12" Dob and Prefered EPs

Davekyn (David) · #1 24-01-2012, 09:57 AM

I've finally done it ... made a decision on what telescope I want. I am going back to the faithful 12" solid tube GSO Dob. Although I have a reasonable Idea of what EPs I prefer, it would be good to hear from others.

If you would be kind enough to just to List you EPs details and the targets you enjoy with it ... (and why you like it for whatever reason) ... it would greatly assist me and possibly others whom are contemplating any eye piece or two for their 12" Dob.

Of course advice is always welcome from everyone, however I am more interested in what other 12" Dob owners prefer.

Thank You

Davekyn (David) · #2 24-01-2012, 10:29 AM

I wonder at what point, you actually get something back for the money you spend, when going from a plossl to justifiably expensive?

I do like the extra glass - width wise - at the top element in which you look through on the 1.25s ... BUT ... I have seen some crappy ones that come with the extra glass on top.

2" I had last time was mainly for wider field of view ... although I am thinking of 2" UHC filter this time for Carina ... Definitely worth considering I think???

I will once again be getting some Plossls that come with the GSO dob and my mate has an Aray of EPs as well. I think I will just go bank the money for the dob ... possibly put in a post on the best collimation tools ... (after reading some what on the 16", I think the mirror springs all round are questionable and reason why I had to previously collimate so much during my vewing sessions...Too much tourqe from the mirror whilst swing the dob through it's arc ... I always thought it could of been an issue ... now I will be watching that one....ANYWAYS...sorry thinking out aloud here...

I'll have about ... $1500 minus the postage on the dob ... (actually will decide against it if I think postage is too much ... last time it arrived with a DENT in it courtesy of TNT...in fact I might even pay more somewhere else this time just because of that....

Feel free to help me spend it ... as I will need a chair ... and maybe even this time get some gear to help with fog and due ... I need foam for transport and a few other things...or lot of...

argh...they have left out the 32mm 2" EP this time...
___________________________________ ____________________

What eye piece did you say again?

barx1963 (Malcolm) · #3 24-01-2012, 10:58 AM

Hey David
From what you are saying I gather you have purchased a 16" dob? Is it the GSO one?
In my opinion better EPs are definitely worth the money. I am currently running a 24mm Panoptic, 13mm and 7mm Naglers and a 10mm Ethos.
The image presented by the Ethos is noticeably superior to the 13mm Nagler, sharper stars, better contrast.
Having said that, the 24mm Pan probably produces the overall nicest images, although the low power produces a slightly brighter sky background than the higher power ones.
So my experience is in relation to TV items, the money is worth it, provided you have the money.

Malcolm

Davekyn (David) · #4 24-01-2012, 03:01 PM

Narrrr malcom ... I am after advice regarding a 12" Dob which I am very nearly just about to buy. Not happy with the $150.00 Freight charge, regardless of whatever claims.

Malcom...I take it those eps you are talking about is how they look in a 12" Dob? I remember using my plossl 25mm a lot when I had my 12" Dob.

Davekyn (David) · #5 24-01-2012, 09:07 PM

http://astrosurf.com/luxorion/report...ggestions2.htm
2" Vs 1.25"...............in laymen terms would be good.

Malcom...I think I will be getting a 24mm Pan ... (reviews sound very impressive)
I just need to get my head around weather I should go 1.25 inch or 2"
I'm not sure I like to much glass, if it means I have to move my head or even move my eye around too much. Not sure if I am explaining this right...but...I think I have experienced this with some Ep's ...

Like I don't mind looking around a bit, but getting a nice eyeful in one go that requires little movement of my muscle is much more pleasing than having to look from one side to the other...of course this is most likely my own querky thing...and more to do with target and field of view, however...fact is....I have not tried anything in a 2" less than a 32mm or thereabouts...I did have a 1.25 12.5mm ED (AOE>>>rebranded>>>now closed) that had more glass atop than a 15mm plossl ... and it was pretty good on the moon with my 12" dob and not too bad for slowly dragging across large nebula such a carina...which is why I think I might have to consider a decent 13mm as well...plus mabe a 7mm for planets...The rest I'll go budget...or should I say cheap, with many who regard $300.00 as mere budget for an EP...

barx1963 (Malcolm) · #6 24-01-2012, 09:45 PM

David
The 24mm Pan is a 1.25" barrell, and a great EP, lovely views for the $$$!
The 2" barells are mainly on the wider field, long FL eps. In the TV range you see some that fit both, but they are still 1.25" eps, they have a skirt so they can be used with a 2" focuser. I found with my 10mm Ethos I had to get a TV High Hat adapter to get it to work OK.

dannat (Daniel) · #7 24-01-2012, 10:51 PM

David I reckon a 10Xw for detailed dso ob's, giving 150x

Jen · #8 03-02-2012, 03:49 AM

Hey David i am a very proud owner of a 12" dobbie and for christmas i got a 12mm nagler and for my birthday i got the 24mm pan and a 2.5xpowermate and i have just used them for the first time tonight and i must say my money was well spent wow what a night i have had they are beautiful eyepieces. With spectacular seeing tonight the 12mm nagler with the 2.5xpowermate looking at Saturn was breath taking i gotto go and have another look cheers

clive milne · #9 03-02-2012, 07:44 PM

David.. if you have money to burn, a 10mm ethos would be my first choice (closely followed by the ethos 13mm)

The explore scientific 9mm (or 14mm) 100 degree would give you a very similar experience at half the price.

