224 replies to this topic

[Moonlit]

Siebert Ultra's, in particular the six element ones.

I second this. I got the Siebert 19mm Ultra for only $129 and tonight I compared it with the TeleVue 15mm Plössl on the moon, and I had preferred the Ultra if the TeleVue hadn't given such a perfect magnification with the particular scope I was using.

The Ultras "feel" very solid with good weight and have decent AFoV at 70 degrees for my 19mm.

[Wallcreeper]

I'll put up my 40mm 2inch sterling plossl as undervalued. It was not expensive, does not weigh all that much and it gives a nice low power view. (18× and 3.1 degrees in my current telescope.)

[Refractor6]

 Speaking of low power 2" eps.......brought out a old gem of mine I've had since 2001...a Antares 52 Erfle. Pretty sharp across the FOV in my 152 F/8 refractor and is giving a nice view of the crescent moon before sunset at present....23 power and a 2.08 degree TFOV.

[John O'Hara]

My Celestrom Axiom LX 10mm and 15mm eyepieces (uncloaked, as their chunky width makes them fit perfectly into my eye socket, leaving just the right amount of eye relief).
Those aluminum shrouds look and feel beautiful, but its the optics that really shine. Never any kidney beaning with the entire field of view instantly available with the greatest of ease.
A few months after buying these, I couldn't resist pushing the boat out for a TV Nagler 17mm, but after careful nightly comparisons over several months, I reluctantly admitted to myself that the Axiom worked better for me, so I sadly sold the TV.

I also have the 15 Axiom LX (uncloaked).  I use it with my Nagler T6 lineup and it fits right in. Very nice occular.

 

John 

[Phillip Creed]

I don't know how it's rated, but one eyepiece that's usually overlooked is the 23mm Axiom LX.  Although it looks a lot like a Luminous, it's better than the Luminous optically. The LX is pretty easy to find on the used market with a Wanted ad at a reasonable cost. 

 

The 23mm Axiom LX presents very nice images similar to the 23mm Pentax XW and 22mm Nagler T4.  It's spec'd at 82^o apparent field, 17mm eye relief, and a 34mm field stop diameter.  Because it appears to have a slightly larger true field than the 85^o 23mm XW, I wonder if the Axiom LX focal length is closer to 24mm vs. its advertised 23mm.  

 

The image in the LX is very nice with minimal astigmatism showing even in my 100mm f/4 Petzval refractor.  It has slight field curvature, which will likely go unnoticed by most users.  I find that star colors in the LX are a bit more subdued compared to the XW and Nagler, but I don't think it's from loss of light throughput because I've never consistently seen threshold stars in the XW or Nagler that were invisible in the LX.  

 

I observe without glasses, and it's easy to see the entire field of view even with the wide flat top of the eyepiece cup.  The cup raises up with a twist and is pretty large in diameter - it's raised up a little in the picture below.  If one does not like the large eye cup, it can be easily removed.  I have not removed the eye cup on mine but if it's similar to the 31mm Axiom LX, then there's a groove on the top that will accept a rubber eye guard (which is how I use my decloaked 31mm).  I might decloak my 23mm Axiom LX one day to see if it's more comfortable to use that way.  The large flat surface does not fit close to my eye, so sometimes local ambient light reflections off the eye lens can reduce image contrast.  Maybe it will fit my face a little better when decloaked.

 

22-23mm.jpg

 

Gary

I had a 23mm Axiom LX and did a review on it way back in the day.

https://www.cloudyni...-ax-files-r1827

This was at the height of the "flat top" era of Chinese-sourced eyepieces (file under, "form compromising function") like the WO UWANs and longer focal length Meade UWAs where the housing literally couldn't get out of its own way.  By contrast, Explore Scientific's decision to release another iteration of ES82's with tapered eye lens assemblies was a wise choice and they soon established dominance over other Chinese-sourced competitors of 82° Nagler-class eyepieces.

Nevertheless, a great low-power eyepiece.  VERY sharp even in my fastest scopes.  Almost certain it was a clone of the 24mm Meade 5000 UWA and 24ES-82 based on my own personal tests.

That eyepiece brings back bittersweet memories, because I got to test it out at Tom Trusock's backyard observatory.  Longtime CN'ers have many fond memories of Tom T and his passing is a huge loss still felt to this day.

