We mostly come out at night... mostly.
GSO Z8 Degree Circle & Digital Level
Celestron 4"(102mm) SLT 660mm f/6.47
2" 30mm GSO WideView
9mm GSO Plossl
ES 82's : 4.7mm, 8.8mm, 11mm, 18mm
BGO's 5mm, 6mm, 9mm
2" 2X ED Astronomics Barlow & GSO 1.25" 2x Shorty
8-24 Baader Zoom III
Baader M&SG, Semi-Apo
Quote:I really enjoy the widefield views but also use some magnification to observe the details, so while I enjoy planets my primary goal for this discussion is to find eyepieces that work best for deep space objects.
Quote:"$400 is a comfortable budget top and $500 is pushing it, but doable, if it gets me set for *my life*"You're kidding, right?Sorry, but this is the Eyepiece Forum:-)
Jeff Morgan - Wile E. Coyote School of Telescope Making
10" OO VX, 6" iOptron Mak-Cass, Orion 100ED
Blog: Astronomy & Living by Hernando
Quote:Take a look at what some people are doing with their astro video cameras before you spend more on eyepieces.
My eyepieces are made from the waste product of exploding stars. 10XTi 102XLT ST80A(2" Focuser) XW: All; XO: 2.58 Televue: Naglers-T1 Smoothside-full set, 17T4,12T4,Ethos 17,4.7; plossels-40,32,20,17,&7.4mm; Pans-22,24mm; Delos-6,8,12,17.3mm ES100: 5.5,9*,14,20 ES82: full set ES68: 16,20,24,34 NLV: 5,9,10,15 Ortho: HD-7,9; OPS-9,12 Meade RG 7mm Other: Pentax 12.5K(.965), 10mm Parks Zoom: Nag3-6 *=on b/o DAS Dark Site
Quote:@ Jeff Morgan - Thanks I don't few pushed to buy complete sets which is why I'm asking here before buying the ones that will work the best. Also considering I spent years with simple eyepieces so most any choice will be an upgrade that should keep me happy for a vary long time, or is this a slipper slop? Maybe the key is not to look through more expensive eyepieces?
Quote:Quote:Take a look at what some people are doing with their astro video cameras before you spend more on eyepieces.That's like saying "Take a look at what some people are doing with Garage Band on their computers before you spend money on a Martin Acoustic."
Quote:To make a comparison like you have suggests you have not seen what people are doing with electronic eyepieces. I'm under the impression that the original poster would be open minded enough to realize that.
Quote:Kevin,The html code behind that calculator uses the formula:1) TF = AF/M to calculate True Field.AF = Apparent FieldM = Magnification.This will result in very slightly larger than actual true fields when calculated.You may have read that a slightly more accurate formula to use is:2) TF = (FSEP/TFL) * 57.296where FSEP = field stop of eyepieceand TFL = Telescope focal length.How much difference does it make?Let's see:My Telescope has an effective focal length of 1825.6mmIf I use a 21 Ethos, the magnification is 86.93 and the field stop of that eyepiece is 36.2mm.Using formula 1, the true field is 100/86.93 = 1 degree 9 minutesUsing formula 2, the true field is (36.2/1825.6)*57.296 = 1 degree 8 minutes.That difference is really small.The only point I'd make is that IF you know the field stop diameter, use formula 2. Otherwise, use formula 1.
Quote:Quote:@ Jeff Morgan - Thanks I don't few pushed to buy complete sets which is why I'm asking here before buying the ones that will work the best. Also considering I spent years with simple eyepieces so most any choice will be an upgrade that should keep me happy for a vary long time, or is this a slipper slop? Maybe the key is not to look through more expensive eyepieces? Well, perhaps the only thing not debatable on the Eyepiece Forum is that expensive eyepieces spoil you. In most all cases you get what you pay for.If I understand your question correctly, yes getting something like a Delos or Pentax XW could be a "final destination" (if there is such a thing in eyepieces), unless you find out you crave more field as some do. Only one person holds that answer and getting out to a club observing session or star party will help you answer that question before you start spending money.
