Help On Choosing A Premium 14mm Eye Piece.

[erick (Eric)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

I wonder if I'm an eyepiece snob

getting closer

OK, I think 14mm and stay lightweight. Denk it would seem to be (I haven't looked through one, but you have very weighty approvals here from those that know.)

[mercedes_sl1970]

Suzy - you can also get the Denkmeier eyepieces directly from the company: https://www.denkmeier.com/index.cfm?...TOKEN=65735773

Andrew

PS. They are very good to deal with and very helpful.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

Logic tells me eye relief is more important than fov. Ultimately, one needs comfort at the eyepiece. My eyes are slowly going long sighted and for that reason, my other premium eye pieces have 20mm eye relief to factor this in for the future when I may need to have my glasses on.

Hi Suzy,

Good to hear you are thinking logically and not "wishfully". IMO this is an extremely important consideration. Astigmatism is the major concern with your own eye and the need for long eye relief eyepieces is more critical in longer focal length eyepieces because of the larger exit pupil they create. This gets worse as you get older. I am very happy with eyepieces having an AFOV of 60 deg to 70 deg and 20mm of eye relief.

Originally Posted by Suzy

Denkmeir
I have sent Frontier Optics an email for a price of the Denk. I have no clue where to look for them overseas or how much they are there. They seem the same specs as the LVW (20mm eye relief, 65 fov). However, the Denks come in a 14mm (which is what I'm after), and the LVW in a 13mm.

I would rate the 14mm Denkmeier about 10% better in optical performance than the 13mm Vixen LVW which itself is outstanding. The 14mm Denk is one of the very best eyepieces I have used at any focal length at any price.

Originally Posted by Suzy

Nagler T/6 13mm
The 13mm of eye relief concerns me. Also the CN review says With the 20% sale at the moment they are $268 from Bintel. Making them cheaper than buying overseas and paying freight.

I would welcome some comments on the eye relief, particularly people that are wearing glasses at this ep, and also with respect to what CN said in the review (regarding fov).

The "useable" eye relief of Televue eyepieces is actually less than what is stated. I believe the reason for this is that the eye relief is measured from the surface of the eye lens and not from the top of the eye lens housing recess. You can never get your eyeball right onto the eye lens.

The 13mm Nagler T6 is a fine eyepiece but is not useable with glasses on in any way shape or form.

Originally Posted by Suzy

Baader Hyperion 13mm
Chris has been the only one that has given any input on this. I just could never see the Baader's as being classed as premium. I wonder if I'm an eyepiece snob

It's not a premium eyepiece, it's a reasonable eyepiece. Good value for money? Yes! A premium eyepiece it's not. In terms of optical performance it comes up a fair way short of the 14mm Denk, 13mm Vixen LVW, 14mm Pentax XW and the 13mm Nagler T6. And the 14mm TV Radian for that matter.

Originally Posted by Suzy

And to throw another eye piece into the works..
I find my 22mm Vixen LVW sharp to the edges with pin point stars. A big ask at that f/length. I would imagine if it performs this well at 22mm, 13mm should be just as good.

You could do a lot worse than the 13mm Vixen LVW and it would be my clear second choice after the 14mm Denk.

Originally Posted by Suzy

BUT... it seems I can only get a 14mm in the Denk.

Well not quite, but for all practical intent you're 100% correct. You can get the Nikon NAV SW 14mm, which I haven't used but heard glowing reports on, for well over $700. You can also get the 14mm Pentax XW, but it really needs a paracorr to perform at its best in a newtonian, which in itself is a $500 excercise. You can get a 14mm TV Radian which is a pretty fair eyepiece, but only 60 deg AFOV. You can also get the 14mm S5000 Meade UWA which some will tell you is a premium eyepiece, but IMO is ordinary.

Originally Posted by Suzy

Please answer....
Is 13mm too close to my 10mm? My next length is 22mm. Or not much difference between 14 to 13. Help. I'm thinking I need the 14mm. I want to use this f/length to search for galaxies and planetary nebs. And when the 10mm is affected by seeing (on stars).

14mm is IMO the best option, but the 13mm will also work very well. There is still enough gap down to the 10mm. Don't let this consideration scare you out of buying the 13mm Vixen LVW, if you can't source a 14mm Denkmeier.

