Eyepieces Vs scope

[Culford (Mick)]

I am fairly certain this topic has been covered before; here it is...

What do you think, believe or know to be the best scenario?

Scenario 1, Top of the range eyepieces and a "good" telescope.

Or

Scenario 2, Top of the range telescope and "good" eyepieces.

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Originally Posted by Culford

I am fairly certain this topic has been covered before; here it is...

What do you think, believe or know to be the best scenario?

Scenario 1, Top of the range eyepieces and a "good" telescope.

Or

Scenario 2, Top of the range telescope and "good" eyepieces.

Apart from a brief ownership of a Vixen 102mm and a WO 66mm Refractor all my other scopes (Mewlon 250, FSQ-106N, FSQ-106ED, TEC160FL, AP130GTX, APOMAX 130mm, OOUK VX250) have/are Top End. The only 'Good' eyepieces I have used are the Fujiyama's and the Parks. Other than these my other eyepieces have been Televue, Takahashi, Zeiss, TMB's. My view is the best scenario is Top of the range telescope and "good" eyepieces. Its like putting a standard DVD into a BluRay Player .. the Top End scope will up scale the eyepiece. A 'Top Range' eyepiece will not drastically improve a 'Good' scope.

[By.Jove (Jove)]

Eyepieces don’t clean up defects in the image of a scope. All you can hope is they don’t make the image worse. Better to start with a really good image (scope) than one with defects.

I’m still using Huygens and Ramsdens so what would I know.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Hans Tucker

Apart from a brief ownership of a Vixen 102mm and a WO 66mm Refractor all my other scopes (Mewlon 250, FSQ-106N, FSQ-106ED, TEC160FL, AP130GTX, APOMAX 130mm, OOUK VX250) have/are Top End. The only 'Good' eyepieces I have used are the Fujiyama's and the Parks. Other than these my other eyepieces have been Televue, Takahashi, Zeiss, TMB's. My view is the best scenario is Top of the range telescope and "good" eyepieces. Its like putting a standard DVD into a BluRay Player .. the Top End scope will up scale the eyepiece. A 'Top Range' eyepiece will not drastically improve a 'Good' scope.

Wow - you have some expensive scopes.


It's very interesting to compare eyepieces on different targets.
I've done that at Astronomy club nights.
Get everyone to bring their eyepieces over and try them out
in a high quality scope - especially a refractor.
Only then will people see why certain eyepieces cost a lot of money.
The best on planets were Zeiss eyepieces.
They gave the darkest blacks and the brightest surface -
in other words - more contrast.
On clusters such as the Jewel Box you could see more stars
with a top eyepiece - you'd get a darker background.

I found the Televues over rated.
Fujiyama's are excellent.

The Takahashi eyepieces were excellent.
I have one Takahashi Barlow and one Takahashi eyepeice too.

My Williams Optics eyepieces were quite good for the price -
they are keepers.



What was strange was how some people would spend $1000s
on a telescope but $10 on a cheap plastic eyepiece and
wonder why the view was no good.

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Originally Posted by alpal

Wow - you have some expensive scopes.


It's very interesting to compare eyepieces on different targets.
I've done that at Astronomy club nights.
Get everyone to bring their eyepieces over and try them out
in a high quality scope - especially a refractor.
Only then will people see why certain eyepieces cost a lot of money.
The best on planets were Zeiss eyepieces.
They gave the darkest blacks and the brightest surface -
in other words - more contrast.
On clusters such as the Jewel Box you could see more stars
with a top eyepiece - you'd get a darker background.

I found the Televues over rated.
Fujiyama's are excellent.

The Takahashi eyepieces were excellent.
I have one Takahashi Barlow and one Takahashi eyepeice too.

My Williams Optics eyepieces were quite good for the price -
they are keepers.



What was strange was how some people would spend $1000s
on a telescope but $10 on a cheap plastic eyepiece and
wonder why the view was no good.

Well the choice was between buying Astronomical Gear or splurging on Hookers and Blackjack .. in the words of the old Knight in Indiana Jones Last Crusade https://youtu.be/-_IlNbsILLE

Unfortunately I am Takless ... only have the latter four scopes now but I would love to look through a TOA-150 and APQ-150

Back on topic ... agreed ... Fujiyama's are excellent ... best value for money.

[Culford (Mick)]

The way my Astronomical purchases are evolving seem to be good telescopes (I currently own a GSO 8" f6 Dob and Vixen MF 80 refractor) and excellent eyepieces (mostly various species of Televue plus a Fujiyama ortho).

I am of the thought that a fabulous eyepiece can work wonders with a good (but not crap) telescope. That's how it seems to be working out for me.

[Robh (Rob)]

Depends what you mean by a top of the range telescope. There are a lot of variables.

When it all comes down to it, larger aperture will pull out more light and finer detail. That's the science. For visual, a good $6000 5-inch refractor won't match a good $1000 10-inch Dob or a 16-inch Dob (still less cost than the refractor). The Dobs will produce much higher resolution and more light for fainter DSO's.

Reasons for owning a refractor would usually be portability, simplicity or use for astrophotography. Good ones are expensive.

Everyone has their own subjective viewpoint on what a good eyepiece is.
A decent eyepiece (lots of brands) should give great views in larger Dobs.

Rob