Ultimate Eyepiece Guide and Review (16 eyepieces) - Part 1

In this 2 part video series, I reviewed the following eyepieces:
Part 1
Eyepiece basics and Methodology
14:35 Lunt 20mm 100 deg
18:11 William Optics XWA 9mm 101 deg
21:49 William Optics XWA 5mm and Lunt HDC 5mm 110 deg
27:37 Orion Stratus 24mm 68 deg
31:47 Orion Stratus 13mm 68 deg
Part 2 Link: • Ultimate Eyepiece Guid...
Orion Stratus 3.5mm 68 deg
Meade 8-24 ZOOM
Celestron 32mm Omni Plossl
Antares 24.7mm 70 deg
Celestron Axium LX 10 82 degree
Celestron Plossl 25mm
Zhumell 18mm LER
Orion Sirius Plossl 10mm
Celestron Plossl 13mm
Meade 4.7mm Series 4000 84deg
Thanks for watching and please subscribe to support this channel.
Recommended Equipment and Affiliate links:
Agena Astro: agenaastro.com...
High Point Scientific: www.highpoints...
Smart Telescopes:
Seestar S50 All-In-One Smart Telescope (my current recommendation): bit.ly/4d4XZw7
Cameras:
ASI2600mc DUO Color Camera: bit.ly/4csEPjE
ASI2600MM PRO Monochrome Camera: bit.ly/3WcVvG3
ZWO ASI6200MC Pro Color Full Frame Camera: bit.ly/3QdM9G6
Mounts and Tripods:
ZWO AM5: bit.ly/3vZ3Dzp
ZWO TC40 Carbon Fiber Tripod: bit.ly/3Qc9b0g
iOptron CEM70: bit.ly/3Q7KdyT
iOptron Tri-Pier: bit.ly/3WbgfhC
Sky-Watcher EQ6R Pro: bit.ly/3PwUdli
Telescopes and optics:
Celestron 11" EdgeHD: bit.ly/4apIE7b
Starizona Hyperstar 11: bit.ly/494gopO
Celestron RASA 8" Astrograph: bit.ly/3UtlVlQ
Askar FRA400 72mm f/5.6 Quintuplet refractor: bit.ly/44bI1MD
Sharpstar 150mm f/2.8 HNT Hyperbolic Newtonian Astrograph: bit.ly/3Urd4AP
Filters:
IDAS NBZ 2 Duo Band Filter (Recommended for RASA or Hyperstar but also works on slower telescopes): bit.ly/3TyWq0B
Optolong L-Ultimate DuoBand filter: (Recommended for telescopes other than RASA or Hyperstar) bit.ly/3vSa737
Visual Observing and Accessories:
Sky-Watcher 150mm GTi GoTo Telescope (best value portable telescope): bit.ly/3Us9g2o
Sky-Watcher 16" Flextube SynScan (serious aperture with Go-To): bit.ly/3JrtGT1
Premium HoTech 1.25" SCA Laser Collimator (for reflector telescopes): bit.ly/3JvGpDW
Basic Laser Collimator (for reflector telescopes): amzn.to/3OwaohV
OCAL Telescope Collimator: s.click.aliexp...
Flocking Paper (Self adhesive): amzn.to/3UyecDk
Affiliate programs disclosure: I am a member of the Agena, HighPoint Scientific, Amazon and AliExpress affiliate programs. If you use the links in my video description, I will make a small commission at absolutely no cost to you. This helps me support this channel and continue to make these videos and tutorials for you. Thank you for your support.
If you like my work, consider supporting me on Patreon so I can continue to bringing you videos like this: / abdurastro
Clear skies my friends.

[@editbalazs349]

Well-built and very informative video! Thanks for it!

[@k.h.1587]

The complaints about the flat top WO versions, enabled me to get a very good deal on my used 20mm XWA

[@AbdurAstro]

Me too. I have the 5mm and 9mm flat top which I got a great deal on due to those complaints.

[@Herman-zc7te]

Fantastic video

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you so much. I wanted to share my experience to let people know that you don't need to spend $900 on an Ethos to get excellent widefield views. I would love to get some Ethos eyepieces but I am very happy getting 90% of Ethos performance for much lower cost.

[@k.h.1587]

Distortion often allowed in eyepieces for astronomy because it is usually needed as a compromise to get pinpoint stars at the edge of the field

[@AbdurAstro]

Completely agree. Trying to make a perfect eyepiece without any distortion would be impossible and extremely expensive. We do have to find a sweet spot and call it good enough.

[@AstroBananna]

100th subscriber right here!

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you for subscribing! :)

[@MountainFisher]

Most SCTs can take an adapted 2" diagonal. Indeed some 2" diagonals say they are for SCTs. I find very wide fov a bit distracting and do not have any eyepieces over 68°, plus I cannot afford them.