I think Daniel at Frontier Optics has stopped bringing these in because he wasn't selling enough. Not sure if he still brings anything in from Denkmeier. He has recently got married and is putting a lot less time into Frontier Optics than he used to.

It's likely you will have to source the 14mm Denkmeier from the US. I am pretty sure you can order directly from Denkmeier. I already gave you the link to their website. There are also a few dealers in the US who sell them and ship to Australia including OPTCORP.

Cheers,
John B

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

Sorry to be late to the party...

Based on what you have described as your wish list I agree whole heartedly with those advocating for the Denk 14 mm.

I have both a pair of 14 mm Denks (for Binoviewing) and a 13 T6 Nagler.

In several respects the Denks are as good or better than the Nagler (eye relief in particular)...other than the differences in the AFOV and overall size and weight (which the Nagler wins), the Denk might be the preferred of the two on many targets and situations.

They are both fine eyepieces! But if you are set on 14 mm (which is fine) the Denks in my opinion will be hard to beat.

[Zubenel (Wes)]

Hi Suzzy ,

Many nights have been spent at Ron's peering into my T4 12mm Nag.
I think its my favourite eye piece and close to your 14mm spec. I have a F5.1 Dob. but have no experience with the other brands . You are welcome to test it at Ron's ..

[Suzy]

Zubenel, thank you for the kind offer to try your Nagler at Ron's.
I'd love to have a look through it one day there. However, 12mm I feel is too close to my existing 10mm. I'm trying to shorten the gap I have between my 10mm and 22mm. And I am in need of a 7mm focal length, which I can barlow the 14mm down to.

Scott, thank you so much for your welcomed input.
I remember you helping me when I was looking for a good 5mm (which everyone thankfully talked me into the 10). I always like to have your input on eye pieces so I am very glad you saw my thread. If I do say so myself, that thread is one of the best I've seen todate. It's highly informative for anyone looking for a good quality 10mm eyepiece, and I had some very experienced people comment on it. Naurally, the ep went over the budget of $200 though .
Here it is for anyone reading this that wants to take a look at it and learn from it. http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ght=5mm+%24200
I do hope people will be able learn from this very informative thread also.

John, what can I say! That was a highly informative respose (as usual) and I thank you for taking the time to help me again. In all honesty, I look up to you for your wisdom and advice on eyepieces. If you told me to walk one of my eyepieces to the bin as its rubbish, I'm pretty sure I'd listen to you.
I did have a good read on the Denk link in your first post but I couldn't find where they were located and the price of $558 confused me as I didn't know the currency or if they were the set or individual.

Erick, spot on about staying with the 14mm.

Andrew, I truly appreciate the info you have given me in those links, I have read it all. You have helped me lots!

Paddy, I was hoping you would comment as well, as you are a great visual observer.
In response to wearing glasses, unfortunately I do suffer from astigmatism. I don't need glasses at the ep yet, but I need to factor this in. My premium eyepieces need to last as long as I do. Right from the start I made a decision not throw money buying and trying eyepieces, because at the end of all the failures, I would have been able to get one really decent one. So as with my 10, and 22 and now my 14, I chose to draw on the experiences of the experienced and try and get it right the first time.

Unless there's anything else anyone would like to bring to the discussion, my decision seems to be pretty clear cut.
First choice will be the Denk, and my second choice will be another loved and trusted VixenLVW.

Just curious
The black winged eye cups on the Denk- are they for bino viewing only or are they used at the eyepiece. They look like they cradle the eye socket nicely.

As promised, my killer satay recipe will be posted here very soon.

[Dave47tuc (David)]

Suzy, John has given you perfect advice you cant go wrong with any of his choices. I have owned the 14 XW and LVW 13 both super eyepieces. I have also looked through the Denk.14 and its superb.

But one of my all time favourite eyepieces is the 13 LVW why? not fully sure, I just liked how comfortable it was to look into, very sharp view and a nice field, that about sums it up.

Basically you cant go wrong with any of them. Really its your budget that will sway you.

happy eyepiece buying.

[erick (Eric)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

....my killer satay recipe will be posted here very soon....

drool..................!!!

[mercedes_sl1970]

"The black winged eye cups on the Denk- are they for bino viewing only or are they used at the eyepiece. They look like they cradle the eye socket nicely."

