34 replies to this topic

[intercept789]

If I have my astrophotography camera on and etc etc, it all adds up. Some of my eyepieces are pretty heavy. Are there eyepieces that are solid that aren’t heavy?

[Oldfracguy]

What focal length eyepieces are you thinking of, and in what barrel size, 1.25" or 2" ?

[intercept789]

I think 1.25 since I am sure they would be lighter. And something in the range of a 9, 17 and 32.

[Astrojensen]

I think 1.25 since I am sure they would be lighter. And something in the range of a 9, 17 and 32.

Baader Classic Ortho 10, 18 and 32mm. Small, budget price, very lightweight, high quality. 

 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[SeattleScott]

Ok so we are looking at light and solid, both highly subjective, so help us narrow down what you are looking for. Because recently I was posting that a 31T5 might be a heavy eyepiece for someone's small refractors, but then they were like what are you talking about, it only weighs a couple of pounds. They have other heavier eyepieces. So let's get a sense of what you mean by "solid" and "light."

 

Behind door #1, Astrojensen suggests Baader Classic Orthos. Quite light, and good central contrast, although edge correction is an issue in fast scopes, AFOV is relatively narrow, and ER is a bit snug in the 10mm. Very affordable. Are they solid eyepieces? Generally speaking? Sure. Compared to a Baader Morpheus, your favorite eyepiece? Not real exciting.

 

Behind door #2, Nikon SWs have similar characteristics as the Baader Morpheus, at a similar price point. But they are smaller and lighter. However, for complex long ER, wide AFOV eyepieces, the Morpheus are already fairly light. So the Nikons aren't that much lighter, unless you unscrew the eyecup. But if you like the features of the Morpheus and just want a lighter package, the Nikons are as light as you can get. There is a 10 and a 17.5.

 

Behind door #3, let's go 9mm Xcel LX, 18mm UFF and pick the 32mm Plossl of your choice. They are solid, and light compared to a 9mm Morpheus. They won't seem real exciting compared to a Morpheus, but they are solid eyepieces and affordable.

 

Behind door #4, a new 10mm Tak TOE, along with TPLs in the longer focal lengths. Great central contrast, pretty good ER, just not very wide AFOV. The 10 TOE will be heavy compared to the TPLs, but probably still light compared to a Morpheus.

 

Ultimately, the weight of the 9 Morpheus is buying you long ER and wide AFOV. And excellent edge correction. So you can go much lighter by giving up good ER, wide AFOV and good edge correction with something like the 10mm BCO. Or you can go somewhere in-between, and get something lighter than the Morpheus, but heavier than the BCO, if you want to preserve a certain amount of ER, AFOV or edge correction. It just becomes a question of what you are willing to sacrifice to get lighter weight. A 9T6 is lighter than a Morpheus, great AFOV and decent ER (for a 9mm eyepiece) and has great edge correction. It just doesn't have long ER, and it isn't that much lighter. So what can you live without to save weight?

[triplemon]

X-Cel LX, HD-60, BST Starguider ED/Paradigms are all available 5-25mm, 60 deg FOV, good eye relief (unlike any classics <=12mm), economically priced, around 160-190 gr.
Nothing really wrong with any of those.

 

For 32mm in 1.25 there really is just one amswer: a classic Plossl.

[Jay_Reynolds_Freeman]

Absolute lightest might be used units in 24.5 mm barrels, with simple bushings -- you can probably find light-weight plastic ones -- to fit your focuser. A 32 mm focal length eyepiece in a 24.5 mm barrel would have a cramped field of view, but anything below about 25 mm focal length would likely be fine.

 

Orthoscopic, Kellner and perhaps Plossl eyepieces in 24.5 mm barrels turn up used fairly often. Kellners may not work well at fast-ish focal ratios, say at and below f/7. Beware of Huygens and Ramsden types unless you have a very long focal ratio, say f/15 or slower.

 

 

Clear sky ...

[therealdmt]

In my [SW] 72ED, i typically use my Vixen NPL Plossls. At about 50 degrees apparent field of view, a Plossl isn’t necessarily everyone’s cup of tea these days, but they are featherweight. Not sure what you meant by solid, but they work fine. I also use a 7-21 zoom with a 3x focal extender or a 3-8mm zoom with that scope. Everything except the focal extender is very lightweight. Regarding brands, I might have gone for the GSO Plossls if doing it over again, but I’m happy enough with what I’ve got.

