best use of your funds. You already have some tasty eyepieces by the sound of it. On a cost-benefit analysis, you might be better off buying a bigger scope. (Or perhaps a smaller one that you might use more often???)

But what would I know? The only thing I know is what works for me. And hell, I'm not even sure about that half the time. But if someone's VW beetle breaks down and they replace it with a Lamborghini, I reckon they've got more on their mind than reliability issues.

[JethroB76]

When observing do you feel the need for lots of different focal length EPs'?
I don't really, and I think if you're only using the one scope that you could be quite happy with say 3 focal lengths (in a dob maybe the 21, 13 and the 8); the wide AFOV makes them quite flexible IMO.

You could also be very happy with one Ethos (or none) and a range of other pentaxes or whatever.

Another point, as well as being heavy, is that they dont have overly generous eye relief, so if you wear glasses it can be an issue for some. I dont understand how someone could be put off by the extra AFOV though:shrug:

[Robh]

I agree that an 8mm, 13mm and 21mm EP set would make a good range of magnifications.
I can't see what the negative argument is about the Ethos 100 degree apparent FOV. Consider this... with the unaided eye, I look at a distant object ; my field of view is almost 180 degrees. However, the clearest point is the centre of the field of vision. To see any point off-centre as clearly, I must aim my eye(s) directly in that direction. It is no different for an eyepiece. Whether the apparent FOV is 60 degrees or 100 degrees, the clearest point is at centre. Your eye has to rotate off-centre to view other points as clearly. It's just that you have a larger panorama in the 100 degree EP.

Regards, Rob.

[barx1963]

I can only point to personal experience, I managed to secure a 24mm Panoptic, which along with a 13mm Nagler and a 32mm GSO Plossl are the only EPs I use now. I have a barlow which I can pop the Nag into if I really need power, but that's it! The 24 Pan is a brilliant bit of kit.

[Miaplacidus]

I have bred eyepieces for many years now, and they all have their own virtues and idiosyncrasies. But I tend to gravitate to the smaller breeds now (i.e. the 1.25 inch format). No balance issues, the benefit of a lighter diagonal in the refractor, and just generally easier to pack and handle. True grab and go.

Anyway, here are a couple of simple tests for evaluating an eyepiece: how often do the owners use it? how infrequently does it turn up for resale? On these criteria I reckon you'd find that the 24 Pan comes out in front. My own experience confirms this, in its own right, and also in terms of value for money. (On the other hand, I've certainly seen some second-hand ethoi advertized about the place.)

Also, please note: three different focal lengths are essential. Although it can be done, anything more than that involves two grave dangers:
1. spending your evenings juggling very expensive glass in the dark instead of looking at astronomical wonders.
2. the irreparable reputational damage of being gauche.

Anyway, having been bitten more than once, I would be very reluctant to buy an eyepiece that I hadn't first used myself (and preferably in my own scope).

But all this discussion in pointless. Once addicted, there is no cure.

Commiserations.

[norm]

I concur with that. Its a fantastic eyepiece and certainly recommended.

Norm