55 replies to this topic

[droid]

Anyone usd these?

 

At this price, looks good

 

Reviews? experiences?

 

 

[russell23]

Yes.  They are an excellent value.  A lot of positive reviews on this forum.  I like every FL I have tried.  They do have some outer field astigmatism that cleans up nicely with a Barlow.  

 

Dave

[eyedoc1984]

I have three of them, 25mm, 18mm, and 12mm, albeit the 25 is an Agena Starguider, which is exactly the same EP.  I've just gotten back into astronomy and wanted some quality EPs for what has turned out to be a very flat-field SCT.  The apparent images are wide, especially considering the 2000mm f/10 optics of the telescope.  The relief is amazing, even with the 12mm, and stars are pinpoint at the edges of the field.  What more can one ask, especially at this price point?  A 40mm Plossl came with the telescope, and it's okay, but I haven't had the opportunity to compare the Paradigm Dual EDs with Plossls of the same focal length, but others have.  The consensus seems to be that there is quite a bit of difference, especially in terms of eye relief at all focal lengths.  

[buddyjesus]

I own the 12mm, 8mm and 5mm.  Happiest with the 12mm as it has the largest sweet spot for sharp views(I use this one for deep sky and for lunar.)  The periphery is a bit soft on the lower focal lengths, not that it matters since they are used for planetary with a tracking mount.  This was with testing with my f/5 reflector.  The exit pupil is roughly 15mm so if you wear eyeglasses you need to push them as close to the eye as possible to not hit the eyepiece too much.  You could pay double for other brands and not get this much eyepiece.

Edited by buddyjesus, 16 April 2016 - 07:05 AM.

[sg6]

Good eyepieces, sold under an assortment of names the world over and in general very well thought of.

I have the full set, and an additional half set again for a small scope. May eventually get the others and have 2 complete sets - cannot have enough eyepieces.

 

My preference is the 8mm as the best all round one, but you will not go wrong whatever you opt for. I bought them 2 at a time for 3 months.

[Kokopelli]

I have the 25-18-15-12-08 Starguider eyepieces (aka Paradigm). Very nice eyepieces. The ergonomics are good and I love the twist up eye guard. I have expensive eyepieces and these eyepieces are fun to use. I throw them into a small case with a GSO 2x barlow with removable bottom element. You can make a 10mm out of the 15mm when you use the bottom element from the barlow.

[Starman1]

Anyone used these?

 

At this price, looks good

 

Reviews? experiences?

These have been out for many years, and there are many reviews on-line.

They are sold under many labels:

Agena Starguide Dual ED

Astrotech Paradigm

BST dual ED

Omegon Flatfield ED

Telescope Service ED

and the manufacturer's name Barsta.

Focal lengths: 3.2mm, 5mm, 8mm, 12mm, 15mm, 18mm, 25mm

The external finish seems to vary a bit, but they're good performers at f/6+  

At f/5 or below, they, like nearly all inexpensive eyepieces, have astigmatism in the outer field.

Eye relief is about 16mm from the glass, and about 13mm from the rubber.

[eyedoc1984]

 

These have been out for many years, and there are many reviews on-line.

They are sold under many labels:

Agena Starguide Dual ED

Astrotech Paradigm

BST dual ED

Omegon Flatfield ED

Telescope Service ED

and the manufacturer's name Barsta.

Focal lengths: 3.2mm, 5mm, 8mm, 12mm, 15mm, 18mm, 25mm

The external finish seems to vary a bit, but they're good performers at f/6+  

At f/5 or below, they, like nearly all inexpensive eyepieces, have astigmatism in the outer field.

Eye relief is about 16mm from the glass, and about 13mm from the rubber.

 

 

Question, Don:  At the price point of this series of EPs, are there any others you recommend or find equivalent?  I'm referring to EPs with similar field of view, relief, optical clarity, etc.   I have great faith in your assessments.

