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

Best 5-6mm eyepiece for a small dob

  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#26 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,210
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 04 June 2020 - 02:07 PM

Hi everyone, I've made more or less the same question few days ago without much luck, so I'm trying rephrasing it in a more direct way:

What is the BEST 5 or 6mm EP I can use with a small 130mm F5 dobs? I've a 6mm Gold Line Svbony but it's clearly not good enough for difficult targets requiring high magnification, difficult to focus and quite "muddy". For once I want to invest in something really good, but of course a great cost to quality ration would be welcome. Checking here oin the forum I've found glowing reviews of the 6mm TV Delos (wich I can buy here at 350€), but is there anything else comparable in quality, sharpness and brightness? Thanks in advance for any help you may give.

50°: Vixen SLV 5mm (20mm eye relief)

62°: TeleVue Delite 5mm (20mm eye relief)

70°: Pentax XW 5mm (20mm eye relief)

72°: TeleVue Delos 6mm (20mm eye relief)

82°: TeleVue Nagler T6 5mm (12mm eye relief)

100°: TeleVue Ethos 6mm (15mm eye relief)

 

You did say best.

 

But more serious questions:

--Is your seeing good enough to use that high a power most of the time?

--Are the optics in your scope good enough to handle the high power?

--Are you proficient in collimation so you know the loss of detail isn't simply miscollimation?

--Are you letting the optics cool down an hour before using high powers?


Edited by Starman1, 04 June 2020 - 02:10 PM.


#27 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 04 June 2020 - 05:33 PM

50°: Vixen SLV 5mm (20mm eye relief)

62°: TeleVue Delite 5mm (20mm eye relief)

70°: Pentax XW 5mm (20mm eye relief)

72°: TeleVue Delos 6mm (20mm eye relief)

82°: TeleVue Nagler T6 5mm (12mm eye relief)

100°: TeleVue Ethos 6mm (15mm eye relief)

 

You did say best.

 

But more serious questions:

--Is your seeing good enough to use that high a power most of the time?

--Are the optics in your scope good enough to handle the high power?

--Are you proficient in collimation so you know the loss of detail isn't simply miscollimation?

--Are you letting the optics cool down an hour before using high powers?

Thanks for the suggestions. Going to your questions

 

1) Seeing:  I've two telescopes that I use in completely different environments. The small 130P SW / AWB is being mostly used in a urban environment  (SQM 18.2 on average) AND for short night excursions on the hills surrounding my medium sized city (SQM ranging from 19.4 to 20.7). The seeing here varies enormously, from abysmal to very good. However part of the challenge is using a small telescope in a urban environment and "push the limit". On the other hand however my other telescope is a Orion Xt10 and I use it in a mountain (Alps) environment, with sky that goes from - at worst! - from 21.1 to 21.5 with a very steady sky except in high summer. So you see, the I can't say "I've good enough seeing most of the time", but often I've a seeing good enough

 

2) Optics: As I've said, it's a 130p and a XT10. The mirror of the XT10 is good. The 130 is a less than 200€ telescope

 

3) Collimation: Yes, definitely. I check the collimation before every session, both with a cap and a laser collimator

 

4) Cooling down: Yes definitely. And before you ask, I keep all my EP very clean, I'm careful with stray light etc etc

 

I understand that a high end EP requires particular conditions to be used at best and without them the money you spend is probably wasted. But I'm trying to understand how much I can "touch the limit" with the gear I have. Do I have to stick to XCel-Lxs or I can try something more sophisticate?


Edited by korman643, 05 June 2020 - 06:19 AM.


#28 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,094
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 04 June 2020 - 05:58 PM

I have two $250 5mm eyepieces (completely different designs and brands) and I can see that one has a bit better contrast than the other (at the expense of ER and AFOV). A buddy suggested it was maybe 5-10% sharper. So there are subtle differences and many here spend $100’s of dollars chasing these subtle improvements. That being said, the long ER, wider AFOV loser of the contrast shootout was noticeably sharper than an economy eyepiece.

Your situation is interesting because the Xcel LX series, at least the 9mm, is priced closer to the economy range but performs closer to the premium range. It isn’t quite a premium eyepiece, so you could get a Delite or something and maybe get 5-10% sharper views. But is that a significant enough improvement? That’s why you might want to go wide. 82 AFOV will be considerably different than 60 AFOV. It will be much more evident than a subtle improvement in contrast. If you get a premium ultrawide like the 5mm Nagler, you would likely get a subtle contrast improvement along with a wider view. But it costs a lot more than a Meade 5.5 UWA.

