They all seem large and heavy and tend to be expensive.
Anyone care to share their experiences with these?
Also anyone used APM super wide eyepieces? They seem
somewhat in the middle pricewise.
Greg
I use a 12” Goto dob for observing at my retirement holiday home on the South Coast ( Bortle 3 )
After purchasing my first Televue eye piece 4 years ago ( a Delos 10mm ) I was hooked on Televue ( fortunate to be able to afford them )
The Ethos 21mm 100deg is my favourite eye piece for observing most Nebula, especially M42 Orion in the summer months.I don’t use my UHC filter on this object and the views are absolutely incredible. On stable nights the trapezium core is easily resolved ( mostly 4 stars but I have seen the 5th on occasions ) and the wispy nebulosity extends way way out forever into deep space.
Yes the Ethos 21mm is a heavy beast at 1020gm coupled with my Paracorr type 2 Coma corrector which is another heavy beast but I have a big solid scope and the 2” focuser holds the huge arrangement nice and tight with no movement. Looking forward to observing Carina over the next few months during the dark with my Ethos 21mm.For Carina I use a UHC filter which provides good definition, contrast and colour to this huge Nebula
Probably the next favourite wide field eye piece would be my Ethos 4.7mm SX 110 deg eye piece for Lunar observing. Again on the right night with a waxing or waning 40% to 60% moon the views are incredible , a real “space walk feel” as Al Nagler of Televue has mentioned over the years. This eye pieces in my 12” provides stunning wide field super close views of the lunar terrain with excellent contrast and colour which improve towards the terminator due to the shadows of the craters, rills and mountains.
With my 18” SDM, my 13mm Ethos is my most used eyepiece on most targets at 185x mag, my 21mm Ethos would be 2nd at 115x mag and equal 3rd would be either my 8mm Ethos 300x mag or 31mm Nagler at 75x (I love this mammoth eyepiece). I would do 90% of my visual observing with the 13mm Ethos.
I’m sold on Televue and have most of the Type 4, Type 5 and Type 6 Naglers, but they don’t get much use since I’ve had the Ethos eyepieces.
The 100deg eyepieces are unbelievable, and up 1 or 2 steps on the ladder the spacewalk feeling does make you think you’re floating .... have to grip the step ladder
I do most of my viewing at a Bortle 2 site past Ballarat in Vic. Speaking of M42, i would say the 5th star is clearly visible 90% of the time, the sixth star about 50% and I’ve seen the 7th star on the odd occasion with averted vision and on night’s of really great seeing.
I’ve tried the Explore Scientific 100deg pieces, but I think the Ethos are much better .... for a much higher price, but I haven’t tried any other brands. Most of my visual buddies have Ethos so I that the limit of my 100deg brand exposure.
My visual process involves viewing with eyecup folded down and I’ve never really have any problems with kidney bean effect. I just go to a target, look though the eyepiece and literally fall into the eyepiece.
It's funny you ask this question, as I sent an email to Don Pensack this arvo (he runs Eyepieces,Etc in the USA) regarding 100 degree eyepieces. I was asking for his opinion regarding the 21mm Ethos vs 20mm Stellarvue Optimus. He implied that the 21E is a better eyepiece, but couldn't say it was worth the 2x price tag. He also mentioned the 20mm APM XWA, which is apparently very similar internally to the Stellarvue and is also very good and only 1/3 the Ethos price. A few online comparisons suggest the APM is a very good eyepiece for the money. I use an ES 14mm 100 degree in my 20" dob and it's a very nice eyepiece. Thinking about a 20mm eyepiece in the future, maybe the APM.
The APM XWAs come in 20mm, 13mm, 9mm, 7mm (soon), 4.77mm, 3.5mm
The Stellarvue Optimus is in 20, 13.5, 9, 4.7, and 3.6mm
The Explore Scientific is in 25mm, 20mm, 14mm, 9mm, 5.5mm
The TeleVue Ethos is in 21mm, 17mm, 13mm, 10mm, 8mm, 6mm, 4.7mm, 3.7mm
The APMs and Stellarvue are identical optically.
The TeleVues have the best edge of field correction and cost a lot more than the others. The APMs/Stellarvues are very close in correction to the TeleVues.
Last edited by Don Pensack; 17-01-2021 at 09:44 AM.
The APM XWAs come in 20mm, 13mm, 9mm, 7mm (soon), 4.77mm, 3.5mm
The Stellarvue Optimus is in 20, 13.5, 9, 4.7, and 3.6mm
The Explore Scientific is in 25mm, 20mm, 14mm, 9mm, 5.5mm
The TeleVue Ethos is in 21mm, 17mm, 13mm, 10mm, 8mm, 6mm, 4.7mm, 3.7mm
The APMs and Stellarvue are identical optically.
The TeleVues have the best edge of field correction and cost a lot more than the others. The APMs/Stellarvues are very close.