Suzy - the winged eyecups are there, I guess, mainly for binoviewing
but they can be easily rotated or folded down. I quite like them in mono-viewing as well - good with positioning and keeping out side glare.

Good luck with your choice.

Andrew

[Starkler (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

My requirements are that the fov is at least 68 degrees (65 will be a consideration), and that the fov remains tac sharp to the edges.

If you are chasing the best possible views and want a tac sharp wide fov at under f5, then a paracorr is an absolute must IMHO.

My choice of ep was initially a Pentax XW14, but have since heard from someone that has the same scope as mine, that the fov at around 20 deg suffers a lot of field curvature.

If you have a properly adjusted paracorr, the field curvature in the Pentaxs (not to mention some naglers) becomes a non issue.

[Suzy]

When I was out observing last night using my favorite eyepiece -the XW10- and enjoying the comfort and fov so much, I felt saddened that I wasn't going to get the same again in the 14. I have to think long and hard whether to put up with field curviture on this or not (as a compromise).

Dave: Have you tried the XW14 on a fast scope (under 5?) I'd be interested to hear your view points. If you have used this ep on a fast scope, how much did the field curvature (stars bloating about 20-25% on edge of fov) annoy you? Thank you for your input.

John B: If I may bother you again, can I direct the same question to you as I have asked Dave? Thanks John.

Geoff: Hello! You helped me so much on my 5mm thread, and so pleased to see you return to help me yet again! Thank you.
Parracors unfortunately cost around $500 (yikes), that on top of buying a premium ep would be *gasp* too much money. Apparently (from the Cloudy Nights review), the Denks & Vixen LVW seem to be sharp to the edge, so I'm guessing it's a do-able thing. The tests were carried out on fast scopes.

Andrew: Thankyou for clarifying the eye cups on the Denks. for me.

[astro744]

Originally Posted by Suzy

When I was out observing last night using my favorite eyepiece -the XW10- and enjoying the comfort and fov so much, I felt saddened that I wasn't going to get the same again in the 14. I have to think long and hard whether to put up with field curviture on this or not (as a compromise).

The Paracorr for you is only $343.00 at Bintel. (PVL-2008 - You do not need the Type II).

Field curvature is worse as you get older as your eye cannot adapt as quickly or as much. I cannot stand field curvature as I feel it is a waste of apparent and therefore true field). I have not used a Pentax 14 XW at all and therefore not in the same telescope that you have (which is important when judging) so I cannot comment on it specifically. However, I have used a 30/80mm eyepiece that basically has the outer 30% severly curved in my 10" Newt. (The 31mm Nagler fixed that!).

Note a severly curved field will show fuzzy stars at the edge. Galaxies are already fuzzy so they basically disappear. Get an eyepiece that will give you the most useful field and in your case that may be the 14mm Radian, 13mm Nagler or 12mm Nagler. Note the 12mm Bagler has almost the same field stop diameter as the 13mm Nagler (ie; almost the same true field). The 12NT4 has a large eye lens and is very 'immersive'. At only $215.00 at Bintel, the 14mm Radian will give you sharp views to the very edge; you will still get details on planets as they float out of view.

Note a Paracorr will help with any eyepiece to eliminate coma as this is a function of the primary mirror. Field curvature is reduced too considerably if it is present. Not sure how the Paracorr works with the Pentax.

Just a note on reviews: Some may actually see severe field curvature with a given eyepiece and call it such. Some may see mild field curvature and call it such. Some may see mild field curvature and call it severe. You wont really know until you've seen it yourself and whether only severe or mild annoys you.

I think if you want 14mm a Radian is the way to go especially since it is now on sale. Using any eyepiece with a Paracorr can get annoying in itself as you have to keep adjusting the settings but it sure does clean the views up nicely. The amount of coma seen in the Radian will be very small if at all and you will be pleased with the view. If you really want a wider AFOV then the 12mm or 13mm Nagler. (I prefer the 12 but others prefer the 13). Note the 12mm field stop is out a long way so in 2" mode a Tele Vue EBX-2120 extension is advisable. The 12NT4 does have a 1.25"/2" barrel and in 1.25" mode it is racked in almost all the way. If you cannot rack in to get focus in 1.25" mode you will need the extension and rack out in 2" mode.