 

However, I mainly wanted a set of Plossls just to have a set of Plossls (the eyepieces i wanted but couldn’t afford as a kid). Otherwise, allthough i find the true field of view with the Plossls to be quite adequate in my 420mm focal length telescope, for a bit more money and apparent field of view while still keeping size, weight and costs within what to me feels like an appropriate range for a lightweight grab ‘n go setup, I could well have gone for a set of Celestron X-Cel LXs (though I probably would have skipped the 2.3mm)

[Jon Isaacs]

If I have my astrophotography camera on and etc etc, it all adds up. Some of my eyepieces are pretty heavy. Are there eyepieces that are solid that aren’t heavy?

 

You have a 9mm Morpheus.  Is that big and heavy? Scott pretty much covered it all except for budget.  How much do want to spend?, how wide a field, how much eye relief?

 

Light weight, wide field, 12mm of eye relief, excellent sharpness across the field, the 16mm T-5 Nagler and the T-6 Naglers are excellent eyepieces.  They weigh less than 8 ounces or less. The 24mm Panoptic fits with these. But they are expensive.

 

Light weight 60 degrees AFoV, 12mm or more eye relief, variable sharpness across the field, affordable ($70 each) are the Astro-Tech Paradigms.  

 

I have sets of both the Naglers and the Paradigms.  Both show nice views but the Naglers are just about perfect.

 

Jon

[carver2011]

TeleVue Delites. Relatively small and lite, with a 68 degree FOV.  Priced now at $283. A quality eyepiece.

[Phil Perry]

Maybe the discussion should get back to why you think you need lighter eyepieces. If you can heft the OTA, camera, and other gear, I presume it's not a matter of being overwhelmed by a mere eyepiece. Are you carrying around a case full of eyepieces that is fatiguing to heft? Maybe you have too many, or should invest in a cart, or at least, a roll-around suitcase. Is the mount overloaded? Perhaps it's time to invest in a better, higher-capacity one. Is the OTA bending from the weight of stuff on it? Shouldn't happen, unless things have become ridiculous. You mentioned a camera -- what does the optical train include? Are you shooting through an eyepiece? More information on what's being used might be useful in soliciting suggestions.

[Lookitup]

TeleVue Delites. Relatively small and lite, with a 68 degree FOV.  Priced now at $283. A quality eyepiece.

The Delites have 62 degree FOV but seem larger. I used the 12mm Astro-Tech Paradigms alongside Delites 9 & 11mm. They were surprisingly close to the Delites.

[norvegicus]

TPL all day

[Procyon]

Not sure if the OP wants to attach his camera to an eyepiece, doesn't mention anything, but if it's a yes, look for Scopetronix Maxview eyepieces as they are light and have threads underneath the eyeguard. They are no longer made so you'd have to find them in classifieds.

I know there's quite a few on ebay all the time. They come in various focal lengths with the 40mm 1.25" being very popular. Pentax XW and probably XL eyepieces also have threads that can be coupled to many cameras also.

I used to own the 40mm it was pretty nice and sharp, it seemed to have a bigger field than a Plossl also, but not sure. I bought a 2" 40mm to try a few weeks ago.

Edited by Procyon, 23 June 2025 - 09:02 AM.

[Oldfracguy]

One thing to consider is that any eyepiece to be used in the f/5 Newtonian and even in the SW 72ED Evostar needs to perform well at these "faster" focal ratios.  Lightweight 1.25" Plossl eyepieces will work fine in the "Long Tube" 120mm achromat, but not as well in the other two scopes.  They will work of course, but the stars around the outer portion of the field of view won't look as nice as they will in some ofthe other eyepieces that have been mentioned, and cost more as well.  Another thing is that the field of view you will get with a Plossl is smaller than with these other eyepieces.

[Procyon]

OP, in your signature, you mention the 9mm Morpheus as your favorite eyepiece.

Why not just get more from that set? They are light and great eyepieces.

