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

Plossls are roomy enough.

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 stargazer193857

stargazer193857

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9,941
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Southern Idaho

Posted 21 September 2020 - 11:02 PM

68-82 is very nice, and 100 almost as good as the sky. But 52 is still roomy and enjoyable. Just in longer focal lengths though.

Kelner 45 is a bit cramped but still useful.

The extra magnification of ES 24mm vs a 32mm Plossl wins out, but with extra bulk, weight and cost. Both are worth it.
  • shaesavage likes this

#2 RichA

RichA

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,331
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 21 September 2020 - 11:12 PM

68-82 is very nice, and 100 almost as good as the sky. But 52 is still roomy and enjoyable. Just in longer focal lengths though.

Kelner 45 is a bit cramped but still useful.

The extra magnification of ES 24mm vs a 32mm Plossl wins out, but with extra bulk, weight and cost. Both are worth it. Orion Expanse 6mm for high power. All are good eyepieces.

Some of the Naglers are diminutive now.  Like the 16mm.  But with large fields.



#3 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,358
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 22 September 2020 - 02:18 AM

I agree. Its TFOV that counts as well. For shorter FL scopes, especially travel, Plossls are ideal. And good optical quality at comfortable prices. 



#4 Allan Wade

Allan Wade

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,767
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Newcastle, Australia

Posted 22 September 2020 - 07:57 AM

I agree. Its TFOV that counts as well. For shorter FL scopes, especially travel, Plossls are ideal. And good optical quality at comfortable prices. 

That's the thing. I like Plossls as well in a range of scopes. But put them in a 3m focal length scope and the TFOV becomes so small. While the Ethos might not be my absolute favourite eyepiece, the 100 degree field of view eyepieces are almost mandatory for my widefield observing at low and mid power.


  • Tropobob likes this

#5 Javier1978

Javier1978

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,315
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Posted 22 September 2020 - 08:11 AM

68-82 is very nice, and 100 almost as good as the sky. But 52 is still roomy and enjoyable. Just in longer focal lengths though.

Kelner 45 is a bit cramped but still useful.

The extra magnification of ES 24mm vs a 32mm Plossl wins out, but with extra bulk, weight and cost. Both are worth it.

 

I love Plössl eyepieces, but they are not roomy enough for me. I like seeing the field stop of my eyepieces, but I find Plössl's field stop a bit oppressive. 62º and 68º eyepieces are roomy enough for me. 



#6 stargazer193857

stargazer193857

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9,941
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Southern Idaho

Posted 22 September 2020 - 09:50 AM

I find the eye relief on a 20mm Plossl tight but useable. I think 10mm is garbage. 25mm and 32mm are my favorites.

For high power, the 66 deg eyepieces are my favorite budget ones. The 20mm has plenty of eye relief despite being small.


But I don't know of a good 15mm in this light weight size.

Edited by stargazer193857, 22 September 2020 - 09:51 AM.

  • CrazyPanda likes this

#7 Glen10

Glen10

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2010

Posted 23 September 2020 - 05:42 PM

"I find the eye relief on a 20mm Plossl tight but useable. I think 10mm is garbage."

 

Golly, we all have very different perceptions don't we? Currently been having some fun with cheap 10mm & shorter Plossls.crazy.gif

 

I find without an eyecup getting in the way even a 6.3mm Plossl ok. Weird eyes??

 

Agree with your supposition~ Plossls are roomy enough.

 

Though as Allan Wade noted, if you're lucky enough to have a larger long focal length scope they can get a bit 'tight.' on TFOV


  • Tropobob and Rick-T137 like this

#8 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,816
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 23 September 2020 - 05:49 PM

In my opinion, TeleVue plossls are excellent value for the money. 


  • stevew, SteveV and Rick-T137 like this

#9 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 87,429
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 24 September 2020 - 05:34 AM

My two cents:

 

Compared to Plossls, I much prefer eyepieces with at least 12mm of eye relief and a 60 degree AFoV.   60 degrees is enough for me, it feels wide, it feels expansive.  

 

Plossls, short on eye relief in the shorter focal lengths and the field seems restrictive.  

 

Jon


  • oldphysics likes this

#10 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,060
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 24 September 2020 - 09:24 AM

"I find the eye relief on a 20mm Plossl tight but useable. I think 10mm is garbage."

 

Golly, we all have very different perceptions don't we? Currently been having some fun with cheap 10mm & shorter Plossls.crazy.gif

 

I find without an eyecup getting in the way even a 6.3mm Plossl ok. Weird eyes??

