That’s a good point!

They are a good investment. Like the Rolex of EP's.

That's just the ridiculous inflation of our governments.

​@@Astronurd Pretty sure most of us live in a market economy, where the primary driver of inflation is supply and demand. Inflation (when it's above a few percentage points annually) is too much money chasing too few goods, the primary driver is changes in the labour market and supply shortages caused by market forces (but yes, it's partially due to the Ukraine conflict, baby boomers retiring, and lingering effects of the pandemic). Economic Analysis was part of my prior career in the Fortune 500.

You’re welcome!

Happy to help!

I have a $200 Svbony eyepiece. I haven’t tried it yet (it’s been a crazy summer with fires and floods), but it looks pretty solid.

@@LearnToStargaze I also bought a 3x Barlow from Svbony, apochromatic. It feels really solid and looks great. My favorite combo for high magnification is the Barlow and the 10mm eyepiece. Great combo for views of the planets and moon.

Chinese optics go to support chicom concentration camps and a communist regime bent on destroying the West. First they convince the morally retarded among us to pay for it, and buy the cheap chicom option made with slave labor and stolen patents. Buy made in the West options and bring back our businesses and jobs.

Do the red ones wiggle around in the focuser? I know there are washers you can 3d print to fix this

@@Lycan_24_7 I haven't noticed any wiggling around. Granted, them and the telescope are pretty new, so nothing is worn out yet.

Thank you!

Courtesy of SkyWatcher's lackluster equipping, even if mostly observing moon/planets you'll need to replace that no good in 1200mm focal length telescopes 25mm Plössl. 60% wider view giving GSO 30mm Superview would be starter quality wide view eyepiece, though its astigmatism propably shows seriously in f/5 telescope. Next step is high quality ones at ~200 $/€ with 30mm Ultra Flat Field and 28mm UWA. For medium and high magnification giving eyepieces there's more different budget choises. (though not many with wide AFOV and longer eye relief)

@@tuunaes I am keeping the Plössl lenses for when the really young kids are viewing. Also star parties I will likely use them to prevent theft of my nicer lenses. Best wishes and Clear Skies*

Hello!

I do a lot of public outreach, dirt gets everywhere inside and outside of the eyepieces.

Nice collection!

Celestron sells lots of cheap/substandard stuff using name. E-Luxes are Kellners good only for f/10 and slower. 28mm UWA would be good ~200 $/€ wide view eyepiece. Though eye relief is mediocre for the AFOV. APM/SkyRover/StellaLyra etc 30mm Ultra Flat Field is little narrower but would have even better quality and glasses compatible eye relief.

These days I think I’d use higher quality 1.25

It really depends on your budget. But the 24mm Hyperion is a fantastic eyepiece at a reasonable price.

You really need the Celestron NeXYZ to control the position of the phone. It’s extremely challenging to position the lens of the camera in the exit pupil of the eyepiece. When I 3D printed my own adapters, the position had to be down to the mm otherwise it didn’t work.

Delos for the win!! I'm currently trying to build a set of Delos & Panoptics, but I keep buying other astro-stuff (Astro-Tech & Oberwerk have been getting all my $$ it seems). Love that 68°-72° AFOV. The APM 30mm UFF is the only other EP I own that comes close.

@@Astro_Ape They are worth the $ and never disappoint. I had the 24mm Pan and found the weight good, but bought the 22mm Nagler and sold the Pan for about what I paid for it. I use the 35mm Pan to sky surf and the Delos set for zooming in on areas and for planetary and moon watching. Have zero need for anything else. I tried other EP's over a couple years and finally found that all my needs were met by the Delos set, 35mm Pan and 22 Nagler. I only do visual astronomy so I'm set for whatever is up there to see. Also have a couple Baader filters..

Celestron X-Cels are rather expensive for their mid level AFOV. Same price gets 82° UWAs. Though eye relief of those isn't exactly good for the AFOV. But neither is eye relief good in Naglers, whose design those UWAs and Explore Scientific 82s copy.

​@@Astro_ApeIs the APM UFF a good choice for a 10 inch dob? Do stars get "comet tails" around the edge of view?