If you wear glasses, you'd be hard pressed to go passed the 12mm Nagler type 4.

All these are in the sweet spot for a 12" f5, giving you a good balance of sky brightness, magnification, resolution and field of view. I would also suggest a UHC filter to go with whatever eyepiece you end up with.

best
~c

ENVY (Peter) · #10 03-02-2012, 08:31 PM

Dave

I have a 12" lightbridge and a few TV eyepieces (nagler,pans and radian) recently purchased a 17mm Ethos

And wow the field view the clarity contrast and all other things the TV marketing people write about the Ethos is true

I am a member of a large observing group and their is often a que of people lined up to a have a gander

It's expensive but well worth the wait if your down on cash at this time

Cheers

Dave2042 (Dave) · #11 06-02-2012, 11:09 AM

Dave

I have a 12" Lightbridge (collapsible Dob).

I mainly use:

9mm Televue Nagler for smaller deep-sky and planetary viewing;
13mm Televue Nagler for more general deep-sky;
32mm Televue Plossl for large deep-sky objects;
2x Televue Barlow on the Naglers for fine detail of planets and moon.

I find the TV stuff vastly superior to my various freebies and low-cost eyepieces (GSO / Meade), and well worth the money. The slight exception is the Plossl, which though superior to the freebies, lacks the contrast that the Naglers have - I will upgrade this to another Nagler one day. That said, the Plossl cost a hell of a lot less than the corresponding Nagler, and is still a worthwhile improvement on the freebies.

Hope this helps.

koputai (Jason) · #12 06-02-2012, 11:20 AM

Dave, the magnification with the Plossl is waaay less than the Naglers you have (32mm vs 9mm and 13mm) so that is why the contrast is less.

Dave2042 (Dave) · #13 06-02-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koputai

Dave, the magnification with the Plossl is waaay less than the Naglers you have (32mm vs 9mm and 13mm) so that is why the contrast is less.

I understand that, but I understand there is also an effect related to the apparent field of view. This seems real to me, comparing between my other Plossl's and the Naglers, although I'd happily entertain the idea that my brain is tricking me as a result of other related factors.

clive milne · #14 06-02-2012, 02:44 PM

Dave, all else being equal the TV Plossl should have very slightly better axial contrast than you will see in Nagler of the same focal length. I don't know if the difference will be large enough to notice though. This is simply a function of the number of air-glass transitions. There may also be a secondary effect of light scatter in your eye. The wider the field of view, the more light you will get entering your eye, it obviously follows that there will be a slight reduction in overall contrast. If this is to any meaningful extent, I could not say.

Where the Nagler hoses the Plossl is in it's field correction, the faster the primary objective, the more noticeable this will be.

I think it is also worth drawing the distinction between the metric by which we evaluate an eyepiece and the observing experience itself. Point being, I personally am prepared to accept the faults inherent in the Naglers and Ethos designs because perceptually, I find the interference of a field stop a greater offence to my sense of reality immersion than the 2% (or whatever) loss in contrast that comes with the territory.

This is a personal choice. ymmv.

Dave2042 (Dave) · #15 14-02-2012, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clive milne

Dave, all else being equal the TV Plossl should have very slightly better axial contrast than you will see in Nagler of the same focal length. I don't know if the difference will be large enough to notice though. This is simply a function of the number of air-glass transitions. There may also be a secondary effect of light scatter in your eye. The wider the field of view, the more light you will get entering your eye, it obviously follows that there will be a slight reduction in overall contrast. If this is to any meaningful extent, I could not say.

Where the Nagler hoses the Plossl is in it's field correction, the faster the primary objective, the more noticeable this will be.

I think it is also worth drawing the distinction between the metric by which we evaluate an eyepiece and the observing experience itself. Point being, I personally am prepared to accept the faults inherent in the Naglers and Ethos designs because perceptually, I find the interference of a field stop a greater offence to my sense of reality immersion than the 2% (or whatever) loss in contrast that comes with the territory.

This is a personal choice. ymmv.

Interesting. Thanks for the comment.

Calibos (Keith) · #16 14-02-2012, 03:15 PM

Its funny how a visible field stop can be a marmite kind of thing. Some people love it and some people hate it. Some people like ourselves want that thing gone so we can feel like we are floating in space. Others feel lost without a visible fieldstop and need a border to frame their view.

Luckily Televue is reacting to that to keep everyone happy with the Delos. All the other benefits of the Ethos except with a 70º AFOV for those people who love everything about the Ethos except the eyestrain they got from their spinning eyeballs because they just couldn't stop themselves from always looking for the edge.