Now if you had Meade MA eyepieces or $30 plossls even then the jump to premium is more noticeable. Really if you want to try out a premium brand, you should look for your weakest link to get the biggest impact. If the Xcel LX is your worst eyepiece, that is a pretty good place to be. Like another guy who just replaced a HD-60/Xcel LX 25mm with a 27 Panoptic. Because his other eyepieces were Morpheus. The 25mm is a very good eyepiece but compared to Morpheus they were the weakest link so he upgraded to the Panoptic (no 27mm Morpheus). So if that’s your situation, awesome. If not, you might consider making an upgrade somewhere else. Or just upgrade for a wider view. Even the guy who got the 27 Panoptic knew he was mainly upgrading to get a wider view. The Panoptic might be a touch better corrected, but the most obvious difference between them will be the size of the view. And that is what he is expecting and he was okay spending that much mainly to get a wider view.

To give you a better sense, here is Ernest’s list of lab test data for various eyepieces. Yellow is very good, blue not so good, no highlights is in between. Look up the Celestron Xcel LX and Meade HD-60 9mm. Granted there can be sample variation. Not like he has tested 100 of each eyepiece. But he did test both Celestron and Meade so at least two. The Meade didn’t quite score in the yellow like Celestron so yeah there is some sample variation. But if you average the two out it is still a great place to be. 4/6/9 or 4/7/12 compared to 5/8/12 for 5 Delite or 3/4/7 for the 5 Nagler ain’t shabby. There is more to it than purely lab tested field correction as the Delite scores yellow from Ernest despite not really testing better than the Meade, which missed out on yellow honors. But you get the point, your Xcel is very good and it will be hard to tell much of a difference without simply going wider.

http://astro-talks.r...opic.php?t=1483
Scott

Edited by SeattleScott, 04 June 2020 - 06:15 PM.

  • korman643 likes this

#29 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,210
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 04 June 2020 - 06:04 PM

Thanks for the suggestions. Going to your questions

 

1) Seeing:  I've two telescopes that I use in completely different environments. The small 130P SW / AWB is being mostly used in a urban environment  (SQM 18.2 on average) AND for short night excursions on the hills surrounding my medium sized city (SQM ranging from 19.4 to 20.7). The seeing here varies enormously, from abysmal to very good. However part of the challenge is using a small telescope in a urban environment and "push the limit". On the other hand however my other telescope is a Orion Xt10 and I use it in a mountain (Alps) environment, with sky that goes from - at worst! - from 21.1 to 21.5 with a very steady sky except in high summer. So you see, the I can't say "I've good enough seeing most of the time", but often I've a seeing good enough

 

2) Optics: As I've said, it's a 130p and a XT10. The mirror of the XT10 is good. The 130 is a less than 200€ telescope

 

3) Collimation: Yes, definitely. I check the collimation before every session, both with a cap and a laser collimator

 

4) Cooling down: Yes definitely. And before you ask, I keep all my EP very clean, I'm careful with stray light etc etc

 

I understand that a high end EP requires particular conditions to be used at best and without them the money you spend is probably wasted. But I'm trying to understand how much I can much the limit with the gear I have. Do I have to stick to XCel-Lxs or I can try something more sophisticated?

Well, the more experience you have with eyepieces, the more you will realize that the center-of-field images in eyepieces like the X-Cel LX differ from the very high priced eyepieces by a very very small amount.

 

Seeing is going to be 95% of the difference between most eyepieces, on axis. 

It's at the edge of the field the differences are more apparent, and keeping the field size to 60° will keep the edge differences small.

 

If your XT10 is used without a coma corrector, then the presence of coma will even make those edge differences even harder to see.

 

But, the wider the field of view, the more apparent the difference will be between low and high priced eyepieces.  Still, the wider the apparent field, the more coma will be evident, so there is some value in sticking to 60° if you like that field size.

And 60° surely gives you some nice wide true fields in the short instrument, so there is no particular hurry to get wider fields.

 

You may find 70° fields (or wider) to be a bit more enjoyable, though, especially in the 10", showing you more real estate, so to speak, at each magnification, and longer times between nudges of the scope.

And once the apparent field size starts creeping up, the larger the difference will be between eyepieces.


  • Jon Isaacs, jaraxx and korman643 like this

#30 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 91,190
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 04 June 2020 - 11:31 PM

They aren't inexpensive but my 5mm Pentax XW, which I prefer to a 5mm Tele Vue Nagler Type 6, and 6mm Tele Vue Delos produce excellent views through a number of my telescopes of varying apertures and focal lengths.