@@Boxxkarr 30mm Ultra Flat Field is superb eyepiece for the money and basically top tier with sharp view to edges. Some use it as low power wide view complement to Baader Morpheus, or TeleVue Delite/Delos. But of course it won't correct aberrations of the telescope like coma of fast Newtonians. Though coma is going to be less visible than with wider AFOV eyepieces.

That’s quite a collection!

I’d go with the 24. It’s plenty wide.

You really know your eyepieces!!!! I guess I’ve been spoiled by the Televue Ethos series we have at the observatory where I occasionally do tours.

I can only dream of owning the high end TV EPs. Most in my area are more interested in astrophotography which is something I am starting to learn about but my prime interest is visual observation. Our club has a large SCT but it is used only with a camera/computer. So much to learn about!

Everything else 😂. There's eyepieces that are actually better than some of the televue range. They are indeed quality eyepieces but are overpriced IMO.

Hi! Commented on your other post.

Just need someone to send me one!

Hi! I have never owned binoculars that accept eyepieces. Let me know what you find out, I'd love to know.

Have you watched my “How to Use Any Telescope” video?

@@LearnToStargaze ill make sure to watch it when i get back from school, thank you🙂

Now that’s a nice eyepiece!

Unfortunately you got frauded by Celestron. Not only is bundled 20mm eyepiece absolute garbage, but also telescope is scam design made from rejects dumpster junk limiting it to low magnifications. It won't ever give views of the Moon and and planets properly made such size telescope gives. Except for Schmidt-Cassegrains you're better off avoiding Celestron, which has been run by scammers for years making those hobby killers. TelescopicWatch has honest accurate reviews, instead of pure ads/paid shilling of garbage which would have been deemed bad century ago.

Absolutely!

The Omni 102 used in this video is the same optical tube as the StarSense 102. I’d get the Hyperion 25mm and the Hyperion 10mm.

@@LearnToStargaze Thank you.

Unfortunately that telescope, like quite many (Chinese) Celestrons is total scam with braindead design and rejects dumpster optics. So you won't ever get proper high magnification views of planets or the most rewarding celestial object, our Moon. Bundled 10mm eyepiece propably already approaches limits of that bad optics. Also designs makes it far harder to collimate for keeping that limited from the start performance. Bundled 2x Barlow is also total plastics garbage best used as cushion between anvil and hammer. At low magnifications bad optics isn't issue, but focal length bloated artificially by cheapo Barlow in focuser is problem for getting wide views. 32mm Plössl would give the widest possible view in 1.25" size eyepieces. Though if there's major light pollution, decreasing magnification lowers contrast between stars and sky. (there are some more expensive eyepieces giving as wide view at higher magnification)

Not really, for that scope, it would be better to upgrade to a scope that's not "bird jonesed" then the eyepiece for about the same price.

Love that camera. It’s a workhorse.

That’s interesting. I didn’t notice it visually. Maybe the brain just ignores it too.

I just have a 26mm Meade Super Plossl. I use it all the time, often with a Barlow for viewing planets. If you buy one teleview eyepiece it would be the 18mm panoptic, if two it would be the 5mm nagler, although the 5mm would be a LOT of magnification with that Meade LX 200, though it may surprise you with amazing views of Saturn.

@@LearnToStargaze Thank You. My first view through a professional telescope was many years ago at the Miami Space Transit Planetarium, on their roof viewing Saturn. That got me hooked. Jack Horkheimer had the late nite TV Show "Star Hustler" on PBS. I met up with him in the Florida Keys to look at Halley's Comet. Best Regards

@@timmotel5804 Awesome!

A 30mm eyepiece giving 30x magnification would maximize contrast on DSOs, assuming your dark adjusted pupil is 3mm.

These eyepieces are all pretty light. They are less than half the weight of my 2” Meade eyepiece.

