The Only 2 Eyepieces I Use! - Which Are They?? 

Right?! I wish every news anchor and professor were more like him. This dude could make trig cool.

Thats why I just subbed after watching a few of his videos. Its not just opinion, its opinion with reasoning demonstrated which is great for understanding.

I started this hobby following Ed's advice and will be forever grateful. It was the right advice, time tested.

You fancy him

BHAHAHA great one

Is Ed responsible for the medical bills?

I’m too just starting out, are you still interested in astronomy? Never too late to start!!

That was all of us when we discovered it too. Welcome 😊

From the nearly 10 articles that I read when I was a beginner, one stood clearly over the others, and that was Ed's. That's why I started in this on the right foot.

Nice story. If you can find the discontinued 26mm Nagler Type 5, that is my favorite in that line. If you can't find one, you might have to "settle" for the 31mm Nagler.

Totally

Those Svbony 68° eyepieces are great. I love mine.

Ah the gold/red lines. They were also sold as "Orion Expanse" for a while. If you like them, no reason to toss them, but I'd look into adding a GSO SuperView 30mm for a lowest widest while keeping with the budget theme.

@@BlueTrane2028 I am thinking about a 30mm, but it will have to wait a while, I’m having major surgery the end of the month so it will have to wait. I’ll check it out, thanks.

@@stevemyers7698 …best of luck to you with your upcoming surgery.

Just made the move from a large binocular used for many years to a 12.5" Dob and loving the change.

If you used a 40mm eyepiece or longer, do you think you'd be ok without a finder scope on that Dob? Does it work that way? Would the image be brighter with a longer eyepiece? I'm trying to plan my 1st scope. So far I've had fun finding objects on my camera with a cheap zoom lens. I want to point and hunt.

There's better out there and cheaper as well.

​​@@Astronurdcheaper maybe, better no. With a few exceptions where the cheaper option matches the televue in a focal length or 2, such as 14mm es100 and meade 5.5uwa, as well as the 28 uwan/PWA. I also found the 20mm XWA/HDC 100deg offered by several brands to be remarkably close to the 21 ethos where the 20mm es100 fell short. The only cases where cheaper eyepieces outperform naglers is really old ones, type1 and 2, that had shorter eye relief with decades aged, very old technology coatings, that can be beaten by modern Chinese clones of nagler type 5 and 6, which is what the es82 is.

I'm pretty new to amateur astronomy, but what I do when changing to a higher powered but 1.25" (vs 2") eyepiece is just have it fixed in the adapter before dusk. No fumbling in the dark, but changing focus is still necessary. Just my experience, and thanks for your input. Clear skies!

Does it really make sense to spend 1/3 of your budget on a single eyepiece?

@@higgs1913 Does it really make sense to question his equipment purchase? It what way, did it affect you? P.S. It didn't...start your petty argument elsewhere...

If you can use the 3-6 Nagler on an LX90 you must have superb seeing conditions. No way could I do that here.

@@edting I use it more with my Televue 85 but I have used it with the LX90 under good seeing conditions.

Remember Pretoria distributed by UO?

@@randallrogers6350 I have to say I don't recall that one. It's been so long I think I first bought from UO around early to mid 2000s.

I cherish my old University Optics 25mm Ortho. Used it for 40 years.

I believe the manufacturer for both is/was Ohi in Japan. I had some of the Fujiyamas for a while - 7mm, 9mm, two 12.5mm for binoviewing, and 18mm. The 7 and 9 were exceptional. Both 12.5s were very, very dirty. Aim at the Moon and they lit up like a Christmas tree. It was like someone had been doing drywall construction in the room where the lenses for the 12.5s were waiting for assembly. Contrast was noticeably poor on the Moon because of it. The 18, like the 7 and 9, was exceptional.

I always wanted the MK70 and 80, but settled for 30mm widescan II and III, and 4k 40mm SWA. I did have some UO HD orthos, the whole set except for my 7mm being an Antares branded one. Dumbest thing I ever did was sell the set too cheaply. Not that it mattered in the long run because they would have been stolen anyway

Execpt that the eye relief is also scaled, the 19 is tight, and the 15 was so tight it was discontinued

The reason for the distortion is because that was needed in order to get pinpoint stars to the edge. Naglers have a bit as well but not as much as the panoptic. With the 40XW, there is field curvature requiring a slight refocus to be sharp at the edge or the center. So beware In that regard

Those seem like sound choices!

