"EyePieces"

Striker (Tony) · #1 14-01-2005, 01:26 PM

I would like to know when the time comes should I be looking at 2" eyepieces or 1 1/4".......for my LX 200 10".

What do the rest of you meade owners use and what do you recommend as far as size and magnification......I want good quality pieces that are well priced....so no Naglers please....I will spend up to $250 each eyepiece approx......

I have bought the aluminium case but dont want to look at Foam until I decide what eyepieces to look at......

Striker (Tony) · #2 15-01-2005, 10:15 AM

I just have the standard 26mm 1 1/4" that come with the Meade.......I want to start looking around for 1 or 2 eyepieces....

Got any Suggestions? 1 1/4" or 2"

rumples riot · #3 15-01-2005, 10:36 AM

Hey striker I have a 20mm and 12.5mm Meade 4000 series 1.25mm. I find that this combination works quite well with the 26mm that I received with the scope. Not that I do much viewing any more. Still quite a nice combo. I would like to get a couple of the series 5000 EP for super wide angle stuff.

I also have a 40mm Maxview Eyepiece which I sometimes use.

silvinator · #4 15-01-2005, 11:47 AM

Hey Striker, I would suggest that you get another one or two normal eyepieces - one from the high power range and another from medium power. A third, wide field eyepiece, probably two inch would also be a nice addition to an ep collection (one that I hope to add to mine soon!) The last sky and space had a great article about budget wide field ep's which there is a thread about lurking around here somewhere. Keep in mind that any scope will have a maximum useful magnification of about 300x, any higher and the effects of atmospheric blurring and seeing are just too much to bear. Do you have a barlow by the way? That would also double your ep collection as it effectively doubles the focal length of any eyepiece you have. That's something else to consider when you get more ep's, you don't want to end up with identical or similar magnifications. Also, there is a low power limit which is calculated by multiplying your telescope's focal ratio by 7. I personally have a 6.4mm, 9.7mm and 26mm (all meade series 4000) but I find I don't use the 6.4mm very much at all. The seeing is never good enough for it when I am out. I'd like to get a 15mm or 14mm wide field, and possibly a 30mm wide field too. Buying ep's used from o/s is a good way to save $$$. I've had no probs with the ones I bought. Good luck with your search.

Striker (Tony) · #5 15-01-2005, 11:48 AM

Thanks Paul,

Would you consider 2" eyepieces ?

Whats a good price for the Meade 12.5, 20mm, 32mm super plossl 4000 series.

Tossing up between 1 1/4 or 2"....atm

Striker (Tony) · #6 15-01-2005, 11:55 AM

I was thinking about buying the Meade Barlow 1 1/4 apochromatic 2 x for $135......

Do you think a widefield 1 1/4 is as good as 2"....not sure on prices.........looking atm...

I have already been told the Meade range arn't bad for their price but if you have others I will compare prices..

silvinator · #7 15-01-2005, 12:12 PM

hey Striker, quick, there's a guy from aus selling his barlow for AU$110. Here's the link:
astromart ad

Striker (Tony) · #8 15-01-2005, 12:31 PM

Just rung up Star optics Gold Coast getting some prices on the Series 4000 QX Wide Angle Eyepieces...range from $150 to $200.

the 36mm was $190 and the 15mm was $160....

Thanks Silvie for 2nd add...but I would prefer to buy new considering their only $135 for the same Barlow...but thanks anyway.

[1ponders] (Paul) · #9 15-01-2005, 12:36 PM

Here's something to think about Tony.

If you get a barlow and a wide of around 35/36/40mm (whatever is available) and a 15mm then along with your current eyepiece you will have
35/36/40mm
26mm
17/18/20 mm
15mm
13mm
and 7.5mm
Not a bad range really, plus using the barlow keeps good eyerelief, just loose a bit of brighness.

Alternatively a 40, a 32, and a 12 with a barlow

Gives 40, 32, 26, 20, 16, 13, 10, 12, 6. Eight for the price of 4.

Am I teasing you enought

As far as high power go, I've never used my 4mm and only used the 6mm once or twice. Seeing is just rarely good enough.

Seriously though, think about what it is you want to look at and select your eyepieces accordingly. Galaxies, clusters and Nebs wide field, generally low power. Planets, moon, double stars medium to high power, wide field is not necessarily as important.

I'd suggest make that decision first. If you're unsure, then one of each (wide and low 35-40, and narrower and medium12-15) and a barlow.

In the end its a personal choice. See if you can get a chance to try some out first before you buy. Maybe the shop you got your scope from would be willing to lend you a couple, especially seeing how much you spent there. Its called "after sales service"

silvinator · #10 15-01-2005, 12:46 PM

That's ok, I skipped the part in your post about it being only $135 new so it's not much of a saving when you include postage. Well I would definitely go with the barlow you mentioned, I have that as well and use it all the time.
Striker, are those prices for the 1.25" ep's? Well, they sound reasonably priced. What's the FOV on those QX wide angles anyway?

