Televue eyepiece vs Cheap Celestron multi Set

[COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR][SIZE="Large"][/SIZE]This is my video talking about the difference between high en and low end eyepieces



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9X9LslrgEk

Get no argument from me on that! 8)

Scott VanVoorhis said:

[COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR][SIZE="Large"][/SIZE]This is my video talking about the difference between high en and low end eyepieces



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9X9LslrgEk

This is where I am coming from...

My main set is all Naglers, from the 31mm to the 3.5mm but I have several sets of a variety of eyepieces, TV Widefields, Plossls, Meade Series 2 Orthos, TMB Planetaries... a couple of Panoptics... all have their pluses and minuses.

There are several important factors to be considered when choosing an eyepiece... focal ratio of the scope, the type of mount one is using, the eye relief, the afov.

So... Rather than simply saying you prefer TeleVue eyepieces, why not explain the factors that you believe are important in choosing an eyepiece?

I know why I like them... Most of my mounts are undriven so the wide field of view helps because it allows for greater drift times. Many of my scopes are fast, in the F/4-F/5 range so the ability of the TeleVue eyepieces to provide well corrected, sharp stars across the field of view is very nice, few eyepieces function well in fast telescopes.

I also like the fact that TeleVue eyepieces have a reasonable amount of eye relief in the shorter focal lengths. Being a negative-positive design, sufficient eye relief is available in all focal lengths.

But not everyone likes TV eyepieces. The Pincushion distortion in the longer focal lengths can lead to a sea-sick feeling when panning. For eye glass wearers, many TV eyepieces do not have sufficient eye relief. And, some observers prefer fewer elements, finding that the scatter from the added elements causes a loss of contrast. And of course there is always the weight... a 31mm Nagler is over 2lbs.

It is also important to recognize that having the right focal length eyepiece is important in obtaining the best view. If you only have two eyepieces, then you are limited in what you can see... One needs a range of eyepieces in order to cover all the objects, a 13mm Nagler is an OK planetary eyepiece in a 25inch F/5 but few of us have a 25 inch F/5...

The Celestron Plossl kit for a $120 or so, offers a lot of capability for a small price. There is no doubt that the eye relief is short in the shorter focal lengths and that the 50 degree AFoV is not as nice but in the final analysis, there is very little one cannot see in a simple Plossl that will be visible in a TV Nagler or Panoptic.

That's how it works for me...

Jon Isaacs

Attached Image:

I'm also relatively new to this hobby. I took the plunge and bought a 13mm Nagler recently. (I bought it used from the Amart classifieds.) The rest of my EPs are pretty standard stuff.

Of all the comments already posted, I would agree most with Jon Isaac's:

>>>there is very little one cannot see in a simple Plossl that will be visible in a TV Nagler<<<

Then again, I would also add this idea. I'm glad I have one really nice eyepiece. One does get a sense of "falling into" the sky with the wide angle vision it offers.

Cleers,
Joe

There is a place for both. You can't go wrong buying the very best, but for a novice a set like Celestron's (or Meade's) can be a godsend. In the beginning you won't notice too much difference between plebian and perfect, and having a large range of focal lengths available will allow you to get some good work done while saving up for whatever.