 

I'm quite satisfied with my Dual EDs, but for the sake of others, I was curious to know if there are comparable or better options in this price range. 

[Starman1]

I have experience with the Barsta TMB clones but find the AT slightly better.

I don't have experience with the Celestron X-Cel LX or the Meade HD60s.

The latter seems to get a lot of good press, though Ernest's lab tests show a strong variation from focal length to focal length.

I suspect that's true with the AT as well.

I haven't spent enough time with them in the field to know which focal length is strongest and which the weakest.

You'd know better than I.

[eyedoc1984]

I have experience with the Barsta TMB clones but find the AT slightly better.

I don't have experience with the Celestron X-Cel LX or the Meade HD60s.

The latter seems to get a lot of good press, though Ernest's lab tests show a strong variation from focal length to focal length.

I suspect that's true with the AT as well.

I haven't spent enough time with them in the field to know which focal length is strongest and which the weakest.

You'd know better than I.

 

Not really.  I like them all, but haven't spent any time doing an A vs. B vs. C comparison.  What has surprised me most is how much I like the inexpensive 40mm Celstron Plossl that came with the Edge HD.  The relief is great (it would be at 40mm) as is the clarity.  I think what I really like is the wider field of view.  I see a refractor in my future.     

 

For that matter a refractor of around f/6 or less would be a better platform for evaluating such EPs.  Warts show up much better at something faster than f/10. 

[EuropaWill]

I have a pair of the 8mm Starguider's. They are well worth their cost and are great even in absolute terms. Excellent contrast and throughput with neutral color reproduction.  A favorite of mine for Jupiter. I wish they had a drop more eye relief and didn't have a hint of EoFB but those are minor issues outweighed by its other qualities. I liked these slightly better than the 9mm TMB clone due to it's flatter field (at least in my refractors). 

[jgroub]

As Don discusses, these EPs are known by a lot of different names.  I have the 15mm Starguider version.  It's a nice EP, nice for framing DSOs.  I mainly use it in my f/12 Mak, which would make any EP look good with that long focal length.  I've also used it in my f/5 ST-80, and the Pleiades look magnificent.  

[ChristianG]

I have a pair of the 8mm Starguider's. They are well worth their cost and are great even in absolute terms. Excellent contrast and throughput with neutral color reproduction.  A favorite of mine for Jupiter. I wish they had a drop more eye relief and didn't have a hint of EoFB but those are minor issues outweighed by its other qualities. I liked these slightly better than the 9mm TMB clone due to it's flatter field (at least in my refractors). 

 

Ha! 

 

Your binoviewer is clearly better than mine (Celestron)! Could not merge images with the 8 mm Dual EDs, so I sold one. I have all 7 now, from 25 mm down to 3.2 mm, by the way.

 

---Christian

[duck2k]

I have the Paradigms (5, 8, 12, 15, and 18mm), and I think they are great for the price.  On planetary observations, I have been comfortable with the 5 and 8 mm.  I have used the 12, 15, and 18mm in various 2x focal extender (ES) combinations, and have been impressed.  While I cannot discuss the hardcore terminology well, I can tell you, I have enjoyed them.  I keep them in my grab n go case (for use with my C90, C5, and 127).  The planets look very nice at the edge of fields too.

 

The twist up eyecup is a nice touch too.

 

Clear skies folks!

 

[Starman1]

And a definite step up from Plossls, IMO.

You should add the 3.2mm for double stars and the occasional perfect seeing.

Ignore than comment if you have a good 2X Barlow.

[jgroub]

And a definite step up from Plossls, IMO.

Don, do you mind if I ask you about that statement?  I might be asking a question akin to, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" but other than the increase in the AFOV from 52 to 60, and other than the welcome increase in eye relief on the shorter focal length models, are there any other ways that the Paradigms/Starguiders are better than Plossls?  

 

Are they sharper?  Are they brighter?  Are they more faithful in the color of the light they transmit?  

