Jump to content


Photo

Explore Scientific 4.7mm 82*

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 lbsgville

lbsgville

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 23 August 2013 - 02:47 PM

I've been looking at the ES 4.7 82* to upgrade a little. Anyone who has one, what do you think? I'm not asking for a comparison to TV or Meade or anything, just pros and cons of the eyepiece. I have 10" and 14" scopes both around 4.5 FL and a paracorr. Thanks

#2 Tank

Tank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Stoney Creek, Ontario, CANADA

Posted 23 August 2013 - 03:35 PM

4.7 is good liked the 6.7 better!
More eye relief in the 6.7
Both are pretty good optically

#3 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13528
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 23 August 2013 - 05:25 PM

I've also had both eyepieces. Like Tony says, both are good optically, (excellent actually, and highly corrected even w/o a Paracorr).
However, to me, both suffered from eye relief, with the 4.7mm irritating my eye, so I sold both within a week of having them. I would rather barlow my 14mm and 9mm ES 100's which gives me better eye relief and a wider field.

But barlows are another piece of gear to fiddle with so if I were to get the equivalent of both again I would get a 7mm and 5mm Pentax XW, which I plan on doing eventually.

Just as a side note: I also own a Meade 5.5mm Series 5000 waterproof UWA and it is an excellent eyepiece which has an 82° FOV, has excellent eye relief, it is really sharp optically, it is very light in weight, and has a razor-sharp field stop.
I always reach for that more than barlowing my 9mm ES 100.

Attached Files



#4 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13528
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 23 August 2013 - 06:15 PM

Here is the field lens of the eyepiece. It is supposed to be painted flat black, but looks like a dark "grey", so I added a flat black felt adhesive ring so I won't get any light bouncing into the eyepiece when viewing Jupiter, which can do that to some poorly baffled eyepieces.

I don't even know if the felt black adhesive ring will make any difference or not.

Attached Files



#5 Achernar

Achernar

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9016
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA

Posted 23 August 2013 - 07:43 PM

I have one and use it mainly for the planets and small DSO's. It is a very good high power eyepiece that is very sharp and does not have problems with flaring or field curvature. The contrast is high and so is the color fidelity, it is a little on the warm side but the views of Jupiter and Saturn are very nice when the seeing is up to it. I use this eyepiece on my 10 and 15-inch F/4.5 Dobs with very good results, it performs even better in a longer focus Newtonian/Dobsonian. The views are definitely better through my 6-inch F/8, which has excellent optics. You will however have to remove your eyeglasses to use this eyepiece, the eye relief is however not so short I find it uncomfortable. I find the need to remove my glasses a small drawback for the enjoyable views I get of planetary nebulae and the planets through it.

Taras

#6 lbsgville

lbsgville

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 23 August 2013 - 08:25 PM

So now I'm thinking of going for the 6.7mm. I'll get more use out of a 6.7, you need really good seeing to use the 4.7, if the seeing is that good I can always Barlow the 6.7. After looking at Astronomics web site that has good views of each size, the 6.7 has noticeably better eye relief.

#7 Jarrod

Jarrod

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2013
  • Loc: SE USA

Posted 23 August 2013 - 08:38 PM

My best view of Jupiter was through the 4.7. But the 6.7 is one of my most used EPs.

#8 aatt

aatt

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 450
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2012
  • Loc: CT

Posted 23 August 2013 - 08:51 PM

I have the 6.7 and the 4.7-both are very nice e.p's in my F/5 w/o a paracorr. I do not notice any significant edge distortion and the views across the FOV are pretty consistent. I use the 6.7 more often, but as a Floridian your seeing is typically a little better than in the Northeast. I have used the 4.7 quite a bit on fainter planetaries and is has been very useful for eking out some extra detail. My best view of Saturn-ever-was in my 4.7 on a nice steady night in June. For those rare nights it has been very nice to have. Get both if you can afford them.

#9 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13528
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 23 August 2013 - 10:07 PM

I agree with what everybody is saying here! Both the 4.7mm and 6.7mm are both optically excellent eyepieces! The price on them is really good too! Can't go wrong in getting either one.

#10 REC

REC

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5035
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2010
  • Loc: NC

Posted 24 August 2013 - 07:25 AM

I have the 6.7mm and it's perfect for my highest power in my 80ED and is very sharp and comfortable to use. I have even barlowed it a few time on the moon on a steady night.

My other thought was to go one more deeper for say Saturn right now and I picked up a AT 5mm 60* FOV that I'm still evaluating as the weather has been terrible this summer. At $60, you may want to give one a try and if you don't like it with your scopes, you can easily sell it.

