69 replies to this topic

[JohnnyReb]

Hi All,

 

I am contemplating a starter set of Televue eyepieces

and would love to have some input from experienced visual observers.

 

My telescope is a 10" dobsonian, f5.75 (parcorr).

I have only one quality eyepiece at the moment, a 35mm Panoptic. LOVE the pinpoint stars!

 

I am thinking I'd like to start with a 4 or 5 eyepiece set with a 200x maximum magnification to begin with.

I'm just east of the mountains in Colorado (front range) and I am afraid that the evening winds coming down from the mountains may preclude higher magnification.

I've only been observing for a short time but the seeing has been generally bad so far, perhaps it seasonal, not sure.

 

I cannot afford Ethos, but would consider all others.

 

These are the two options I'm kicking around at the moment...

 

35mm pan (41x)

14mm Delos (103x)

10mm Delos (144x)

8mm Delos (180x)

 

OR

 

35mm pan (41x)

17.3mm Delos (83x)

12mm Delos (120x)

9mm Nagler (160x)

7mm Nagler (200x)

 

Wondering whether the 35mm and 17.3 may be close enough

that I would tend to skip to the 12mm (making the first set more practical).

For a starter set, do I need more that 1 eyepiece below 100x?

 

I guess I wouldn't know until I actually have them in hand to determine my personal preferences,

but would be grateful for any input/advice received here.

 

John

Edited by JohnnyReb, 24 May 2024 - 11:08 PM.

[Echolight]

17, 13, 10, 8, and 6 Ethos.

The 21 is too heavy.

 

And a 26 Nagler.

 

Probably a BIG barlow too. For the 10, 8, and 6, to give you a 5, 4, and 3.

Edited by Echolight, 24 May 2024 - 11:36 PM.

[daveb2022]

You might not like the eye relief of some of the Nagler's. I'm on the eye cup all the time, but it doesn't bother me. But I love the Delos EPs. I also enjoy using my 17, 22, and 31 Nagler's depending what scope and what I'm observing. With my 1219mm FL dob, I seemed to jump between the 7 and 9mm Nagler for Saturn and Jupiter.

[SeattleScott]

The 17.3 would really be for the big showpiece targets like Orion Nebula or Double Cluster. Not many targets that big, but it can be nice to have the eyepiece to frame them when they come up. But yeah for the most part you could jump straight down to a 12 or 14.

By limiting yourself to TV, you are forgoing hyperwides, because you can’t afford ethos. The AT XWA series comes very close to Ethos performance, probably mostly lacking at 20mm (which you could do without since the Panoptic has a similar field stop) and the 3.7 (which is too much magnification anyway). Granted, hyperwides are heavy, and not everyone cares about 100 AFOV, so you might be perfectly happy with Naglers and Delos. Just be aware that you are in effect foregoing even trying out hyperwides, when there are ones available virtually as good as Ethos, when Ethos arguably aren’t even the best (or most expensive) hyperwides on the market.

So of the two choices listed, I kind of like the second set because you get the full spread, even if you will rarely need the 17.3. Obviously the second set has more eyepieces and is more expensive as a result. Also the 17.3 and 14 Delos won’t be parfocal with the other 1.25” eyepieces. Not the end of the world by any means.

[JohnnyReb]

The 17.3 would really be for the big showpiece targets like Orion Nebula or Double Cluster. Not many targets that big, but it can be nice to have the eyepiece to frame them when they come up. But yeah for the most part you could jump straight down to a 12 or 14.

By limiting yourself to TV, you are forgoing hyperwides, because you can’t afford ethos. The AT XWA series comes very close to Ethos performance, probably mostly lacking at 20mm (which you could do without since the Panoptic has a similar field stop) and the 3.7 (which is too much magnification anyway). Granted, hyperwides are heavy, and not everyone cares about 100 AFOV, so you might be perfectly happy with Naglers and Delos. Just be aware that you are in effect foregoing even trying out hyperwides, when there are ones available virtually as good as Ethos, when Ethos arguably aren’t even the best (or most expensive) hyperwides on the market.

So of the two choices listed, I kind of like the second set because you get the full spread, even if you will rarely need the 17.3. Obviously the second set has more eyepieces and is more expensive as a result. Also the 17.3 and 14 Delos won’t be parfocal with the other 1.25” eyepieces. Not the end of the world by any means.

I would get the in-travel adaptor if I go with the second set.

I'm reallly just trying to get a high quality experience across the useful range of the scope to start.

 

Orion and the double cluster are well worth framing well.

