Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Review: Explore Scientific 82 Degree Eyepieces

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 n2dpsky

n2dpsky

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 01 May 2012
  • Loc: Orange, CA

Posted 20 August 2015 - 12:11 PM

Hi Guys,

 

I recently picked up a couple of ES 82 degree eyepieces and knocked out a quick review for those who might not be familiar with them.

 

http://www.localmeri...roof-eyepieces/

 

Hopefully, some will find this helpful.

 

Chris 

Attached Thumbnails

  • ES Eyepiece Review Banner (1 of 1).jpg
  • ES Eyepiece Review FOV (1 of 1).jpg

Edited by n2dpsky, 20 August 2015 - 01:03 PM.

  • Illinois, sopticals, dperk001 and 3 others like this

#2 deefree49

deefree49

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Columbus, Ohio

Posted 20 August 2015 - 12:55 PM

Did you buy those 2 or were there more in the "set"?

 

I own 3 ES eyepieces and have grown pretty fond of them...I certainly have no desire whatsoever to sell them!

They compare favorably with TeleVue without being quite as much $$


  • n2dpsky likes this

#3 n2dpsky

n2dpsky

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 01 May 2012
  • Loc: Orange, CA

Posted 20 August 2015 - 01:02 PM

I bought just the two for use in my 10" Dob.  It's fast, so a little more focal length was what I needed for globs and planetaries.   I should order a 6.7mm too.   


Edited by n2dpsky, 20 August 2015 - 01:03 PM.


#4 JMW

JMW

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3614
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Nevada

Posted 20 August 2015 - 01:07 PM

Our club bought a ES 11mm and 30mm 82 AFOV eyepieces for use with the club's 20 inch Obsession. They are good eyepieces considering the cost compared to the Televue equivalent. 



#5 n2dpsky

n2dpsky

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 01 May 2012
  • Loc: Orange, CA

Posted 20 August 2015 - 01:16 PM

Agreed.  While at Meade I spent hours doing side by side comparisons of the original Series 5000 UWA, on which these are based, with TeleVue.   We stared at resolution targets getting eye strain trying to see the difference. Don't get be wrong, TV makes quality, but at a price.    These are great.

 

It's funny.  While at RTMC one year we had a 16" LX200GPS running with a 24mm UWA.  We had a guy come over and take a 5 sec look and remark, "my Nagler is better".    I had to stop him and say, hold on.   You took a 5 sec look through my 16 and came to that conclusion.  I told him I could barely tell the difference in controlled conditions through the same scope.  You're going to tell me yours is better from memory?  Do you even own a 16"?   That's marketing.


Edited by n2dpsky, 20 August 2015 - 01:17 PM.

  • dpastern, SimonLowther, happylimpet and 1 other like this

#6 Tom_m

Tom_m

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 309
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015
  • Loc: Slovenia, Europe

Posted 20 August 2015 - 01:22 PM

I bought just the two for use in my 10" Dob.  It's fast, so a little more focal length was what I needed for globs and planetaries.   I should order a 6.7mm too.   

 

FWIW I like 6.7 better than 8.8, solely because it has more accessible FOV and more comfortable ER. You'll love it!

But I use 8.8 mm 10x more often than 6.7, as I don't get conditions to use 6.7 on a regular basis with my 12" dob.

In fact 8.8 is my workinghorse high-ish magnification DSO eyepiece (along with middle-ish 13t6) for pulling out galaxy details etc. That is in fact why I am starting to complain about it's tight ER - I feel I need it more in order to enjoy long relaxing views at magnification that I am using so often.

Other than that, 8.8 is one sharp cookie. And as much as I compared the views through 10mm Baader Classic Ortho, for now I haven't notices transmission differences, between it and ES 8.8.

 

As I said in atonther topic, I do feel the planetary performance could be better due to light scatter, although it is not bad at all - depending on how picky you are. The only really objectionable light scatter shows around moon's limb - I feel it somewhat hurts the overal aestethics of the view and probably also reduces the  contrast over moon's surface. Soo not the greatest eyepiece for lunary...


Edited by Tom_m, 20 August 2015 - 01:24 PM.


#7 n2dpsky

n2dpsky

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 01 May 2012
  • Loc: Orange, CA

Posted 20 August 2015 - 01:40 PM

Thanks for the feedback.   I'm having to rethink things.  I'm so used to using long focal length SC's and rarely used a 6.7mm.  At 3000mm+ focal length, the seeing was often not good enough to support it.  But at 1200mm, well, that's another thing entirely.