You also need a 55mm plossl, or 56mm super plossl, but a Japanese one, as the current Chinese ones are a little sloppy. Other options would be the 50mm axiom and Tak LE 50mm. I can vouch for both the axiom which I used to own and love in my c11, and the smoothside 56mm meade super plossl, which I now own and love in the vintage 10" meade I had to settle for after being robbed blind out of my storage unit. Since tweaker storage theives don't know what a g11 tripod is when it is dissambled, what counterweights are and why they are needed, nor what dovetails, saddles and 3 point rings are, they left those parts and I was able to trade them straight across for the meade. Why a 50, 55 or 56 when the 41 pan has the same true field you ask? The answer, exit pupil, especially when using filters to look at faint nebulae, or just when in really dark skies in general and you want to make something brighter. There were even larger than 2" 60 and 70mm kellners for the old C14s back in the day, but you can just order up a televue 55mm plossl and get it right away. Personally I prefer the older 5 element meade super plossl over the televue, and the 7 element 50mm axiom with 56 degree field was nice, but the televue 55 is the best one currently available (I haven't used the 50mm takahashi but I assume it is great, but it has to have at least a 45mm field stop for me to be interested). Also the 55 plossl fits your green lettered theme.

For what it's worth, there are definitely good non-TV eyepieces out there. Explore Scientific 92s are incredible and not just second fiddle copies of Tele Vue eyepieces, Pentax XWs are wonderfully comfortable with excellent performance, Nikon NAV-SWs are similar, Nikon NAV-HWs are better than Ethos, and Baader Morpheus are very close to Delos in performance as long as focal ratio stays above 4.5, but have wider fields and feel more immersive. BUT, nobody offers the combination of choices and quality that Tele Vue does. Nobody is even close. From Plossls, to DeLites, to Panoptics, to Delos, to Naglers to Ethos. So many choices, and no compromise on quality.

@@vbikcl Thanks, Jon. Haven't tried Nikon yet, but I have a Baader Morpheus 4.5 and it's okay, but I think it's too much power for the seeing conditions I have here in VT. I'm surprised there's something better than an Ethos! Not sure why, but I've never considered Nikon eyepieces. Like TV eyepieces, I see they're expensive puppies, too! I'll have to do a little more research. Thanks again for the info.

2mm exit pupil is definitely a sweet spot for general purpose DSO observing. It's consistent no matter what scope I use. In my F/5.4 scope, my 10mm eyepiece is my most used focal length. It can live in the focuser most of the night. Yes, "only" 1.85mm exit pupil, but close enough. In my F/13 Mak, the 24 Pan is a match made in heaven. In my F/7 refractor, my 14mm eyepiece is perfect for cruising through most DSOs until I need either more magnification, a wider view, or a brighter view (when using nebula filters). EVERYONE should have an eyepiece that produces close to a 2mm exit pupil for their scope. Perfect balance of view brightness and magnification for general purpose deep sky observing. Multiply the telescope's focal ratio by 2 and that's the eyepiece focal length you need for a 2mm exit pupil.

@@vbikcl I was out last night until the wee hours with my Tele Vue 85 (f/7) - I used the 14 Delos easily 80% of the time.

@@dandurkin9735that sounds perfect @ 2mm exit and 72 degree field!

Those Pentax eyepieces are excellent and have a cult following.

Over the years (I am 76 now) I had several TeleVues in Radian, Plossel, Panoptic and even the "Terminagler"....the 31 which I hated. Now I have all the Pentax XLs, I kept one of the TeleVues....the 32mm Plossl....and one TMB planetary and an old UO Ortho. I sold all the other Tele Vue. I use a variety of APO refractors.... 80mm and 152mm from Officina Stellare, a TV 85 APO, and Celestron SCTs in 8" and 11" HD. I am mainly an astrophotographer but now my main eyepieces are Pentax because they are so easy to use unlike others that may be OK but not comfortable to use for long periods of time due to artifacts, kidney bean shadows, eye relief (I often wear glasses). I like the gas sealing of the Pentax so they won't get internally dewed up. With the refractors my most used eyepiece is a Pentax 8-24 zoom. It is optically excellent despite a narrower FOV and like the other Pentax's is gas sealed. With a refractor the zoom allows me to "adjust" the background brightness which can reveal a lot of detail often missed if you stick to one focal length. It is almost like a variable contrast feature. Others that have used mine also got one and found the same feature that many people don't realize is a benefit. I have a friend that has a Tak 150 TOA and he found that he liked my zoom Pentax so much he bought one and found it his most used eyepiece also. I would say that it is less useful with my SCTs...mainly due to the the SCT longer focal lengths. I don't have a DOB anymore but if I did the 31 "Terminagler" and similar ultra wide FOV eyepieces is nice to avoid the constant moving the scope over to keep the object in the FOV....but they give unacceptable artifacts in the image with a fine refractor and centering of the objects is not an issue with my tracking mounts. So in short the real answer is to match the eyepiece type and focal length to the type of scope and mount you have AND how you will use it....planets, lunar, deep sky, Ha solar, etc. If you have a factory diagonal with a mid to low end refractor or SCT in most cases they are the limiting factor....not the eyepiece. I always tell people that before getting another eyepiece they would be better off with a much better diagonal from TV, AP, BAADER, etc.

