30 replies to this topic

[Echolight]

Hello all.

I have recently acquired a Skywatcher Evostar 80 ED that I have been using a lot for learning the skies.  It's a nice, small, easy to use scope that provides an expansive field of view that my larger scopes can't compete with. And it may be the only scope I own that I'd keep forever...unless some extraordinary deal for a little 85 or 90 apo came along.

 

So an appropriate eyepiece picked especially for it seems justified, especially since I acquired the new scope at a used price.

 

I have been using the WO 40mm SWAN which gives a nice wide bright image. Although it is not the most well corrected eyepiece, I appreciate that it is generally easy to look through.

 

My next up eyepiece is an APM 20mm Hyperwide which is great in my larger scopes. But it seems to be a giant step down in brightness in the little scope. And requires a noticeable amount of increased effort to use in the 80 f7.5, as opposed to the 40mm 70 degree eyepiece with it's larger exit pupil and generous eye relief.
 

Originally I thought that I'd be happy with the big jump between 40 and 20 since the 20 was a 100 degree eyepiece. But the difference in image brightness in the small scope leaves me looking to fill the middle ground. I often find myself wanting a little bit more magnification than the 15x that the 40mm provides, but a brighter picture than the 20 offers. And a lot of times think I'd like a step up in image quality over the 40 SWAN.

 

So I am interested in your preferences for wide field eyepieces for this or similar telescopes. I mainly view from about a bortle 7.5 back yard. I can generally see the main stars of the constellations, and the brightest DSO's like M45 naked eye.

 

My budget will be in the $200 to $400 retail range, as I'd like for this to be a lifetime eyepiece that could be used in the ED80 as well as whatever other scopes I might have now or in the future. But nothing too extravagant.

Comfort, ease of viewing, non-critical eye position, decent exit pupil over the 20mm, 2 inch barrel, 800 gram max weight, and a sharp image across the field is what I would like. And probably something at least a smidge north of 15mm eye relief. Camera threads for eyepiece projection photography might also be nice.
 

I appreciate any direction and guidance you could offer. Wether it's an upgrade at or near 40mm or an eyepiece you love between 24 and 35mm.

Edited by Echolight, 11 October 2020 - 11:58 AM.

[junomike]

The 31T5 is a tad above your budget (used) however a 35mm Pan should be doable.

[25585]

35 Panoptic or APM 30mm Ultra Flat Field. There is also the ES68 34mm as an option. 

[otocycle]

For my Orion ED80, I use the ES82 30mm (>1000 gram heavyweight) and the ES68 28mm (500 grams) on the lighter side.  

[Echolight]

The 31T5 is a tad above your budget (used) however a 35mm Pan should be doable.

The 31T5 seems to be very popular. There must be a really good reason.

The 35 Pan seems to have an ergonomics advantage at least.

[Echolight]

For my Orion ED80, I use the ES82 30mm (>1000 gram heavyweight) and the ES68 28mm (500 grams) on the lighter side.  

I guess I could move the rings closer together and keep a wrench handy to adjust the balance on the Unistar a time or two each night when I wanted to switch to a lighter eyepiece.

And there are plans for an adjustable height gas strut office chair or director's chair or bar stool in the near future.

[Echolight]

35 Panoptic or APM 30mm Ultra Flat Field.

These are the two that often come to mind for covering a lot of my prerequisites. Especially since the UFF is rumored to be slightly wider than the advertised 70 degrees. I think a 4mm exit pupil might be just enough.

 

An 82 seems intriguing though.

Edited by Echolight, 11 October 2020 - 12:46 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

These are the two that often come to mind for covering a lot of my prerequisites. Especially since the UFF is rumored to be slightly wider than the advertised 70 degrees. I think a 4mm exit pupil might be just enough.

 

An 82 seems intriguing though.

 

I have both the 35mm Panoptic and the 31mm Nagler as well as the 41mm Panoptic.  

 

The 31mm Nagler is just a very special eyepiece.. 

 

At F/7.5, the 41mm Panoptic is worth considering if you want an eyepiece that's sharper across the field but otherwise the 31mm Nagler is the eyepiece I use the most in my F/7 refractors as a low power widefield.

 

But it's well beyond your budget and the 30mm UFF gets a lot of good words.  The 35mm Panoptic is really too close to your SWAN unless you are planning on replacing the SWAN.  

 

Jon

[Echolight]

The 31mm Nagler is just a very special eyepiece.. 

 

Jon

This is obviously the right choice. The specs are mostly ideal for now and potential future big scope ...other than it's sheer immenseness and density. 
It receives high praise unanimously by it's owners as far as I know.