 

I was observing Jupiter and Saturn a lot.  I was pretty pleased.    For a wide-field eyepiece with lots of elements, contrast is very good.  I  watched a few transits and the shadows looked great.    I did do quite a bit of lunar observing, but frankly, the Moon isn't really my thing.  I wanted these for small angular sized galaxies and planetary nebulae.



#8 Tom_m

Tom_m

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 309
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015
  • Loc: Slovenia, Europe

Posted 20 August 2015 - 02:32 PM

It is clear for 3000mm+ fl SC 6.7 will be too much for most of the nights.

 

Not to exaggerate things to much, and to reassure you, ES82 are great planetary eyepices. I had the best views of Saturn ever with both barlowed 8.8 and 6.7 in my dob. They don't lack anything in sharpness.

 

Certainly reading all those Delos and XW praise here on CN does not help me, :grin: In reality I know that the conditions, that can allow slight differences to be noticed, are so rare, that investing 3x more money for slightly better planetary eypiece was holding me off, and still holds me off of taking that step.

It seems to me that I haven't seen exceptional seeing conditions like ages... And when I do get them, the planets are not around to take advantage of it :ranting: :lol:


Edited by Tom_m, 20 August 2015 - 02:39 PM.


#9 deefree49

deefree49

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Columbus, Ohio

Posted 20 August 2015 - 03:33 PM

Chris,

 

I'm with you on the lunar observing. There is the need for a filter whenever the moon is more than a few days old and it also pretty much hogs the sky around full phase but that's not really the main problem. It comes down to personal reaction where I just never got into the lunar aesthetic. It looks drab like an old bombing range and I don't mean to disparage anyone else's fun. This is purely a personal impression.

 

I totally get the needs of your fast scope. It is an adjustment after having SCTs, which I've owned almost exclusively over the years. I had a Meade equatorial 10" with fine optics for awhile but getting good planetary magnification was a challenge. This was before the explosion of wide field, short focal length EPs and what was available in those days was costly, so I ended up selling the scope.

 

There are always Barlow lenses and that brings up another set of expectations based on past experience. Back in the day, Barlow lenses were simple affairs and generally not very good. It took an adjustment on my part to reconsider them. The results have been pretty surprising - no extra light loss or vanishing width of field, they really are much better than what I remember. Was observing M3 the other day and could tell more magnification was needed. I had an unused 2" 2.5x Celestron Barlow, so paired it with the 28mm Explore Scientific which boosted 77x to 178.5x for the C-8 and the results were quite good. No loss of light on the edges, retained a pleasing wide view and the best part was that now the "blob" started to sparkle with resolved stars. This helped to renew my faith in Barlow lenses as an option and also made for a good night. 

 

If you have a decent Barlow in your collection, at least give it a try with the new ES eyepieces. You might save some money or at least feel a little better about life in the meantime as you shop around.

 

David


  • Ehanc likes this

#10 n2dpsky

n2dpsky

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 01 May 2012
  • Loc: Orange, CA

Posted 20 August 2015 - 04:08 PM

David,

 

I think better optical coatings have permitted a lot of this.  4-element tele-extenders/barlows have also improved matters, but I'd still rather use the right eyepiece.  Given where I worked for the last 15 years, I know better than most all the arguments for an against barlows, but my experience has been mostly poor.  I guess in my brain I still consider light going through more optical elements than it needs to as lost.   

 

I use tele-extenders on my camera when I'm imaging birds or aircraft, which I do a lot.  I sometimes need the reach, but as good as my Canon 1.4x III is, I still loose a full stop of light by adding it.   Sometimes, the penalty isn't a problem.  In low light, it sure is.

 

I would say judicious use is great.  It's wonderful to have options, but not my first choice.

 

Chris



#11 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus, a.k.a. Scanning4Comets

  • *****
  • Posts: 17938
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 20 August 2015 - 04:15 PM

Tried the 14mm in my 10" F/4.7. Field curvature was a huge issue. Eye relief was so short, that I always left eyelash goo all over the top lens. Just tried a Meade 8.8mm WP UWA, (same guts, diff housing, just waterproofed). Again, eye relief wasn't what I preferred. I personally don't care for the 82's, but really did like the 14mm ES 100, (favorite out of the three I did own: 20mm, 14mm and 9mm ES 100's).

 

Good eyepieces if you're on a budget and want some UWA views.

 

Nice review!

 

Clear skies!