[@AbdurAstro]

I had purchased my 2" eyepieces on the used market so I didn't pay too much for them but the prices are starting to become more reasonable now. However, I still use a 1.25" diagonal with my C8 SCT as it is lighter and you don't really need 2" eyepieces. I do have a 2" diagonal in case I want to use the 11" SCT for visual use though and that works quite well with my 2" eyepieces. 68 degree eyepieces are quite sufficient for most people and anything wider is usually a personal preference. I do love my 100 degree eyepieces for the wider field and I don't wear eyeglasses so the wide field doesn't bother me.

[@k.h.1587]

​@@AbdurAstroat 2000mm a c8 does benefit from 2" eyepieces, I try to have max field eyepieces available in 30-32, 40-42 and 50-56 range. Such as 31 nagler, 30mm widescan II or III, 40swa, swan, mk70 etc, 50 axiom or 55-56 plossl/super plossl. Which is even more important with a c11. The 50 range is mainly for dark skies or when using OIII on targets like the veil, the 40 range is great all around, and the 30/31 is for when a little more magnification or the desire for an ultrawide perspective.

[@bill5982]

I just looked at Williams Optic. They only have one eyepiece in stock and that is a 2inch 40mm SWAN.

[@AbdurAstro]

I am very surprised to see that the astronomy stores in the US aren't carrying the budget 20mm 100 degree eyepieces and only carry the much more expensive Explore Scientific version. These cheaper 20mm 100 degree ones (such as the Lunt I tested in this video) are equal to or superior to the Explore Scientific version optically. They are sold under the label of Lunt, APM, Stellarvue, Astro-Tech etc. I see some in stock in European and Canadian stores so you might be able to order them from there.

[@k.h.1587]

​@@AbdurAstroagreed, the 20mm es100 is not as good as the lunt/stellarvue/apm/wo and others available from the same OEM. I have the WO XWA version and previously had the es100, and compared both to 21 ethos in f5 and faster dobs, the xwa was super close to the ethos and the es100 had bloated stars near the edge

[@happypuppy3260]

Nice videos. Say, how do you get the viewing simulations on Stellarium. For the life me I can not figure out how to do that on my pc... Thanks

[@AbdurAstro]

Hi there. To get the viewing simulations, you first have to input your equipment. You do that by going to the top right of your screen and clicking the wrench icon. Then you can enter your eyepieces and telescope. After that, you select adn object and then go back to the menu at the top right of your screen and click on the eyepiece icon (first icon). That will switch the screen to eyepiece viewing mode and show you what it will look like with that scope and eyepiece combo. You can click on the back and forward arrows in the same menu to switch equipment quickly. You can see which menu I am talking about at the top right of the screen here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJPElIuYn5qpmK8

[@k.h.1587]

Eyepieces don't have coma, they have astigmatism. And your coma corrector does not remove all coma at f3.9, it just reduces it significantly. Televue paracorrs reduce it even more

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you for point that out. I made that video a long time ago and I misspoke. You are correct that the eyepieces don't cause coma. The widefield eyepieces often just show the coma more if your mirror has it. The coma was significantly reduced by the coma corrector enough to not bother me visually. I do use a Televue Paracorr 2 for all my visual observing as I moved the SkyWatcher quattro coma corrector to my imaging scope full time.

[@k.h.1587]

@@AbdurAstro a type 2 is very pricy. I am happy with a used original paracorr, the visual only version allows use of 31 nagler without vignetting like the original photo visual one had, it also came out before the 31 nagler. They later had the universal paracorr which used the larger IS system threads, so it had a wider clear aperture for visual, and still adaptable down to m42 threads. The original had built in m42 threads and that was what caused vignetting. The larger IS threads and optics in the universal also allowed for larger imaging chips. It was the last version of the paracorr before the type 2. The main reason for the type 2 was the introduction of f3 dobs and even some down to f2.6. The original paracorr could handle down to f3.5 I believe, but definitely good on f4

[@k.h.1587]

Thank you for not saying the 24 stratus/hyperion is not sharp to the edge. Other videos say it is and that frustrates me

[@AbdurAstro]

I always strive to provide an honest review of anything I test so I had to be honest about the performance of the 24mm Hyperion and Stratus. I use a pair in my binoviewer right now where the edge looks decent enough but without the binoviewer, I wouldn't recommend the Hyperion or Stratus at their current prices. There are better deals out there.