[TOMDEY]

Five things that (tend to) increase the "needed weight" of an eyepiece:

 

1) focal length - longer increases w

2) field - wider increases w

3) feeding F# - faster increases w

4) eye relief - longer increases w

5) required performance - better increases w

6) price - higher can decrease w (use of exotic glass, aspheric elements)

 

Manufacturers try to minimize weight (some more than others), but how much is possible limited. No "magic bullet" solutions exist.    Tom

 

Mag·ic bul·let
/ˌmajik ˈbo͝olət/
noun

1. a medicine or other remedy, especially an undiscovered or hypothetical one, with wonderful or highly specific properties:
informal
"there's no magic bullet, and we should just try to eat as varied and well-balanced a diet as possible"

"your desire for a premium immersive low power cheap light eyepiece for your fast dob would require a magic machine gun. Don't hold your breath!" ~

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[scanner97]

Not sure if the OP wants to attach his camera to an eyepiece...

The first thing I noticed was

 

If I have my astrophotography camera on and etc etc, it all adds up.

 

... so I'm wondering if new eyepieces are intended mainly for projection lunar imaging, or as much for visual use.  And since an AP camera is mentioned, what about the option of separating AP from visual and using a barlow for lunar so the eyepieces don't need to meet both needs?

Edited by scanner97, 23 June 2025 - 09:58 AM.

[SeattleScott]

My guess is the OP is using a flip diagonal so has a camera on one port, and an eyepiece on the other, so the eyepiece weight adds to the camera weight. It is likely easier to decrease the weight of the eyepiece than the camera gear. And if the eyepiece is mainly used just to help target a camera anyway, a Morpheus or whatever might be overkill.

[25585]

Brandons are light weight.

[Tony Cifani]

If I have my astrophotography camera on and etc etc, it all adds up. Some of my eyepieces are pretty heavy. Are there eyepieces that are solid that aren’t heavy?

This may be a dumb question, but why is the additional weight of the eyepieces a problem? Is it a telescope/mount balance problem or sagging optical/camera train problem?

 

If a telescope/mount balance problem, maybe adding more counter weights would help if your EQ mount can't balance the heavier eyepieces?

 

Additional counter weights, if doable, would be far less expensive than new lightweight eyepieces, especially with that 9mm Morpheus.

[Starman1]

If I have my astrophotography camera on and etc etc, it all adds up. Some of my eyepieces are pretty heavy. Are there eyepieces that are solid that aren’t heavy?

What's light?

Eyepieces range from 2 ounces to 56 ounces.

A 11 ounce eyepiece I would consider light since most of the eyepieces I've used over the years have exceeded 16 ounces each.

So are you looking for something longer in focal length than the 9mm Morpheus, or lighter?

Do you need long eye relief for glasses?

 

If so, Tele Vue Delites are smaller and lighter (7.5-8oz) and are glasses compatible and come in 9mm and 18.2mm.

The 32mm has to be a Plossl to keep with 1.25", and many Plossls are glasses-compatible in 32mm.  Just look for a shallow eye lens, like the Baader or Tele Vue.

[Procyon]

Five things that (tend to) increase the "needed weight" of an eyepiece:

 

1) focal length - longer increases w

2) field - wider increases w

3) feeding F# - faster increases w

4) eye relief - longer increases w

5) required performance - better increases w

6) price - higher can decrease w (use of exotic glass, aspheric elements)

 

Manufacturers try to minimize weight (some more than others), but how much is possible limited. No "magic bullet" solutions exist.    Tom

 

Mag·ic bul·let
/ˌmajik ˈbo͝olət/
noun

1. a medicine or other remedy, especially an undiscovered or hypothetical one, with wonderful or highly specific properties:
informal
"there's no magic bullet, and we should just try to eat as varied and well-balanced a diet as possible"

"your desire for a premium immersive low power cheap light eyepiece for your fast dob would require a magic machine gun. Don't hold your breath!" ~

TOMDEY must have been the owner of Acme in the Coyote vs Road Runner cartoon! 

 

[sw196060]

What kind of AFOV are you looking for?

There are a lot of choices if you can get by with 60deg or less AFOV.

[TOMDEY]

TOMDEY must have been the owner of Acme in the Coyote vs Road Runner cartoon! 

ACME was my favorite mail order company... then Edmund Scientific.    Tom

Attached Thumbnails

• 
•