 

I mean, yeah, sure, those two things alone are enough, but is that it?  

[Starman1]

Are they sharper in center or edge?  No.

Are they brighter?  No.

Are they more faithful in color?  No.

Are they more expensive?  No.

Are they easier to use?  Yes.

Are they wider in apparent field?  Yes.

Do they "frame" deep sky objects better?  Yes.

Do they allow a little more drift before the object leaves the field?  Yes.

Do they have better eyecups?  Yes.

Do they look nicer?  Yes.

 

Are there other 58-62° eyepieces at low prices that are as good?  Yes.

Are they perfect at f/5?  No. (What is, that retails at <$100?)

 

But picture the new scope owner, with a couple of basic Plossls, wanting to fill in the missing magnifications and/or get a little bit more field of view.

One could do a lot worse, and you probably know the eyepieces to which I refer.

[jgroub]

Thanks, Don.  The reason I asked is that I have about 30 hours left on the ES $99 sale.  I've been thinking about getting the 24mm ES 68, but I already have a 32mm Plossl that does me just fine.  I think what you've said about the Paradigms/Starguiders applies directly to the ES line as well.  

 

Yes, additional AFOV is nice and certainly, absolutely has its purposes for framing and for longer drift time in an unguided scope.  My scope is motorized, and the 24mm ES 68 wouldn't provide any additional framing - well, only a smidge - over my 32mm Plossl, so neither of those factors apply to me.  And even though all eyepieces look alike in the dark, darn if the ES doesn't look amazing in the day.  

[Starman1]

If you have a good 32mm Plossl that you like (I had a Meade Series 4000 MIJ 5-element one and a TeleVue 32mm 4-element one many years ago and LOVED them both),

then the 24mm 68° would only be of any use if you preferred the larger apparent field.  I do, however, use a 24mm Panoptic now instead of the 32mm Plossl, so I guess I did.

The true field is equal to the 32mm Plossl--both eyepieces have a 27mm field stop.

 

Your 127mm scope is actually a 120-121mm Maksutov with an appropriately-oversized primary mirror (as all Maks should have--the 7" Meade had a 8.25" primary).

At ~60mm off axis, a ray parallel to the tube hits the very edge of the mirror.  A ray 62mm off axis, parallel to the tube, hits the tube, not the mirror.

[one of the ways to reduce light scatter in this instrument is to flock the inside of the tube from the mirror forward about 4"].

As the rays come in from different field angles, they may still not be as vignetted as they would be were the mirror smaller.  Good design.  Not 127mm, but that's a marketing error, not a design one.

So the instrument is really f/12.7-f/12.8.  The focal length is about 1540mm with a 1.25" star diagonal and a typical 1.25" eyepiece with its field stop close to the shoulder of the eyepiece.

Shortening the visual back by removing the threads on the visual back also shortens the focal length to 1510mm.

It's a really underrated scope--I used mine at 328x during the Mars 2003 opposition, and it gave super sharp and highly contrasted images.

And it was superb at double stars.  In good seeing, M13 was covered with faint stars from edge to edge, and that's a good sign of superior resolution on a 4.7" scope.

 

As a temptation: ES is coming out with 5", 6", and 8" Maksutovs, probably by 2017.  If you like the Mak--save your pennies (I am, for the 8").  They aren't wide-angle scopes, but they are high resolution.

[EuropaWill]

Are they sharper in center or edge?  No.

Are they brighter?  No.

Are they more faithful in color?  No.

Are they more expensive?  No.

Are they easier to use?  Yes.

Are they wider in apparent field?  Yes.

Do they "frame" deep sky objects better?  Yes.

Do they allow a little more drift before the object leaves the field?  Yes.

Do they have better eyecups?  Yes.

Do they look nicer?  Yes.

 

Are there other 58-62° eyepieces at low prices that are as good?  Yes.

Are they perfect at f/5?  No. (What is, that retails at <$100?)