[@k.h.1587]

@@AbdurAstro also, I have noticed that most of these youtube astronomy channels are beginners, or just people who aren't at as high a level of experience and understanding of the hobby as someone like Ed ting, or even myself, who aspergers style.dove on with both feet 20 years ago and started soaking up info like a sponge. I also got involved in.outreach early on, so I was setting up often and always fine tuning my techniques to get the public the best views. After 2 years in, I started working at a major astronomy dealer, and thus exponentially grew my experience and exposure to all kinds of gear and info first hand, and upgraded my gear at a huge discount. Within 2 years I had hit the top salesman spot, and over a 5 year period, the first 6 months only part time 3 days a week, my sales were over 7 million. And I had all the inside info. But I never had a youtube channel, but used to be pretty active on cloudy nights. I think some of these youtube channels, the guy or girl probably can't yet see the difference, as what was acceptable to me in the beginning, was not as critical as it got when I was more experienced and got to look through many different eyepieces. What I also learned from dealing with customers, and many astronomy club members at the outreach events and star parties, is that most of them are doing some of the things wrong, and many of them hold by common myths and misconceptions that are propagated by the forums,.as well as other "experienced" club members they look up to. And many of these youtube channels, hold to some degree of follow the leader and in many cases it is the blind leading the blind. Most of the SCT users have scopes not perfectly collimated, many are still just using basic plossls, most if not all don't understand exit pupil matches for targets and conditions , especially when nebula filters are concerned, and I frequently had the best view on the field even in my earlier days using mostly GSO newtonians, when they were using more expensive SCTs, 11s and 12s were common with the occasional 9.25, and 10s and 8s were numerous.. I would also sometimes bring a 4" refractor, and the first decent scope I brought to outreach was my 127mak on my customized goto rig, my 80gtl with baader dovetail bracket and starguide4 surplus sale tripod, same as nexstar. It was like an etx125 but more stable and less money. Shortly after I was bringing the 8"f4 newtonian on skyview pro mount, just tracking motors no goto. Then came 6" and 10" dobs, a brief period where I was evaluating a premium modified GSO 8"f5 with refigured primary and premium secondary, curved spider and flocked tube, and that was pretty amazing, but I had to send it on to the next guy after a while. Things stepped up a notch when I got an asgt to replace the skyview pro, whuch was later replaced by a losmandy GM8, a televue101, 8" meade LX200R optical tube, and finally a c11 and a losmandy G11 that happened to be an early celestron branded one. I also has a rare stellarvue m3 alt az mount which was a dream, and got one of the last manual non goto CG5 mounts when they were cleared out, (before I had the m3), I initially converted it to AZ, but later put it back and ordered an orion svp RA drive and Jerry rigged it to fit the cg5. The gearing and speed were correct, but the mounting was a little different. This was perfect for my 8" and my 4" refractors, tv101 and c4 f10, as a visual mount great for outreach, so I sold the GM8 because I needed to downsize. It irks me that I lost all of what i had finalized as a stable I was really happy with, some of it pretty rare, when I had to.put it all in storage, and the tweakers broke in and got it all, and insurance found a way to not pay. And it was much more than astro. There was a ton of pro audio and recording equipment, musical instruments, amps, a ton of fishing gear and anything else of value I had from my whole life. The consolation prize is that tweakers don't know anything, and a disassembled G11 tripod just looks like random pipes, and they don't know what counterweights, dovetails and rings are, and they also left alone a bag of random parts that had my older.jmi microfocuser in it. So I decided to try to sell those parts, and the president of one of the clubs in the region, who was a regular customer as well as someone I saw alot when I would go to that club's dark site, saw my post on a used gear Facebook page, and offered me an old 10" meade lx premiere, which ended up dating to 1991, the year before the lx200. As a straight trade for the tripod weights and rings. It got set up a couple of times in the small courtyard of my small 5 unit apt building, with very limited views only very high up, and one trip to dark skies, before I also acquired an old C8 and a beat up 10" starhopper, which were much easier to transport. I may eventually defork it but I can't really afford a mount for it, and I like the way my JMI focuser works with the scopes drive base and hand controller, much better than the old jmi hand controller/battery box it is just a cool older setup that I hope to be able to use again someday. Unfortunately I lost my van that was loaded like a mini version of my storage when it was robbed back in 2018, music instruments and amps, my xt8, omni102, a 127mak i had recently picked up, vintage vixen 60mmf15 az, a very old cg5, and a newer version nexstar GT mount, ans several eyepieces and filters, it was broken down on a flat tire, and got impounded and i was prevented from getting it out and lost it all. And all my counterweights exceot my 4# were in there, so i couldn't use my replacement 4"f10refractor on my astroview, only my st80, and counterweights arent cheap to ship, So I get hit with bad luck every so often. Not having a big enough vehicle, especially one that isn't a half registered ev with a crippled battery (I got screwed by the dealer used warranty who said they replaced the battery when they had it for over a month, but they lied) and only a 2 gallon range extender tank, not only can it not fit the gear, it probably can't get me to a dark site and back anyway. As you can tell I have been itching to do astronomy again, and am being prevented by a compounded bad situation on top of a series of previous bad situations. But they can't take my knowledge away from me. So here i sit in youtube commenrs

[@francisfrancis4219]

Do telescopes all have a standardized image circle? What is it’s size? How much of an optical compromise does such standardization create? Are there times when you need to match the image circle of the eyepiece to the telescope, that is, the optics have been perfectly matched requiring a dedicated integration? Sorry, I don’t know anything about this subject.

