62 replies to this topic

[Sachem]

Hi there,

 

I've got a Sky-Watcher Heritage 150 Tabletop Dobsonian that I am absolutely loving. To that end I feel like I want to upgrade the eyepiece. I don't want to buy junk (I'm hoping to be in the hobby a long while) but the money-lizard side of my brain is raising alarm bells at spending money on eye pieces relatively comparable to the cost of the scope itself.

 

I'm considering investing in a Tele Vue 2.5x - 1.25" Powermate and a Tele Vue 15 mm Plossl 1.25" Eyepiece. Down the road maybe a Nagler. I feel like it's time because when I use my cheap Barlow I can notice degradation in the object I'm viewing. The cheap eye pieces I've got (25 and 15) seem to work fine, but some objects like Jupiter or the moon I can't help but think would look better with a better quality eye piece.

 

Am I crazy to invest this kind of money (granted affordable as far as eye pieces go) on 1.25" barrel'd eye pieces?

 

Thanks for any advice offered.

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

If I were you, I’d invest on a zoom eyepiece.
They give you a broad magnification range on a single eyepiece.

[bignerdguy]

Question: have you ever had the mirrors on your scope collimated?  Dobs and any Newtonian normally don't come fully collimated from the factory since the mirrors can shift in transit.  If you are having issues at higher power with the quality, part of that could be collimation.  Also if you use too powerful of a magnification, that can cause it too.  Remember that each scope has a useful upper limit on any magnifications due partly to the focal length, mirror collimation quality (Newts and SCT's), and also due to other external factors like seeing quality in the sky, light pollution, etc. Be sure your issue isn't one of these before you spend a lot of $ on Naglers and Televue eyepieces otherwise you might still be disappointed.

Edited by bignerdguy, 22 May 2024 - 09:40 PM.

[havasman]

Even casually, referring to almost any astro gear as an investment is such a distortion of what a hobby even is that it deserves saying that eyepieces are expenses. Even if a market eventually makes them worth more than retail there's really slim grounds to call the original purchase an investment.

 

But that's a fine scope. I had one. Try a MUCH more efficient set of eyepieces than that awkward proposition you have there: 1 a widefield - any 24mm 68^o or so will be great; 2 Astro-Tech UWA 13mm; 1 Astro-Tech UWA 7mm.

Edited by havasman, 22 May 2024 - 09:43 PM.

[terrain_inconnu]

Second vote for a zoom eyepiece. I have the same scope and the Baader Hyperion Zoom + 2.25x Barlow combo is pure joy in terms of performance and ergonomics (despite the helical focuser of the Heritage 150P).

[Tenacious]

I don't think it's about money.  Your scope appears to be an f/5 - a focal ratio that some would categorize as "fast" and that will not bring out the best in most simpler (inexpensive) EP designs.  If you think that you're into telescopes for the long haul, what's the harm in spending more for a complicated EP designed for use in a fast scope - say a 9mm to 5mm for higher power.  A well-rounded handful of EPs would do a good job in any future telescopes you might want to try...

Edited by Tenacious, 22 May 2024 - 10:23 PM.

[csrlice12]

My eyepiece $ far exceeds my scope $....

[SeattleScott]

I would say 9mm Xcel LX and 5mm Paradigm. Or if you want to go wider, the Astrotech 7mm and 4mm UWA (the 7 is really 8).

Now if you feel you really have the bug, you could get 9 and 5 Nagler or something.

An in-between option would be 5 and 8 Hyperions. Hyperions can be hit and miss but the 5 and 8 are supposed to be good.

[vtornado]

I'm considering investing in a Tele Vue 2.5x - 1.25" Powermate and a Tele Vue 15 mm Plossl 1.25" Eyepiece.

 

What kind of magnification are you shooting for?  Realistically 200x is a  comfortable upper range.  You also have to mind the heritage's "spring board" focuser, that can sag if you have too much weight in the focuser.  The zoom also may be tricky in a helical focuser.

 

The difference between Televue Plossl's and GSO or Svbony Plossls is small.  If a TV is a perfect 10, The GSO is a 9.5.

 

Since this is manual telescope, I would opt for a wider field eyepiece  than 50 degrees.

 

Astro-Tech (5,8,12) paradigms and celestron xcel-lx are good quality 60 degree eyepieces. 

The 6 and 9mm gold line are good eyepieces and 66 degrees.

All of the above eyepieces will have more eye relief in the shorter focal lengths than a plossl.

 

The GSO 2.5x barlow is fine.

 

but some objects like Jupiter or the moon I can't help but think would look better with a better quality eye piece.

