Eyepiece Performance Ratings

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally posted by atalas
No bum steer here Jonh, the 5.2mm ED are crap! and I didn't think the Andrews LE were that bad for half the money of the ED's .
The ED at 139.00 and LE's at 69.00 probably cheaper than that now.
How do the cheaper Andrews plossles compare to those John B at half the money again ?

Louie

Louie,

Here's something to start an agument

JB's eyepiece rating scale. The scale is solely my opinion only and takes into account things like eye-relief, AFOV, light transmission, sharpness, contrast, colour reproduction, EOF performance and the ability to perform well in fast scopes, but on an overall eyepiece "package" basis. Any assesment of an eyepiece is subjective and based solely on the observing preference of the individual. For instance, I now place a lot more importance on eye relief than what I used to do, probably because in the past eyepieces with long eye relief in all focal lengths didn't exist. This helps a lot with viewing comfort when observing for long periods, it also makes it a lot easier for people to observe with their glasses on. I place a lot more importance on an eyepiece's ability to provide sharp contrasty images with true colour reproduction and also good EOF performance than I do on a "superwide" FOV. I prefer an AFOV between 60 deg and 70 deg regardless of whether or not the scope is driven. Some people will place a lot more importance on a wide FOV than what I do and they will also be happy to tolerate softer images at the edge of that wide FOV than what I will.

The scale takes no account of price or value for money, in other words the best eyepiece gets the highest rating without regard to its price and the worst eyepiece gets the lowest rating without regard to the fact that it may actually be "good value" if it only costs $20. You also need to remember that some eyepiece series perform better in specific focal lengths than others. eg. I rate the 5,7 and 10mm Pentax XW's at 9.5/10 but only rate the 14mm and 20mm at 9/10 due to minor field curvature at EOF. Likewise the Nagler 22mm Nagler T4 is a little softer at the EOF than the 12mm and 17mm IMO. Also the 2" GSO Superviews perform slighly better in fast scopes than their 15mm and 20mm 1.25" cousins. I have given a rating to represent the standard achieved by the majority of focal lengths in an eyepiece series. You will also note that I have not made mention of many erfle design derivatives as they really don't perform well in scopes faster than F7 so they don't suit me.

You also need to remember there are a lot of eyepieces out there that I haven't used.

Here goes , shoot me down if you will guys and gals

TV Nagler T5 and T6 = 9.5/10 (tie for the best)
Pentax XW = 9.5/10 (tie for the best, narrower FOV offset by increased eye-relief and marginally sharper on axis IMO)
TV Radian = 9/10
TV Panoptic = 9/10
Pentax XL =9/10
TV Nagler T4 = 9/10 (slightly softer at EOF than T5 and T6 but longer ER)
Vixen Lanthanum Superwides = 8.5/10 excellent eyepiece just behind the best)
Zeiss orthoscopics = 8.5/10 (truly outstanding eyepiece with a narrow FOV and short ER)
TV Nagler T2 = 8.5/10 (were the standard for a long time)
Pentax SMC orthos 8/10 (only a tad behind the Zeiss orthos)
Original TV Nagler 8/10
Meade UWA 8/10
Tak LE = 7.5/10
Celestron Ultima/Orion Ultrascopic/Antares Elite = 7.5/10 (excellent image quality narrow FOV and short ER)
UO HD orthos = 7.5/10 (excellent image quality narrow FOV and short ER)
Brandon eyepieces (I think they are orthos) = 7.5/10
Made in Japan Meade 4000 series 5 element Plossls = 7/10 (these are vastly superior to the Made in PRC series 4000 Plossls)
Standard UO orthos (volcano tops) = 7/10
Standard Vixen Lanthanums = 7/10
Televue Widefields = 6.5/10
Meade SWA = 6.5/10
Widescan III = 6/10
UO Konigs and MK 70 series = 6/10
2" GSO Superview = 5.5/10
Synta Super plossls sold as Orion Sirius Plossl = 5/10
Widescan II = 5/10
Synta (Andrews) LE series = 4.5/10
2" BW Optik = 4/10
1.25" GSO Superviews = 4/10
GSO Plossls = 4/10
Eyepieces supplied standard with most scopes nowdays 3/10 and thats being generous in a lot of cases


CS- John B

[h0ughy (David)]

Had a few eyepieces to look at over the years AA?