It's funny you ask this question, as I sent an email to Don Pensack this arvo (he runs Eyepieces,Etc in the USA) regarding 100 degree eyepieces. I was asking for his opinion regarding the 21mm Ethos vs 20mm Stellarvue Optimus. He implied that the 21E is a better eyepiece, but couldn't say it was worth the 2x price tag. He also mentioned the 20mm APM XWA, which is apparently very similar internally to the Stellarvue and is also very good and only 1/3 the Ethos price. A few online comparisons suggest the APM is a very good eyepiece for the money. I use an ES 14mm 100 degree in my 20" dob and it's a very nice eyepiece. Thinking about a 20mm eyepiece in the future, maybe the APM.
I've been enjoying the ES 9,14 and 20mm 100 degrees for a few years now. If you love the 14 - you seriously would not be disappointed by the 20 mm. One caveat though is I use mine in my 12" F5, and even though I have the ES Coma corrector, I rarely use it these days. The field having some coma doesn't bother me in particular because my dob in not driven the object will always pass through the center of the field where correction is best.
Besides when its only at 75x mag with like 1.3 degrees field of view - objects aren't exactly flying through so a little nudge is easy to bring it back to center.
For those that still want as large a field but also need long eye relief, the Explore Scientific 92 degree series is another option. I picked up the 12mm version last week and have had a few good nights of viewing with it. I love the immersive views of the Baader Morpheus range, and this EP is the same, just a wider view. It weighs around 1080 grams, just slightly heavier than a 21mm Ethos, with 20mm of eye relief. The 92 degree feels just as wide as my Ethos 13, but with better eye relief. I use mine in 18 and 10 inch scopes.
For those that still want as large a field but also need long eye relief, the Explore Scientific 92 degree series is another option. I picked up the 12mm version last week and have had a few good nights of viewing with it. I love the immersive views of the Baader Morpheus range, and this EP is the same, just a wider view. It weighs around 1080 grams, just slightly heavier than a 21mm Ethos, with 20mm of eye relief. The 92 degree feels just as wide as my Ethos 13, but with better eye relief. I use mine in 18 and 10 inch scopes.
Nice one. I have read time and again the 12 and 17 ES 92 degree eyepieces are two of the best eyepieces of all time.
Expensive though right?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on its performance.
What scope are you using it in?
Nice one. I have read time and again the 12 and 17 ES 92 degree eyepieces are two of the best eyepieces of all time.
Expensive though right?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on its performance.
What scope are you using it in?
Greg
Hi Greg, not sure about being the best, but they are nice eyepieces. The 12mm is about $170 cheaper than the 13 Ethos.
Using mainly with an 18 inch F4.5 and paracorr, views were similar through both, clean to the edge, and the sky background was slightly darker and detail in galaxies slightly better in the ES (the spiral of NGC 1566 and core detail in NGC 1365 were more pronounced). I'm favouring the ES as the immersive view is hard to beat.
I've been enjoying the ES 9,14 and 20mm 100 degrees for a few years now. If you love the 14 - you seriously would not be disappointed by the 20 mm. One caveat though is I use mine in my 12" F5, and even though I have the ES Coma corrector, I rarely use it these days. The field having some coma doesn't bother me in particular because my dob in not driven the object will always pass through the center of the field where correction is best.
Besides when its only at 75x mag with like 1.3 degrees field of view - objects aren't exactly flying through so a little nudge is easy to bring it back to center.
I've read mixed reports about the 20mm ES, although I'd assume a lot of people are a lot more particular/finicky than I am. I just pulled the trigger on an APM 20mm 100° (at a price much lower than the ES 20mm), so if Brisbane has a clear night without a full moon ever again, we'll see how it performs.
I've read mixed reports about the 20mm ES, although I'd assume a lot of people are a lot more particular/finicky than I am. I just pulled the trigger on an APM 20mm 100° (at a price much lower than the ES 20mm), so if Brisbane has a clear night without a full moon ever again, we'll see how it performs.
I got that one off this site recently. It totally wowed me. My wife also preferred it to any of the other high end eyepieces I have. So I got the 9mm also and about to use it tonight.
I found the Tak 1.6 Q extender made stars sharp to the edge but I preferred the native view.
I got that one off this site recently. It totally wowed me. My wife also preferred it to any of the other high end eyepieces I have. So I got the 9mm also and about to use it tonight.
I found the Tak 1.6 Q extender made stars sharp to the edge but I preferred the native view.
Greg.
I know Greg, you got in and snaffled it just before I could!
I've read mixed reports about the 20mm ES, although I'd assume a lot of people are a lot more particular/finicky than I am. I just pulled the trigger on an APM 20mm 100° (at a price much lower than the ES 20mm), so if Brisbane has a clear night without a full moon ever again, we'll see how it performs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseous
I know Greg, you got in and snaffled it just before I could!
What's your view on native short focal length eyepieces versus barlowing a longer focal length with a good barlow/powermate?
Do the look the same or do they lose a bit? I mean in general as I am sure there are lots of possible scenarios and not all eyepeices would behave the same but in general what would you expect?
I am thinking most likely there would be a gain going native as there would be less glass but then some eyepieces gain better correction y using a barlow/powermate.