 

But I just had no idea until recently that an eyepiece could cost $700. And it still seems like a bit too much of a luxury to me.

 

I've read claims of similar performance from Axiom owners, but it's even more massive at three pounds? And it just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi.

Edited by Echolight, 11 October 2020 - 02:49 PM.

[junomike]

This is obviously the right choice. The specs are mostly ideal for now and potential future big scope ...other than it's sheer immenseness and density. 
It receives high praise unanimously by it's owners as far as I know.

 

But I just had no idea until recently that an eyepiece could cost $700. And it still seems like a bit too much of a luxury to me.

 

I've read claims of similar performance from Axiom owners, but it's even more massive at three pounds? And it just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi.

The Classifieds are your friend (used)

[Thomas_M44]

Here's a unique option of very high quality: 32mm Masuyama 85-degree AFOV

 

BillP gave this EP a glowing review last year:

 

https://www.cloudyni...?hl=masuyama 32

 

Currently a modest $329 USD plus free U.S. shipping from Agena Astro:

https://agenaastro.c...2mm-mop-32.html

 

 

Some Pros:

 

--Much lighter and more compact than Naglers --and less expensive.

 

--Exceptional light transmission and contrast with premium optics (5-elements)

 

--Comfortable 20mm of eye relief

 

--Excellent color rendition

 

--Particularly sharp on-axis view

 

--Good correction for much of the FOV in scopes as fast as f/6 (though some aberration in the outer field is readily apparent below f/10)

 

--Purportedly, some owners have successfully mated TeleVue DioptRx correction

to them

 

Some Cons:

 

--Full field correction is really only achieved in scopes of perhaps f/10 or slower.

 

--It doesn't provide the TeleVue name brand recognition  ; )

Edited by Thomas_M44, 11 October 2020 - 04:06 PM.

[25585]

This is obviously the right choice. The specs are mostly ideal for now and potential future big scope ...other than it's sheer immenseness and density. 
It receives high praise unanimously by it's owners as far as I know.

 

But I just had no idea until recently that an eyepiece could cost $700. And it still seems like a bit too much of a luxury to me.

 

I've read claims of similar performance from Axiom owners, but it's even more massive at three pounds? And it just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi.

At F5 the 31mm Axiom LX is equal to its Nagler rival, shame the former was discontinued. Both 31s beat the ES80 30mm & Meade UWA 30mm.

[Avgvstvs]

I like the ES30/82

But the old Luminos 31 (aka Axiom) is not bad on a budget (apart from it's stupid weight and size!)

As for the Pan 35, I found it got very little use after I purchased the 31N T5

Generally get the best EP your budget will allow

[SteveV]

27mm Panoptic?

[gnowellsct]

This is obviously the right choice. The specs are mostly ideal for now and potential future big scope ...other than it's sheer immenseness and density. 
It receives high praise unanimously by it's owners as far as I know.

 

It suits some people.  Myself I did not take to any of the Nagler line, not the 17, not the 16, not the 31.  I *do* like the 41 Pan.  Would much rather use an XW30 than the N31.   

 

Assuming you have access to black skies in TX you might very much like either the Pan 41 or the XW40.  (The XW 40 is lighter by a lot, and less pricey).  

 

I bring this up because if the transparency is bad and the sky somewhat grayed out the 40 mm options don't work too well in terms of sky contrast.  Get a nice dry sky and a dark location and they can be terrific.    I was out the other night with 130mm refractor and sky conditions really worked against the 40mm eyepiece.

 

Actually it wasn't so great for any other eyepiece either, I went home.  

 

Greg N

[Echolight]

Well I'm starting to get more used to the 20 Hyperwide in the little scope. But I still think I'd like something to split the difference between the 20-100 and the 40-70.

 

I like the 20-100, but not sure I want to add any additional 100 degree eyepieces though. I just don't know how useful the last 10 or 15 degrees are. I mean yeah, I can see it. But it's not really in focus unless I turn my eyeball towards the edge.

 

Anyway, to do a little test I put the 20-100 in the Luminos 2 inch 2.5x barlow with 28mm field stop, effectively making an 8mm 80-ish degree eyepiece. And it looked pretty good. Everything was crystal clear to the edge. So I'm thinkin 82 degrees might be a sweet spot for me. But I felt that the combined 31.5 ounce weight was nearing the capacity of the focuser maybe, as I think it might've slipped a little when I bumped it while pointing near zenith. So 35 or 40 ounce eyepieces might not be in my best interest.

