calastro New Member
- Skill Level
- Time with Product
Mar 28, 2008
- User Notes:
A good solid general purpose eyepiece!Pros:
Solid; Well made; Good general viewsCons:
A bit short on eye relief!;Comments:
Didn't seem to barlow well
Recently, I was awarded a Generic Series 500 Plossl 12.5mm eyepiece for winning the weekly drawing here at AstronomyRatings.com. I have made some initial tests of this eyepiece and following are the results...
I tried the eyepiece in two different scopes to get a feel for its performance. One scope was a 100mm f/6 refractor and the other was a Celestron NexStar 4 Mak/Cass with a ratio of f/13.2. I compared the Plossl against a 10mm MA (Modified Achromat) for most of the tests (even with a 2.5mm difference, they appeared to give virtually the same view). For a high power test, I compared the 12.5mm Plossl in combination with a "shorty" 2X barlow, against a 6mm University Optics Orthoscopic.
First of all, I will say that the manufacturing quality of the Series 500 eyepiece was quite good. It is very solid, well made, and includes a rubber eye cup.
I tested the Plossl against the MA in both the "fast" refractor and the "slow" Mak on a variety of stars and objects, primarily looking for problems with either eyepiece (flaring, reflections, etc.). Both seemed to be quite good and no noticeable problems were noted. I then concentrated on M42. I was not really looking for a comparison of the nebulosity, but at the subtle detail in areas like the "trapezium", especially at the limit of visibility.
Side by side, consistently, the Plossl and the MA appeared to be virtually identical. The only possible (noticeable) differences might be a slight edge to the Plossl for extremely faint stars just at the edge of detection with the eye. Sometimes it would appear that a particular star at the very limit of detectability was solidly there in the Plossl, and it might just fade in and out in the MA. But, at the same time, the MA consistently seemed to have just a slight edge over the Plossl in overall brightness. Of course, this is probably due to one less lens element in the MA. But then you would have to decide for a particular purpose, which would suit your needs better. For most observers just casually star gazing, the differences would hardly be noticeable.
For the high power test, the Orthoscopic wins hands down! The ortho gave crisp, clear views with lots of detail. I tried this both on M42 and on Saturn. The barlowed Plossl seemed to go "soft" on the detail, and the eye relief was horrible. This was just not a good combination. I routinely use this barlow with the 6mm Ortho for views of Saturn and Jupiter.
The Series 500 Plossl is a very good eyepiece for general observing. I would have no problem recommending it for general use.Sort by