 

But picture the new scope owner, with a couple of basic Plossls, wanting to fill in the missing magnifications and/or get a little bit more field of view.

One could do a lot worse, and you probably know the eyepieces to which I refer.

Nice points made here. 

 

IME, the 55-62° group of eyepieces do a great job of complimenting the longer FL standard plossls up to the point where eye relief in a plossl becomes uncomfortable, especially for eyeglasses wearers. For me that's at around a plossl focal length of about 20mm or so. As such I enjoy plossls most in 40mm, 32mm, 25mm, and 20mm focal lengths because they all have sufficient eye relief, but going shorter than those FL's is where I see the greatest value and role for the the family of better eye relief extended AFOV eyepieces such as the Paradigm, HD60, X-Cel LX, LER, etc... to complete a logical sequence.   In my case I still retain plossls from 17mm down to 6mm but those FL's rarely get use unless there is a rare or special night of planetary that I want to attempt to eek out just a drop more detail than one of their LER stablemates might be able to reveal. And even then the difference in image detail can be negligible. 

[skyjim]

I would like to get on the list for the ES 8" MCT, Yahooooooo!

[jgroub]

If you have a good 32mm Plossl that you like (I had a Meade Series 4000 MIJ 5-element one and a TeleVue 32mm 4-element one many years ago and LOVED them both),
then the 24mm 68° would only be of any use if you preferred the larger apparent field.  I do, however, use a 24mm Panoptic now instead of the 32mm Plossl, so I guess I did.
The true field is equal to the 32mm Plossl--both eyepieces have a 27mm field stop.

I've got a gift certificate, and credit card rewards, and rebate checks to get the actual $149 price down to $99 with the sale, all the way to $54. I think I'm going to have to pull the trigger.

 

EDIT - Darn it!  I think I waited too long.  Out of stock!  
 

It's a really underrated scope--I used mine at 328x during the Mars 2003 opposition, and it gave super sharp and highly contrasted images.
And it was superb at double stars.  In good seeing, M13 was covered with faint stars from edge to edge, and that's a good sign of superior resolution on a 4.7" scope.

You don't have to tell me! I love the scope. It's amazing!
 

As a temptation: ES is coming out with 5", 6", and 8" Maksutovs, probably by 2017.  If you like the Mak--save your pennies (I am, for the 8").  They aren't wide-angle scopes, but they are high resolution.

Oh, man, an 8" Mak? I've been drooling over the standard 180 Synta Mak for a year now, but heck yeah, I'll wait another year for a 200!  Thanks for the temptation!  Any word on the specs - focal length/ratio, percent secondary obstruction, size of the back, weight, length, anything?!?

Edited by jgroub, 29 April 2016 - 10:35 PM.

[Starman1]

Nope.  No specs.

[Starman1]

On the 24mm 68°, ES is out for about the next 4 months, so hunt around if you want one.

[CeleNoptic]

 

If you have a good 32mm Plossl that you like (I had a Meade Series 4000 MIJ 5-element one and a TeleVue 32mm 4-element one many years ago and LOVED them both),
then the 24mm 68° would only be of any use if you preferred the larger apparent field.  I do, however, use a 24mm Panoptic now instead of the 32mm Plossl, so I guess I did.
The true field is equal to the 32mm Plossl--both eyepieces have a 27mm field stop.

I've got a gift certificate, and credit card rewards, and rebate checks to get the actual $149 price down to $99 with the sale, all the way to $54. I think I'm going to have to pull the trigger.

 

EDIT - Darn it!  I think I waited too long.  Out of stock!  
 

 

 

Agena still have 6 in stock on Amazon at this moment, so hurry up! High Point Scientific promise *scheduled delivery* so they should acknowledge the sale price, but you'll get the eyepiece with some delay.

 

I'm still on the fence trying to decide if I need this eyepiece or not... probably not... hmmmm...   .