Quote:Hi KevinSince we have similar scopes I'll throw in my 2 cents worth on your eyepiece choices as well. I personally find that in my 12" Dobs my most frequently used focal lengths to view the types of objects you like to view are 14mm and 10mm. Since that is the case for me if I were only going to choose 1 or 2 eyepieces, I would concentrate most of my money on those focal lengths. You seem to like the wide field views, however, so that would dictate at least one of your 2 eyepieces at a longer focal length.Of the many choices mentioned my 2 choices ( and I have both) would be the ES 100/14 and the ES 82/24. You said you want to view the double cluster. My ES 100/14 gives me the best view of the double cluster I have ever seen. There is something about the afov, exit pupil and magnification using that eyepiece in my 12" Dobs that is truly exceptional. It also does an excellent job on many other DSO's as well. I would also choose the 100 degree fov in that focal length over the 82 degree.For my low power eyepiece I chose the ES 82/24. It provides an afov more than sufficient to view most of the objects you will want to see. In addition, when you complete your 8" Dobs the ES 82/24 will give you the same afov as the ES 82/30 will in your 12" for viewing those larger objects. The 24mm also has an advantage in weight, cost and magnification over the 30mm.When you begin looking for higher magnification eyepieces there are many excellent choices to choose from. For now though, I think you would be very pleased with those choices.Ralph
Quote: i only recommended my thoughts following your price of 400 dollars. you mentioned pleides, double cluster and andromeda galaxy. you mentioned 30 mm 82. and of the 2, 14 mm and 11 mm. i thought the 14 might be better for a scope of 1500 mm. it could double as a 7 mm with the barlow and be usable on average nights. i didn't think the 11 mm would be usable most nights barlowed. but if it would with your location and conditions, my bad.
@ ibase - If you took that picture then you would have both the 100 and 82 deg. Would you care to share your thoughts comparing the two?
Quote: If you have a non tracking scope, hyper wides are of value even if you cannot take in the entire FOV because they allow you to study an object longer before it drifts out of view.
Quote: Just realize they can get very big and heavy, effecting the scopes balance.
Quote: If your telescope falls over when you insert an eyepiece, your eyepiece is too heavy!
Quote:The whole idea of the 100* (and wider) Hyperwides is that you "don't" see the field stop. You see the object in the context of the night sky around it. The 100* aren't really designed for tracking an object from field stop to field stop, they're designed for the expansive view. You're not supposed to view the entire fov, the idea is to get the field stop out of the way.....
Quote:ES14mm(100) vs. 13mmT6(82) NaglerI would still like to hear if any ES14mm-100 owners would part with their ES for a 13mmT6 Nagler or vis versa.
Scopes: Celestron 9.25, Orion 80MM and 120MM EON Apo
Solar: Lunt LS60THa/PT/B1200/50DS
Binos: Canon 15X50 IS Mounts: CGEM and LXD75
Eyepieces: Explore Scientific, Meade & TeleVue
Camera: DMK 41, Canon 6D, SBIG STT-8300
Messier Certificate # 2508
My Images: http://www.astrophotogallery.org/u342-hfjacinto.html
Quote:Take a look at what some people are doing with their astro video cameras before you spend more on eyepieces....I have seen and enjoyed observing more in the few years I have used my Mallincams than I have in all the years before.
The opinions expressed herein are solely mine as an amateur astronomer hobbyist & consumer. Information herein was correlated from experience, discussions with others, & research from multiple sources freely available at time of posting. All reasonable care & skill was used, but no warranty is made as to accuracy, & liability cannot be accepted for errors/omissions. This is for information only and not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional advice.
Quote:Of course eViewing is not the same experience as visual viewing, but it certainly has its own set of merits that only it can do, expanding the capability in a way that the conventional eyepiece never will be able to. The winds of change are definitely blowing, and something to seriously consider for those considering the hobby.