 

And then I did some readin up on the 28mm UWAN and 28mm Nirvana. And reviews and opinions were really good other than the funky eye guard/cup. And they were kinda heavy. And being as the 28mm PWA is rumored to be a reissue of these at a lighter 28 ounces and a redesigned volcano style top...and I could buy it and another eyepiece or ST120 or a used dob and have some left over for the price of a 31 Nagler, I decided I'm going to give the PWA a try.

 

I figure it splits the difference in my 20 and 40 better than a 30 UFF with a wider TFOV. And it gives me a touch more magnification(21x) than the Nagler, Axiom, or ES82. And if I don't count the outer out of focus 10 percent of the 20-100 then it's really a near perfect field of view split between my 20 and 40, And it'll give me a little over 1mm larger exit pupil than the 20.

 

Maybe next I'll add a 2 inch 14 LHD and then I can barlow the 20 and 14 to 8-80 and 5.6-80.

Edited by Echolight, 12 October 2020 - 03:31 AM.

[Echolight]

It suits some people.  Myself I did not take to any of the Nagler line, not the 17, not the 16, not the 31.  I *do* like the 41 Pan.  Would much rather use an XW30 than the N31.   

 

Assuming you have access to black skies in TX you might very much like either the Pan 41 or the XW40.  (The XW 40 is lighter by a lot, and less pricey).  

 

I bring this up because if the transparency is bad and the sky somewhat grayed out the 40 mm options don't work too well in terms of sky contrast.  Get a nice dry sky and a dark location and they can be terrific.    I was out the other night with 130mm refractor and sky conditions really worked against the 40mm eyepiece.

 

Actually it wasn't so great for any other eyepiece either, I went home.  

 

Greg N

You know I'd really like to have an XW40. Some day when I get around to replacing the 40 SWAN it'll be at the top of the list.

[25585]

I like the ES30/82

 

But the old Luminos 31 (aka Axiom) is not bad on a budget (apart from it's stupid weight and size!)

As for the Pan 35, I found it got very little use after I purchased the 31N T5

Generally get the best EP your budget will allow

Luminos & Axiom LX are not the same. Axiom LX was made by JOC, Luminos by some other Chinese manufacturer - not as good unfortunately. 

[LDW47]

I don’t mind the SWAN in my refractors, f6 - f11.4, lookin’ at the Double Cluster, the Auriga three, Orion etc. then I throw in the 2” GSO barlow and it ups the aweness to another viewing level but sky conditions have to be great.

[clearwaterdave]

I really enjoy the ES 68/28.,It does very well in my scopes and doesn't throw the balance way off. .

[25585]

I really enjoy the ES 68/28.,It does very well in my scopes and doesn't throw the balance way off. .

Got its Meade SWA 5000 predecessor, a good performer. 

[RickM.]

Luminos & Axiom LX are not the same. Axiom LX was made by JOC, Luminos by some other Chinese manufacturer - not as good unfortunately. 

Aren’t the optics in the Axiom 31 and ES 30 the same?  Is it just the eye relief/comfort of the Axiom you prefer?

[25585]

Aren’t the optics in the Axiom 31 and ES 30 the same?  Is it just the eye relief/comfort of the Axiom you prefer?

I can understand you assuming that, but my Axiom LX v ES30 v T5 came out equal with the Nagler. ES30 is a great eyepiece, but maybe my LX has better coating & polish. They were Celestron's flagship range, and at the time perhaps top quality to compete with Tele Vue more.

 

Scopes I tried them in were both F5, a 4" Genesis & a 12" Newtonian.

[Voyager 3]

I can understand you assuming that, but my Axiom LX v ES30 v T5 came out equal with the Nagler. ES30 is a great eyepiece, but maybe my LX has better coating & polish. They were Celestron's flagship range, and at the time perhaps top quality to compete with Tele Vue more.

Scopes I tried them in were both F5, a 4" Genesis & a 12" Newtonian.

Why were they stopped ? Is it the cost burden on them to manufacture a quality EP that can compete with T5 Nagler , at such low cost ?

[RickM.]

I can understand you assuming that, but my Axiom LX v ES30 v T5 came out equal with the Nagler. ES30 is a great eyepiece, but maybe my LX has better coating & polish. They were Celestron's flagship range, and at the time perhaps top quality to compete with Tele Vue more.

 

Scopes I tried them in were both F5, a 4" Genesis & a 12" Newtonian.

That’s interesting.  I am a bit surprised that JOC would make a better version for Celestron than they did for themselves.  I do really like my 23 Axiom, though.