Whatever you choose, enjoy!

[Dave47tuc (David)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

Dave: Have you tried the XW14 on a fast scope (under 5?) I'd be interested to hear your view points. If you have used this ep on a fast scope, how much did the field curvature (stars bloating about 20-25% on edge of fov) annoy you? Thank you for your input.

Hi Suzy,
The scope I was using the 14 XW was the Sky Watcher 12" Dob. Field curvature does not bother me like some. I did however have a Paracorr in that scope. But even without the Paracorr it was not a bother to me.

What I like in a eyepiece most is how easy it is to look into it. I put the LVW ahead of the XW but that's me.
The biggest thing with eyepieces is there a very individual thing. What some people like others may not.
Point being John doesn't rate the old Meade UWA 14 mm.
But I do, and use it often in friends big scopes.

It makes no difference either way the end result is viewing the heavens and its fantastic we have choices.

The end of the day you cant go wrong with any of the eyepieces you have been advised on. But As you have a 22 LVW and use it my thoughts is to get the 13 mm LVW it may suit you best.

When using a 14 XW compared to the LVW I could hardly see any difference, very slight difference in magnification. You can not go wrong with either. But the LVW is cheaper so that would sway me.

Clear skies.

Dave.

[erick (Eric)]

Paracorr - watch the second hand market or put out a "Wanted". I managed to get one of the older versions (PCV-2000 green lettering) second hand and it is doing just what I want. It was well under the new price of the recent version (PVL-2008) and the new Type II.

More will come on the market as people upgrade to faster scopes and want the new Paracorr Type II.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

When I was out observing last night using my favorite eyepiece -the XW10- and enjoying the comfort and fov so much, I felt saddened that I wasn't going to get the same again in the 14. I have to think long and hard whether to put up with field curviture on this or not (as a compromise).

Dave: Have you tried the XW14 on a fast scope (under 5?) I'd be interested to hear your view points. If you have used this ep on a fast scope, how much did the field curvature (stars bloating about 20-25% on edge of fov) annoy you? Thank you for your input.

John B: If I may bother you again, can I direct the same question to you as I have asked Dave? Thanks John.

Hi Suzy,

Here is a post I replied to on Cloudy Nights a few days ago which addressed this specific issue

Does anyone have experience with the Pentax 14XW at f4.5 while using a Paracorr? I've read that there's lots of field curvature without a Paracorr, but I haven't read any detailed reports of its performance at short focal ratios with a Paracorr. Comments from anyone who has used that combo would be much appreciated!

Hi,

I have the 14mm Pentax XW which I use with and without a paracorr in both my F4.5 scopes, which have premium mirrors (see signature panel). I also have a 13mm ETHOS. The field curvature without the paracorr in both scopes is evident and noticeable. It doesnt bother me because I obviously have good adjustment for this with my own eye, but I can appreciate it would bother a number of people. The paracorr combined with the 14mm XW improves the view immensely, to the point where to my eye, it is "almost" perfectly sharp to the very edge of the FOV. I prefer to use the 14mm XW with paracorr than I do to use the 13mm ETHOS because of the greater comfort of the 14mm XW.

I have also used the 14mm Denkmeier extensively and if I was starting out again this is the eyepiece I would be buying at the 14mm focal length.The 14mm Denkmeier has no faults. It does everything exceptionally well, including optically in every respect and comfort and eye relief. Only downside is the AFOV is 65 deg. Keep in mind that I am happy with the 70 deg AFOV of the XW's and the 100 deg AFOV of the ETHOS line isn't a major determining factor for me.

Cheers,
John B

The 14mm Pentax XW at F5 is good, it has all the niceties of the XW line but the field curvature is evident without a paracorr.