 

After that I may eventually move up to Ethos or other hyperwides,

but the price tag of Ethos just seems unreasonable in relation to my current budget and considering my experience level (returning beginner).

 

I will consider your suggestion for the AT XWA series.
I know that I can determine the paracorr settings by focusing with the tunable top so that's not a detriment to me,
but I really do detest poorly formed stars at the edge of the field.  I might soften on that a bit I suppose if the price difference were big enough.

 

Thanks to everyone who has commented.

 

John

[SeattleScott]

You are operating at F5.75, not F3.3. There are several non-TV options that would avoid soft stars at the edge. Personally I’m also particularly sensitive to edge softness, and I have an F4. I only have two Televue eyepieces.

Now I don’t have hyperwides so not really trying to push the XWAs. More of a long ER guy myself. But there are other brands besides TV that are sharp to the edge, and once I even got a different brand in order to get better edge correction. Granted, at F5.75, pretty much any of TV’s current offerings will be sharp to the edge.

If edge correction is your concern, you really should make yourself familiar with this: http://astro-talks.r...opic.php?t=1483

As you can see TV does very well. That being said, you can also see my 30mm UFF has better edge correction than your 35 Panoptic. (Not actually the example I previously referred to.) Now there is more to life than edge correction and one can make an argument the Panoptic is the better eyepiece overall. And the Panoptic certainly has very good edge correction. Just making the point that there are other brands that can do sharp edges at F5.75, and a 30 UFF would have given you arguably a better exit pupil, with even better edge correction (granted the difference would be difficult to see), at a lighter weight and lower cost. Again, the 30 UFF isn’t perfect, and you may well be better off with the Panoptic. But if nothing else it is good to be aware of your options.

[EsaT]

I've only been observing for a short time but the seeing has been generally bad so far, perhaps it seasonal, not sure.

 

 

For a starter set, do I need more that 1 eyepiece below 100x?

 

I guess I wouldn't know until I actually have them in hand to determine my personal preferences,

Have you made sure that telescope has cooled for long enough, if there's big temperature difference between storage place and outside?

That 10" mirror is rather big chunk of glass and needs time, especially if there's no fan to force airflow.

Also time of day can affect lot.

Just after sunset temperature can be deacreasing fast leading to unstable air.

 

 

Depends on how much into deep sky you are.
Though first step from low magnification wide target/"finder" eyepiece can easily be doubling the magnification.

Typical deep sky objects are in the end rather compact.

Lunar/planetary observing again doesn't need low magnifications.

(haven't used below ~200x for Moon much since getting my 10" light bucket)

 

 

Before putting lots of money into eyepiece it would best to try to get to see/try them.

In widest AFOV eyepieces that extra field can be harder to use already because of limits of eye.

And then if eye relief, distance at which your pupil needs to be from ep's eye lens for theoretical chance to see whole view, isn't long viewing get harder.

Shape of the face also has effect, high brow bridges etc make eyepieces with short/mediocre eye relief harder to view.

 

For example Naglers compromise in eye relief to keep shorter focal length models compact and light.

In comparison shorter focal length Delos models grow to fully same weight as XWAs.

 

Local/nearby astronomy club (if there's one) would be good place to start.

https://go-astronomy...te.php?State=CO

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

Why Televue and not other brands ?

[JohnnyReb]

You are operating at F5.75, not F3.3. There are several non-TV options that would avoid soft stars at the edge. Personally I’m also particularly sensitive to edge softness, and I have an F4. I only have two Televue eyepieces.

Now I don’t have hyperwides so not really trying to push the XWAs. More of a long ER guy myself. But there are other brands besides TV that are sharp to the edge, and once I even got a different brand in order to get better edge correction. Granted, at F5.75, pretty much any of TV’s current offerings will be sharp to the edge.

If edge correction is your concern, you really should make yourself familiar with this: http://astro-talks.r...opic.php?t=1483

As you can see TV does very well. That being said, you can also see my 30mm UFF has better edge correction than your 35 Panoptic. (Not actually the example I previously referred to.) Now there is more to life than edge correction and one can make an argument the Panoptic is the better eyepiece overall. And the Panoptic certainly has very good edge correction. Just making the point that there are other brands that can do sharp edges at F5.75, and a 30 UFF would have given you arguably a better exit pupil, with even better edge correction (granted the difference would be difficult to see), at a lighter weight and lower cost. Again, the 30 UFF isn’t perfect, and you may well be better off with the Panoptic. But if nothing else it is good to be aware of your options.

Wow, that is a great resource.

Neither the 31mm Nagller or 35mm Pan are highlighted as having excellent image quality. That is surprising given all that I've read and seen.

 

I appreciate this information.  

