214 replies to this topic

[Refractor6]

But are they underrated? Should they be loved by everyone? I can't recall reading criticism of the line.  So they are revered by some and just not the cup of tea for others - who generally want wider fields.  That seems to me to be "appropriately rated". 

  You might be on to something.....I'd say less talked about would be better way to put it. Before I joined and when I joined in 2004 these various eps got a lot of coverage in this same section of the forum  

[russell23]

Its a good point in fairness. And the prices seem to have steadily increased. Iv bought some and spent probably a little too much. only to see a price a year later, and re-evaluate my purchase as being bargain adjacent!

 

I still think they are slightly under-rated by a lot of users - and there remains disagreement on how good they actually are. Some users think they are still second in their class, to the TeleVue Plossls - I genuinely disagree with that assessment, and i have now used a TV Plossl for a period. VERY good eyepiece, no question, but i honestly think the Psuedo Masuyama is better. Also seen them unfavourable discussed in relation to high quality orthos, and other lines too. 

 

All i can say is i wouldnt be without them, and i remain really chuffed to have a little sub set of them from 5 up to 30

I absolutely agree with this comparison.  I'd take the Psuedo Masuyama's over the TV plossls at any focal length.  Actually, I'd take the Celestron Silvertops over the TV plossls too.

 

I don't have any right now.  I've been tempted to pick up a 35mm again. 
 

[Olimad]

I think I only have underrated eyepieces.....

 

If I have to take one, I think It will be the BCO 10mm, there is something special on DSOs with this eyepiece. I don't know if It is the coating, the link with my scope eyes and skies, but this EP is really great for me.

 

Also a combo of the SVBony redline 6mm 68° with FR 0,5x. Together they clean Edge of field astigmatism, giving close topinpoint stars across almost all the field of view that my small F4 is giving me. Pretty nice and cheap. 

However I havn't try all the eyepiece in the world....

Edited by Olimad, 05 March 2025 - 03:02 PM.

[JoeBlow]

The Long Perng Long Eye Relief eyepieces (and various rebrands). Very well corrected over their 55 degree fov. Great eye relief and easy to use. They were a very affordable option at the time when I wanted a high powered eyepiece (3 mm). Didn't want to spend too much on an eyepepice I would very rarely use.

Edited by JoeBlow, 06 March 2025 - 03:29 AM.

[25585]

I absolutely agree with this comparison.  I'd take the Psuedo Masuyama's over the TV plossls at any focal length.  Actually, I'd take the Celestron Silvertops over the TV plossls too.

 

I don't have any right now.  I've been tempted to pick up a 35mm again. 
 

I have an Eudiascopic and an Ultima 35mm for binoviewing. They are a big improvement on TV 32 Plossls.

[saemark30]

I have an Eudiascopic and an Ultima 35mm for binoviewing. They are a big improvement on TV 32 Plossls.

How so? I tried the 35mm Ultima and didn't notice the difference.

[25585]

How so? I tried the 35mm Ultima and didn't notice the difference.

The 35s' immersiveness was better, and using a pair they more easily merged into a single view. Optically, the TV was fine though.

[John Huntley]

Do the Ultima and Eudiascopic 35mms require the same / similar amount of inwards focuser movement to reach focus ?

 

When I owned the Ultima 35 I found that it would not reach focus in some of the scopes I owned back the due to it's inwards focuser movement requirements.

 

It was optically just as good as the TV 32mm plossl, I agree. 

[John Huntley]

On underrated eyepieces that I've owned, I feel that the Baader Classic orthos in the 10mm and 18mm might fall into that category, especially perhaps the 18mm.

[george tatsis]

The Vixen SLV come to mind. More like high eye relief orthos than anything else. Small,light, sharp and not overly priced!

 

George

[25585]

Do the Ultima and Eudiascopic 35mms require the same / similar amount of inwards focuser movement to reach focus ?

 

When I owned the Ultima 35 I found that it would not reach focus in some of the scopes I owned back the due to it's inwards focuser movement requirements.

 

It was optically just as good as the TV 32mm plossl, I agree. 

In a binoviewer they are equal, so I assume they are the same.

[Wol]

My GSO 25mm Plossel.  Cost peanuts and provided years of good use.