Starkler (Geoff) · #11 15-01-2005, 12:57 PM

Just to confuse you a bit more, ive heard the Meade 140 barlow is a bit of a dog in comparison to the Celstron Ultima or orion shorty-plus.

Realisticly one doesnt need a multitude of different focal length eyepieces and you will end up using just a few and the rest will collect dust most of the time.

Go for a 2 inch maximum fov eyepiece, and one that gives about 100x for dso viewing, and perhaps two others giving maybe 180x and 250x for viewing planets.

Striker (Tony) · #12 15-01-2005, 01:01 PM

Thanks Paul....

And Silvie as far as I know the FOV is 70 degrees.....but dont quote me its just what I have read.....

Ok it looks like I will definetly be getting the 2 x Apochramitic Barlow for a start.....I may just get one of the Meade QX range while I am there for a start......

Thanks

Striker (Tony) · #13 15-01-2005, 01:14 PM

Thanks Starkler...I know where all of you are coming from....and appreciate your comments.......

I think I would like both 2" and 1 1/4" eyepieces....so I will shop around....

silvinator · #14 15-01-2005, 01:22 PM

Hey Starkler, what specifically do these people say is the main fault of the meade 140 barlow? My use of it so far has not been negative, but I cannot compare its quality to a celestron or the orion shorty as I've never used either. The difference with the orion shorty though is that it is a two element achro design. I'm not sure how much that would affect the end view but it is significanty cheaper than both the meade and celestron 3 element apo designs. It's better to stick with the same brand accessories to your scope anyway isn't it? Unless of course, budget doesn't permit this. I say this because each company would design their accessories to perform very well with their own equipment wouldn't they? Not that I'm saying you shouldn't use other brands but it's just something to think about.
Striker, do get one of those QX's, I'd really like to see how good they are so you can be the guniea pig!

Starkler (Geoff) · #15 15-01-2005, 01:45 PM

Silvie ,sharpness of view and reflections/glare if I remember rightly, but then its 70% of the cost of the Orion also.

Don't confuse the Orion shorty with the Orion Shorty-plus !
The Orion shorty is an inferior cheap barlow, whilst the shorty plus is a 3 element apochromatic reputed to be near as good as a televue barlow.

As for sticking to brand names, its pretty rare that this is a problem with eyepieces.

Geoff

silvinator · #16 15-01-2005, 01:55 PM

Thanks Starkler, I had no idea there were those kinds of complaints around about that barlow. If I had another barlow to compare it to, I might be able to make a more informed comment...so, anyone wanna lend me a powermate?
Oops, my mistake, I guess I was talking about the cheaper orion barlow.
Also, I wasn't trying to say that using a different brand of eyepiece to the brand of the scope would be a problem at all. What I should have said is that people prefer to stick to the one brand for that very reason I mentioned in my above post. It definitely is just a matter of personal choice.

Dave47tuc (David) · #17 15-01-2005, 09:05 PM

Striker,I've had the 10" for a couple of years.

I have used lots of eyepieces in it

Forget buying anything other that 1 big 2 inch eyepiece. Say 31 Nagler or 35 Panoptic or 41 Panoptic. If you can't afford it yet. wait till you can or buy second hand

Then buy the Peterson eyeopener, you will need this with the above eyepieces.

22 Panoptic or Nagler next.

Then get a 12mm Nagler wait till you can afford it or again get one second hand.

As you will not get many nights you can use high power, go for the 9mm Nagler last.

My opinion but once you look through them there is no going back.
As i said have patience then get high end ones first and last

Best.

beren · #18 15-01-2005, 09:31 PM

Dav ive been trying to hold back

but thats a great combo ......i have a 32 meade SWA, 22 mm nag, 14 meade uwa and 9mm nagler , nice balance on mag values in conjuction with a focal reducer/barlow . The 22mm i use all the time , in fact some nights thats the only one i use , with a focal reducer/barlow and standard i get about 70x,113x,140x,226x...perfect for most nights ,excellent 20mm eye relief and exteme wide views.

Dave47tuc (David) · #19 15-01-2005, 09:34 PM

Very nice Stuart

Meade 14 UWA very nice, I don't have this one as i have 16mm Nagler

22 Nagler wow

Very very nice.

Best.

Striker (Tony) · #20 15-01-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Then buy the Peterson eyeopener, you will need this with the above eyepieces.

Whats that.....?

The Meade 14 UWA...thats the new series 5000 Ultra wide with 82 degrees FOv isn't it...if so how much are they.........$