Very good to see the other options in a clear light.

Edited by JohnnyReb, 25 May 2024 - 08:15 AM.

[JohnnyReb]

Have you made sure that telescope has cooled for long enough, if there's big temperature difference between storage place and outside?

That 10" mirror is rather big chunk of glass and needs time, especially if there's no fan to force airflow.

Also time of day can affect lot.

Just after sunset temperature can be deacreasing fast leading to unstable air.

 

 

Depends on how much into deep sky you are.
Though first step from low magnification wide target/"finder" eyepiece can easily be doubling the magnification.

Typical deep sky objects are in the end rather compact.

Lunar/planetary observing again doesn't need low magnifications.

(haven't used below ~200x for Moon much since getting my 10" light bucket)

 

 

Before putting lots of money into eyepiece it would best to try to get to see/try them.

In widest AFOV eyepieces that extra field can be harder to use already because of limits of eye.

And then if eye relief, distance at which your pupil needs to be from ep's eye lens for theoretical chance to see whole view, isn't long viewing get harder.

Shape of the face also has effect, high brow bridges etc make eyepieces with short/mediocre eye relief harder to view.

 

For example Naglers compromise in eye relief to keep shorter focal length models compact and light.

In comparison shorter focal length Delos models grow to fully same weight as XWAs.

 

Local/nearby astronomy club (if there's one) would be good place to start.

https://go-astronomy...te.php?State=CO

I learned the importance of temperature equilibration pretty quickly.

Usually set scopeout an hour before observing and seems adequate.

I do have a fan I use occasionally, perhaps should use it every time.

 

I don't mind short eye relief, but not so short that I am in physical contact with the scope.

 

I did go to a local star party hoping to view through some of the high quality eyepieces,

but this was more of a public outreach event and nobody wanted to bring their best TeleVue (or other) eyepieces for the proles to soil.

I'll have to try a members only event.

[JohnnyReb]

Why Televue and not other brands ?

I bought the hype, then I bought the eyepiece, then I believed the hype.

 

I like the way they hold their resale value. 

[Echolight]

Wow, that is a great resource.

Neither the 31mm Nagller or 35mm Pan are highlighted as having excellent image quality. That is surprising given all that I've read and seen.

 

I appreciate this information.  

Very good to see the other options in a clear light.

His testing is more critical than most viewers I'm sure.

From all other reports you'd think that optically there's not a more perfect eyepiece in the world than a 31 Nagler. But it wouldn't be my first choice because it weighs two and a half pounds... and cost seven benjis.

[radiofm74]

I've been in your position  not too long ago and have gone with a mix of Panoptics and Naglers.

 

Original plan was to have a set of quality, lightweight 1.25" eyepieces with similar size, weight, eye relief, and (wide) FoV: 24 Pan, and T6 13, 9, 7, and 5. I got a little carried away and got me also two used Pans (35 and 19), and now have a T6 3.5 on its way 

 

I have not used them a lot yet, but they are wonderful eyepieces. The one I've had the longest, and have spent most time with, is the 9mm T6 and I am in love with it. Equally in love with the Pan 19, which is somewhat magical.

 

If you're considering Nags, your second set could be:

 

- Pan 35 (41x, 6mm exit pupil)

- Nag 13 (110x, 2.2mm exit pupil … sort of a "golden" exit pupil for DSOs)

- Nag 9 (160x, 1.5mm exit pupil)

- Nag 7 (205x, 1.2mm exit pupil)

 

Having all Nags would give you same-weight eyepieces, nearly parfocal across the med-hi power range. Your mag and e.p. range would be very good, with room for a little more in the "high end" (a 5mm) and for a delightful Pan19 (also physically very similar to Nags).

 

The only caveat is: would you be comfortable with a 12mm eye relief? I know that I am, but "try before you buy" would be a good idea. 

Edited by radiofm74, 25 May 2024 - 08:31 AM.

[JohnnyReb]

I've been in your position  not too long ago and have gone with a mix of Panoptics and Naglers.

 

Original plan was to have a set of quality, lightweight 1.25" eyepieces with similar size, weight, eye relief, and (wide) FoV: 24 Pan, and T6 13, 9, 7, and 5. I got a little carried away and got me also two used Pans (35 and 19), and now have a T6 3.5 on its way 

 

I have not used them a lot yet, but they are wonderful eyepieces. The one I've had the longest, and have spent most time with, is the 9mm T6 and I am in love with it. Equally in love with the Pan 19, which is somewhat magical.