 

regards

Edited by Wol, 08 March 2025 - 09:38 AM.

[Doug Culbertson]

My GSO 25mm Plossel.  Cost peanuts and provided years of good use.

 

regards

GSO Plossls are excellent and no undercuts! 

[Exnihilo]

Well, I like the 24mm Hyperion.  If you want a longer end to the Morpheus line, its a good choice. Not sure its all that "underrated", but it certainly does a good job at filling its niche for not all that much investment.

[jack45]

I have one more, the Tele Vue 26mm Plossl. I used them as a pair, in the binoviewer, excellent wide FOV. I used a pair of 24mm Pans, just like the view of the 26mm Plossls better. Also the 19mm Tele Vue widefields , love these too!

 

 

Clear Skies!

[Sketcher]

Do you have an eyepiece (or eyepieces) that surprises you? It could be expensive or cheap (or in between) but just has a quality that was unexpected or performs in a way better than expected.

There's a 1.25-inch Celestron eyepiece and filter kit that I heard was essentially worthless.  A sentiment that frequently appeared on CloudyNights (CN).  So, one day when I felt that I hadn't ordered anything astronomical in quite a while, I decided to order the kit to see for myself just how horrible the contents were -- I still have the case and its contents, though the contents are now scattered about among my other eyepieces, etc. in other cases

 

My assessment?  The kit is perhaps the most underrated set of eyepieces ever to make an appearance on CN.  Everything in that kit is of decent quality, and yes, I've used every item that the kit contains.

 

Sure, one can condemn the shorter focal-length Plossls in that kit, but a Plossl is a Plossl, and any short focal-length Plossl is going to have little in the way of eye-relief.  But even those shorter focal-length Plossls are perfectly usable.  It's not necessary to get one's eye close enough to see the entire field of view in order make good use of them.  And of course, the kit also contains longer focal-length Plossls which have greater eye-relief.

 

I just got out the 32mm and 6mm Plossls to double check on the coatings -- and it appears that every air-glass surface in those eyepieces is coated!  These are good, high-contrast eyepieces!

 

If one had to get by cheap with a full set of 1.25-inch eyepieces, that kit would do the job as long as you're not so spoiled as to feel that you have to have greater eye-relief or larger than 52 degree apparent fields of view (or a more prestigious name on the eyepiece).

 

Those eyepiece work and work very nicely -- as long as a person is OK with using Plossls.

[VA3DSO]

There's a 1.25-inch Celestron eyepiece and filter kit that I heard was essentially worthless.  A sentiment that frequently appeared on CloudyNights (CN).  So, one day when I felt that I hadn't ordered anything astronomical in quite a while, I decided to order the kit to see for myself just how horrible the contents were -- I still have the case and its contents, though the contents are now scattered about among my other eyepieces, etc. in other cases

 

My assessment?  The kit is perhaps the most underrated set of eyepieces ever to make an appearance on CN.  Everything in that kit is of decent quality, and yes, I've used every item that the kit contains.

 

Sure, one can condemn the shorter focal-length Plossls in that kit, but a Plossl is a Plossl, and any short focal-length Plossl is going to have little in the way of eye-relief.  But even those shorter focal-length Plossls are perfectly usable.  It's not necessary to get one's eye close enough to see the entire field of view in order make good use of them.  And of course, the kit also contains longer focal-length Plossls which have greater eye-relief.

 

I just got out the 32mm and 6mm Plossls to double check on the coatings -- and it appears that every air-glass surface in those eyepieces is coated!  These are good, high-contrast eyepieces!

 

If one had to get by cheap with a full set of 1.25-inch eyepieces, that kit would do the job as long as you're not so spoiled as to feel that you have to have greater eye-relief or larger than 52 degree apparent fields of view (or a more prestigious name on the eyepiece).

 

Those eyepiece work and work very nicely -- as long as a person is OK with using Plossls.

I have a set of Tele Vue Plössls which I love and then on a whim I bought a set of Celestron Omni Plössls. That entire set of Celestron eyepieces cost less that the price of ONE of the Tele Vue Plössls! Yet they perform fine. They have blackened edges and barrels, full multi coatings and provide sharp, contrasty images. Are the TV's better? I'd say yes. Are they 10x better? Not at all. Incrementally better would be how I'd put it.