 

Agree with your supposition~ Plossls are roomy enough.

 

Though as Allan Wade noted, if you're lucky enough to have a larger long focal length scope they can get a bit 'tight.' on TFOV

 

 

I find the eye relief on a 20mm Plossl tight but useable. I think 10mm is garbage. 25mm and 32mm are my favorites.

For high power, the 66 deg eyepieces are my favorite budget ones. The 20mm has plenty of eye relief despite being small.


But I don't know of a good 15mm in this light weight size.

The Tele Vue Nagler Zoom 3-6mm (50 degrees apparent field of view) has only 10mm eye relief and a 10mm eye lens.

 

I have no problem using it on planets with my 4" instrument (focal length F=640mm). Before that I used a bog standard 6mm Vixen NPL Ploessl with even lower eye relief and eyepiece eye lens.

 

Although, I think I couldn't use the Nagler Zoom for deep sky observing. But observing planets is different.



#11 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 24 September 2020 - 09:31 AM

68-82 is very nice, and 100 almost as good as the sky. But 52 is still roomy and enjoyable. Just in longer focal lengths though.

Kelner 45 is a bit cramped but still useful.

The extra magnification of ES 24mm vs a 32mm Plossl wins out, but with extra bulk, weight and cost. Both are worth it.

I find 52 degrees very narrow. I much prefer the 78 degrees of the Baader Morpheus, 72 degrees of the Televue Delos and the ES 92's.


  • esd726 likes this

#12 MartinPond

MartinPond

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,637
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2014

Posted 24 September 2020 - 10:22 AM

I can do 60 degrees, and beyond that it's not much more useful...

 .maybe all the eye-dithering it takes to get resolution.  Distracting. I like to gaze.

 

A bit over 50 degrees is pretty good....55 seems optimum to me.

 

Turns out, commercial Plossls are 'neutered' down to meet a std quality,

   even though the edges are still not perfect at 50 degrees.

 

I have re-mounted, mesa-style,  A Meade4000 26mm.

It has  55 degrees afov, 90% sharp at F5, 100% at F10.  

Similar results for a mesa-15mm Plossl.

I can have my cake and eat it too, with a Barlow fork.

 

A 2,1 "Kellner" with thick elements from Toei Kogaku, 1950s,

gives me 17mm,60deg AFOV, and sharpness percentages of

   80F5 , 95F10 , 100F15.

Given the  fine detail and contrast,, it's hard to get myself

  to get more Dual-EDs....the one I have is just on-par

 with some barlowed 'late-bloomers'.

 

 

I had a problem with short-FL Plossls, so just for the heck of it,

  I mounted it up mesa-style.  My eye can get on it without lash issues.

  The view is strangely enchanting in a short Plossl.

   I get it now.   Too bad there aren't more short-fl 'volcanos' made.

 

 

One phenomenon I cannot figure out:

   ---at low powers,  50 degrees seems like a lot...less so at high powers.

       Is it ...image quality at 20--30mm,

              more info, further from the power limit of the scope?


  • shaesavage likes this

#13 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,060
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 24 September 2020 - 10:53 AM

I can do 60 degrees, and beyond that it's not much more useful...

 .maybe all the eye-dithering it takes to get resolution.  Distracting. I like to gaze.

 

A bit over 50 degrees is pretty good....55 seems optimum to me.

 

Turns out, commercial Plossls are 'neutered' down to meet a std quality,

   even though the edges are still not perfect at 50 degrees.

 

I have re-mounted, mesa-style,  A Meade4000 26mm.

It has  55 degrees afov, 90% sharp at F5, 100% at F10.  

Similar results for a mesa-15mm Plossl.

I can have my cake and eat it too, with a Barlow fork.

 

A 2,1 "Kellner" with thick elements from Toei Kogaku, 1950s,

gives me 17mm,60deg AFOV, and sharpness percentages of

   80F5 , 95F10 , 100F15.

Given the  fine detail and contrast,, it's hard to get myself

  to get more Dual-EDs....the one I have is just on-par

 with some barlowed 'late-bloomers'.

 

 

I had a problem with short-FL Plossls, so just for the heck of it,

  I mounted it up mesa-style.  My eye can get on it without lash issues.

  The view is strangely enchanting in a short Plossl.

   I get it now.   Too bad there aren't more short-fl 'volcanos' made.