Good luck!

Bob

#11 mac57

mac57

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: DeLand of Oz, Florida

Posted 24 August 2013 - 08:13 AM

I love mine. Great buy for the price, too.

#12 karstenkoch

karstenkoch

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 603
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2012
  • Loc: GMT+9

Posted 24 August 2013 - 08:59 AM

I have both, use both, and like both. I would make your decision based on the magnification and exit pupil you want. Hey, the price is right so get both! :shrug: You can always sell one if it doesn't fit your observing groove...

#13 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10443
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 24 August 2013 - 11:01 AM

At these f/ls, 2mm difference is a SERIOUS magnification difference. +1 on gerring both.

#14 lbsgville

lbsgville

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 24 August 2013 - 01:07 PM

So I just placed my order for the Explore Scientific 1.25" 82° Series Argon-Purged Waterproof Eyepiece - 6.7mm with Agena Astro Products. They assured me that it is the new Argon purged and that the pic has not been updated yet, it's in stock and free shipping too. I can barlow my ES 11mm 82* and get down to 5.5. I also have a 3.5 68* so I'm well covered, and on the really good nights I'll try 2x on the 6.7mm. I'll comment on it and my new and yet to use ES 30mm 82* when ever the clouds clear.

#15 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13528
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 24 August 2013 - 03:22 PM

So I just placed my order for the Explore Scientific 1.25" 82° Series Argon-Purged Waterproof Eyepiece - 6.7mm with Agena Astro Products. They assured me that it is the new Argon purged and that the pic has not been updated yet, it's in stock and free shipping too. I can barlow my ES 11mm 82* and get down to 5.5. I also have a 3.5 68* so I'm well covered, and on the really good nights I'll try 2x on the 6.7mm. I'll comment on it and my new and yet to use ES 30mm 82* when ever the clouds clear.


Oh it is the Argon Purged one for sure! I also ordered mine from Agena Astro and the eyepiece was really nice, just like the 4.7mm ES 82 as well. I just didn't care for the eye relief, so I sold mine off and saved my money towards a 30mm ES 82!

My 5.5mm Covers a lot of higher powers and now I just barlow my 14mm ES and 9mm ES 100's for 165x and 250x respectively if I need to.

Here are the 6.7mm and 4.7mm Argon Purged ones from Agena Astro. Argon, Nitrogen, doesn't really make a difference...they both work great!

Attached Files



#16 lbsgville

lbsgville

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 24 August 2013 - 06:12 PM

I have the ES 11mm 82* and the eye relief is almost the same as the 6.7. I have only used the 11mm about a dozen times or more but never had a problem with the eye relief in it so the 6.7 should be fine. When I have those good nights that come around in fall in Florida, I'll try and boost up the power with my 3x barlow lens element. I do the same thing as Markus and just use the lens part of my Orion 3x barlow and screw it onto the eyepiece like a filter. I have also used the corrector for my binoviewrs. I'm not sure now what the corrector is, a 1.7 comes to mind, and if just using the lens part of a 3x barlow still gives you 3x but it looks really good when I put them on the ES 11mm 82*. I think it will take me as high as I need to go. I do really like the ES 14mm 100*, but I'm happy with the 82* spot. It is very pleasing at the eyepiece and more pleasing on the wallet.

#17 simagic

simagic

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2013

Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:04 AM

So now I'm thinking of going for the 6.7mm. I'll get more use out of a 6.7, you need really good seeing to use the 4.7, if the seeing is that good I can always Barlow the 6.7. After looking at Astronomics web site that has good views of each size, the 6.7 has noticeably better eye relief.


Above it says ""After looking at Astronomics web site that has good views of each size, the 6.7 has noticeably better eye relief.""...... I'm confused as on ES website, they say the eye relief is 14mm for both. Is there something I don't understand (newbee)

#18 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13528
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:40 AM

The eye relief is not the same for both. The numbers are incorrect. The 6.7mm is not to bad, but the relief on the 4.7mm is very tight IMO.

#19 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:49 AM

I had the ES 82 4.7 nitrogen purged. Never owned the 6.7.

I thought the 4.7 was a decent eyepiece for planets. I kept mine until I bought an XO 5.1, which has even tighter eye relief! That tells you how much eye relief doesn't matter so much for me.

The only reason I sold the ES 82 4.7 was that the XO 5.1 was sharper and had better scatter control. But the ES wasn't bad at all. If I hadn't bought the XO, I'd probably still have the ES.

Mike

#20 PeterR280

PeterR280

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Joined: 27 May 2013

Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:59 AM

I have the 82% 4.7mm and 6.7mm eyepieces and don't find eye relief to be too short. I like the lenses.