Edited by Scanning4Comets, 20 August 2015 - 04:15 PM.

  • n2dpsky likes this

#12 Eigen

Eigen

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2012

Posted 20 August 2015 - 05:06 PM

Tried the 14mm in my 10" F/4.7. Field curvature was a huge issue. Eye relief was so short, that I always left eyelash goo all over the top lens. Just tried a Meade 8.8mm WP UWA, (same guts, diff housing, just waterproofed). Again, eye relief wasn't what I preferred. I personally don't care for the 82's, but really did like the 14mm ES 100, (favorite out of the three I did own: 20mm, 14mm and 9mm ES 100's).

 

Good eyepieces if you're on a budget and want some UWA views.

 

Nice review!

 

Clear skies!

 

I believe that the 14mm is the worst of the set, based on comments that I have read. I haven't tried it personally.

 

I own the 11mm and am quite satisfied, however, as you said the eye relief is a bit on the short side.


  • Scanning4Comets likes this

#13 n2dpsky

n2dpsky

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 01 May 2012
  • Loc: Orange, CA

Posted 20 August 2015 - 05:23 PM

Thanks.  I'm fortunate to not be terribly sensitive to eye relief.   10-15 mm is great for me, but I don't observe with glasses.  Eyeglass wearers would have more difficulty.  I only have about half diopter of asti in my right eye so I can get away not wearing glasses when I observe.  I can see the asti with a dark adapted eye and exit-pupils over 5mm, but higher magnifications are fine.

 

Chris



#14 mdsohio

mdsohio

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Lost..on purpose

Posted 20 August 2015 - 05:53 PM

"I believe that the 14mm is the worst of the set, based on comments that I have read. I haven't tried it personally."

 

At longer focal lengths most EPs are ok...even old kelners! Once you start pushing F5 and lower, the game begins! Even the Holy Green lettering ones sometimes fail at the very short FLs with out asst from another item, paracorr, etc. But even then, i wouldnt feel qualified to judge without trying it...or owning it? But it was on the internet so it must be true!

Mike

 

PS..i own all but 3 of the ES82 and 68 line...i dont see any aberations i cant tolerate in all my scopes! Im also 53 years old...your eyes are probably better than mine!


  • Scanning4Comets and Eigen like this

#15 Messyone

Messyone

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1751
  • Joined: 02 May 2012

Posted 20 August 2015 - 06:01 PM

Just about sums up ES eyepieces...at least the ones I have, which is most the 82's and all the 68's. Like em a lot. f12 helps as does the ES HRCC in a f4.7 Newt. 

 

When I want to see that little bit more I drop in an Ortho  :)

 

Matt


  • n2dpsky likes this

#16 droid

droid

    rocketman

  • *****
  • Posts: 8538
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2004
  • Loc: Conneaut, Ohio

Posted 20 August 2015 - 07:13 PM

I own the 24mm , the 18, and the 6.7

 

All are exceptional eye pieces. In my f4.9 dob, the 24 and 18 really knock my socks off.

 

Yes I also own televues in other focal lengths, but I see no need to replace any of them, they're that good.


  • havasman likes this

#17 Stargazer713

Stargazer713

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 725
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 20 August 2015 - 09:34 PM

I have the ES82 4.7mm and use it with all my scopes with great results.

 

I bought mine on sale a while back for $99 and wish I could have bought a couple more.


  • n2dpsky likes this

#18 csrlice12

csrlice12

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23850
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 21 August 2015 - 07:32 PM

At their price points, the ES 68/82/100 series deliver fantastic views....you only need to spend the extra for the Pentax/Televues if you're nuts like me....Have owned all the ES82s and most of the 68s and 100s, and still have the 68s and 100s....Yes, the Televue and Pentax are better....just how much better depends on your pocketbook and your eyes...and in some cases it's hard to pick a winner.....I love my 20XW.....but in a dob, the ES68 20mm is sharper across the field, though the XW has just that bit better throughput and contrast....If all I could have afforded were ES eyepieces, I'd be happy as a bedbug at a cheap hotel.....the Pentax/Televues and other ultrapremium eyepieces are only for those exceptional nights where you want to wring every drop out of an eyepiece you can......the other 99.9% of the time, there's really not any noticible difference.....


