Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: eye pieces

  1. #1
    Terry A Haimann's Avatar
    Terry A Haimann Guest

    Default eye pieces



    I own a 20cm sct (LX-90.) Based on that info, what eye pieces would
    maxamize my investement w/o breaking the bank. If I buy them seperatly,
    I could possibly afford $200 an e.p. I have been using Meade Series 4000
    Super Plossls. I have a 32, 15 and a 6.4mm e.p. The 32 and 15 get the most
    use.

    Thx, Terry

  2. #2
    Howard Lester's Avatar
    Howard Lester Guest

    Default eye pieces

    "Terry A Haimann" wrote


    What I see you lacking is something in the 9-10mm range. This $89 9mm Series
    5000 Meade will give you 225x, which is a good practical lunar and planetary
    limit on most nights for your 8" SCT. Disregard the review on this site.
    He's using an f/4.5 reflector and complains about the lack of edge
    sharpness.... *sigh* as well as color issues in an achromat refractor.

    http://www.buytelescopes.com/product...26&pid=8184&m=



  3. #3
    Dennis Woos's Avatar
    Dennis Woos Guest

    Default eye pieces


    "Terry A Haimann" <terry@Pegasus.oldboy> wrote in message
    newsan.2007.09.15.23.00.19.830239@Pegasus.oldboy...

    In what ways are you unhappy with the eyepieces that you already have?

    Dennis



  4. #4
    Terry A Haimann's Avatar
    Terry A Haimann Guest

    Default eye pieces

    I think they have more reflections then they should and if you put them up
    to a bright light I can see black specks in the glass. I suspect that
    can't be good for light transmission. But I suspect they do ok on dso's.
    I am just wondering if there is a better choice in my price range.

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:45:14 -0400, Dennis Woos wrote:



  5. #5
    Dennis Woos's Avatar
    Dennis Woos Guest

    Default eye pieces

    >I think they have more reflections then they should and if you put them up

    I think that a lot of folks buy high-end eyepieces thinking that they will
    provide greatly improved views, and they won't. Decent quaility Plossls
    (like those you have) should perform nearly as well as any expensive
    eyepiece. What Plossls don't have is very wide fields and, in shorter focal
    lengths, great eye relief. The best thing you can do is attend some
    observing events held by your local astro club and try some better/more
    expensive eyepieces, and judge their merits for yourself. However, I do
    agree with Howard that an eyepiece that provides 200-220x (10-9mm) would be
    a very useful addition, and this is a chance to try a different mfg/design.
    Some possibilities to look at are BO/TMB Planetary 9mm, Baader Hyperions,
    Televue Plossls and Radians. Of course, there are others. If it was me, I
    would get the BO/TMB 9mm, but the Televue Plossls have never disappointed me
    either. If you aren't crazy about the views with the new (and better?)
    eyepiece, then I would suspect the scope optics (assuming that the ota is
    collimated, cooled down, the seeing is good, etc.) Compare the views you are
    getting to those through the other scopes at observing events.

    Dennis



  6. #6
    Howard Lester's Avatar
    Howard Lester Guest

    Default eye pieces


    "Dennis Woos" wrote


    Dennis, I love my TeleVue 8mm Plossl and would highly recommend the line,
    but they make only 8's and 11's.... not 9 or 10's, the latter range being
    what I thought would suit Terry best. The Burgess/TMB 9 might be a good
    choice, yes, especially with its apparent field of 60 degrees.

    Also, can a focal length longer than 32mm be well suited for his SCT? He
    might benefit from some widefield 40mm eyepiece. ?

    Howard



  7. #7
    Dennis Woos's Avatar
    Dennis Woos Guest

    Default eye pieces

    > Dennis, I love my TeleVue 8mm Plossl and would highly recommend the line,

    If he has a 2" visual back/diagonal then a low-power/wide-field eyepiece
    would be another great addition. Fortunately, there are more and more
    choices in this area. I traded a 30mm 1rpd to a guy in our club with an 8"
    LX200, and he loves it for this purpose. There are also many better/more
    expensive options, like the new(ish) TMB Paragon 40mm and 30mm, which get
    great reviews and go for around $250.

    Dennis



  8. #8
    Steve Paul's Avatar
    Steve Paul Guest

    Default eye pieces


    "Terry A Haimann" <terry@Pegasus.oldboy> wrote in message
    newsan.2007.09.15.23.00.19.830239@Pegasus.oldboy...


