I have a dilema. I have a 12.5" f 8 I made in one of Brent Watson's workshops. You know, the one where 8 or 9 people in trench coats wait for the sun to go down and then they all drive seperately to an airplane hanger to grind mirrors. Sounds like something from a Dick Tracy cartoon. Oops, I'm off topic. The mirror and the scope turned out really well. I'm pleased. My dilema is with the eyepieces. I can't find the next eyepiece to fit in to what I already have and I don't understand why. I have my starter scope, a 6" reflector from Orion and 3 eyepieces. The eyepieces are 1.25", 25mm, 17mm and a 10mm Explorer II's from Orion. They cost $28 a piece. My 12.5" scope has a 2" focuser. I bought a 50mm and a 32mm eyepiece from Orion. Optiluxe, $139 and $149. They both work great. The lagoon and swan nebula's looked great, but I wanted more power. Something in the 15 to 20mm range. I looked around and couldn't find that many that are reasonably priced, so I bought a 17mm Lanthanum from Orion. $245. It's a 1.25" that fits a 2" focuser. I tried the new 17mm and compared it to the old and inexpensive 17mm a saw no noticeable difference. I looked at the moon, nebulas, clusters and M31. Not in that order of course. So I'm sending back the new 17mm. I'm within the 30 day period for a refund. Why was there no noticeable difference? Does a 2" eyepiece give you better views and clarity than a 1.25" of equal size? It seems like it should to me. More glass surface in the lens. Please explain this to my tiny little brain. If a 2" eyepiece in the 15-20mm range is where I should go, please give me suggestions on which one to get. Do I need to spend more money for a good lens? I've thought about this and just can't reason it out. Any help would be most appreciated. PS. Thanks for helping me with the mirror Brent.
In the days of eBay and Astromart, there's no reason to spend big bucks on new eyepieces. You should also be able to find plenty of online reviews of various brands, optical designs, focal lengths, etc. Also try coming to star parties where you have the chance to observe through a large variety before purchasing. ----- Original Message ----- From: <steve.nielsen@comcast.net> To: <Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:54 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Eyepieces |I have a dilema. | | I have a 12.5" f 8 I made in one of Brent Watson's workshops. You know, the one where 8 or 9 people in trench coats wait for the sun to go down and then they all drive seperately to an airplane hanger to grind mirrors. Sounds like something from a Dick Tracy cartoon. Oops, I'm off topic. | | The mirror and the scope turned out really well. I'm pleased. My dilema is with the eyepieces. I can't find the next eyepiece to fit in to what I already have and I don't understand why. | | I have my starter scope, a 6" reflector from Orion and 3 eyepieces. The eyepieces are 1.25", 25mm, 17mm and a 10mm Explorer II's from Orion. They cost $28 a piece. | | My 12.5" scope has a 2" focuser. I bought a 50mm and a 32mm eyepiece from Orion. Optiluxe, $139 and $149. They both work great. The lagoon and swan nebula's looked great, but I wanted more power. Something in the 15 to 20mm range. I looked around and couldn't find that many that are reasonably priced, so I bought a 17mm Lanthanum from Orion. $245. It's a 1.25" that fits a 2" focuser. | | I tried the new 17mm and compared it to the old and inexpensive 17mm a saw no noticeable difference. I looked at the moon, nebulas, clusters and M31. Not in that order of course. So I'm sending back the new 17mm. I'm within the 30 day period for a refund. | | Why was there no noticeable difference? | Does a 2" eyepiece give you better views and clarity than a 1.25" of equal size? | It seems like it should to me. More glass surface in the lens. Please explain this to my tiny little brain. | If a 2" eyepiece in the 15-20mm range is where I should go, please give me suggestions on which one to get. | Do I need to spend more money for a good lens? | | I've thought about this and just can't reason it out. Any help would be most appreciated. | | PS. Thanks for helping me with the mirror Brent. | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Steve, My experience has shown that the more glass in an eyepiece, the harder it is to get a better image. Newer designs has more surfaces, and more elements, and not necessarily better images. I still think the best (sharpest) images come from a good quality orthoscopic or plossl. The newer designs have great eye relief and extremely wide field, but lack the sharpnerss. My opinion, and your mileage may vary. --- steve.nielsen@comcast.net wrote:
I have a dilema.
