The justification of mediocre eyepieces

The astro world is awash in junk eyepieces, re-badged
with any number of different dealer names, from China.
The reviews usually say something like,
"It doesn't perform like a Panoptic or a Nagler, but..."
What "But?" If they don't have decent edge correction,
they are no better than Plossls or Erfles which have been
around for a hundred years. What is so spectacular about
these eyepieces? Nothing. They have poor fit and finishes,
compared to basic eyepieces from the past and they cannot
come close to matching a Panoptic, Pentax or Nagler. So
before anyone crows about how they only cost "X" amount,
my response is "So what?" You aren't getting anything that
hasn't been around for years and at any other time wouldn't
even rate as well as a TeleVue Plossl.
Possibly the most stupid thing are the crappy ones where they've
pumped the AFOV out to 60 deg. from 50. All they've done is push
a crummy design way past it's logical end-point. There is a REASON
Plossls and orthos used to/still have AFOV of 40-50 degrees, because
that is all they could support without horrific aberrations taking
over for those last 10 degrees.
To be fair, there have been some nice alternate design eyepieces
released, such as the wide angle Speers Walers. But when I see
someone describing how some Chinese Plossl, from a company that is one
of many to re-badge them, as being great or unique, I just have
to laugh.
-Rich

The astro world is awash in junk eyepieces, re-badged
with any number of different dealer names, from China.

Have you tried any of these eyepieces?

As Rod, myself and others have said, some of these are really quite good.

"It doesn't perform like a Panoptic or a Nagler, but..."
What "But?" If they don't have decent edge correction,
they are no better than Plossls or Erfles which have been
around for a hundred years.

What is so spectacular about
these eyepieces? Nothing. They have poor fit and finishes,
compared to basic eyepieces from the past and they cannot
come close to matching a Panoptic, .Pentax or Nagler. So
before anyone crows about how they only cost "X" amount,
my response is "So what?" You aren't getting anything that
hasn't been around for years

In my experience, some of these eyepieces, specifically the Synta Widefields
and the GSO Superviews, perform significantly better as widefield eyepieces
than older designs like the Erfle and Konig. This is especially true in fast
scopes.

These inexpensive eyepieces really are something new and offer a great value to
the budget minded astronomer.

Possibly the most stupid thing are the crappy ones where they've
pumped the AFOV out to 60 deg. from 50. All they've done is push
a crummy design way past it's logical end-point.

There is a REASON
Plossls and orthos used to/still have AFOV of 40-50 degrees, because
that is all they could support without horrific aberrations taking
over for those last 10 degrees.

These are not Plossls and they do have better widefield performance than
Plossls. I have a 15mm Parks Gold Plossl, a 12.5 Ultima and a 15mm Synta
Widefield. At F5 the Synta Widefield has better edge performance in spite of
its wider FOV... The Ultima and the Parks, they just sit, probably use em 1 to
2 times a year for a few minutes, just to remember why it is I like the
Synta....

But when I see
someone describing how some Chinese Plossl, from a company that is one
of many to re-badge them, as being great or unique, I just have
to laugh.
-Rich

Again, how many of these have you tried?

Personally I have a collection of various eyepieces of various types. As Rod
said, 20-30 years ago people would have killed for these eyepieces.

For those who are willing to spend money, certainly TV and the rest is the way
to go.

But at least some of these inexpensive eyepieces do a very nice job. After
all, the purpose of a telescope and an eyepiece is to provide reasonable views.


There is nothing in the book that says one has to have the best equipment to
enjoy the night sky. Someone observing 50 years ago enjoyed the hobby without
the benefit of even cheap Chinese Plossls. There is no reason one cannot enjoy
the hobby today with much improved equipment.

It is up to each of us to determine what is important and how much money we
want to spend. Its easy to spend money and get good quality equipment. It't a
bit tougher to be careful and pick and choose and get good quality equipment.
But it can be done...

Personally I enjoy using inexpensive equipment that does a good job. It offers
me the opportunity to add a bit of my own handy work so that I can get the most
of out what I have.

Its not about how much you can spend but rather about how much you can get out
of what you got.

Jon

"Jon Isaacs" wrote:
snip
There is nothing in the book that says one has to have
the best equipment to enjoy the night sky. Someone
observing 50 years ago enjoyed the hobby without
the benefit of even cheap Chinese Plossls. There is
no reason one cannot enjoy the hobby today with
much improved equipment.

It is up to each of us to determine what is important
and how much money we want to spend. Its easy
to spend money and get good quality equipment. It't a
bit tougher to be careful and pick and choose and get
good quality equipment.
But it can be done...
snip
Its not about how much you can spend but rather about
how much you can get out of what you got.



I agree completely.

RichA wrote:
..
To be fair, there have been some nice alternate design eyepieces
released, such as the wide angle Speers Walers. But when I see
someone describing how some Chinese Plossl, from a company that is
one
of many to re-badge them, as being great or unique, I just have
to laugh.
-Rich

Most people who commment in this way usually add a ceavat similar to
"for the money", and the EP's (and thread) I think youre alluding to
are no different. For ~$40 those eyepieces are great for the money, I
really can't see a problem with this type of comment?

Gaz

You should look through some of them. I bought the GSO 4mm plossl, 6mm
plossl and 15mm superwide after good reviews. The fit and finish is very
good and they have fully multicoated lens and blackened edges After many
comparisons in my 8" f/6 Starsplitter, I sold my 3-6mm Televue Nagler zoom
and 11mm Nagler T6. Granted, it was hard to compare 11mm Nagler to the 15mm
superwide but the latter was very good in my opinion. The three GSO's cost
$80 shipped, the Naglers sold for $460. I am not say they are better but
they are an exceptional value. Why to you think I was able to purchase a
8mm Radian for $145 shipped when they used to go for $200 on Astromart?

...
The astro world is awash in junk eyepieces, re-badged
with any number of different dealer names, from China.
The reviews usually say something like,
"It doesn't perform like a Panoptic or a Nagler, but..."
What "But?" If they don't have decent edge correction,
they are no better than Plossls or Erfles which have been
around for a hundred years. What is so spectacular about
these eyepieces? Nothing. They have poor fit and finishes,
compared to basic eyepieces from the past and they cannot
come close to matching a Panoptic, Pentax or Nagler. So
before anyone crows about how they only cost "X" amount,
my response is "So what?" You aren't getting anything that
hasn't been around for years and at any other time wouldn't
even rate as well as a TeleVue Plossl.
Possibly the most stupid thing are the crappy ones where they've
pumped the AFOV out to 60 deg. from 50. All they've done is push
a crummy design way past it's logical end-point. There is a REASON
Plossls and orthos used to/still have AFOV of 40-50 degrees, because
that is all they could support without horrific aberrations taking
over for those last 10 degrees.
To be fair, there have been some nice alternate design eyepieces
released, such as the wide angle Speers Walers. But when I see
someone describing how some Chinese Plossl, from a company that is one
of many to re-badge them, as being great or unique, I just have
to laugh.
-Rich