  • korman643 likes this

#31 bridgman

bridgman

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,182
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Mosport, ON, Canada

Posted 05 June 2020 - 12:34 AM

I understand that a high end EP requires particular conditions to be used at best and without them the money you spend is probably wasted. But I'm trying to understand how much I can much the limit with the gear I have. Do I have to stick to XCel-Lxs or I can try something more sophisticated ?

Don answered that question better than I could, so I'll stick with "what he said" :)

 

That said, I don't think anyone has asked you about eye relief requirements/preferences. Some people are good with relatively short eye relief (5-10mm) while others (like me with my deeply set eyes) really need something close to 20mm ER for any kind of observing comfort. My reason for buying a couple of premium eyepieces was to get sufficient eye relief and for me that was worth almost any price.

 

If I could take eye relief out of the equation I would probably own less expensive eyepieces and be quite happy with them. 

 

So... where do you sit on that continuum ? Do you find the X-Cel 9mm has enough eye relief for you, or do you find it a bit tight ? I'm not going to directly recommend the X-Cel 5mm because I have never had a chance to use one, but if it *did* have enough eye relief for you (same as the 9mm AFAIK) then I would point out that there is something to be said for having multiple eyepieces from the same family, of only because in most cases EP's from the same family tend to be parfocal.

 

The challenge is deciding which family to go with before you end up filling all the focal length slots. I pretty much have all the eyepieces I need now, but they're a motley crew with no two from the same family.

 

 


  • korman643 likes this

#32 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,094
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 05 June 2020 - 12:43 AM

Right now he is barlowing the 9mm to get to 4.5 and says he is happy with that arrangement. Just trying to figure out if there is something better out there that would be an upgrade over the barlow and 9mm.

Scott
  • korman643 likes this

#33 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,959
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 05 June 2020 - 05:53 AM

Thanks!  see lot of people are voting for Vixen SLV, but are they really better than Celestron X-Cels? As I've said before I'm rather happy with my X-Cel 9mm + 2x Barlow combination, but here I really wanted to raise the bar a bit with this high power EP.

Only going on what I have tried. For the best, a TV Delite IMO in 5mm will not be too heavy & awkward.  Same AFOV and comfort as an X-Cel. (Meade HD-60s use the same optics as X-Cels)  



#34 rhetfield

rhetfield

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2019
  • Loc: Suburban Chicago, IL, USA

Posted 05 June 2020 - 03:32 PM

Wow, plenty of great answers! I'll reply to everyone, but first there's one thing I want to clarify

 

 

Thank for the comment, but the collimation of both my scopes is checked before every viewing session, with collimation cap AND laser collimator. I'm a bit obsessive about this kind of details. 

 

I don't really know what's going on with the Goldline, but it's, at best, a disappointment. With the 10 inch Orion my first reaction was  "ok, it's the bad seeing" (it was high summer), but then the views were not great even with perfect still atmosphere. I've come to the point that I've better views with the XCel LX 9mm + 2x Barlow than with the 6mm Goldline! I've cleaned it and rechecked it to see if there was something bad with my particular specimen, but no. I can't really understand this, everybody seems to say it's a great EP

How often do you star collimate?  That is the gold standard for collimation, since the end goal is to make the star look good.  The cap and laser will get close, but probably not perfect.  On my 130/F5, I also discovered that there is a very fine line with the primary mirror clips with regards to being loose enough to prevent pinching and being so loose the mirror flops around and messes with collimation.  Can't necessarily trust the mass manufacturer to get it perfect.  Since tweaking mine a few months ago, I have only needed to touch the screws once.



#35 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,094
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 05 June 2020 - 06:42 PM

He did say he collimates every time. That was my thought too, that collimation was off, but apparently his eyepiece really is a lemon.

Scott

#36 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 07 June 2020 - 08:05 AM

Now if you had Meade MA eyepieces or $30 plossls even then the jump to premium is more noticeable. Really if you want to try out a premium brand, you should look for your weakest link to get the biggest impact. If the Xcel LX is your worst eyepiece, that is a pretty good place to be. Like another guy who just replaced a HD-60/Xcel LX 25mm with a 27 Panoptic. Because his other eyepieces were Morpheus. The 25mm is a very good eyepiece but compared to Morpheus they were the weakest link so he upgraded to the Panoptic (no 27mm Morpheus). So if that’s your situation, awesome. If not, you might consider making an upgrade somewhere else. Or just upgrade for a wider view. Even the guy who got the 27 Panoptic knew he was mainly upgrading to get a wider view. The Panoptic might be a touch better corrected, but the most obvious difference between them will be the size of the view. And that is what he is expecting and he was okay spending that much mainly to get a wider view.

