Meade 4000 series eyepiece question

[M110 (Andrew)]

Hi guys, Just wondering if anyone had an opinion on these Meade eyepieces. I have only the 2 original Celestron eyepieces my scope came with in 25 and 10mm. I see the Meade ones around and they seem to be reasonably priced but was wondering if anyone has had any experience with them and could tell if they are good value or not.
Thanks guys,
Andrew

[iceman (Mike)]

I have the Series 4000 UWA, in the 14mm. I have also previously owned the 6.7mm UWA.

The 14mm UWA is a superb eyepiece, but very heavy and can introduce balance issues - but they are very easy to solve.

Glenn Dawes and some other observers loved the view through my 14mm UWA on Saturday night. They still attract a premium on the 2nd hand market (usually AU$200+), but they hold their value well and are now a bit of a collectors item

I have no experience with the s4000 plossls, sorry.

[M110 (Andrew)]

Yeah Mike it was the Plossls I was interested in. Remember I'm just starting out and don't relly want to be paying $200 for an eyepiece, that's half of what I payed for the entire scope. But I do see the plossls advertised foe around US$40-$50 which is more in price league. Sorry I wasn't more specific.

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

Get yourself a shorty 2x barlow - Andrews have a GSO one for 35 bucks that would do the trick. Then you would have the equivalent of 25mm, 12.5mm, 10mm and a 5mm for those really steady nights.

You wouldn't do much better with standard Meade 4000 series Plossls so I'd save your money (the 26mm is a sweet eyepiece though!)

[JimmyH155]

Hi M110,
when I bought my first scope (8") 14 years ago, I also picked up some eyepieces. The scope came with a Series 4000 Plossl 26mm and it is still one of my favourite EP's today and most often used. I then bought 12.4,, and 9.7.. series 4000 plossls and they still get regular use. Nothing wrong with the Meade Series 4000 Plossls. I also got a Series 3000 Meade Plossl 40mm, but I hardly ever use it because it is so difficult to line up my eye properly - something to do with eye relief I think, so don't get that one. But the others, yes, they are fine.

[rogerg (Roger)]

I'd recommend not gettingthe 40mm. It's like looking down a narrow pipe - not a very pleasing view compared to something like the 26mm. I have a 40mm and rarely use it. Bought it back in "my early days" when I didn't understand so much about FOV and all that.

I have the 26mm and 15mm. Both are nice normal eyepieces.

Roger.

[rmcpb (Rob)]

I have the series 4000 26, 12.4, 9.7mm eyepieces and they get a good workout on every viewing session even though I have other "better" lenses. They are great workhorses but I would not get the 6mm as the eye relief would be tight to say the least.

Nothing wrong with these mid range lenses, sometimes we are too fast to jump into the premium range of lenses and overlook real value.

[glenc (Glen)]

I have some old Meade 4000 9.7mm and 26mm eyepieces. They are very sharp on axis and have good contrast but the AFOV is only 52 degrees. They are parfocal and that is nice, saves having to refocus.

I also have GSO superview 10, 15 and 30mm eyepieces. The contrast is not as good but the 68 degree AFOV is better. The 30mm is a 2" and has a 1.5 degree TFOV in my 12" scope.

The true field of view (TFOV) is aproximately equal to the apparent (AFOV) divided by the magnification.

[Starkler (Geoff)]

From all accounts I have heard that the Meade 4000 plossls are just a regular rebranded Chinese plossl and nothing special, unless they are the early ones with "Made in Japan" printed on them, in which case they will attract a price premium.

[M110 (Andrew)]

Ok, thanks guys. I will take that all on board.