 

But could I use those Celestron Plössls as my only eyepieces and be happy? Absolutely. The optics in these Omnis is probably identical to the optics in the eyepieces in the Celestron Eyepiece and Filter kit.

Edited by Rick-T137, 10 March 2025 - 06:54 AM.

[Mcloud]

Baader Hyperion line no doubt about it. Changed my life! So many more and probably better options out there now but these were a game changer for me!

[mworden]

It’s definitely my Russell eyepieces. 
I have some really nice eyepieces and I keep going back to these. 
And the Hyperions.

Both sets have great eye relief 

[goldenraccoon]

Interesting question, what a great thread 

[abe]

Meade QX Super Wide 20mm - This one found it's way into my collection when I purchased a box of fifteen random eyepieces on Marketplace. I picked them up for the TeleVue smoothies that were in the box, but this one has ended up seeing more scope time than any of the rest. 70 deg afov and quite sharp across in my f/4.7 DOB. Comfortably light form factor. Excellent Contrast. Good eye relief.  I've read some mixed reviews on the QX line, but to my eyes and through my scopes, this one seems to perform well above expectations.

 

Thanks for the fun thread!

I'm another fan of the QX series!   I particularly like the 36mm, and use the smaller 30mm and 26mm versions in my smaller scopes.    

The QX gets absolutely terrible reviews but in slower scopes, they are wonderful and so easy to look through (Interesting that you're having good results at f/4.7).  They also have large eye lenses and in some ways seem more "immersive" to me than UWAs or Panoptics.  The UWAs are technically wider, but the QX's just disappear due to their super forgiving eye placement.  

People seem to either love or hate 'em:
Love (preferred to 21mm Ethos):
​https://www.youtube....h?v=6in9s6uDUJk
Hate:
https://stargazerslo...30mm-wide-angle

I'm not sure why people hate them so much.  There's a saying that novice astronomers observe stars while advanced astronomers mainly observe aberrations.

[AstroBoyInTheCity]

The QX gets absolutely terrible reviews but in slower scopes, they are wonderful and so easy to look through (Interesting that you're having good results at f/4.7). 

Yeah, despite everything I’ve read about these, the 20mm works surprisingly well in my f/4.7. As far as outer field aberrations, contrast, and sharpness. I’d say it’s just about comparable to my APM UFF 30mm. It’s not as crisp or bold as my Naglers, but it definitely holds its own among all my ep’s. Hopefully I’ll come across some more of the QX line to try out, but haven’t seen them come up very often. 

[abe]

Yeah, despite everything I’ve read about these, the 20mm works surprisingly well in my f/4.7. As far as outer field aberrations, contrast, and sharpness. I’d say it’s just about comparable to my APM UFF 30mm. It’s not as crisp or bold as my Naglers, but it definitely holds its own among all my ep’s. Hopefully I’ll come across some more of the QX line to try out, but haven’t seen them come up very often. 

The Meade QX's are reviled while the Meade SWAs seem to be at least decently regarded as Panoptic clones.  I have a 30mm QX and a 32mm Meade SWA and the QX has a wider AFOV than the SWA and seems just as nice to my undiscerning eyes.  I also have a "legendary" 22mm Panoptic, which is indeed sharp to the edge of the FOV but I still prefer the QX.

The QX line may be optically equivalent to various other SWA eyepieces branded as Apertura, Panaview, Agena, Omegon, Q70, etc. since they come in a similar set of focal lengths and the size and eye lens diameters look about the same.

Meade QX:
1.25" - 15mm, 20mm
2" - 26mm, 30mm, 36mm
SWA Clones:
1.25" - 10mm, 15mm, 20mm,
2" - 26mm, 32mm, 38mm

I'm kind of curious about that 38mm SWA but I've always liked the build quality of the series 4000 Meades.

Edited by abe, 11 March 2025 - 07:46 PM.