To give you a better sense, here is Ernest’s list of lab test data for various eyepieces. Yellow is very good, blue not so good, no highlights is in between. Look up the Celestron Xcel LX and Meade HD-60 9mm. Granted there can be sample variation. Not like he has tested 100 of each eyepiece. But he did test both Celestron and Meade so at least two. The Meade didn’t quite score in the yellow like Celestron so yeah there is some sample variation. But if you average the two out it is still a great place to be. 4/6/9 or 4/7/12 compared to 5/8/12 for 5 Delite or 3/4/7 for the 5 Nagler ain’t shabby. There is more to it than purely lab tested field correction as the Delite scores yellow from Ernest despite not really testing better than the Meade, which missed out on yellow honors. But you get the point, your Xcel is very good and it will be hard to tell much of a difference without simply going wider.

http://astro-talks.r...opic.php?t=1483
Scott

 

Thnk you for this resource, is really interesting! Whay you're saying makes a lot of sense, and yes, I want to change my 6mm because it's a FL I use often AND it's the one EP in my collection that was disappointing.

 

Two nights ago we had here exceptional seeing conditions and transparency. so I did a little experiemt to check I my impression about the Svbony performance was  just an impression. I pointed at M81 around 11am, with the moon was 15° high in the sky (but in the opposite direction). I wanted to checl the difference in clarity and sharpness between my EPs with or w/o Barlow. Magnitude limit was around 12, given or taken

 

Celestron XCel-LX (both 9 and 25mm) performed well as expected. 25mm did just show the bright nucleus of M81, but with 9mm (w/ and w/o Barlow) some hint of the rest of the galaxy was visible with peripheral vision. The 10mm aspheric and the 15mm Omni both did well in terms of sharpness, with all the limitation they have. Again, the worst performer was the 6mm - it seemed to be always out of focus. So it's either something with my specific EP or it's just a lousy model, I don't know

 

In either cases, at this point I want to have something good to use between 9 and 4.5 mm (the Barlowed Xcel-Lx), and yes, I agree that eye relief here and FOV may be the real discriminating factor, besides sharpness and brightness.



#37 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 07 June 2020 - 08:11 AM

 

That said, I don't think anyone has asked you about eye relief requirements/preferences. Some people are good with relatively short eye relief (5-10mm) while others (like me with my deeply set eyes) really need something close to 20mm ER for any kind of observing comfort. My reason for buying a couple of premium eyepieces was to get sufficient eye relief and for me that was worth almost any price.

 

If I could take eye relief out of the equation I would probably own less expensive eyepieces and be quite happy with them. 

 

 

As I've replied to Scott in the post above , I've come to realize that yes, most of the EPs I've have similar sharpness / brightness (taking different magnification in account) The difference is all in FOV and ER. The only "lousy performer" seems to be the 6mm Svbony, who seems to be impossible to focus properly

 

So what you say makes a lot of sense.



#38 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 07 June 2020 - 08:14 AM

How often do you star collimate?  That is the gold standard for collimation, since the end goal is to make the star look good.  The cap and laser will get close, but probably not perfect.  On my 130/F5, I also discovered that there is a very fine line with the primary mirror clips with regards to being loose enough to prevent pinching and being so loose the mirror flops around and messes with collimation.  Can't necessarily trust the mass manufacturer to get it perfect.  Since tweaking mine a few months ago, I have only needed to touch the screws once.

 

I star collimate very often, as with the 130p it's something easy to do. As far as I can see the collimation is always more than satisfying. I have some problem with the Xt10 secondary after I've foolishly unscrewed it, but that's another issue



#39 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,210
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 07 June 2020 - 08:19 AM

Thank you for this resource, is really interesting! What you're saying makes a lot of sense, and yes, I want to change my 6mm because it's a FL I use often AND it's the one EP in my collection that was disappointing.

