Two Recent Mistakes

[mikemarotta]

"If you think that education is expensive, try ignorance." In numismatics, we say, "Buy the book before you buy the coin." I actually had the book - Harrington's Star Ware; reviewed here https://www.theskysearchers.com/viewtop ... 10&t=15227 - but had not gotten to the part about the 40mm ocular ("eyepiece") before mine was on its way.

"Also, avoid any 1.25-inch 40mm Plössl. Although magnification is very low, their apparent fields of view are narrowed than 32-mm Plössls with 1.25-inch barrels. In the end, the real fields of view (or how much sky actually squeezes into view) are actually the same, but the slightly higher magnification of the 32-mm Plössl will produce better image contrast." -- page 183.

Mine arrived yesterday and I went out last night with my 102-mm f/6.47 refractor. The 40-mm was perfect the Pleiades. Almost nothing else went well and surely not better than any other arrangement I already have. I will say that I used the 40-mm on eta Cassiopeiae and knowning what I was looking for and what I was look at, even at 16.5X magnification, I could see the companion. It is amazing what you can see with just a little optical advantage. My basic intention was to use the 40-mm with a 2X Barlow to deliver the same magnification as a 20-mm but with a wider field of view and better eye relief. It just depends on what you are looking for and looking at. Just for example, where I live the Milky Way now is not visible naked eye. However, lining up Albireo in the Swan (Northern Cross), I saw that it does come through with the telescope. So, it is not a total loss, and the cost of the 40-mm ocular was $20-$25, a small tuition.

On the other hand, I bought a 5X Focal Extender. The customer service rep at Explore Scientific did talk me out of it when I bought my 102 in October. He warned me that with my backyard sky and the 102-mm refractor, all I would get was a close-up view of a bad view of Mars. I bought the 5X Focal Extender a month later. I used it once and then used it again last night. It is pretty much $279 worth of nice glass sitting in a box. I do have other telescopes. And our club does have a Covid-compliant dark sky site. But it was a purchase that I did not need to make.

[Ylem]

I like my 40mm Plossl.
With an exception of my ST-80, it's life in the slow lane around here LOL
My two most used EPs are my 24mm pan knock off and my 40mm.
They both give me the same FOV but a wide range of magnification.

[OzEclipse]

It took me three decades to learn that if you have good primary optics, good quality eyepieces are worth the investment. For 30 years, my primary optic was a 6”f7 newt. Excellent optics but also at f7, very forgiving of eyepiece design. Same with my ED80 and 8”f9 Vixen Cassegrain. Then I bought a large f5 dob. The old Plössl and Erfle collection just didn’t cut it anymore and I have invested in a small collection of better eyepieces. Not surprising they also give better views through other forgiving scopes too.

The eyepieces I have settled upon are
Naglers 31 mm, 17 mm, 7mm. 82 deg AFOV
Denkmeier D20 20 mm, D14 14 mm 68 deg AFOV

I have a 5mm Baader Hyperion but I don’t like it. I compared it to a friend’s Pentax XW 5 and the difference is stark. The transmission of the Pentax is much greater than the Baader. I recently picked up a cheap Meade 4000 series UW4.7 mm. I’ll compare it to the Baader and either sell both and buy a Pentax or keep the Meade. I also have a GSO Superview 40mm which is ok but nothing special. I will keep it because I don’t use a 40 mm much having the Nagler 31.

[Baurice]

TBH, I have a large collection of budget and mid-price eyepieces. Most months they are totally unused, as my cameras see more light than I do. It is when I view Mars that my visuals are better than what I can get in photographs. I get my best views with GSO eyepieces, sometimes with Barlow lenses.

[pakarinen]

Ironically, I get pretty good views with my Orion Expanse 15mm - comparable to my Vixen SLVs although the Vixens are 10mm and 6mm. I am considering rationalizing though and replacing the Orion with a VIxen 15mm. I also have a couple of SkyWatcher somethings which came with my Mak. I've never taken them out of their boxes. I suppose I should try them before selling them too.

[Makuser]

Hi Olen and all. Before you do anything hasty, check out Mike's more recent post from 12/17:
viewtopic.php?f=34&p=129186#p129186
I hope this helps and the best of regards.

[Bigzmey]

"Also, avoid any 1.25-inch 40mm Plössl. Although magnification is very low, their apparent fields of view are narrowed than 32-mm Plössls with 1.25-inch barrels. In the end, the real fields of view (or how much sky actually squeezes into view) are actually the same, but the slightly higher magnification of the 32-mm Plössl will produce better image contrast." -- page 183.

This is just one man opinion. 1.25-inch 40mm Plössl has it's uses in particular in slower scopes. It was my to go EP for 127mm Mak. I have not one, but two, Meade and Televue. One for each of my EP cases.

I was even considering getting 1.25" 50mm Plossl.
http://russell-optics.com/quarter_inch.html

[mikemarotta]

"Also, avoid any 1.25-inch 40mm Plössl.

This is just one man opinion. 1.25-inch 40mm Plössl has it's uses in particular in slower scopes. It was my to go EP for 127mm Mak. I have not one, but two, Meade and Televue. One for each of my EP cases.

I have been using the 40mm for viewing the Pleiades. As for the better view with a 32, I have to confess that a lot of times, the fineries are lost on me. Filet mignon is just hamburger and lobster tail is just shrimp. Maybe the view is "better" with a 32mm, but if you can't get them all in the view, then what's the point?

I always appreciate your encouraging opinions. My problems with the 40mm were mostly a matter of our getting used to each other. Like a new knife is not really yours until you cut yourself with it.

[turboscrew]

I have a 40 mm. It's basically used only for locating targets, but even for that, it's a bit too long.
For my telescope the minimum magnification is achieved by 28 mm.

[mikemarotta]

For my telescope the minimum magnification is achieved by 28 mm.

I looked up your VX12 on the Orion UK site. It is an f/4 and 300 mm (12 inches, 11.8 actually) objective and 1200 mm focal length. For me, to achieve the same as you prefer, I would use a 15mm ocular. (I have a 17 mm, close enough). But, in fact, for that I would prefer to use the 32mm with a 2X Barlow to achieve the same magnification with a better view. I am not sure if that would be Field-of-View or "eye relief" but I like it more.