@@LearnToStargaze For Naglers it applies only to 1.25" barrel ones. 2" long focal length Naglers, along with closely related Explore Scientific 82s get very heavy with 31mm "Holy Hand Grenade/Terminagler" and 30mm Explore Scientific 82 weighting full kilogram. Those make 28mm UWA light at third less weight... And really Naglers achieve that low weight and small size for AFOV by compromising eye relief. Baader Morpheus line is better example of wide AFOV and longer eye relief. (kicks ES82s to curb in ease of viewing/comfort)

The good telescope has minimum chromatic aberration, which is primarily seen in planets, and not deep sky objects. Since this video is about eyepieces, I left that to a short *footnote at the bottom of the page.

Mass produced mirrors are nowadays usually quite good, but that doesn't mean every cheap telescope is capable to good image quality. Especially Celestron has many supermarket hobby killers with garbage design and garbage quality optics. Also even if optics are good, whole lots of non-Dobson reflectors are seriously undermounted. (and all cheap fast achromatic refractors have lots of chromatic aberration)

Yes, that would be amazing. Seeing nebalae is about the darkness of your sky, not the size of the telescope.

Ok thanks

I have not.

Magnification is the only needed ND filter for the Moon. Haven't found any need to dim down the view and I have 10" Dobson. And when observing the Moon and planets you should aim to avoid eye's dark adaptation: Resolution of scotopic vision is major amount lower than that of photopic vision.

@@tuunaes interesting!

@@limebulls While point sources, like stars, stay as points no matter the magnification, surface sources have their light "spread thinner" the higher the magnification. In fact per surface area unit on retina their image won't ever get higher than by naked eye and telescope can only make image bigger. Eye's pupil diameter sets limit for that. When observing especially the Moon it's helpfull to have some light around to minimize eye's attempts to adjust to lower light, because it's brightness cycling which causes that discomfort. (Moon isn't any brighter than daylight) Exit pupil around 1mm would be good minimum magnification. (Exit pupil = Eyepiece focal length / Telescope focal ratio) And using as much magnification as seeing allows helps especially with full moon, which has actually decent amount of details with big enough aperture and magnification.

Hopefully the view of Saturn was okay and not too much trouble. Viewing Saturn is pretty easy in a normal telescope, but there is so much extra going on with that eq mount that it can make it very challenging to point.

What a collection!

Why 100 degrees? Those aren’t very common and not required at all for planets. You might try one of those Hyperion eyepieces, like the 10mm, the FOV is quite large, but not even close to 100 degrees. You can see the example this video, the C5 telescope is basically the same as your 127.

@@LearnToStargaze Thanks for the reply. Won't the 100 degree give us bigger image. We both wear glasses and after bigger image. Some have suggested 9mm magnification for this scope.

@@YASAJTV no, FOV has nothing to do with magnification. It has to do with the size of the circle you see when you look into the eyepiece. Focal Length determines magnification.

XWA eyepieces don't work well with glasses, because of eye relief being very mediocre for AFOV and you would see only center parf of the field easily. Heck, already 80° UWAs need pushing eye really close and basically need "peeking around the corner" to see field edges. Baader Morpheus are about as wide AFOV eyepieces as you can get with longer eye relief.

Hi! If you’re on a budget, you might be able to put together a system that can take images of deep sky objects for around $2500, but you’d be making some compromises. That said, AstroBiscuit has some tips that can bring the price down (building your own telescope for example) that might help. astrobiscuit.com

@@LearnToStargaze i dont want to spend 2500$, and i dont want to build my own one too😕 is the celestron nexstar 130 slt good for astrophotography? i want to take long exposure images.

@@daryawwxdwdy9710 No, the NexStar will not work for long exposures. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm the right person to ask about discount astrophotography. I think you should follow Astrobiscuit's channel, you might find something there that is helpful.

@@daryawwxdwdy9710 yeah it sucks I would love to be able to do astrophotography with a 500 dollar budget, but so would anyone. unfortunately there are some things in this world that you just need a lot of money to do, and astrophotography is one of them. You won't be able to until you are willing to spend at least 1000 1500 bucks to do it at a beginner level and even then don't expect pictures like you find online... they won't be amazing.