 

If you're considering Nags, your second set could be:

 

- Pan 35 (41x, 6mm exit pupil)

- Nag 13 (110x, 2.2mm exit pupil … sort of a "golden" exit pupil for DSOs)

- Nag 9 (160x, 1.5mm exit pupil)

- Nag 7 (205x, 1.2mm exit pupil)

 

Having all Nags would give you same-weight eyepieces, nearly parfocal across the med-hi power range. Your mag and e.p. range would be very good, with room for a little more in the "high end" (a 5mm) and for a delightful Pan19 (also physically very similar to Nags).

 

The only caveat is: would you be comfortable with a 12mm eye relief? I know that I am, but "try before you buy" would be a good idea. 

I don't use glasses when viewing, so may be fine.

I will just have to try the Nagler and Delos to see which I prefer I guess.

I know that I tend to like to see the edge so probably will have my eye against the glass more than I like with short eye relief.

But that behavior could be unlearned.

Edited by JohnnyReb, 25 May 2024 - 08:39 AM.

[N3p]

For higher power I would pick something that gives 160 ~ 180x first, (but closer to 180x then 160x) with an exit pupil a bit larger then 1mm to get bright and super sharp views. Such eyepiece would get out of the case very often especially if it's expensive. (For the moon and the planets especially)

 

I don't think 35mm and 17.5mm are too close at all, for me there is at least 2 slots available between the 2. for later. I would also not buy 4 TV at the same time.. IMO it would be a better idea to pick them individually for a specific need.

 

For initial requirement I see: 41x (35mm) you already have it, then something around 120x, then something around 180x, to start. All of these would get out of the case very often.

Edited by N3p, 25 May 2024 - 09:03 AM.

[Captain Quark]

Wondering whether the 35mm and 17.3 may be close enough

that I would tend to skip to the 12mm…

 

I guess I wouldn't know until I actually have them in hand to determine my personal preferences…

I have your same scope with paracorr. I use ~17mm a lot and don’t find it too close to ~30mm. I use ~12mm a lot.

 

I’ve had great success with 6mm for 240x. So consider adding that. Great for planets, globulars, planetary nebula, and moon.

 

And yes, I’ve found I can’t know my personal preference for sure until I’ve not only tried something, but tried it for long enough to give it a good chance.

Edited by Captain Quark, 25 May 2024 - 09:08 AM.

[JohnnyReb]

For higher power I would pick something that gives 160 ~ 180x first, (but closer to 180x then 160x) with an exit pupil a bit larger then 1mm to get bright and super sharp views. Such eyepiece would get out of the case very often especially if it's expensive. (For the moon and the planets especially)

 

I don't think 35mm and 17.5mm are too close at all, for me there is at least 2 slots available between the 2. for later. I would also not buy 4 TV at the same time.. IMO it would be a better idea to pick them individually for a specific need.

 

For initial requirement I see: 41x (35mm) you already have it, then something around 120x, then something around 180x, to start. All of these would get out of the case very often.

 

 

I have your same scope with paracorr. I use ~17mm a lot and don’t find it too close to ~30mm. I use ~12mm a lot.

 

I’ve had great success with 6mm for 240x. So consider adding that. Great for planets, globulars, planetary nebula, and moon.

 

And yes, I’ve found I can’t know my personal preference for sure until I’ve not only tried something, but tried it for long enough to give it a good chance.

So maybe this?

35mm Pan (41x) - 6.1 exit pupil
12mm Delos (120x) - 2.1 exit pupil
8mm Delos (180x) - 1.4 exit pupil
6mm Delos (240x) - 1 exit pupil

Seems pretty good!

60x between the shorter FL pieces.
Maybe fill in with 17.3, 10, and 7 later if needed.

[firemachine69]

The 35mm Panoptic really was too big for my 10" dob. I think a 27mm Panoptic would have been more appropriate. 

[SeattleScott]

I've been in your position not too long ago and have gone with a mix of Panoptics and Naglers.

Original plan was to have a set of quality, lightweight 1.25" eyepieces with similar size, weight, eye relief, and (wide) FoV: 24 Pan, and T6 13, 9, 7, and 5. I got a little carried away and got me also two used Pans (35 and 19), and now have a T6 3.5 on its way

I have not used them a lot yet, but they are wonderful eyepieces. The one I've had the longest, and have spent most time with, is the 9mm T6 and I am in love with it. Equally in love with the Pan 19, which is somewhat magical.

