Quote: Interesting that not one post so far has listed the weight of the eyepieces they have discussed. ;<)
It reminds me of a comment I heard one night at a star party..."Does this eyepiece make my scope look fat?"
Considering that balancing a scope is a big issue, weight does matter.
Has anyone substituted a lighter weight barrel on a heavy eyepiece?
As I asked earlier - what weight do you consider too heavy? A 31mm T5 Nagler weighs 35oz, a 22mm T4 Nagler weighs 24oz. Is the 31mm heavy? The 22mm? Or how about a 27mm Panoptic at 16oz?
It's like the old saying.."One can never be too rich or too thin"...or your eyepiece too light.
Lighter is better...much lighter is much better.
Ok, but that doesn't really answer my question. At what weight (in grams or ounces) would you be satisfied that an eyepiece is not creating problems for you because of its weight?
This is not an irrelevant question. Your problem cannot be fixed until there is a target weight you're shooting for. If "the lighter the better" is your only criteria, then I'm sure somebody out there has some 0.965" eyepieces with plastic lenses they'd be willing to give away for the cost of postage.
No games...I gave you the answer.
Lighter is better.
I have a number of scopes so the "correct" weight would be different for each scope.
It is hard then to understand what you're looking for when you started this thread. Was the point just to complain that some eyepieces are heavy? Which eyepieces? At what weight do they become a problem for you? What is your criteria for the weight being a problem? Because it causes balance problems with your mount? Problems for the focuser? Problems for the locking mechanism of the diagonal?
It just seems odd me that you would start this thread and then be so vague in describing what your problem is. It makes it very difficult for those of us that are actually interested in the question you raised to respond in anything other then generalities.
Quote: What's the right and only weight for you?
This is much like what I asked you and it is not a hard question to answer. I have found that in my scope, any eyepiece that weighs more than ~16-17oz is too heavy to maintain the balance of the refractor in my mount if I switch to the other eyepieces I own.
The heaviest eyepiece I have is a 27mm Pan - which weights just over 16oz. I can use that along with any of the other 10 eyepieces I have and there are no significant balance problems in switching.
When I had a 38mm Orion Q70 - which weighs in at around 21-22oz, it was impossible to balance the OTA in the rings for the 38mm and then switch to my lighter eyepieces.
Of course the heavier eyepieces would not be a problem - if all of my eyepieces were heavier. So another solution to the problem would be rather than make eyepieces lighter - strive to make them heavier. I don't actually advocate that. The problem - for my scope set-up - is that if there are big differences in eyepiece weight it throws of the balance. In theory any eyepiece would be ok as long as I'm either not switching eyepieces or switching to eyepieces that have similar weight.
That explanation is quite a bit different than just saying "lighter is better". I agree with the sentiment, but at some point physics, optical design, and quality get in the way.
Someone mentioned earlier that they felt the Naglers are made of heavier barrel construction than needed. And that may be so. I'm hesitant to pick up a 22T4 Nagler because it weights 24oz. If it could be pared down to 16oz with lighter barrel materials that would interest me.
I wonder if the TV lense assemblies could be put into a Delrin type housing such as that Gary Russell (no relation) uses in his eyepieces?
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: Why aren't eyepieces lighter?
Edit
Reply
Quote