31 nagler, but that isn't budget. Budget options would be used 30mm meade UWA, 31mm celestron axiom LX, and 30mm es82, which are all actually the same eyepiece, but used celestrons and meades can be found for way less. An even better performer that is closer in performance to the 26 and 31 naglers is the 28mm william optics UWAN, also available as orion megaview and meade PWA (the current offering, around 300 new). I got my 28 megaview used for less than $200. The 23mm axiom LX and 24mm meade UWA and 24mm es82 is also a top performer, very nagler like, better than the 30/31 of the same lines. The celestron luminos versions are made by someone else, and are not as good. Another surprisingly budget option is the 20mm 100deg XWA/HDC offered by William optics, stellarvue, APM, lunt and others. That one blows the more expensive 20mm es100 out of the water, and comes extremely close to the 21 ethos. I was able to score my WO 20mm XWA for less than $200 I have personally owned the 31 nagler, 14 and 20 es100s, and 23mm axiom LX. And used them in 10" f5 dobs. They were all stolen, and I now own 28mm megaview and 20mm XWA, and highly recommend them. A used visual paracorr is also something to consider. The current type 2 paracorr is even better but super expensive. Avoid the photo/visual version as it's design, in order to be used in photo mode, will vignette a 31 nagler, and possibly the 28mm uwan as well. The 20mm xwa would not be affected since it does not use the full 2" field stop. The 23/24mm 82s would probably also not be affected if a photo visual is all you can find.

@@msroper5287 type 3 nagler?

Good to hear your praise for the AT 28mm UWA 82°, I just ordered one a few days ago. I’ll be using it with a 13 Ethos though because I rather have that large AFOV. If the seeing is good I turn the 13 Ethos to a 6.5mm or 5.2mm with 2x and 2.5x Powermates for up to 230x Magnification in my 8” Dobsonian.

I would probably take a 30xw over a 27 pan as well, but in the case of the 40mm XW, there is field curvature, so a 41 pan or 40 es68/5k SWA is the way I would go, after owning both the 40xw and 40SWA (and older 4k SWA) at the same time. The high value of the 40xw, and minimal on axis improvement over the japanese 4k swa, and the refocusing required to bring the edge in focus, had me decide to part with the XW when I needed money. IIRC the 30 didn't have thar issue. But I never owned one, just the 20 and the 40, although a friend really liked his 30

Those early Meade UW series are quite good (they should be; they cloned the TeleVues!) and have their fans.

​@@edtingI'm one of them, but not exclusively. I find the 14mm and 8.8 to be better than the type1 13 and 9, but not better than the type6 versions. Plus the meades tend to cost a little less used, and a lot less than the type 6. And nobody can touch the 31mm, the closest being the 28mm uwan/megaview/PWA. 1.25 to 2" adapters are cheap enough to get multiples and dedicate them your type 6s. The type 6 has more comfortable and forging eye relief, better edges and most importantly, contrast and brightness.

Those Radians are going to become collector's items. Hang on to those.

I was never a huge radian fan, they are a tad on the dim side, and the cheaper tmb/burgess planetary eyepieces performed almost just as well. When televue discontinues a line and replaces it with something else, like the delite, there is usually a reason. Except in the case of the 26mm nagler, that reason was stupidity, but in all reality, it was probably due to low sales as many considered the 31mm and the 26mm redundant, and opted to go for the 31mm. There weren't many requests for the 26mm when I worked at opt. 2 less expensive, but near equally performing options straddle the 26mm focal length. The 24mm es82 (or used 23mm axiom LX/meade 24mm UWA, all 3 the same optics), and the 28mm WO Uwan/orion megaview/meade PWA). Note, the 30mm ES82 has noticeably worse edge performance than the 31 nagler, the 23/24 is the star in the 2" line of 82s. The 28 is made by the same company that make the 20mm XWA/HDC 100deg eyepieces, that is surprisingly close to the 21mm ethos.

​@@edtingbut yeah, they might become collectors items that is for sure. But delite is a huge improvement, with ethos genetics, as I am sure all DE prefixed eyepieces refer to Paul Delachaie, the designer of the ethos, which was morphed into the Delos and Delite to cover the long eye relief market

@@k.h.1587 I've since picked up a set of flat top Brandon's to pair with my 100mm f/8 Takahashi apo and 6" f/12 ISTAR achromatic refractors. (The 48mm Brandon was getting lonely!) 😄

That 55 also excells at getting the veil and other faint nebulae to show up with a filter

Interesting, a couple of people have brought this up. The original draft of this video had a ~2 minute discussion on exit pupil but I cut it because I didn't think people would be interested.

+1 on an exit pupil video.