 

 

One phenomenon I cannot figure out:

   ---at low powers,  50 degrees seems like a lot...less so at high powers.

       Is it ...image quality at 20--30mm,

              more info, further from the power limit of the scope?

Shouldn't the baseline rather be:

 

1. True field of view in his/her telescope

2. Magnification of said eyepiece in his/her telescope

 

For me with my 4" telescope  on deep sky I want at least as absolute minimum 1.2 degrees true field of view and at least a magnification of 40x.



#14 MartinPond

MartinPond

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,637
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2014

Posted 24 September 2020 - 12:18 PM

Shouldn't the baseline rather be:

 

1. True field of view in his/her telescope

2. Magnification of said eyepiece in his/her telescope

 

For me with my 4" telescope  on deep sky I want at least as absolute minimum 1.2 degrees true field of view and at least a magnification of 40x.

 

I believe the Original Post was about what afov  you find to be 'enough'

   regardless of power.  There didn't seem to be a baseline..

 

I can get a true field of ~6 degrees with my 80x400,  but that isn't possible at much higher powers.

 

Since tfov depends on your scope especially, as per your characteristics...it's a different topic.


Edited by MartinPond, 24 September 2020 - 12:20 PM.

  • eblanken likes this

#15 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 24 September 2020 - 01:10 PM

They seem roomier to me in bino-viewers too.


  • erin likes this

#16 Sketcher

Sketcher

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Under Earth's Sky

Posted 24 September 2020 - 03:10 PM

For most of my purposes, the 52 degree apparent field of view offered by Plossl eyepieces is wide enough.  On the other hand, all the telescopes I regularly use have focal-lengths less than 1000mm (40 inches) -- and that makes a difference.

 

We get users of longer focal-length telescopes (usually also in larger apertures) who express their preferences for wider apparent fields of view without providing the context of their situations. Eyepiece for eyepiece, they have narrower true fields of view than users of shorter focal-length telescopes.  This can make pointing their telescopes more difficult and drift times across their fields of view in non-tracking telescopes shorter unless they "relax" the narrowness of their fields by going with eyepieces that have wider apparent fields of view.  So yes, they end up preferring wider apparent FOV eyepieces -- for good reasons.  These people also tend to use more expensive telescopes (have more disposable income) and can better afford the wider AFOV eyepieces.

 

Many of these people will go on and recommend the (usually) more expensive wider field eyepieces for others, including those who use shorter focal-length telescopes and those with less disposable income.

 

Personally, I don't go beyond a 70 degree AFOV -- and my true fields remain "wide enough" at various magnifications because -- you guessed it -- my telescopes have "short enough" focal lengths.

 

So some of the preferences that some people have for eyepieces of differing AFsOV is tied to the focal lengths of their telescopes, whether or not they have tracking mounts, and their disposable income.

 

Then, once a person has those wider field eyepieces for their larger telescopes, they're in a position to share with others their advantages when used with smaller telescopes -- even though their use with smaller telescopes is less of a necessity.

 

My point:  Eyepiece preferences are sometimes tied directly into a person's telescope preferences.

 

All that being said, with shorter telescopes, the typical 52-degree AFOV of Plossl eyepieces is as wide as a person really needs.  Sure, wider has its advantages, but wider isn't a necessity.

 

Here's a view I once had of a comet's inner coma with a (less than 6-inch) telescope fitted with a (relatively inexpensive) 17mm Plossl eyepiece:

 

Comet Hale Bopp Sketcher
 
Dollar for dollar, Plossl eyepieces are tough to beat, and with "small" telescopes there's no real need to go with eyepieces that have wider apparent fields.
 
The disadvantage comes with the shorter focal length Plossls, when eye-relief can become uncomfortably short for most observers; but even there, the Plossls will provide sharp, contrasty views.

  • Glen10 and Tropobob like this

#17 Rick-T137

Rick-T137

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,308
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 24 September 2020 - 06:22 PM

I love how polarizing Plössls can be. Some people simply think they are like the plague, yacking about how narrow the view is ("Like looking down a straw!") and how tight the eye relief is - especially in the shorter focal lengths. Others (like me!) think they are awesome and a terrific value for the money.

 

Personally, I am most comfortable between 8mm and 12mm of eye relief. I have 6 eyepieces - 5 of them are Plössls and the shortest one is an Ortho. I find the views through all 6 quite exquisite and I have no issues with the field of view or the eye relief. My favourite eyepiece to use is my 15mm Plössl which has a whopping 10mm of eye relief. None of them are "garbage".