I have a 12.5" f 8 I made in one of Brent Watson's workshops. You know, the one where 8 or 9 people in trench coats wait for the sun to go down and then they all drive seperately to an airplane hanger to grind mirrors. Sounds like something from a Dick Tracy cartoon. Oops, I'm off topic.
The mirror and the scope turned out really well. I'm pleased. My dilema is with the eyepieces. I can't find the next eyepiece to fit in to what I already have and I don't understand why.
I have my starter scope, a 6" reflector from Orion and 3 eyepieces. The eyepieces are 1.25", 25mm, 17mm and a 10mm Explorer II's from Orion. They cost $28 a piece.
My 12.5" scope has a 2" focuser. I bought a 50mm and a 32mm eyepiece from Orion. Optiluxe, $139 and $149. They both work great. The lagoon and swan nebula's looked great, but I wanted more power. Something in the 15 to 20mm range. I looked around and couldn't find that many that are reasonably priced, so I bought a 17mm Lanthanum from Orion. $245. It's a 1.25" that fits a 2" focuser.
I tried the new 17mm and compared it to the old and inexpensive 17mm a saw no noticeable difference. I looked at the moon, nebulas, clusters and M31. Not in that order of course. So I'm sending back the new 17mm. I'm within the 30 day period for a refund.
Why was there no noticeable difference? Does a 2" eyepiece give you better views and clarity than a 1.25" of equal size? It seems like it should to me. More glass surface in the lens. Please explain this to my tiny little brain. If a 2" eyepiece in the 15-20mm range is where I should go, please give me suggestions on which one to get. Do I need to spend more money for a good lens?
I've thought about this and just can't reason it out. Any help would be most appreciated.
PS. Thanks for helping me with the mirror Brent. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
I agree with you, Brent, but every time I mention that a certain design beginnig with an "N" is soft in the center, I get a healthy ration of sh- stuff from "N" owners. --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Steve,
My experience has shown that the more glass in an eyepiece, the harder it is to get a better image. Newer designs has more surfaces, and more elements, and not necessarily better images. I still think the best (sharpest) images come from a good quality orthoscopic or plossl. The newer designs have great eye relief and extremely wide field, but lack the sharpnerss. My opinion, and your mileage may vary.
--- steve.nielsen@comcast.net wrote:
I have a dilema.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Yes, Chuck. I even own a couple of "N's". They are good for low mag deep sky, but doubles, clusters, and planets suffer. BTW, for those who don't know, an "N" is basically an erfle with a built in barlow. That's a bunch of glass to have to look through. Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
I agree with you, Brent, but every time I mention that a certain design beginnig with an "N" is soft in the center, I get a healthy ration of sh- stuff from "N" owners.
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Steve,
My experience has shown that the more glass in an eyepiece, the harder it is to get a better image. Newer designs has more surfaces, and more elements, and not necessarily better images. I still think the best (sharpest) images come from a good quality orthoscopic or plossl. The newer designs have great eye relief and extremely wide field, but lack the sharpnerss. My opinion, and your mileage may vary.
--- steve.nielsen@comcast.net wrote:
I have a dilema.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Ah, but my 22mm Nagler type 4 lives in my focuser! I wouldn't trade it for any other eyepiece. :o) That said, it certainly does come out and is replaced with either a ploessl or ortho when I want a closer and "cleaner" look at some object, especially planets. -Rich --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, Chuck. I even own a couple of "N's". They are good for low mag deep sky, but doubles, clusters, and planets suffer.
BTW, for those who don't know, an "N" is basically an erfle with a built in barlow. That's a bunch of glass to have to look through.
Brent
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
I agree with you, Brent, but every time I mention that a certain design beginnig with an "N" is soft in the center, I get a healthy ration of sh- stuff from "N" owners.
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Steve,
My experience has shown that the more glass in an eyepiece, the harder it is to get a better image. Newer designs has more surfaces, and more elements, and not necessarily better images. I still think the best (sharpest) images come from a good quality orthoscopic or plossl. The newer designs have great eye relief and extremely wide field, but lack the sharpnerss. My opinion, and your mileage may vary.
--- steve.nielsen@comcast.net wrote:
I have a dilema.
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
participants (5)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Kim Hyatt -
Richard Tenney -
steve.nielsen＠comcast.net