[@AbdurAstro]

The image circle varies based on the telescope design and can be restricted by the baffle tube in designs such as SCTs or restricted by the size of various adapters and threads used. But that isn't usually an issue for visual observing. I have used large 2" eyepieces with almost every scope design and haven't noticed any restrictions due to the image circle. As long as you are using a 2" diagonal and 2" eyepieces for the low power wide-angle eyepieces (such as my 21mm 100 degree), image circle won't be an issue. For imaging on the other hand 44mm is kind of an expected standard for the size of the image circle for good quality telescopes. This is because 44mm covers a full frame camera sensor.

[@francisfrancis4219]

Photography might be a good example. With a full frame SLR camera, lenses below about 40mm focal lengths have their designs compromised as you need to allow for the bulky mirror box which places a minimum focal plane distance restriction. This problem does not exist with rangefinder / mirrorless cameras whereby the focal length can be optimized for the lens, without having to make room for the mirror box.. Yet there are many wide angle SLR lenses as people would rather not change camera bodies. Thus, I was wondering to what extent this may occur in telescopes, which predominantly cater to 1.25 or 2” eyepieces. Continuing the camera analogy, it’s easier to make a wide angle lens for a 35mm camera, than it is for a medium format camera. So in this sense I wondered how much compromises are made when telescopes can only cater to 1.25 or 2” eyepieces. In this regard, I saw somewhere that 1.25” eyepiece are limited to eyepieces no greater than 24mm focal length, which in turn, may be related to the size of the image circle they need to be able to focus on. No worries. Am just wondering aloud rather than asking... It’s interesting to see that Plossil eyepieces are home made from binocular objectives. People just plug and play without really considering to what extent image circles are matching up...

[@AstroBananna]

So, the information i seek is just simply 1.25’ vs 2’ eyepieces. Whats advantage of going 2’

[@AbdurAstro]

A 2" barrel CAN support a wider field of view. For 1.25" eyepieces, the widest field of view you can get would be with a 24mm 68 degree eyepiece, a 32mm 50 degree Plossl, or a 40mm 42 degree eyepiece. Anything wider than that, like a Panoptic 35mm 70 degree or Nagler 31mm 82 degree would vignette (darker edge in the eyepiece). That is why those widefield eyepieces use a 2" barrel. A short focal length eyepiece like a 9mm 100 degree eyepiece even wouldn't benefit from a 2" barrel at all and would work fine as a 1.25" eyepiece. However, I use all 2" eyepieces most of the time so I don't have to keep putting them in a 2" to 1.25" adapter.

[@ced-astro5721]

Great video ! I use a newton 200/800 so f/4, without coma corrector, does the XWA 20mm still work well?

[@AbdurAstro]

A Newtonian reflector at f4 shows a lot of coma and because of the very wide 100 degree field of view of the 20mm XWA, the coma would be very noticeable at the edges. I would recommend picking up a coma corrector for a fast scope like that. Baader and Skywatcher both make a fairly inexpensive one too but the Skywatcher F4 aplanatic coma corrector that I use might be worth the price for an f4 scope. GSO makes one that is very inexpensive and still offers good correction at f4 but might require a spacer and a bit of tinkering.

[@ced-astro5721]

@@AbdurAstro Thank you for this quick response! Now, at F/4 still without a corrector, which eyepiece could still give a "good" rendering, I would like a 20mm eyepiece that works well, if I could avoid taking a corrector, that would be fine for me.... Thanks ;)

[@AbdurAstro]

@@ced-astro5721 If you aren't using a corrector, I would recommend sticking to medium field of view eyepieces. The William Optics 20mm Swan eyepiece would be a good one without being too expensive (bit.ly/3XoF2fT). It has a very respectable 72 degree field of view and good optical quality.

[@ced-astro5721]

@@AbdurAstro

[@k.h.1587]

​@@AbdurAstroNO.NO NO! A 32 swan is not only too big of an exit pupil, but it is useless at f4, tons of astigmatism, it is not a well corrected eyepiece. Without a coma corrector it is much better to use a well corrected eyepiece like a nagler or other good 82 deg, or this very 20mm 100 deg. Coma on its own is much less offensive than astigmatism, even with the coma corrector, the swan is not for fast scope, but excellent for the money wjth SCTS