  • Tophat3, Megabusa and Tom_m like this

#19 Megabusa

Megabusa

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: 28 May 2012
  • Loc: Page ,AZ

Posted 22 August 2015 - 09:33 AM

In my Scope , I compared the Hi dollar EPs like TV , I have one TV EP in my case that I almost never use ; So if I put in a 5 to 9 hundred dollar TV  EP and a 1 to 2 hundred dollar ES EP , and see no difference in my Scope ,

 

I think my Signature down there  :ohgeeze:  says it all    :grin: 


Edited by Megabusa, 22 August 2015 - 06:28 PM.

  • n2dpsky likes this

#20 REC

REC

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11038
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2010
  • Loc: NC

Posted 22 August 2015 - 10:26 AM

Hi Guys,

 

I recently picked up a couple of ES 82 degree eyepieces and knocked out a quick review for those who might not be familiar with them.

 

http://www.localmeri...roof-eyepieces/

 

Hopefully, some will find this helpful.

 

Chris 

Chris, very nice review, but I did have a small issue of the print size against the background. I have the 11mm, 8.8mm and the 6.7mm and like them all. I use the 8.8mm in my Meade LS-8 as my highest power when the seeing is very good, otherwise I have to back off to the 11mm (185x) most times. I use the 6.7mm most of the time in my two small refractors as my highest power for the planets and they are sharp and contrasty. Also a heck of a bang for the buck as well.

 

How long have you been gone from Meade now? I probably met you at one of the NEAF shows and spoke to Gary a lot there.

 

Bob


  • n2dpsky likes this

#21 n2dpsky

n2dpsky

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 01 May 2012
  • Loc: Orange, CA

Posted 25 August 2015 - 11:19 PM

Bob,

 

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll look into the font colors and see if we can't get a little better contrast.  

 

I left Meade last year shortly after they were sold.  I was the last member of the senior management team to leave.   We sure may have met.  I've been to NEAF many times, the last several times with Gary.  We know each other quite well. 

 

Chris



#22 stevecoe

stevecoe

    Astronomical Tourist

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 5050
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2004
  • Loc: Arizona, USA

Posted 26 August 2015 - 04:04 AM

Hi Chris;

 

My buddy Tom Clark bought three of these 82's at the Oregon Star Party several years ago and we were very happy with the performance.  He started selling off his TV's.  I brought over my Meade series 4000 UWAs and did a comparison, my old eyepieces held up very nicely.  Both have flat enough fields for my use and I really enjoy the very good contrast on extended objects.  My Panoptics and UWA's will not be up for sale anytime soon.

 

Clear skies;

Steve Coe


  • n2dpsky likes this

#23 PeterWar

PeterWar

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Roses, Girona (Spain)

Posted 26 August 2015 - 10:15 AM

I must concede that the ES 82ยบ are very good eyepieces, I own a 11mm ES and prefer it over a Nagler type 6 equivalent as the eyeguard and eye positioning seems better suited for my eyes.

 

This week my observing mate bought an ES 6,7mm to compare with my 6mm Delos with my Oriox XX14g scope at f4.6, I knew my Delos would be better but in practice, when looking at the moon and uranus I could not tell the difference, the seeing was below average and the slighter lower magnification of the 6,7 might have altered the results though.


  • n2dpsky and Megabusa like this

#24 sydney

sydney

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 586
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 26 August 2015 - 05:00 PM

Agreed.  While at Meade I spent hours doing side by side comparisons of the original Series 5000 UWA, on which these are based, with TeleVue.   We stared at resolution targets getting eye strain trying to see the difference. Don't get be wrong, TV makes quality, but at a price.    These are great.

 

It's funny.  While at RTMC one year we had a 16" LX200GPS running with a 24mm UWA.  We had a guy come over and take a 5 sec look and remark, "my Nagler is better".    I had to stop him and say, hold on.   You took a 5 sec look through my 16 and came to that conclusion.  I told him I could barely tell the difference in controlled conditions through the same scope.  You're going to tell me yours is better from memory?  Do you even own a 16"?   That's marketing.

Maybe it was Al Nagler  :) .

 

After nearly 30 years of exclusively buying TV eyepieces, I started buying others that I like as much or even better.  I plan to try some of the ES.  Thanks for the review.


  • n2dpsky and Megabusa like this

#25 Tom T

Tom T

    A Father, A Teacher, A Pioneer

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 36397
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2002

Posted 26 August 2015 - 05:03 PM

I have the ES82 4.7mm and use it with all my scopes with great results.

 

I bought mine on sale a while back for $99 and wish I could have bought a couple more.

  Great deal.  Really can't beat that price.  :waytogo:


  • n2dpsky and Megabusa like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics