My first report

[notFritzArgelander]

Where to heck did I got that Jun 19th? Should have been Apr 19th, of course.

I agree with nFA, 26mm is too long for your scope, and Erfle design of SWAN EP is poor match for a fast newt. I would suggest to look for 82 deg 14 to 20mm EP.

I didn't find the design of my SWAN? So it's Erfle, and Erfles are not good for fast scopes?
That was what I was after long ago when I was asking about eyepiece types.
Naglers would be good?

Do the classifications, like SWA, UWA and XWA give any hint about the structure?

@notFritzArgelander : You mentioned ES clones. Which ones are?
The TV T4 Naglers seem to have 7 elements in 5 groups. ES 82° waterproof 18 mm has 6 elements in 4 groups (and is suspiciously cheap - 195 €).
Of course ES doesn't tell about the structures on their pages. Had to check on a reseller's page.

Naglers are better corrected for fast scopes but might need a coma corrector at f4. ES cloned the TV designs for the 80 and 100 degree AFOV oculars. Those SWA etc designations are meaningless on design pretty much.

[notFritzArgelander]

OK. I have to look into the curve a bit longer to capture the essential. I also found a small reluctance in me to accept that I probably should go for smaller focal length eyepieces. But I seem to be getting over it.

Getting over that is vitally important. To reinforce getting over it here are a couple of additional links.

1) It is a fact that for an extended object the maximum surface brightness in luminance per unit angular area on the sky is with the naked eye. When we speak of telescopes making objects brighter we are making a conceptual error and violating energy conservation.

http://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Tel ... tness.html

The increase of limiting magnitude for stars only works as long as the magnification is so low that the diffraction disk is unresolved, NOT an extended object.

2) There is a link to Sky and Telescope DSO observing techniques that is helpful and true. It also mentions Clark's work.

Conventional wisdom holds that low magnification (low power) works best for deep-sky viewing. After all, low power concentrates an extended object's light into a small area, increasing its apparent surface brightness (the amount of light hitting a given square millimeter of your retina). But, as Roger Clark has documented, this assumption is usually false. High powers should do better on many faint deep-sky objects. The reason is subtle but important, so we'll go into some detail.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/s ... observing/

I hope I'm not overemphasizing this to the point of being obnoxious. It's the most important concept for happy DSO observing under less than dark sky conditions. Magnification is the most important tool to defeat bright skies.

[turboscrew]

No, you are not overemphasizing. I've been wondering whether 18 mm or 22 mm would be better for me.
There doesn't seem to be good candidates in between.
I guess I should list my ES HR 2" coma corrector in my signature.

[notFritzArgelander]

No, you are not overemphasizing. I've been wondering whether 18 mm or 22 mm would be better for me.
There doesn't seem to be good candidates in between.
I guess I should list my ES HR 2" coma corrector in my signature.

Well good on the coma corrector. Glad you've got that covered. I'm over 70 and I can get a little more than 5mm exit pupil. I'f guess that starting from 22mm and adding eyepieces in decrements of 4mm would be a good plan. So 22, 18, 14, 10 or close to that sequence is good. For DSOs and an f4 scope shorter than 8mm is of doubtful value.

[j.gardavsky]

Hello turboscrew,

my most sincere congrats on the VROD !, your observing reports has also opened a very helpful discussion.

Re: Clark Vision
There are still lots of people who don't understand it,
especially not the Blackwell's surface separating the invisibility from the visibility,
and they are refusing the Clark Vision.
These are as a rule also people violating in their belief the law of Étendue Conservation in optics, and highly likely some other laws of conservation, as well, ha, ha.
It does not matter, the Clark Vision works and helps.

Re: 20mm eyepieces
If f=25mm would be right for you, then you might consider the Carl Zeiss E-Pl 10x/20, or W-Pl, (AFOV around 45°) from the microscopes accessories, or the Leica HC Plan, or even better the Leica HC Plan S 10x/22, buth those Leicas still made in Germany, not in Singapore.
According to Uwe Glahn, who has had one of my Carl Zeiss E-Pl on test, this eyepiece shows more of the faintest stars if compared with the Nagler or ES. To me it also shows more and more difficult nebulae than the TV Plössl, I also have.
The prices are thanks to the Covid low, comparable to the TV Plössl, or even less, https://picclick.de/Okular-zeiss-e-pl-1 ... 31654.html

Best,
JG

[turboscrew]

No, you are not overemphasizing. I've been wondering whether 18 mm or 22 mm would be better for me.
There doesn't seem to be good candidates in between.
I guess I should list my ES HR 2" coma corrector in my signature.

Well good on the coma corrector. Glad you've got that covered. I'm over 70 and I can get a little more than 5mm exit pupil. I'f guess that starting from 22mm and adding eyepieces in decrements of 4mm would be a good plan. So 22, 18, 14, 10 or close to that sequence is good. For DSOs and an f4 scope shorter than 8mm is of doubtful value.

My shortest is 6 mm. I also have 3.6 mm, but I'll give that away as well as my 40 mm. I don't even consider owning them any more. They are just here waiting for the receiver. I think I should get a better Barlow, though. I have the cheapest Omegon x3 1.25".

[Edit]
Oops: Cheapest Meade x3 1.25" Barlow.

[turboscrew]

Hello turboscrew,

my most sincere congrats on the VROD !, your observing reports has also opened a very helpful discussion.

Re: Clark Vision
There are still lots of people who don't understand it,
especially not the Blackwell's surface separating the invisibility from the visibility,
and they are refusing the Clark Vision.
These are as a rule also people violating in their belief the law of Étendue Conservation in optics, and highly likely some other laws of conservation, as well, ha, ha.
It does not matter, the Clark Vision works and helps.

Re: 20mm eyepieces
If f=25mm would be right for you, then you might consider the Carl Zeiss E-Pl 10x/20, or W-Pl, (AFOV around 45°) from the microscopes accessories, or the Leica HC Plan, or even better the Leica HC Plan S 10x/22, buth those Leicas still made in Germany, not in Singapore.
According to Uwe Glahn, who has had one of my Carl Zeiss E-Pl on test, this eyepiece shows more of the faintest stars if compared with the Nagler or ES. To me it also shows more and more difficult nebulae than the TV Plössl, I also have.
The prices are thanks to the Covid low, comparable to the TV Plössl, or even less, https://picclick.de/Okular-zeiss-e-pl-1 ... 31654.html

Best,
JG

I think I'm trying to find a 22 mm or shorter. My SWAN is 26 mm.
I'll keep that anyway, because it's good for polar alignment.

[notFritzArgelander]

No, you are not overemphasizing. I've been wondering whether 18 mm or 22 mm would be better for me.
There doesn't seem to be good candidates in between.
I guess I should list my ES HR 2" coma corrector in my signature.

Well good on the coma corrector. Glad you've got that covered. I'm over 70 and I can get a little more than 5mm exit pupil. I'f guess that starting from 22mm and adding eyepieces in decrements of 4mm would be a good plan. So 22, 18, 14, 10 or close to that sequence is good. For DSOs and an f4 scope shorter than 8mm is of doubtful value.

My shortest is 6 mm. I also have 3.6 mm, but I'll give that away as well as my 40 mm. I don't even consider owning them any more. They are just here waiting for the receiver. I think I should get a better Barlow, though. I have the cheapest Omegon x3 1.25".

Shorter than 8mm for your f4 might be useful on the Moon and planets but for DSOs they are rarely good. Maybe a high surface brightness planetary nebula..... maybe.

A better barlow might be a good idea. Baader makes some good ones. I have TVs which are expensive.

[turboscrew]

Well good on the coma corrector. Glad you've got that covered. I'm over 70 and I can get a little more than 5mm exit pupil. I'f guess that starting from 22mm and adding eyepieces in decrements of 4mm would be a good plan. So 22, 18, 14, 10 or close to that sequence is good. For DSOs and an f4 scope shorter than 8mm is of doubtful value.

My shortest is 6 mm. I also have 3.6 mm, but I'll give that away as well as my 40 mm. I don't even consider owning them any more. They are just here waiting for the receiver. I think I should get a better Barlow, though. I have the cheapest Omegon x3 1.25".

Shorter than 8mm for your f4 might be useful on the Moon and planets but for DSOs they are rarely good. Maybe a high surface brightness planetary nebula..... maybe.

A better barlow might be a good idea. Baader makes some good ones. I have TVs which are expensive.

Yes. For planets. I was thinking that 15 mm + Barlow takes care of the 5 mm - at least for now. Maybe 4 mm (just in case) later. I doubt that the weather here gives a lot of use for 4mm. For 5 mm it does (I've heard).

[The Happy Parrot]

Enjoyed reading your report, TurboScrew. I relate to your difficulty observing targets that can barely be seen with averted vision. That pretty much describes a much of my time observing but it makes one appreciate the good days when they show clearly. I also appreciate that this happens even with a 300mm/12 inch telescope, especially now as the northern hemisphere brightens up for the summer. Puts aperture fever vs. access to dark skies in context.

Congratulations on VROD!

[turboscrew]

Hmm, I should have been wise enough to "redirect" the talk about eyepieces into another thread in "Eyepieces section". I just didn't realize that it could swell up that much, and when I finally did, there were comments about both the report and eyepieces intermixed.

[notFritzArgelander]

Hmm, I should have been wise enough to "redirect" the talk about eyepieces into another thread in "Eyepieces section". I just didn't realize that it could swell up that much, and when I finally did, there were comments about both the report and eyepieces intermixed.

Don't fret. It's impossible to talk too much about eyepieces.

[turboscrew]

Hmm, I should have been wise enough to "redirect" the talk about eyepieces into another thread in "Eyepieces section". I just didn't realize that it could swell up that much, and when I finally did, there were comments about both the report and eyepieces intermixed.

Don't fret. It's impossible to talk too much about eyepieces.