Deep sky objects are out of your budget, but you can do planetary imaging. Cheapest option is a used long focal length refractor, or reflector. I've got decent results with a 114/900 Newtonian on an EQ mount with a cheap EQ motor, but DSLR isn't the best choice for planetary imaging - better to buy a planetary camera.

It’s quite possible that 100m is far to close for that telescope.

@@LearnToStargaze so why did it focus with the barlow and it focused fine in the past with the same target.

The Barlow changes the position of the focal plane, moving it backward, in your case it moved it into the range of the eyepiece for that distance. Try a star or planet this time. Saturn is optimal this time of year.

@@LearnToStargaze ok thanks for replying much appreciated live and learn I guess✌️

2m ?

Yup! All telescopes accept 1.25 inch barrels and larger scopes take 2 inch barrels, too.

Can you send pictures? Emails me from the contact us page at LearnToStargaze.com

@@LearnToStargaze I did contact you but how to send pictures? And will i grt the message on my email?

answer me@@LearnToStargaze

Haha, it might be pretty short. “How to use a barlow lens… “Don’t”

'even if you explain how its gonna be really short... "place barlow in the spot you put an eyepiece instead of an eyepiece.... Place any eyepiece in the barlow as if the barlow is just the telescope." the end

@@nostalgiaarcadefuture thanks that was helpful 👍👍

@@nostalgiaarcadefuture except in most cases, its bad advice to use one in the first place. It's better not to get into that. Barlows are the main reason people can't get their telescopes to work at all.

@@LearnToStargaze Oh I know, just filling in the gap. and no matter how much you explain that to someone they are probably still gonna use them, so why fight it. they will learn eventually.

Depends on the telescope. Probably a 10mm eyepiece for a long focal length scope, and a 5mm eyepiece on a short focus length scope.

@@LearnToStargaze I have a celestron 4se

@@jponz85 This would be my go-to eyepiece for that telescope: www.baader-planetarium.com/en/accessories/optical-accessories/eyepieces/10mm-hyperion-68%C2%B0-modular-eyepiece.html

I use both apple and PC’s simultaneously. PC’s for Linux virtual machine for Cosmos (satellite ground control software), apple for video work (Premiere), InDesign, etc. PC’s for SAP when I worked in Finance for Clorox for over a decade, but then apple for the astrophysics degree and then Masters in Engineering; for python (Spyder/Anaconda). But you’re right. I still don’t know what I’m talking about. No experience at all.

@@LearnToStargaze when a person needs to show is credits to justify theyre position... I am doing a doctor degree in cybersecurity in playmouth , I have masters (berlin) in Computing engineering and POS in hardware design... When you experience an AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D overclocked for a fraction of the cost of an apple... then you will see what Premiere is. Your channel have interesting things, but needs more humble, that crap book all the time says a lot ...

@@rogerrr1012 I’m impressed. Now just work on an English degree and very soon you’ll be able to write a paragraph using some recognised form of grammatical structure. You may even find you make some sort of sense.

What do you mean by a 2” view? I think you’ll just need to test it. Sounds like it depends on the size of the sensor in the camera.

I seen a video that said 2" has a wider field of view

@@ryanfahrne5318 I think that's more of a generalization when talking about eyepieces. 2" eyepieces capture more of the "image" projected by the primary lens or mirror, and often has a larger diameter glass... but Field of View is more a function of eyepiece design.