 

Two nights ago we had here exceptional seeing conditions and transparency. so I did a little experiment to check I my impression about the Svbony performance was  just an impression. I pointed at M81 around 11am, with the moon was 15° high in the sky (but in the opposite direction). I wanted to checl the difference in clarity and sharpness between my EPs with or w/o Barlow. Magnitude limit was around 12, given or taken

 

Celestron XCel-LX (both 9 and 25mm) performed well as expected. 25mm did just show the bright nucleus of M81, but with 9mm (w/ and w/o Barlow) some hint of the rest of the galaxy was visible with peripheral vision. The 10mm aspheric and the 15mm Omni both did well in terms of sharpness, with all the limitation they have. Again, the worst performer was the 6mm - it seemed to be always out of focus. So it's either something with my specific EP or it's just a lousy model, I don't know

 

In either cases, at this point I want to have something good to use between 9 and 4.5 mm (the Barlowed Xcel-Lx), and yes, I agree that eye relief here and FOV may be the real discriminating factor, besides sharpness and brightness.

I cannot say the 6mm eyepiece you have is a good one, but all you write above is also consistent with the 6mm being too high a power for the conditions.

If the 9mm in the Barlow was nice and sharp, then it is the 6mm eyepiece that is to blame.  But if you didn't try the 4.5mm's  magnification, it's not possible to conclude from your comments that it is the 6mm eyepiece's fault--it could be the seeing.


  • korman643 likes this

#40 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 07 June 2020 - 08:22 AM

They aren't inexpensive but my 5mm Pentax XW, which I prefer to a 5mm Tele Vue Nagler Type 6, and 6mm Tele Vue Delos produce excellent views through a number of my telescopes of varying apertures and focal lengths.

 Thanks - both the XW and the Delos are available here for 360€ so I'm tempted.



#41 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 07 June 2020 - 08:40 AM

I cannot say the 6mm eyepiece you have is a good one, but all you write above is also consistent with the 6mm being too high a power for the conditions.

If the 9mm in the Barlow was nice and sharp, then it is the 6mm eyepiece that is to blame.  But if you didn't try the 4.5mm's  magnification, it's not possible to conclude from your comments that it is the 6mm eyepiece's fault--it could be the seeing.

Oh, I'm afraid I did a poor phrasing of the sentence above - indeed I did use the 4.5 magnification. It was not great of course, but definitely clearer than the 6mm. 


Edited by korman643, 07 June 2020 - 08:40 AM.


#42 aeajr

aeajr

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,783
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Long Island, New York, USA

Posted 07 June 2020 - 10:24 AM

If you have.the budget it is hard to do better than Tele Vue. I would lean towaed the Nagler line.

If you want to be close but lower cost, I have standardized on Explore Scientific 82 and Meade 5000 UWA 82 degree for all of my scopes. Optically similar but very different packaging.

My most used eyepiece is my Baader Hyperion 8-24 Zoom eyepiece.

Edited by aeajr, 07 June 2020 - 10:26 AM.

  • korman643 likes this

#43 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 07 June 2020 - 10:31 AM

Well, the more experience you have with eyepieces, the more you will realize that the center-of-field images in eyepieces like the X-Cel LX differ from the very high priced eyepieces by a very very small amount.

 

Seeing is going to be 95% of the difference between most eyepieces, on axis. 

It's at the edge of the field the differences are more apparent, and keeping the field size to 60° will keep the edge differences small.

 

If your XT10 is used without a coma corrector, then the presence of coma will even make those edge differences even harder to see.

 

But, the wider the field of view, the more apparent the difference will be between low and high priced eyepieces.  Still, the wider the apparent field, the more coma will be evident, so there is some value in sticking to 60° if you like that field size.

And 60° surely gives you some nice wide true fields in the short instrument, so there is no particular hurry to get wider fields.

 

You may find 70° fields (or wider) to be a bit more enjoyable, though, especially in the 10", showing you more real estate, so to speak, at each magnification, and longer times between nudges of the scope.

And once the apparent field size starts creeping up, the larger the difference will be between eyepieces.

 

Yes, of course you're absolutely right about the on axis thing. But here's the catch - and it's part of my bigger question: if at very high power I mostly do galaxies (M81 is a perfect example), they will inevitably fill my FOV - like in this simulation from Stellarium

med_gallery_315096_13468_162331.jpg

  

If I want to detect something besides the brilliant core, won't I have better chances (using peripheral vision etc) with a high end EP?


Edited by korman643, 07 June 2020 - 10:34 AM.


#44 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 07 June 2020 - 10:36 AM

If you have.the budget it is hard to do better than Tele Vue. I would lean towaed the Nagler line.

If you want to be close but lower cost, I have standardized on Explore Scientific 82 and Meade 5000 UWA 82 degree for all of my scopes. Optically similar but very different packaging.

My most used eyepiece is my Baader Hyperion 8-24 Zoom eyepiece.