Let me reminisce over my experince the first time I ever used the 14mm Denkmeier. John Huntsberger one of our regular Texan visitors to Coonabarabran was observing open clusters with me in my 10"/F5 newt at Coonabarabran about 7 years ago. I had the 14mm Pentax XW in the focuser as we toured through open clusters in Carina, Vela, Crux and Centaurus. I thought the 14mm XW was giving very nice views. John asked if we could substitute one of "his" eyepieces he had brought over with him. As is the correct protocol with the visitors, I of course said "sure". Muttering to myself under my breath I thought, "probably a piece of Chinese cr_p". John went inside and bought out this black funny looking thing, which on appearance only reinforced my suspicions of its far east origins. It was dark and I didnt get a good look at it as I stuck it in the focuser by "feel". How wrong I was. It took me all of about 2 seconds to realise the eyepiece wasn't a far east clone of anything. I spent about a minute sucking in the view and was "gobsmacked". The only words that could come out of my mouth were "Hol_ Sh_t". Subsequent discussions with John H revealed the origins of the eyepiece as a US made Denkmeier 14mm; and not a budget eyepiece in any way shape or form. I was forever impressed. The improvement it showed over the non paracorred Pentax 14mm was very significant. It has all the positive on axis attributes of the 14mm Pentax including comfort, sharpness, contrast and cool colour tone, but the EOF performance is noticeably improved. The Denk is tack sharp right to the very EOF at F5.

Originally Posted by Suzy

Andrew: Thankyou for clarifying the eye cups on the Denks. for me.

These winged eye cups are totally removable if you wish. You can also replace them with a normal "round" rubber eyecup available for about $5 each.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by Dave47tuc

Point being John does rate the old Meade UWA 14 mm. But I do, and use it often in friends big scopes.
Clear skies.

Dave.

Hi Dave,

I think that's a typo. I think you meant to say "John doesn't rate the old Meade UWA 14mm"?

Let me clarify that a tad.

When Mike Salway and I conducted this review about 6 years ago

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/42-245-0-0-1-0.html

I had good opportunity to compare the strengths of all of these eyepieces as we A/B'ed them all on multiple targets and target types. The 14mm S4000 Meade provided very nice views and was tack sharp to the EOF in the 10"/F5 scope. It really did have a lovely flat field. Where it came up way short for mine was in contrast/light throughput. The view of 47 Tuc (NGC 104) under pretty good conditions was telling. I used the 14mm S4000 Meade first and thought the view very nice. I then switched to the 13mm Nagler T6 which showed quite a lot more stars in the core than the 14mm S4000 Meade. Clearly, it had better contrast and throughput than the 14mm S4000 Meade. I then switched to the 14mm Pentax XW and it showed infinitely more stars in the core than the 13mm Nagler T6. The improvement going from the Nagler to the Pentax was greater than when going from the Meade to the Nagler. Going from the Meade to the Pentax was like chalk and cheese. You could have been forgiven for thinking the Meade and Pentax were vastly different focal lengths. That having been said the EOF (outer 20%) in the Pentax was a lot "softer" than the other two, but the majority of the stars weren't out there at the 14mm focal length. Another test which brought the 14mm S4000 Meade up way short, was on HN40, the multiple star complex at the centre of M20 (Triffid Nebula). In the 14mm Pentax XW, on axis, I was able to resolve the A,B and C stars easily. I could not get D with this focal length. In the 13mm Nagler T6 I got A and B and very fleetingly C (in and out). In the 14mm S4000 Meade I struggled to split A and B. I subsequently put the 14mm Pentax XW back in the focuser to confirm this wasn't caused by deteriorating seeing conditions. On larger and dimmer diffuse targets like M42, Eta Carina, Tarantula Nebula etc the Meade was an excellent performer. However, on those other specific targets it came up way short for mine. That having been said, if you didn't have something better right beside you to directly compare, you would probably be very happy with the views.

The 14mm Denk for mine has all the niceties of the 14mm Pentax XW, with a perfectly flat field. I am still kickin' myself that I didn't snap one up when Daniel was clearing them out for $199.

Then I would have had:- 12mm Nagler T4, 13mm ETHOS, 14mm Pentax XW and the 14mm Denk. Not forgetting of course the 10mm Pentax XW and the17mm Nagler T4. Notwithstanding the great deal, I just couldn't justify another eyepiece at this focal length and I didn't want to break the set of XW's, as I had a paracorr anyway.

Cheers,
John B

[Dave47tuc (David)]

Hi John,
Apologies it was a typo,and its great people see eyepieces differently.
But the main thing is Suzy buys the eyepiece she likes and will use and she wont go wrong with the choices given.
All the best.
Dave.

I fixed the typo.