For those lucky enough to own the ones at the top, why bother with the ones at the bottom. I have the middle of the range Vixen LV 2" 30mm, UO konig 2"32mm, UO Konig 2" 19mm, 2" 42mm GS, 25mm 2" russian 82degree FOV excelent (probably a 8-9 on your scale). and A TV 2" 2 times barlow

I also have meade 4000 26mm, 15mm 1.25", celestron 40mm, 25mm, 12mm, Vixen LV 25mm and 6mm, 40mm scopetronics eyepieces.

I no longer use the 1.25" eyepieces as I mainly use the 2" ones. the cheap ones are good for public viewing nights so that my good ones don't wear out by looking too much through them!

[slice of heaven]

Good post Aus
This thread should give a good rundown of a wide view of opinions on eps.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Houghy,

Its worth noting that UO Konigs and the MK-70's do a very good job in a scope like your F10 SCT, not far behind the premium stuff, so in your case they are "good value for money". (you probably knew that already I figure ) . Their inabilty to perform well in faster newtonians and fast refractors, is what brings em back to the "middle of the field" in my ratings. Rated in a slower scope like your F10 SCT only, they probably get a 7.5 to 8/10, same as the Widescan III IMO. In my F5 newt they scope about 4.5/10.

CS-John B

[h0ughy (David)]

AA I am even happy with the 42mm GS one from andrews.

can't complain too much, all that glass and my eyes!

I like to have room to look!

I am looking though around for 2" eyepiece for around the 9mm to 12mm range. Any suggestions for a nice cheap option?

[Dave47tuc (David)]

John,
Your scaling is pretty spot on to me.
Some eyepieces in diffrent lines are better than others.

Take the Meade's UWA 4000 series. I have found the 14mm and 8.8mm far and away better than the others.

I would give the 8.8 and 14mm 9.5/10. The others 6.5/10. Thats to me going by how you would rate them.

You took on a big thing scaling eyepieces as its very personal choice.

I agreed with 90% of what you had rated. I personly would give Panoptics a 9.5/10 for the 35,27,24,22,and 19. But the 15 only 8.5/10.

Good fun and I enjoyed your post.

[iceman (Mike)]

If I had enough opportunity to look through enough eyepieces, i'd do a ranking.. but I haven't, so I can't

So it was good fun reading your lists.

I do agree with Dave also, after having viewed through a few Naglers and Pentax's, the Meade S4000 14mm UWA is simply as good as it gets.

[atalas]

Yeah that was a great post JB ! thanks dude. Helps put things in perspective .



Louie

[atalas]

It seems to me that most high end eyepieces are of very good quality ,
no agument there,at least will say there isnt! but a rating on the lower end would be of much use for a lot of people .

Louie

[Rodstar (Rod)]

Owning only GSOs, I have a lot to look forward to, wallet willing. Thanks for the post John, very interesting to get a Jedi's thoughts on a such a topic.

[Starkler (Geoff)]

Originally posted by atalas
but a rating on the lower end would be of much use for a lot of people .

Louie

I tried to generate some discussion at the low price end here

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...&threadid=1468

[atalas]

Oh yes Geoff now I remember that post! but being a lazy person I would like to see an in-depth review set out like the one JB did .
Please


Louie

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Rod,

I could have been a bit harsh in my assesment of the GSO Superviews. The 1.25" versions don't row my boat in a fast scope but the 2" versions do a good job, exceptional considering their price. I actually own a 2" 30mm and its about the best "cheap" 2" semi widefield eyepiece going IMO. I did a comparison with my 2" 30mm GSO against a University Optics 25mm MK70 in my own 10"/F5 scope and in an 8"/F10 Celestron SCT. Despite the UO having a shorter focal length the GSO was a better eyepiece optically in both scopes. The GSO clealry provided better EOF performance at F5 and at F10. The UO had less scatter and better contrast. The UO is better mechanically in terms of finish and construction quality although the Superviews are also very good in this regard, especially considering their price.

I have revised my rating on the 2" GSO Superviews from
a 5 to a 5.5

The 1.25" versions are 1/2 decent in a slow scope like your F10 SCT so don't think your missing a whole lot. Certainly they represent the best "value for money" eyepieces available for use in a scope such as yours.

CS-John B