    The widest field of view in an 8" SCT is pretty much achievable with a 32mm
    Plossl and an F6.3 Focal Reducer/Corrector. You _can_ use a 2" eyepiece with
    a greater field stop than the 32mm Plossl, but the R/C isn't as expensive
    and will work with all your eyepieces... just a thought.

    You can also go to all the expense of well corrected 65+ wide field and 80+
    ultra wide field eyepieces to increase the field of view at same powers (the
    only real benefit of using them in an SCT, IMO).

    That is, a 13mm Nagler T6 at 80 degree AFOV, gives a bit larger field of
    view at 153x as the 50 degree AFOV 18mm Ultima does at 111x. (If you think
    you need 153x at a half degree of true field.)

    My most used eyepiece in my old C8 was the 18mm Ultima for DSO's and used in
    conjunction with an Ultima Barlow (2x) for planets.

    110x and 220x (we generally have a 240x seeing limit in these parts on a
    _good_ night)

    Eventually sold the scope, but kept the Ultima eyepieces and barlow. I also
    have a 12.5mm Ultima, and a 30mm Ultima. The 30 shows more defects out at
    the edge than the other two in fast scopes, but I still use it in scopes
    down to F5 as a wide field eyepiece. It works just fine in the F6 AstroTech
    66ED, but it is a bit harsh in the F5 6" reflector (not at all unusable
    though, and some of that is my astigmatism with a 6mm exit pupil).

    The Orion Ultrascopics are reportedly the same eyepiece design as the
    Ultima, but I believe they come in nickel values (10mm, 15mm, 25mm, etc.)...
    not that there's a thing wrong with that.

    My $.02,
    Steve P.


  9. #9
    Terry A Haimann's Avatar
    Terry A Haimann Guest

    Default eye pieces

    I should mention that I do own a 6.3 focal reducer and it was great for
    searching for Messier objects. but with the Herschel 400 I need higher
    magnification, also there is some loss of light when using the fr.

    On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:42:05 -0400, Steve Paul wrote:



  10. #10
    AstroSketcher@gmail.com's Avatar
    AstroSketcher@gmail.com Guest

    Default eye pieces

    On Sep 15, 5:01 pm, Terry A Haimann <te...@Pegasus.oldboy> wrote:


    Hi Terry,

    I'm not familiar with the Meade Super Plossls (I live a rather
    isolated existance out in the middle of nowhere ;-)

    I've been satisfied with the $55 or three for $145 (plus shipping)
    Orion HighLight Plossls. I have all the HL Plossls from the 26mm
    (25mm now) through the 7.5mm and have used them with f/5 and f/6
    telescopes from 80mm to 300mm aperture. I would suggest the same set
    (with the possible exception of the 7.5mm depending upon the
    "sharpness" of your scope's optics). You could pay more for a Plossl;
    but I doubt that you would notice any improvement in performance.

    For the maximum true field of view (with a 1.25" eyepiece) I use a
    35mm Ultima. Other eyepieces are available that would fill the same
    niche. Circumstances of convenience resulted in my choosing the
    Ultima. An eyepiece such as this might permit you to set aside your
    focal reducer -- at least for visual use. By the way, in comparison
    to the 35mm Ultima (or similar eyepiece) a 40mm eyepiece (with a 1.25"
    barrel) would be a poorer choice resulting in reduced magnification
    (and contrast) and smaller apparent field with no increase in true
    field size.

    Eyepieces with wider apparent fields (than the Plossls) are nice to
    have; but they tend to get pretty expensive -- especially if you
    expect them the maintain image sharpness to the edge of the field.
    For *most* objects the wider fields are not needed. Thus there's no
    need for the additional lens elements and/or additional air-glass
    surfaces. That being said, I *do* have some wide-field eyepieces that
    I treasure and use from time to time . . .

    Bill Greer
    To sketch is to see.
    http://cejour.blogspot.com
    http://www.rangeweb.net/~sketcher


 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Eye Pieces: The low down!!!
    By robert@thegeakes.co.uk in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-11-2013, 02:23 AM
  2. Eye pieces for the LB
    By Dale002 in forum Dobsonian Telescopes Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-08-2009, 07:33 AM
  3. Eye Pieces.
    By John Morris in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-29-2004, 04:00 PM
  4. Pieces of Sky
    By Peter Eschman in forum CCD Imaging Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-29-2004, 02:55 AM
  5. eye pieces
    By aws in forum General Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-12-2004, 04:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 AM.