If you're considering Nags, your second set could be:

- Pan 35 (41x, 6mm exit pupil)
- Nag 13 (110x, 2.2mm exit pupil … sort of a "golden" exit pupil for DSOs)
- Nag 9 (160x, 1.5mm exit pupil)
- Nag 7 (205x, 1.2mm exit pupil)

Having all Nags would give you same-weight eyepieces, nearly parfocal across the med-hi power range. Your mag and e.p. range would be very good, with room for a little more in the "high end" (a 5mm) and for a delightful Pan19 (also physically very similar to Nags).

The only caveat is: would you be comfortable with a 12mm eye relief? I know that I am, but "try before you buy" would be a good idea.

Or buy one Nagler before buying all three.

Honestly I thought of suggesting the same set, for the same reasons given.

Nikon SW are also good if one wants small eyepieces but longer ER. They are 72 AFOV, not 82 like Naglers, but similarly light with 17-19mm ER.

[SeattleScott]

So maybe this?

35mm Pan (41x) - 6.1 exit pupil
12mm Delos (120x) - 2.1 exit pupil
8mm Delos (180x) - 1.4 exit pupil
6mm Delos (240x) - 1 exit pupil

Seems pretty good!

60x between the shorter FL pieces.
Maybe fill in with 17.3, 10, and 7 later if needed.

I like it, except for the turkey legs. I liked the earlier suggestion with switching to Naglers at short focal lengths, because at the shorter focal lengths, like 8 on down, the Delos get tall, heavy and look like turkey legs. Also, he has already invested in a P2, so he might as well get some mileage out of it with ultrawide or hyperwide eyepieces. And at high magnification, the wider FOV would make tracking easier.

[JohnnyReb]

The 35mm Panoptic really was too big for my 10" dob. I think a 27mm Panoptic would have been more appropriate. 

You could be right.

My pupil probably gets to about 5.5mm and I do seem to be getting some astigmatism from my eye and may be losing some light.

However, the 1.5 degree true field of view is magnificent. I wanted maximum FOV for my lowest power.

 

It's a bit more than just a finder piece for me as the views are superb.

[JohnnyReb]

I like it, except for the turkey legs. I liked the earlier suggestion with switching to Naglers at short focal lengths, because at the shorter focal lengths, like 8 on down, the Delos get tall, heavy and look like turkey legs. Also, he has already invested in a P2, so he might as well get some mileage out of it with ultrawide or hyperwide eyepieces. And at high magnification, the wider FOV would make tracking easier.

I currently balance my scope to the P2 and 35Pan since its my only real eyepiece.
Maybe those "Turkey Legs" would actually reduce the weight variation between my long and short focal lengths?
I know that switching to the GSO 9mm plossl causes some upward creep in azimuth.

 

Seems an odd choice to deliberatelly choose heavier eyepieces, but maybe it makes sense.

[SeattleScott]

Just to be clear, there is nothing “wrong” with the ER on T6 Naglers if you don’t wear glasses. Just some get spoiled by these big ol’ eye lenses and the big easy view. For example some have sold Naglers to buy Morpheus, because Morpheus have the big eye lens and you are only stepping down to 76 AFOV. Just a trade off, a bit of AFOV for long ER. But it isn’t like the Naglers require you to squeeze in so close that your eyelashes are brushing the lens. They have fine ER. Just not luxurious ER.

[patioastro]

I use a 13mm Nagler and a 6mm Delos with my 10" f/4.5 reflector. I have been very happy with both eyepieces. I have contemplated adding a 9mm Nagler and a 22mm Nagler at some point. I like using Televue wide field eyepieces with my fast reflector. For the record I currently use an $89 Meade 20mm UWA for wide field of view. I prefer exit pupils less than 3mm with my old astigmatic eyes. 

Edited by patioastro, 25 May 2024 - 10:10 AM.

[N3p]

So maybe this?

35mm Pan (41x) - 6.1 exit pupil
12mm Delos (120x) - 2.1 exit pupil
8mm Delos (180x) - 1.4 exit pupil
6mm Delos (240x) - 1 exit pupil

Seems pretty good!

60x between the shorter FL pieces.
Maybe fill in with 17.3, 10, and 7 later if needed.

It's a nice range of power to me.

 

I use 250x surprisingly often with my 6mm Delos + well collimated 12" Newtonian. If the atmosphere is collaborating, on the moon and Jupiter, the views are absolutely fantastic and bright with 1.2mm exit pupil, the eyepiece is beautiful, it's very high quality with an immersive 72d and long eye relief. When the atmosphere is not good enough for 250x, I go down to 167x (in your case 180x) then 120x.

 

Bellow that, I usually give up on high power and it's a low power observation night for the 35mm instead.

 

250x gives me a lot of impressive extra details on the solar system objects.

Edited by N3p, 25 May 2024 - 10:27 AM.