Clear Skies,

Phil

[Phillip Creed]

As far as underrated eyepieces I've owned, the two that come to mind are the 22mm 70°-AFOV clones (i.e. Astro-Tech 22AF-70, 22mm Olivon, 22mm Celestron Ultima LX) and the 5.5mm Meade 5000 UWA.

I had the 22AF-70 at one point and tested the 22mm Olivon version, which I preferred due to ergonomics.  I did a test against the vaunted 22LVW and it held up surprisingly well.  Hardly perfect but perfectly hardy, even in fast scopes and great values among low-power eyepieces if you find them used.

The 5.5mm Meade UWA is STUPIDLY underrated.  It blows past the "great for the price", qualifier and is just a great eyepiece at an insanely-low price.  They often sell ~$100 on the used markets.  They don't have the eye relief of the XWs, Morphs or Delos series but in terms of sharpness and contrast they'll go toe-to-toe with the best of them.  The 5.5mm's late arrival to the UWA family hurt its chances of really being a hit.

Clear Skies,

Phil

Edited by Phillip Creed, 01 May 2025 - 03:23 PM.

[hal9500]

As far as underrated eyepieces I've owned, the two that come to mind are the 22mm 70°-AFOV clones (i.e. Astro-Tech 22AF-70, 22mm Olivon, 22mm Celestron Ultima LX) and the 5.5mm Meade 5000 UWA.

I had the 22AF-70 at one point and tested the 22mm Olivon version, which I preferred due to ergonomics.  I did a test against the vaunted 22LVW and it held up surprisingly well.  Hardly perfect but perfectly hardy, even in fast scopes and great values among low-power eyepieces if you find them used.

The 5.5mm Meade UWA is STUPIDLY underrated.  It blows past the "great for the price", qualifier and is just a great eyepiece at an insanely-low price.  They often sell ~$100 on the used markets.  They don't have the eye relief of the XWs, Morphs or Delos series but in terms of sharpness and contrast they'll go toe-to-toe with the best of them.  The 5.5mm's late arrival to the UWA family hurt its chances of really being a hit.

Clear Skies,

Phil

I have those two pieces - EXCELLENT performers, so i 100% agree

FYI the 17mm Astro-tech/Olivon, is also fantastic - i saw these recommended a while ago, and it was stated that the 17 is just behind the 22 - i honestly cant tell the difference - These are the founding members on my Budget Easy-On-The-Eye-Relief Wide set  - iv been looking at 3 more potentials including the 30mm UFF - and possible some Levenhuk WAs

[25585]

I agree about the 22/70 2", I have the Celestron and TS versions.
 
An eyepiece that is unappreciated is the 17.5mm Nikon NAV SW. It has long eye relief, and while not so immersive as the 17.5 Morpheus, is as easy to use, and is thinner and lighter, so good for binoviewing.

 

There are quite a few eyepieces that may not be a choice for mono viewing, but in pairs are great for binoing. Vixen LVs, Celestron Ultimas for example, various other small-sized with smaller AFOVs. 
 

[aatt]

My 30mm Sterling Plossl. Excellent eyepiece that unfortunately will not come to focus in my F/4 dob which is my official dark sky scope now.

[T1R2]

I'd say for me it was the Agena Starguider ED12mm, it blows my Meade HD60 12mm away, the edges are frankly quite terrible on the 12mm HD-60 (I'm gonna have to take it apart and see if there are any misplaced elements that I may have missed the first time I took it apart) , The Starguider even in my f6.5 AR127 they are very nearly perfect. and the ER is good enough for use with glasses, I didn't think it would be. but that aspect is perfectly fine also and a tad more than the 18mm AT Paradigm. 

 

Edit: Nope it was assembled correctly, and after comparing them side by side, the HD-60 is only a little worse at the edges, a tad of astigmatism, but the AASG only had a small amount of field curvature, but I take FC much better than astig.  

Edited by T1R2, 08 May 2025 - 02:23 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

I'd say for me it was the Agena Starguider ED12mm, it blows my Meade HD60 12mm away, the edges are frankly quite terrible on the 12mm HD-60 (I'm gonna have to take it apart and see if there are any misplaced elements that I may have missed the first time I took it apart) , The Starguider even in my f6.5 AR127 they are very nearly perfect. and the ER is good enough for use with glasses, I didn't think it would be. but that aspect is perfectly fine also and a tad more than the 18mm AT Paradigm. 