[Suzy]

Another test which brought the 14mm S4000 Meade up way short, was on HN40, the multiple star complex at the centre of M20 (Triffid Nebula). In the 14mm Pentax XW, on axis, I was able to resolve the A,B and C stars easily. I could not get D with this focal length. In the 13mm Nagler T6 I got A and B and very fleetingly C (in and out). In the 14mm S4000 Meade I struggled to split A and B. I subsequently put the 14mm Pentax XW back in the focuser to confirm this wasn't caused by deteriorating seeing conditions. On larger and dimmer diffuse targets like M42, Eta Carina, Tarantula Nebula etc the Meade was an excellent performer. However, on those other specific targets it came up way short for mine. That having been said, if you didn't have something better right beside you to directly compare, you would probably be very happy with the views.

Wow, what a great report and story John - many thanks. Must thank DavTuc too, because you mentioned Meade in the first place.

The older UWA Meade's (series 4000) did seem to perform better from what others have said, and Marki will agree too. I got the 6.7mm 5000 UWA, lucky I only paid $50 for it (figured I wouldn't have too much to lose). On my scope it's a piece of junk- I've kept it only because it'll be an eye piece I will let kids use (along with the ones that came with the scope). Chromatic abberation a good 30% I would say, and so white and bright - Jupiter didn't give me much colour or detail at all. Threw the Pentax back on, and I had to pick my jaw off the floor with the difference.

Dave: Many thanks for your input.
It was interesting to hear your views on the XW14, especially against the LVW. The reverse is true with me, I find the XW easier to look into than the LVW (tho I love it all the same). I also find - and last night is a good example of this - the LVW eye cup cuts into my eye socket. I fold down the eye cup as having them on is actually worse. Six hours looking into this eye piece last night and my eye socket bone still hurts as I've obviously bruised the bone (there was also a big dark mark on it after I'd finished observing). My eye socket is bony . Then, I put my cheap Orion Expanse 15mm with nice eye cups, and whoa the relief. The views annoyed me too much, so ended swapping back to the LVW and sufferring more pain. For this reason, I would not have preferred the Vixen (if possible, but not closed off from it either, because at the end of the day, it is an excellent performer).

Astro744: Thank you for Your valued and appreciated input also. I agree with you what you said

Some may see mild field curvature and call it severe.

and

Note a severly curved field will show fuzzy stars at the edge. Galaxies are already fuzzy so they basically disappear.

I guess it depends on how much time one spends looking at the edge- I do a lot (searching for objects and manually star hopping), so to me, f/curv. is an important factor (I could probably put up with about 10%) It'd make my job that much harder looking through bloated stars thru 20% of the ep. So I guess I would pick it and call it severe.

The Radians are off my radar, as they only have 60 fov, and I'm after a minimum of 65. For me, having an object as long as possible in the ep is important so I can concentrate on observing instead of constantly nudging the dob. Thank you though for the suggestion. I do hear they are a great eye piece.

Erick: What do you think I'm made of money Parracorr can stay in the shop on the shelf, I'm flat out getting my eyepiece man. I'm having a friendly dig. Thank you for your money spending input though.

Frontier Optics got back to me with a price on the Denks. $330 + $12 postage. Do-able, as this was the budget I'd set aside to originally get the XW from the U.S. I need to go back and check what the Denk. site was offering them at, as I now forget.

Regarding the Explore Scientific. After re-looking at those, I see the 900g weight is for the 2 inch 100deg. The 85 degree ones only weigh 255g.
John, I wish you had some experience with these - would have loved to have had your input. As Adrian pointed out, they are on sale for half price (1 1/4 inch in 85 deg) at only $99, till the 31st of March! They look such a good & comfy eye piece. I must admit, I thought seriously about these. But not enough feedback on this to base my decision on buying them. I would have bought two at that price.

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

If you go for the XW (and you should go for ANYTHING by now ), check the prices at www.kkohki.com.
I found them to be about 15% cheaper than ordering from the U.S., though that was when the AU$ was around .89US$
Peter

[space oddity]

I find my 13mm Ethos to be a rather superb piece of glass. Yes it is heavy, yes it is expensive. Maybe you could borrow one for the weekend. I have found that most eyepieces work differently for each type of scope and for different eyes. This is where star parties come in handy to test out the glasses , cocktail and otherwise.