 

Collimation, Cooling, and Seeing conditions are much more important than any eyepiece.  The best view of Jupiter I ever had was with a well collimated, cooled telescope with excellent seeing and a $25.00 Meade Super Plossl eyepiece, with a $40.00 Gso 2.5x barlow.

Edited by vtornado, 22 May 2024 - 10:57 PM.

[gnowellsct]

I don't want to buy junk (I'm hoping to be in the hobby a long while) but the money-lizard side of my brain is raising alarm bells at spending money on eye pieces relatively comparable to the cost of the scope itself.

My eyepieces are worth more than any one of my telescopes. But they are not worth more than all my telescopes together. Greg N

[JohnTMN]

Am I crazy to invest this kind of money (granted affordable as far as eye pieces go) on 1.25" barrel'd eye pieces?

 

Maybe a little, but no more than the rest of us.

Staying with 1.25" is fine, even folks with 6 digit$ scopes use 1.25 eye pieces.

Your scope is fine too.

It's the scope base/mount. It wiggles and wobbles, even when you try to focus,,

A $600 eye piece won't help if it's not stable.

There are handy methods that are common and widely available that with small investment can help stabilize a small DOB base.

Once that is done, (?)

 

Now I'd like to remind the pro's that this is the Beginners Section,,,,

[Sketcher]

A low-quality eyepiece used with a high-quality telescope can provide better planetary views than a high-quality eyepiece used with a low-quality telescope.

 

Consider using a magnifying glass to study a miniature work of art.  If that work of art is missing detail, then no magnifying glass, no matter how good, will be able to replace that missing detail.  If one wants more detail, switching to a more detailed work of art is going to be far more effective than sticking with the low-quality miniature and purchasing a better magnifying glass.

 

The optics of a telescope produces a real image at the telescope's focal plane (the work of art).  If detail is missing from that real image, no eyepiece (magnifying glass), no matter how good, is going to be able to replace that missing detail.  The best that any eyepiece can do is to allow one to see all the detail that's already present in that real image.  If a person wants to see more detail, going with a telescope that can produce a sharper image is going to be far more effective than keeping the lower quality telescope and purchasing higher quality eyepieces.

 

I've actually used a "dirt-cheap" eyepiece (The eyepiece came with a telescope that originally sold for $15 -- new.  The four lenses in that eyepiece were uncoated pieces of plastic) with one of the highest quality 5-inch telescopes (sold for $3,000 -- new, in 1995).  I've also used a high-quality TeleVue eyepiece with a lower quality 6-inch telescope (costing $750 -- new, in 2015).  That crappy eyepiece used with that high quality telescope provided more detailed views of Jupiter than did the TeleVue eyepiece used with the lower quality telescope.

 

There might be a lesson there somewhere.-- if anyone can figure it out  .

[radiofm74]

Hi there,

 

I've got a Sky-Watcher Heritage 150 Tabletop Dobsonian that I am absolutely loving. To that end I feel like I want to upgrade the eyepiece. I don't want to buy junk (I'm hoping to be in the hobby a long while) but the money-lizard side of my brain is raising alarm bells at spending money on eye pieces relatively comparable to the cost of the scope itself.

 

I'm considering investing in a Tele Vue 2.5x - 1.25" Powermate and a Tele Vue 15 mm Plossl 1.25" Eyepiece. Down the road maybe a Nagler. I feel like it's time because when I use my cheap Barlow I can notice degradation in the object I'm viewing. The cheap eye pieces I've got (25 and 15) seem to work fine, but some objects like Jupiter or the moon I can't help but think would look better with a better quality eye piece.

 

Am I crazy to invest this kind of money (granted affordable as far as eye pieces go) on 1.25" barrel'd eye pieces?

 

Thanks for any advice offered.

No, you're not crazy:

1. In any given collection, most eyepieces will be 1.25" with one or two 2" for the widefield views (and in a fast Newtonian design, widefield eyepieces must be of excellent quality and require a coma corrector)

2. You may change and upgrade your scope, but your eyepiece collection stays with you so there is no harm in getting good quality eyepieces from the get go. Also: if you buy good eyepieces, they will retain value better than lesser eyepieces so you can recover part of the investment should you want to quit the hobby (God forbid!).

 

I'm not sure I'd pick the combination of eyepieces that you propose, and would heed the advice given by vtornado. You say that your 25 is fine, and you also have a 15. That's an odd bundle, but you're covered in the 30x and 50x range. In your shoes, I'd perhaps buy a good ultra or superwide 9 or 7mm and a shorter eyepiece or a light Barlow, and later upgrade the low-power end with a 68° 24mm. 