 

 

I bought the 12mm Paradigm during the first year of Covid.  I was looking for an eyepiece to fit in my lightweight travel set to fit between the 16mm Meade Series 5000 SWA and the 9 mm TMB Planetary... I was quite surprised at it's sharpness across the field even at F/5.  And I found the presentation quite comfortable.  

 

It wasn't long before Mike had three demo Paradigms on sale for $40 each.. and not long after that, I had the entire set minus the 15mm. The 8mm and 5 mm are also quite sharp, the 25mm and the 18mm, not so much.  The 3.2mm is adequate but double stars get a little wonky off-axis.

 

I like the Paradigms as a set.  They have a consistent visual presentation.  They are sharp on-axis, some are not so sharp off-axis but I have other eyepieces if that's what I am looking for.  They all fit in a single small case along with one 2 inch eyepiece. 

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 08 May 2025 - 02:42 AM.

[quilty]

the 4 goldline series

[Princess Leah]

I'd say for me it was the Agena Starguider ED12mm, it blows my Meade HD60 12mm away, the edges are frankly quite terrible on the 12mm HD-60 (I'm gonna have to take it apart and see if there are any misplaced elements that I may have missed the first time I took it apart) , The Starguider even in my f6.5 AR127 they are very nearly perfect. and the ER is good enough for use with glasses, I didn't think it would be. but that aspect is perfectly fine also and a tad more than the 18mm AT Paradigm. 

 

Edit: Nope it was assembled correctly, and after comparing them side by side, the HD-60 is only a little worse at the edges, a tad of astigmatism, but the AASG only had a small amount of field curvature, but I take FC much better than astig.  

The 12mm Paradigm is the sharpest on-axis eyepiece I know of in this focal length.

Only negative is too much eye relief for terrestrial panning.

I find the Meade/Celestron Xcel better for birdwatching for this reason. Of course different kettle of fish if you wear glasses.

[CrazyPanda]

The 12mm Paradigm is the sharpest on-axis eyepiece I know of in this focal length.
Only negative is too much eye relief for terrestrial panning.
I find the Meade/Celestron Xcel better for birdwatching for this reason. Of course different kettle of fish if you wear glasses.

Paradigms have twist-up adjustable eye guards to let you set the effective eye relief to your liking.

[Scott99]

Most under-rated?  16.7mm Olympus GSWH microscope eyepiece.  Sells for <$100, I prefer it to the Zeiss Abbe 16mm's.  3-element eyepiece, fairly flat 55 degree field, super sharp and high contrast.

 

Others - the Zeiss microscope eyepieces, the 3-element aspheric and the OPMI's.  Sirius/Smart astro Plossls. 

 

Tak LE 5mm and 7.5mm

[Procyon]

Most under-rated?  16.7mm Olympus GSWH microscope eyepiece.  Sells for <$100, I prefer it to the Zeiss Abbe 16mm's.  3-element eyepiece, fairly flat 55 degree field, super sharp and high contrast.

 

Others - the Zeiss microscope eyepieces, the 3-element aspheric and the OPMI's.  Sirius/Smart astro Plossls. 

 

Tak LE 5mm and 7.5mm

Do you find the Olympus tint as neutral as the Zeiss? Or more warm?

[vtornado]

All of my eyepieces are underrated

 

I invest my money on the "front" end.

 

• I really like the red line/gold line 6/9 given their price and 65 degree field.  Blackouts yeah, viewing when seated fixes that.
• If you get a good copy of the TMB planetary eyepieces it can be quite good.  I have the 6 and the 9.   If is the operative word in this sentence.  Some of the ones I got weren't so hot.  I have no experience with the ones > 9.
• 5/8/12  AT paradigms.
• Svbony  18mm 65 UFF
• Celestron Xcel Lx 7,25
• GSO Plossls/Meade Made in Taiwan.
• I've picked up a few TV plossls at $50.00 each  $110 price/performance is not worth it to me.
• Svbony 7-21 6 element.
• Best Barlow 2x MIJ Orion long barlow is sweet.

Edited by vtornado, 09 May 2025 - 11:08 AM.