[hal9500]

There's a 1.25-inch Celestron eyepiece and filter kit that I heard was essentially worthless.  A sentiment that frequently appeared on CloudyNights (CN).  So, one day when I felt that I hadn't ordered anything astronomical in quite a while, I decided to order the kit to see for myself just how horrible the contents were -- I still have the case and its contents, though the contents are now scattered about among my other eyepieces, etc. in other cases

 

My assessment?  The kit is perhaps the most underrated set of eyepieces ever to make an appearance on CN.  Everything in that kit is of decent quality, and yes, I've used every item that the kit contains.

 

Sure, one can condemn the shorter focal-length Plossls in that kit, but a Plossl is a Plossl, and any short focal-length Plossl is going to have little in the way of eye-relief.  But even those shorter focal-length Plossls are perfectly usable.  It's not necessary to get one's eye close enough to see the entire field of view in order make good use of them.  And of course, the kit also contains longer focal-length Plossls which have greater eye-relief.

 

I just got out the 32mm and 6mm Plossls to double check on the coatings -- and it appears that every air-glass surface in those eyepieces is coated!  These are good, high-contrast eyepieces!

 

If one had to get by cheap with a full set of 1.25-inch eyepieces, that kit would do the job as long as you're not so spoiled as to feel that you have to have greater eye-relief or larger than 52 degree apparent fields of view (or a more prestigious name on the eyepiece).

 

Those eyepiece work and work very nicely -- as long as a person is OK with using Plossls.

Thank you!!!!!!

 

I would agree 100% with this. I used to have that kit, and read some of the reviews which really made it sound horrid. It was fine, my only gripe was the inclusion of the 4mm Plossl, which most people struggle to use - had they included a 20mm instead, the set would be excellent IMHO - but even as is, its fine. Perhaps a little over priced - but if you get it discounted or second hand, its a no brainer - 

 

I think the criticisms i read about the kit, and many other sets of plossls, is that they are, well, plossls. And some people really attack the design, regardless of focal length. People view them as entry level, and very basic. But a good plossl is sharp, and i think people forget that. Honestly, some of the best views i have had have come with plossls. Yes they are narrow. And yes the eye relief is tricky when you look at shorter focal lengths - but i wouldnt be without them. 

 

Its a shame, but people view it as a bare minimum, and merely a stepping stone. And thats why they end up being sold on second hand quite a bit

 

 

I have a set of Tele Vue Plössls which I love and then on a whim I bought a set of Celestron Omni Plössls. That entire set of Celestron eyepieces cost less that the price of ONE of the Tele Vue Plössls! Yet they perform fine. They have blackened edges and barrels, full multi coatings and provide sharp, contrasty images. Are the TV's better? I'd say yes. Are they 10x better? Not at all. Incrementally better would be how I'd put it.

 

But could I use those Celestron Plössls as my only eyepieces and be happy? Absolutely. The optics in these Omnis is probably identical to the optics in the eyepieces in the Celestron Eyepiece and Filter kit.

Unless its Tele Vue - if its a Tele Vue Plossl, people love it.

 

Its very difficult for me to imagine Tele Vue releasing an accessory, and it NOT being widely discussed as the greatest version of that accessory. Need a Clip to hold your coffee flask to the based of your tripod? Try this new Tele Vue Coffee holding adaptor - some time later - 

 - "well all i can say, is this is the best flask holder iv ever used, well worth 200 dollars"

 

I understand its not just brand loyalty, and yes TV quality is fantastic. There is no doubt about that. Iv used their plossls, and they are a slight cut above the rest. But at least from where i am standing, they arent worth the incredible price difference. 'Incrementally better' should be Incrementally more expensive. I spent about 300 euro collecting my vintage set of Series 4000 Japanese Meades - i view them as fantastic, and possibly slightly better than their modern day equivs. Had i instead chose to chase the TV Plossl set, id maybe have 3 by now - They might be a bit better, but i wouldnt have the focal range i prefer - 

 

From where i am standing, the TV plossl line (full set up to and including the 55mm) would cost as much as a brand new near complete set of Morpheus eyepieces - about 1500 euro - Couldnt justify that expenditure 

Edited by hal9500, 12 March 2025 - 05:48 AM.

[Mcloud]

I still remember the 80s when eyepieces weren't really even much of a consideration until Televue ran an ad for their Plossls. I remember that ad, they've always been good at them. I remember thinking oh wow never much considered the eyepiece could make a difference. For me at least you pretty much used what you had and got a Barlow.