 

(Besides: what are your 25mm and 15mm? Knowing this we might be able to better advise you). 

 

As to which eyepieces: there are very good "wide" eyepieces at all price points, it being understood that you get what you pay for. Televue Naglers are the industry standard and for my 50th birthday I've just splurged in a rather comprehensive set. I love them and they're such an upgrade over my previous eyepieces that it left me wondering why I did not get them earlier.

 

But doing my research I've read good things about ES 68° and 82°. If you do not mind a slightly bulkier eyepiece and shorter eye relief than the Naglers, you might get to buy three focal lengths instead of two for the same money. Also read wonderful things about the Baader Morpheus, also a little less costly than Naglers, and with greater eye relief than any of the other eyepieces mentioned here. 

 

Happy quest. Don't be hasty. Choose wisely!

Edited by radiofm74, 23 May 2024 - 12:44 AM.

[Tony Flanders]

I'm considering investing in a Tele Vue 2.5x - 1.25" Powermate and a Tele Vue 15 mm Plossl 1.25" Eyepiece. Down the road maybe a Nagler. I feel like it's time because when I use my cheap Barlow I can notice degradation in the object I'm viewing. The cheap eye pieces I've got (25 and 15) seem to work fine, but some objects like Jupiter or the moon I can't help but think would look better with a better quality eye piece.

I think it's very unlikely that the Barlow lens itself is the cause of the degradation you're experiencing. Instead, the higher magnification is revealing problems that you would experience at that magnification regardless of what eyepieces you use to attain it.

 

Likewise, I doubt you would see much difference between your current 15-mm eyepiece and the Tele Vue 15-mm Plossl. If you do want to buy a different eyepiece, buy one that doesn't duplicate your existing capability.

 

The main issues at high magnification are collimation, cooldown, and atmospheric instability. Unless your eyepieces are really bad, they're unlikely to be a significant source of image degradation compared to the big three listed above.

[Sachem]

Thanks everyone for your comments so far. They're really helping me process my options to consider.

[Echolight]

They'd definitely be better with more than 100x.

[Echolight]

If I were you, I’d invest on a zoom eyepiece.
They give you a broad magnification range on a single eyepiece.

Me too.

 

For the price of a Televue 15mm, roughly, I bought an SVBony SV215 3-8 zoom. Perfect for planets, the Moon, and other high power use in short focal length scopes.

Reports say it's really a 3.5-8.

 

Sometimes I screw the element from a Shorty Barlow on the bottom of the eyepiece for a 1.5x increase. So with the 1.5x, effectively 2.33-5.33mm zoom.

 

Only issue with a zoom is that I believe the Heritage has a helical focuser.

So that's something to consider.

Edited by Echolight, 23 May 2024 - 07:34 AM.

[firemachine69]

I think it's very unlikely that the Barlow lens itself is the cause of the degradation you're experiencing. Instead, the higher magnification is revealing problems that you would experience at that magnification regardless of what eyepieces you use to attain it.

 

Likewise, I doubt you would see much difference between your current 15-mm eyepiece and the Tele Vue 15-mm Plossl. If you do want to buy a different eyepiece, buy one that doesn't duplicate your existing capability.

 

The main issues at high magnification are collimation, cooldown, and atmospheric instability. Unless your eyepieces are really bad, they're unlikely to be a significant source of image degradation compared to the big three listed above.

 

 

 

If he's using the cheap offshore barlow I think he's using, then yeah, the barlow is definitely one of the culprits. It wasn't until I used my Ultima 2x barlow that I realized how important a good barlow was to the optical train.

[Jon Isaacs]

If he's using the cheap offshore barlow I think he's using, then yeah, the barlow is definitely one of the culprits. It wasn't until I used my Ultima 2x barlow that I realized how important a good barlow was to the optical train.

 

I use the Celestron Shorty "GSO" 2X Barlows made in Taiwan on a regular basis. I have other 2X Barlows including a TeleVue 1.25 inch and in theory a 2x Ultima  that I loaned out years ago.

 

The Shorty does a good job with only a very slight increase in scattered light over the TeleVue...

 

I agree with Tony. 

 

"The main issues at high magnification are collimation, cooldown, and atmospheric instability. Unless your eyepieces are really bad, they're unlikely to be a significant source of image degradation compared to the big three listed above."

 

I have a number of TeleVue eyepieces, Naglers, Panoptics and Ethos's. They're wonderful eyepieces but very expensive. I've also owned a number of TeleVue Plossls, I prefer other Plossls.