[Princess Leah]

Paradigms have twist-up adjustable eye guards to let you set the effective eye relief to your liking.

Obviously I know that.

 

But one can't force the eye relief of any eyepiece.

Edited by Princess Leah, 09 May 2025 - 12:42 PM.

[CrazyPanda]

Obviously I know that.

 

But one can't force the eye relief of any eyepiece.

I guess I don't understand. You said they had too much eye relief for terrestrial panning, but you can set the eye guard so they no longer have too much eye relief. You can even set it so they don't have *enough* eye relief.

[T1R2]

The 12mm Paradigm is the sharpest on-axis eyepiece I know of in this focal length.

Only negative is too much eye relief for terrestrial panning.

I find the Meade/Celestron Xcel better for birdwatching for this reason. Of course different kettle of fish if you wear glasses.

Funny thing is, I tried it again last night in my long focal ratio 60mm f 13.3 tasco, and the ER was slightly less for some reason, in my f6.5 AR127 I didn't have any problem with seeing the field stop, and I don't remember having to press my glasses against the eyecup to see it, This is not the first time I've experienced this. with all my EP's the short FR scopes have slightly more ER than when used in long focal ratio scopes.  

[Scott99]

Do you find the Olympus tint as neutral as the Zeiss? Or more warm?

very clear, neutral color on the GSWH.  All 4 of them appear to have very high-quality glass & coatings.  The bodies, on the other hand...plastic and flimsy unfortunately.   25mm, 16mm, 12mm and 8.5mm I think?   The 8mm was one I should not have sold.  These are all the ones modified w/ custom barrels by Gerd Neuman.

Edited by Scott99, 09 May 2025 - 04:47 PM.

[Princess Leah]

I guess I don't understand. You said they had too much eye relief for terrestrial panning, but you can set the eye guard so they no longer have too much eye relief. You can even set it so they don't have *enough* eye relief.

Are you suggesting that with any EP with an adjustable eye guard you can select any position of the eye guard and still be comfortable with the view?

Seems to me everyone has a preference where the comfortable position is and too much deviation from that point means they can't see the image.

 

I don't find EPs have a range of positions that work for me. More usually there is one position that I find comfortable and I have to stay close to that position for comfort.

[Princess Leah]

Funny thing is, I tried it again last night in my long focal ratio 60mm f 13.3 tasco, and the ER was slightly less for some reason, in my f6.5 AR127 I didn't have any problem with seeing the field stop, and I don't remember having to press my glasses against the eyecup to see it, This is not the first time I've experienced this. with all my EP's the short FR scopes have slightly more ER than when used in long focal ratio scopes.  

That's interesting -I've noticed this too.

I've also noticed with my Morpheus I can find a more comfortable position at F6 than at F7.5. or above. A slight increase in exit pupil bringing more comfort?

[Princess Leah]

 

I bought the 12mm Paradigm during the first year of Covid.  I was looking for an eyepiece to fit in my lightweight travel set to fit between the 16mm Meade Series 5000 SWA and the 9 mm TMB Planetary... I was quite surprised at it's sharpness across the field even at F/5.  And I found the presentation quite comfortable.  

 

It wasn't long before Mike had three demo Paradigms on sale for $40 each.. and not long after that, I had the entire set minus the 15mm. The 8mm and 5 mm are also quite sharp, the 25mm and the 18mm, not so much.  The 3.2mm is adequate but double stars get a little wonky off-axis.

 

I like the Paradigms as a set.  They have a consistent visual presentation.  They are sharp on-axis, some are not so sharp off-axis but I have other eyepieces if that's what I am looking for.  They all fit in a single small case along with one 2 inch eyepiece. 

 

Jon

You suggested I try the 3.2mm in my F6 refractors, rather than Barlowing a 6.5mm XCel LX. It was a very good recommendation, I'm very happy with it.

[T1R2]

That's interesting -I've noticed this too.

I've also noticed with my Morpheus I can find a more comfortable position at F6 than at F7.5. or above. A slight increase in exit pupil bringing more comfort?

I'm not sure what's going on. I can sorta picture in my head that longer focal ratio scopes have more parallel rays entering and maybe even exiting, and shorter focal ratio scopes have more of a conical shape, maybe that allows one to get closer to being inside the exit pupil which in turn can make it easier to get "closer" see the field stop... who knows?