I am a 76 year old and in astronomy since I was 7 years old. I have some high end APO refractors, 80mm, 85mm, 110mm, and 152mm. I also use SCTs....8", 11", 14". I also use DOBS from 8" up to 22". I have gone through several brands and models of eyepieces all these years and like @anata5127 have mostly swapped all of them to Pentax's full range. Mainly because they simply work as good as or better than others but also have nitrogen sealed optics to prevent internal dewing and are comfortable to use for long sessions. The 1 1/4" versions are all parfocal which is a big advantage. I still have one TV 32mm Plossl and some Lunt and Coronado solar specific eyepieces for use with my Ha solar scopes. Many eyepieces that are larger AFOV have problems with artifacts at edges, reflections, etc. If you want a very good eyepiece for not too much money, the TV Plossl is a good choice. But I have had mixed results with the other TV eyepieces and no longer own any TV except for that 32mm Plossl. In particular the very wide AFOV eyepieces have too many negatives for me. To me the only reason to use one of those ultra wide field eyepieces is with a DOB to minimize having to move the scope as much. A simpler eyepiece design will yield superior views. Frankly before adding eyepieces, the first choice IF you have a scope that uses a diagonal is to upgrade the diagonal to a much better one. The diagonals that come on most scopes is a very poor quality one. TV, BAADER, Astro Physics, Burgess, are a few brands I can recommend. It is surprising to me when I see a SCT owner with the stock diagonal and using TV or similar high quality eyepieces. That premium eyepiece is a waste of money unless you upgrade to a better quality diagonal. Each type of scope and purpose will work best with certain eyepieces so rather than buying a bunch at the same time.... it is better to ask others with different brands and models if you can try theirs on your scope. And don't buy based on what others use or recommend without first trying them on your scope.

How would you show (not tell) the difference?

@@LearnToStargaze As you managed to capture the eyepiece's output with a lensed camera anyway (which is different from the approach when doing astrophotography) I would recommend to use a full frame sensored camera with an (self printed?) adapter and a 50 mm lens. 50 mm is known for representing the human's eye field of view.

@@Bigalinjapan good tips!

Two inch focusers, require two inch diagonals. All of these eyepieces work with 1.25 inch focusers. For larger telescopes, those which accept two inch diagonals/focusers, you can removed the 1.25 inch adapter (which in some cases doubles as a barlow), and you're left with a high focal length eyepiece that fits two inch diagonals.

@@LearnToStargaze I just a new Celestron Omni 102 for $80. In the box!!. Before I start to buy a better eyepiece should I just go the 2incg route? I already have an svbony diagonal in 1.25 and I like it. However, is 2 inch better?

@@schutztruppe that all depends on the eyepiece. If there is a two inch eyepiece that you like, then you’ll need one. I think these Hyperion eyepieces are the way to go, since they fit the 1.25 inch barrel, but seem to offer a 2 inch equivalent experience.

@@LearnToStargaze thanks for all the help. I just sold my power seeker Monday night and picked up this Omni 102 Tuesday night. I love it already. We go camping a lot and needed something not so touchy like . Collimating the mirrors.

@@schutztruppe great to hear!

Thanks Mark! Enjoy the books!

sup

Hi

It’s mostly about wide clear views to the edges of the image. A good eyepiece should make it feel as if you’re floating among the stars.

Oh I get it now, I rewatched it, I was focusing on the actual pictures instead of the overall view. Thank you.

Was it an I phone?

Liked for the use of the word “worser”.

​​@@LearnToStargazeIm not a native speaker so relax ;)

@@groundhoppingwlkp3622 it just made me smile, that’s all.

And I have to comment/like so it clears the notification in KZfaq-studio :-). Can’t have any hanging notifications!

Chinese troll..hyperion is made in communist china

It should be common knowledge that the eyepiece should cost as much as the telescope (I know it’s not common knowledge). For the Omni 102 from Costco, the Baader Hyperion eyepieces are a great fit at $200.

Pretty sure it’s the standard size.

@@LearnToStargaze I was referring to a picture in the video that clearly was of a 6"

Depends how much you like macs I guess.

Agreed! Televue eyepieces are premium. Mac PC'S are just another computer.

@@freeman10000Apple is the TeleVue of the computer industry and they objectively make the most powerful and efficient computers (except for gaming)

That’s your opinion.

I agree with the phones, the phones are definitely overhyped. But the computers give outstanding performance though.

That's my opinion too.. I use and manage pcs and Macs daily. The Koolade force is strong in the Apple 'lifestyle'. I owned an iphone once and never will again. But of course, you're welcome to see it your way.

Only if you have a 2 inch eyepiece that you really like. I found that the baader hyperion eyepieces offer the same performance at 1.25 as my 2 inch eyepieces (subjectively).