#21 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16191
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 18 September 2013 - 12:07 PM

Me, too. I know that observers' tolerance and perception of eye relief can vary rather dramatically. Sometimes it's hard to believe two observers are talking about the same eyepiece!

Mike

#22 simagic

simagic

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2013

Posted 18 September 2013 - 02:18 PM

I'm the person who in this thread said "I'm confused as on ES website, they say the eye relief is 14mm for both.. After reading the replies, I'm still lost whether to get the 4.7 or the 6.7 so this might help with someone in helping me make this decision. In addition to stargazing I want to use this "stronger" eyepiece for bird watching and other "terrestrial" sightings. Soooo. Anyone have thoughts on which would be """better""" for terrestrial, the 4.7 or the 6.7. ES website says the eye relief is the same. Someone in a previous reply says that it's not true, that the 4.7 doesn't have as good eye relief as the 6.7..My guess is that someone at ES would say they're the same at it indicates???? There is a good reason why someone will or won't choose one of these two. Problem is that I don't know those reasons are??

#23 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22578
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:17 PM

I'm the person who in this thread said "I'm confused as on ES website, they say the eye relief is 14mm for both.. After reading the replies, I'm still lost whether to get the 4.7 or the 6.7 so this might help with someone in helping me make this decision. In addition to stargazing I want to use this "stronger" eyepiece for bird watching and other "terrestrial" sightings. Soooo. Anyone have thoughts on which would be """better""" for terrestrial, the 4.7 or the 6.7. ES website says the eye relief is the same. Someone in a previous reply says that it's not true, that the 4.7 doesn't have as good eye relief as the 6.7..My guess is that someone at ES would say they're the same at it indicates???? There is a good reason why someone will or won't choose one of these two. Problem is that I don't know those reasons are??


OK.
In the daytime, the sun heats the atmosphere and there is much more boiling and roiling of the atmosphere (just ask the solar observers!).
For terrestrial daylight viewing, 20-60X is the normal range of magnifications you might want to use, with 40-60X being used a small percentage of the time. Most birders will tell you they spend nearly all their time between 15-20X and 40X.
So a really high power eyepiece for daytime use is just not a good choice.
It won't be usable 99.99% of the time.
So, figure out what eyepieces yield 15-45X in your scope and concentrate on getting good ones in that range, because that is where you'll do your terrestrial observations. Terrestrial observations at night are usually limited by seeing, too, so the same 60X top is a good rule of thumb.

At night, the atmosphere steadies (the sun is no longer providing heat), and so higher powers can be used. Still, 99% of your viewing will be in the 7X to 25X per inch of aperture range (on an 8", 56-200X) because of the atmosphere and interactions with the eye (astigmatism on the low end and floaters at the high end). There are exceptions, of course, but
there are always exceptions.
Recently, I had a super-still-air day and could use 100X in the daytime. My views of islands out in the Pacific was marvelous. That was my first time in ten years for air that steady, though. Would you spend money on an eyepiece you could only use once every ten years?

#24 simagic

simagic

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2013

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:45 PM

Thanks for making that clear for me

#25 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus

  • *****
  • Posts: 13528
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:10 PM

I'm the person who in this thread said "I'm confused as on ES website, they say the eye relief is 14mm for both.. After reading the replies, I'm still lost whether to get the 4.7 or the 6.7 so this might help with someone in helping me make this decision. In addition to stargazing I want to use this "stronger" eyepiece for bird watching and other "terrestrial" sightings. Soooo. Anyone have thoughts on which would be """better""" for terrestrial, the 4.7 or the 6.7. ES website says the eye relief is the same. Someone in a previous reply says that it's not true, that the 4.7 doesn't have as good eye relief as the 6.7..My guess is that someone at ES would say they're the same at it indicates???? There is a good reason why someone will or won't choose one of these two. Problem is that I don't know those reasons are??


I've already said that the eye relief on the 4.7mm was tighter than the 6.7mm. What else do you need to know?
I owned both, so I know. Others who observe with me agreed that the 6.7mm was more comfortable in eye relief. If you are still wondering, buy or borrow BOTH......You'll see exactly what I mean, lol.

I own the 5.5mm Meade 5000 waterproof UWA. In the eye relief department, it kicks both the 6.7mm and 4.7mm ES's butt. Hence the reason why it is STILL in my eyepiece case while the 6.7mm and 4.7mm ES 82's are GONE.

The people who don't think the eye relief on the 4.7mm ES 82 is tight are the ones who are used to looking through a peep hole with extremely short relief and are not bothered by it.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics