What's Your "Sweet" Eyepiece?

[Arctic]

Obviously. there are a lot of factors that make an eyepiece "sweet". Primary Mirror/Objective Lens focal length are the big ones, as are coatings, eye relief, and apparent field of view. For me and my 8-inch SCT (fl:2000 mm) the Explore Scientific 20mm 68* series fits the bill. Producing a magnification of 100x and a crisp image across the field , it is my Go-To for most galaxy views.

What is yours, and why?

[Thefatkitty]

This should be a fun topic

For me, my Fujiyama KK 18mm ortho. Why? The eye relief, magnification, unreal sharpness right to the edge... I have the set from 9mm to 25mm, but the 18 is just perfect in all my scopes, from my 60mm f/7 to my 10" f/5.

Yes, it has a small field of view, but the quality of that view is worth the small field it's in

I love my ES 68's as well, but the KK 18mm is "the lens" for me. I like it so much I bought a second one, just in case..... :twitch:

All the best,

[notFritzArgelander]

It depends on what I am doing.... What's the task and the scope?

If I am sweeping for DSOs at low power then the TV Panoptic 41mm is wonderful with the Tak LE 50mm too. I'll use the Pan on the SV ED80A where it gives a 5* AFOV at 14x. I use the Tak mostly with the Intes MK66 where it gives a 1.36* AFOV at 36x.

If I want to use narrow band filters to enhance nebulae then I've had terrific results with the Baader H beta filter the TV Panoptic 35mm and the SV ED80A. This gives maximum illumination to the eye at 5mm exit pupil (my eyes dilate a little more so maybe I could maximize a little more). 4.25* AFOV at 16x.

For galaxy hunting in the Z12 it's the 19mm TV Panoptic at 0.86* TFOV and 79x. Same task VMC110L it's the BCO set. In the SV ED80A the TV 27mm Pan gives a 3.28* TFOV at 21x does a great job on large targets like M31 showing the spiral arms and dust lanes.

For intra galaxy details I find the BCOs as a set are wonderful. They give the most distinct internal details.

On lunar and planetary the KK fujijamas. End of story. Best contrast to my eyes.

[Ylem]

My 24mm 68°
Mine is an Orion Stratus, it's no longer sold.
But ES, and TV have their versions of course

[Lady Fraktor]

It would depend on what target and telescope, to many eyepieces to choose from to pick just one.

[Star Dad]

While I agree with the others that it depends on what I'm showing to people, I use my 30mm & 40mm most often - Erfle design (Antares) (I paid $75 each) - but I really like my 9mm argon purged Explore Scientific. I am totally astonished at the current price - I think I paid $225 for it a couple of years ago (OK, so about 9 years ago). Today I see they want $550 for it. WOW! It gives me about 110X and it's the one I use most on the planets if the sky is not good enough for the higher powers. It's biggest problem is it weighs in at about 2 pounds - 1KG. When my scope is near the horizon the clutch can easily slip because of the weight so I have to add counter weights by the mirror.

[j.gardavsky]

Hello all,

as most of my observings of the faint diffuse nebulae in the Cepheus - western Cassiopeia skies have been through the 6" F/5 achro during the past months,
my choice for the sweet eyepiece is the Leica HC Plan S f=25mm. I would have never believed to see so many faint fuzzies through an aperture as small as 6".

The next observing projects may reveal another "sugar EP", a sort of loving attention of an old man towards a young modern optics.

Best,
JG

[pakarinen]

Orion 15mm Expanse. Go figure...

[Refractordude]

pakarinen:

I like the eBay Svbony 15mm Expanse for higher mag on DSO. Good eye relief and 66 degree field of view. It and the 20mm do not have the blackouts that the 9mm and 6mm have.

[Bigzmey]

Well, my main weapon is the same as yours - 8" SCT, so my most used EPs are also in 20mm range. I started with ES68 20mm, upgraded to Meade UWA 82 deg 18mm, and finally to Pentax XW 70 deg 20mm. This is my most used EP now since it pulls faint stuff like nothing else.

[notFritzArgelander]

Well, my main weapon is the same as yours - 8" SCT, so my most used EPs are also in 20mm range. I started with ES68 20mm, upgraded to Meade UWA 82 deg 18mm, and finally to Pentax XW 70 deg 20mm. This is my most used EP now since it pulls faint stuff like nothing else.

I confess to lusting after Pentax XWs. Maybe after my scope ensemble is restored.

[Arctic]

Well, my main weapon is the same as yours - 8" SCT, so my most used EPs are also in 20mm range. I started with ES68 20mm, upgraded to Meade UWA 82 deg 18mm, and finally to Pentax XW 70 deg 20mm. This is my most used EP now since it pulls faint stuff like nothing else.

So, how does your Pentax XW 20mm compare to the ES68 20mm?

[Doug James]

My go to is the, 21mm.68° Orion Stratus.

[helicon]

I like my ES 82 degree 18mm eyepiece which I call my "galaxy killer."

[Don Alvarez]

The 26mm Meade 4k "smoothie" plossl-not-a-plossl edges out my 24mm UWA as my new fav

[Bigzmey]

Well, my main weapon is the same as yours - 8" SCT, so my most used EPs are also in 20mm range. I started with ES68 20mm, upgraded to Meade UWA 82 deg 18mm, and finally to Pentax XW 70 deg 20mm. This is my most used EP now since it pulls faint stuff like nothing else.

So, how does your Pentax XW 20mm compare to the ES68 20mm?

Eye relief on XW is better for observing with eyeglasses. I had difficulties with ES68 20mm to see the whole FOV. In fact I consider tight eye relief a major weakness of ES EPs offering. They don't have a single EP line with long eye relief.

Optical quality of XWs is definitely better. ES makes good optical quality EPs, no question about. But XWs are more refined: cleaner views with better contrast. On extra faint galaxies XWs beat all other EPs in my collection including Delites and BCOs and that says a lot.

ES 68 and 82 and Meade UWA are good quality EPs. I would not look for anything better if not for the tight eye relief. But, I am glad I did.

Does the incremental improvement in performance justifies the premium you have to pay to upgrade from ES to XWs? I would not skip my meals to get them. But as I am later in my life I can set a side a budget for my hobbies and indulge in some premium equipment guilt-free.

[Arctic]

Well, my main weapon is the same as yours - 8" SCT, so my most used EPs are also in 20mm range. I started with ES68 20mm, upgraded to Meade UWA 82 deg 18mm, and finally to Pentax XW 70 deg 20mm. This is my most used EP now since it pulls faint stuff like nothing else.

So, how does your Pentax XW 20mm compare to the ES68 20mm?

Eye relief on XW is better for observing with eyeglasses. I had difficulties with ES68 20mm to see the whole FOV. In fact I consider tight eye relief a major weakness of ES EPs offering. They don't have a single EP line with long eye relief.

Optical quality of XWs is definitely better. ES makes good optical quality EPs, no question about. But XWs are more refined: cleaner views with better contrast. On extra faint galaxies XWs beat all other EPs in my collection including Delites and BCOs and that says a lot.

ES 68 and 82 and Meade UWA are good quality EPs. I would not look for anything better if not for the tight eye relief. But, I am glad I did.

Does the incremental improvement in performance justifies the premium you have to pay to upgrade from ES to XWs? I would not skip my meals to get them. But as I am later in my life I can set a side a budget for my hobbies and indulge in some premium equipment guilt-free.

Thanks, Bigzmey. I never use my glasses at the eyepiece, because I am nearsighted and can correct for it with the focus. Therefore, eye relief is not important.

Having astronomy for a hobby can be expensive, but we only live once. A LOT of hobbies are expensive. Around here many folks don't think twice about buying multiple, $5,000 to $10,000 snowmobiles for their family members--and living in the Land of 10,000 Lakes (we have way more than that, by the way) ---we won't even talk about boats!

[Bigzmey]

So, how does your Pentax XW 20mm compare to the ES68 20mm?

Eye relief on XW is better for observing with eyeglasses. I had difficulties with ES68 20mm to see the whole FOV. In fact I consider tight eye relief a major weakness of ES EPs offering. They don't have a single EP line with long eye relief.

Optical quality of XWs is definitely better. ES makes good optical quality EPs, no question about. But XWs are more refined: cleaner views with better contrast. On extra faint galaxies XWs beat all other EPs in my collection including Delites and BCOs and that says a lot.

ES 68 and 82 and Meade UWA are good quality EPs. I would not look for anything better if not for the tight eye relief. But, I am glad I did.

Does the incremental improvement in performance justifies the premium you have to pay to upgrade from ES to XWs? I would not skip my meals to get them. But as I am later in my life I can set a side a budget for my hobbies and indulge in some premium equipment guilt-free.

Thanks, Bigzmey. I never use my glasses at the eyepiece, because I am nearsighted and can correct for it with the focus. Therefore, eye relief is not important.

Having astronomy for a hobby can be expensive, but we only live once. A LOT of hobbies are expensive. Around here many folks don't think twice about buying multiple, $5,000 to $10,000 snowmobiles for their family members--and living in the Land of 10,000 Lakes (we have way more than that, by the way) ---we won't even talk about boats!

Exactly! My wife claims that astronomy is my middle edge crisis. My response: "suppose it is, would you prefer me to by a Porsche instead?"

[Richard]

I like my old Orion 22 mm 65 lanthanum on my dobs its my best eyepiece but I cant afford the great TV ones

[Piet Le Roux]

IT is my 13mm Tele Vue Nagler, My scopes are close to 2000mm focal length, so for big Nebulae and open clusters I like the 27mm Panoptic.