 

Different strokes for different folks, right? The nice thing about our current "times" is I don't have to share my Plössls (or my Ortho!) with anyone else. :)

 

Cheers!

 

Rick


  • j.gardavsky likes this

#18 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 87,429
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 25 September 2020 - 05:04 AM

Shouldn't the baseline rather be:

 

1. True field of view in his/her telescope

2. Magnification of said eyepiece in his/her telescope

 

For me with my 4" telescope  on deep sky I want at least as absolute minimum 1.2 degrees true field of view and at least a magnification of 40x.

 

For me, it is about the view, the object, objects or field, that I am interested in.   For deep sky, I am generally using my 4 inch because it provides me with magnifications and fields of view that are not possible with my larger scopes.  I can get around 40x with my 12.5 inch so my most used magnifications for deep sky in the 4 inch are between 13x and about 30x.  

 

Jon


  • j.gardavsky likes this

#19 erin

erin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2018
  • Loc: MA

Posted 25 September 2020 - 07:23 AM

Had I never joined this forum, I would probably still be thrilled with my Celestron plossls...except for that low eye relief on the 6 and 8mm. I love love love my BST flat fields, especially in binoviewers. They are a bit wider than plossls, but I find it is the comfortable eye relief that makes them feels so immersive. I also like there quality build and small size.

 

I tried the SVbony 15mm 70 degree (akin to the Apertura 15mm. Not the 66 deg. goldmine/Expanse) to see if it would best my 16mmFF. The view was as wide as the 16 with a bit more magnification, but much less eye relief which made it much less immersive, so back it went. The wider view is no good if you can’t see it easily, IMO.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#20 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 87,429
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 25 September 2020 - 10:21 AM

I tried the SVbony 15mm 70 degree (akin to the Apertura 15mm. Not the 66 deg. goldmine/Expanse) to see if it would best my 16mmFF. The view was as wide as the 16 with a bit more magnification, but much less eye relief which made it much less immersive, so back it went. The wider view is no good if you can’t see it easily, IMO.

 

 

:waytogo:

 

It's definitely the entire package and not just the AFoV.  I really enjoy the Astro-tech Paradigms. The field is modest at 60 degrees but the eye relief is generous at around 15 mm, it's a comfortable view.

 

In town, I use the Paradigms more than anything else.

 

Jon


  • BFaucett and erin like this

#21 MartinPond

MartinPond

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,637
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2014

Posted 25 September 2020 - 10:44 AM

waytogo.gif

 

It's definitely the entire package and not just the AFoV.  I really enjoy the Astro-tech Paradigms. The field is modest at 60 degrees but the eye relief is generous at around 15 mm, it's a comfortable view.

 

In town, I use the Paradigms more than anything else.

 

Jon

 

The "Paradigm-family" EPs seem to be the next great deal, after the Plossls came down in price.

It was a little scratchy just before that, with the non-XL X-Cels and the Expanse family..

but then the eye placement and relief got tidied up.

 

The easiest layers for upgrade (if you call it at 60 degrees)

seem to be.... Plossl

     / Paradigm-family

   / and maybe DeLite for the ultra-deluxe layer.

 

It seems the ES 62-degree line should be in there, but the eye relief numbers

    are a bit scattered.   

 

Is there a line around 60 degrees with reliable (17mm+)  eye relief and pricing between

   the Delites and Paradigms?


  • erin likes this

#22 Miranda2525

Miranda2525

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016

Posted 25 September 2020 - 11:04 AM

Just imagine the ES 92 degree converts comparing their 92 deg eyepieces to a plossl.
 

"Plossls are roomy enough"

 

lol.gif  shocked.gifrofl2.gif


Edited by Miranda2525, 25 September 2020 - 11:05 AM.


#23 erin

erin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2018
  • Loc: MA

Posted 25 September 2020 - 11:07 AM

Is there a line around 60 degrees with reliable (17mm+)  eye relief and pricing between

   the Delites and Paradigms?

I would say to check out the Baader Morpheus line. If I upgrade, that is where I would go. They get rave reviews here for their 76 degree FoV, eye relief/comfort, and very good optical quality.



#24 BKSo

BKSo

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 365
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2015

Posted 25 September 2020 - 10:15 PM

I care less about afov when the ep gives a great view — even 25 degrees. I have/had 66/62 deg widefields and looked through an ethos but have no urge for more widefields.


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