 

I went very close to buy the ES 82 the other day as it appeared in a offer, but I really want to ponder this new acquisition

 

And of course I'm thinking about a zoom too, but it appears they're not strong performer as individual high end EPs



#45 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,911
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 07 June 2020 - 11:09 AM

IME there is not much difference between good and very good eyepieces as far as the use of averted vision is concerned; rather, I found more helpful a wider field.

The Baader zoom is IME a really poor choice for the Heritage 130, being too large and too "long" (and definitely I do not want to put it atop a Barlow in that crap focuser), while the Nagler zoom is rather lacking in term of fov.

 

I have used the SSWs from 10 to 3,5mm with the Heritage and, for galaxies, the one I enjoyed the more was the 7mm; however these are IMHO needlessly expensive for that telescope; the BST5mm (the only one I have from that line) works well too, if you prefer to push a bit more the magnification.

 

Baader Classic 6mm works well too, however it is nasty to use unless you go for a full "low glass" set because I need to balance the telescope again every time I swap eyepieces; and of course the fov will shrink from UWAs.

I do not have any from the ES' 82° line but, judging from the only eyepiece I own from that brand (40mm/68°) I doubt you could be disappointed


  • korman643 likes this

#46 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 07 June 2020 - 12:01 PM

IME there is not much difference between good and very good eyepieces as far as the use of averted vision is concerned; rather, I found more helpful a wider field.

The Baader zoom is IME a really poor choice for the Heritage 130, being too large and too "long" (and definitely I do not want to put it atop a Barlow in that crap focuser), while the Nagler zoom is rather lacking in term of fov.

 

I have used the SSWs from 10 to 3,5mm with the Heritage and, for galaxies, the one I enjoyed the more was the 7mm; however these are IMHO needlessly expensive for that telescope; the BST5mm (the only one I have from that line) works well too, if you prefer to push a bit more the magnification.

 

Baader Classic 6mm works well too, however it is nasty to use unless you go for a full "low glass" set because I need to balance the telescope again every time I swap eyepieces; and of course the fov will shrink from UWAs.

I do not have any from the ES' 82° line but, judging from the only eyepiece I own from that brand (40mm/68°) I doubt you could be disappointed

Thank you Hesiod (btw, great nick grin.gif

 

All interesting comments. Yes, the SSW  look interesting, but as you say it's not cheap. I've never thought about the BST 5mm, and indeed it looks like I can buy one from First Light at 50 pounds, so I will put it on the list. The 5mm ER of the Baader Classic scares me a bit, TBH. Is the Hyperion any good? The specs look promising, but I've read is no better than the Xcel LX



#47 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,911
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 07 June 2020 - 12:20 PM

Indeed the BCO is not a champion of comfort, despite being very comfortable to be a 6 mm ortho...
Only Hyperion I have is the zoom, but its fixed focal siblings are a bit on the bulky side.
Personally would stick with ES82°, unless are really willing to get Naglers and the like (T6 are pretty small)
  • korman643 likes this

#48 korman643

korman643

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2019

Posted 08 June 2020 - 07:34 AM

Indeed the BCO is not a champion of comfort, despite being very comfortable to be a 6 mm ortho...
Only Hyperion I have is the zoom, but its fixed focal siblings are a bit on the bulky side.
Personally would stick with ES82°, unless are really willing to get Naglers and the like (T6 are pretty small)

You mean ES82 4.7mm right?



#49 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,911
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 08 June 2020 - 10:03 AM

As I said earlier, with the 130/650 prefer to stay around 7mm, so would look for the 6.7mm (or 6.5? can't remember)



#50 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,210
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 08 June 2020 - 10:24 AM

Yes, of course you're absolutely right about the on axis thing. But here's the catch - and it's part of my bigger question: if at very high power I mostly do galaxies (M81 is a perfect example), they will inevitably fill my FOV - like in this simulation from Stellarium

 

  

If I want to detect something besides the brilliant core, won't I have better chances (using peripheral vision etc) with a high end EP?

You won't be using magnifications that high to view M81.  That is a several hundred times magnification not applicable to your scope.

Plus, the spiral arms that show in the simulation are barely visible  in 300+mm scopes, not at all in 130mm.  You'll only see the core.

so no, a high end eyepiece won't show you more.  What will is a lot of observing experience, and a very dark site.

a better simulation might be, and M81 will be much less bright than this simulation,:

Attached Thumbnails

  • M81.jpg

Edited by Starman1, 08 June 2020 - 10:27 AM.

  • SteveG likes 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