Exit pupil video would be great

A crucial topic to understand an master, as there are some tricks that are counter intuitive based on the things beginners are taught, and they apply to dsos that benefit from smaller than you would think exit pupils, as well as when using nebula filters, which are good at small exit pupils for small but bright planetaries, and the larger 4-7mm pupils for getting the most out of filters on targets like the veil. One trick I will share is the 1.3-1.6mm exit pupil range on globulars, even in light pollution, coupled with 3 and 4 element outreach options on f10 telescopes like the 4 element 15mm superview, the best in the line and the only 4 element one, and the little known 3 element 15mm plastic body "celestron 15" which has about a 70 degree field, and the slightly more known 20mm that has a 65deg field, and came with several cheap scopes. The 25mm that came with many more scopes, is not as good having bad internal reflections. My 15mm superview on my c11 and 8"R(acf) was my go to eyepiece for showing m13 at outreaches, even from very light polluted skies, and after telling viewers to let their eye adjust for a few seconds, fully in the eyecup, I had a greater than 90% wow response, including children and elderly. And over the years, my knowledge of the many tricks, got me many comments along the line of my view in a smaller scope was better than the big scts, which many users tend to frequently have the wrong ep and filter for the target. Where they would need a 55-56mm plossl to get the most out of their OIII, most would be using something like a 31 nagler, 27pan or even a 26mm plossl. And I would be with an f5 newtonian and a 30mm 2" like a superview or UW80, and have a killer OIII or uhc view of a nebula. Or later on when I had my 8 and 11 cats, I would be using a 40mm or 50mm eyepiece when they were still stuck on their 31 naglers. Yes, many people in the local club did not have the concept of "outreach eyepieces " but thankfully for that, I got some of my earliest views through nagler and panoptic eyepieces when I would attend with my 60mm spotter and 15x70 binoculars, and later with my 5"mak and 8"f4, I could try out some eyepieces in my own scopes and that helped me know what I was getting into in my early days. The first thing I remember being blown away by was m22 in a 16mm type 2 nagler in a c11, and his 2nd most used ep was the 27mm panoptic. My first used premium eyepieces I got for my 8"f4 that needed them, were the 16mm type2, 8.8mm smoothie UWA, 4.8mm nagler smoothie, and 7mm nagler. Before that I was using a 13.8mm swa and 18mm WA (etx kit cheapie) with barlows since they were useless at f4 without it. It is a rabbit hole I never got out of, along with older japanese widefields for my slow scopes, like widescan III, 4k SWA, and original axiom, not to mention 5 element super plossls and ultima types. And of course, tons of very low, to low to mid level outreach eyepieces, superview, QX/es70, e-lux, SMA wides etc...

Oh, l almost forgot to say that I have been following you for a long while, even before the RU-vid channel was a dream. Do you still have the Meade ETX scopes and do you use them?

What mount do you have under your C-14?

Update: I just checked my set of eyepieces and they are in the ballpark of your recommendations. All I need is a clear sky with no wind! 🌧☁🌌

They are overpriced and a lot of the range has been equalled or bettered . Cheaper as well.

Likewise, the rest of us hope your comment is not overvalued as IT's range has definitely been more than equalled and bettered previously... . @@Astronurd

Yeah the older japanese plossls are great. The best ones are the smoothside, as they are the early 5 element design. 5 element versions also exist with rubber grips and cups, they have japan engraved on the black body. The 4 element ones have japan engraved on the silver barrel. The series 4000 UWA 84 degrees are exceptional, though older ones are a little on the dim side, but so are older naglers from the same time period. Some of the later rubber versions of the 4k UWA have better coatings, and no optical design changes from the early versions, unlike the plossls. I only like the older SWA from that series, mainly the 40mm, as a max field superwide for SCTs and f10 refractors, because being just copies of the televue widefield, they aren't good in fast scopes. I am on my second round of collecting those plossls, having the whole set again, including the 56mm smoothie, but my 40, 15 and 9.7 are 4 elements this time, and my 32mm being a rubber 5 element version, I find it a little narrower than the smoothie 32 I used to have, which actually had wider lenses and a wider body. This 32mm is narrower than the others other than the 40 of course, and even a chinese 32mm is wider. It is odd that they made such a narrow bodied 32mm. I also have a 32mm televue smoothside plossl and a 35mm ultima, which is a sweet eyepiece, splitting the difference between soda straw 40s and standard 32s, at 49deg. I'm rocking rubber 4k UWAs this time around, 6.7, 8.8 and 14. And the 5k 4.7

Do the same with a william optics UWAN (now available as meade PWA), and you will see it hold up surprisingly well against the nagler. Definitely in the big 28mm, as I never really looked through the 4, 7, and 16mm ones, since I always had naglers or meade UWAs in those focal ranges already, I can't personally vouch for them, but that 28 holds up well next to the 31 and 26mm naglers