 

There are other quality eyepieces to consider that are very good and more affordable. I really like 12mm, 8 mm and 5 mm Astro-Tech Paradigm's at F/5. I don't have the 15 mm.

 

Jon

[firemachine69]

I use the Celestron Shorty "GSO" 2X Barlows made in Taiwan on a regular basis. I have other 2X Barlows including a TeleVue 1.25 inch and in theory a 2x Ultima  that I loaned out years ago.

 

The Shorty does a good job with only a very slight increase in scattered light over the TeleVue...

 

I agree with Tony. 

 

"The main issues at high magnification are collimation, cooldown, and atmospheric instability. Unless your eyepieces are really bad, they're unlikely to be a significant source of image degradation compared to the big three listed above."

 

I have a number of TeleVue eyepieces, Naglers, Panoptics and Ethos's. They're wonderful eyepieces but very expensive. I've also owned a number of TeleVue Plossls, I prefer other Plossls.

 

There are other quality eyepieces to consider that are very good and more affordable. I really like 12mm, 8 mm and 5 mm Astro-Tech Paradigm's at F/5. I don't have the 15 mm.

 

Jon

 

 

 

My 2" GSO ED Taiwan barlow was also good, but I can't say the same for the Chinese Celestron barlow. My Meade shorty barlow, also made in China is pretty terrible (suspect it's the same glass manufacturer), so much that I pilfered the two plug caps and tossed it in my drawer.

 

 

 

Yes, there are many, many other great eyepieces besides the greenies. But, if you know yourself personally as someone who comes and goes between hobbies, buying used, especially buying items that will resell quickly, is a good game plan.

Edited by firemachine69, 23 May 2024 - 09:04 AM.

[Jon Isaacs]

My 2" GSO ED Taiwan barlow was also good, but I can't say the same for the Chinese Celestron barlow. My Meade shorty barlow, also made in China is pretty terrible (suspect it's the same glass manufacturer), so much that I pilfered the two plug caps and tossed it in my drawer.

 

 

 

Yes, there are many, many other great eyepieces besides the greenies. But, if you know yourself personally as someone who comes and goes between hobbies, buying used, especially buying items that will resell quickly, is a good game plan.

 

I am not someone who comes and goes between hobbies. I've been an amateur astronomers for more than 30 years and at 76, I plan on dying looking through the eyepiece.

 

I buy used but never with the thought of resale. Nor do I recommend it. Buy eyepieces to use.. 

 

What exactly do you find wrong with your Celestron Barlow? What eyepieces and telescopes are you using it with? 

 

Jon

[SeattleScott]

Another perspective. Many of the cheapest scopes benefit the most from expensive eyepieces. The expensive computerized F10 SCTs can handle cheap wide angle eyepieces much better than affordable F5 newts like yours.

People often talk about the quality of the scope being more important in terms of what level of details can be resolved. Not untrue but kind of misses the point. The reason people buy expensive eyepieces isn’t to be able to resolve features that they can’t resolve with a cheaper eyepiece. They buy more expensive eyepieces to get wider views that are sharp to the edge, and/or long eye relief (big eye lens to look through for easy viewing). Sure a premium quality eyepiece will typically be a touch sharper in the center than a cheap eyepiece, especially on bright objects. But mostly it is about getting a wide, well-corrected view with comfortable eye relief.

[sevenofnine]

Welcome to C/N! 

 

At your stage in this hobby, I would just add a few good but cost effective eyepieces or accessories from Astro-Tech or Agena Starguider. "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide 4th ed." will help you make better decisions on how deep you want to get in this hobby. Best of luck to you and your decisions! 

 

https://www.amazon.c...aps,1106&sr=8-1.

[rgk901]

zoom will be a bit of a pain in the helical focuser.

I also agree what Tony and others said about scope and sky.

Will add that my set of 25/9/7 xcel and 12/5 paradigms work very well in my f/5's and are not too heavy for the helical.

think the weight will be the limiting factor on that design more so than a tube/regular focuser design. Adding a long TV power mate and a eyepiece will definitely twist things out of collimation

Edited by rgk901, 23 May 2024 - 10:47 AM.

[vtornado]

There might be a lesson there somewhere.-- if anyone can figure it out

 

Yeah that lesson is if you have limited funds, spend the money on the front end, not back end.

 

I have had a few bundled barlows that had plastic lenses and they were trash.  However once you get into the celestron/meade/orion/gso range the quality is only slightly less than top shelf. stuff.

 

They buy more expensive eyepieces to get wider views that are sharp to the edge, and/or long eye relief (big eye lens to look through for easy viewing)

 

This is also true.  Center of field image quality difference is quite small among eyepieces.