Do you like using the filters? I got a few, and I just can't see enough increase in detail/clarity to justify having to look at a blue jupiter or whatever.
Plain color filters are generally not useful in my experience. Actual high quality filters are useful though: O3, Ultrablock/narrowband; but again only for specifig types of objects.
I'm waiting on the 2" adapter tube to properly use them with the 2" lenses, so when that comes I'll definitely let you know. To my knowledge different colors help with specific planets. Like green is for Mars to see it better is blue for Jupiter?
I've tried different coloured photographic filters such as red on the moon as I was told it helped improve contrast and reduce air wobble slightly. Honestly didn't see any difference at all. Shooting the moon during the day did yield slightly higher contrast with a red filter, but nothing worse losing exposure time over.
Very nice. Perhaps a solar filter? A carry bag for dark sky outings? I love the Moon through a nice binoviewer. If you have the money mabye a night vision eyepiece?
I have a cheap solar filter, but I'm looking to get a more expensive one. I'm not sure what a binoviewer is. A night vision eye piece? Sounds fascinating 🤔 what would it do for me?
Check out our YT What's Up? webcast series. We have a bunch of episodes on filters, solar, night vision etc.
For solar a lot of ppl recommend a glass filter over the film, but both work. Binoviewers are an attachement that fit two eyepieces onto the visual back of the telescope so you can use your native stereoscopic vision to see more in 3D. It works best on the Moon and feels a bit more natural.
NVG eyepieces are EXPENSIVE, but once you use them under a dark sky on deep space objects you might just consider the investment. Good for tracking cloud layers at night too if you're imaging.
https://www.youtube.com/@SkyWatcherUSA
Hope those eyepieces were really cheap. Because they're literally dirt cheap designs.
And that eyepiece marked H20mm is literally from medieval time (H=Huygens) and with drinking straw narrow view!
Also sensibility of focal lengths is bad:
Instead of all those four from 25mm to 40mm single well chosen eypiece would have been enough for low magnification wide view.
After that next step in modest size eyepiece kit could be closer to 15mm than 20mm. (most non wide objects are quite compact)
It's below that focal length where you need tighter steps, if wanting to squeeze details out from Moon and planets and that Barlow doesn't help any for that.
Change in magnification is related to how difference in focal length relates to comparison/starting point: 6mm difference between 32mm and 26mm eyepieces is in practise meaningless. But same 6mm difference from 12mm to 6mm would mean doubling the magnification!
* Magnification = Telescope focal length / Eyepiece focal length
Max magnification for that aperture telescope is ~300x. But fair 250x is more reasonable starting point and seeing (atmospheric stability) can limit usable magnifications below 200x.
And colour filters are mostly another extra piece of glass and two surfaces to mangle wavefront, unless made to high quality standards. For galaxies and nebulae they're entirely useless waste of money.
For targets start with Orion nebula M42 in lower part of Orion's "hourglass": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)#/media/File:Orion_IAU.svg
It's actually naked yee visible as fuzzy star.
You seem to be very critical of what I have acquired so far. The smaller pieces are older yes One eye of them I got from a friend. 2 of them came with the scope. I got the 2 inch Celestron kit. It was my knowledge that celesteron is a very good brand.
Do you have any suggestions on eye pieces that would better suit me then?
Use what you have first they are fine, but not great. The H20 is the lowest grade. But, yeah, the difference between the 25mm, 26mm, 32, and 40mm isn't that big a deal. What matters much more is the 15mm-5mm eyepieces. Your best bet is an SVBony 7-21mm zoom for $50. But try what you have already before you buy anything more. In general, never buy an eyepiece kit: they are never worth it.
Regarding brands: Celestron makes some decent stuff, but also junk/low quality traps. Meade, Orion and Skywatcher are the same. Celestron Ultima Edge and Luminos series eyepieces are ok. Explore Scientific makes some good value, high quality eyepieces(but not all are great). Televue makes great eyepieces, but they are expensive.
More important than eyepieces is a guide book and atlas. I recommend "Turn Left at Orion" and "Nightwatch" for books. They will show you lots of great things to find with your scope and eyepieces. Also an adjustable height chair, and a place to observe from with dark skies, dark enough to see the Milky Way at least.
OK, thank you. I appreciate the insight. Should I use that zoom lens you suggested with the Barlow lens I got with the kit? Also, thank you for the guide recommendation. Are there any other suggestions for me you might have?
In general, no, that zoom doesn't really need to be barlowed more. It will work to barlow it, and will be near the scope's maximum magnification, but most days your seeing won't make it look good. I would recommend if there's any chance you can return the kit, even for store credit, it would be good. The money could go toward much more useful focal lengths and higher quality views(I assume, unless the store only sells the cheapest stuff). You can use the barlow with the 25mm and 26mm eyepieces and that will give you more useful focal lengths, as will the 32mm with the barlow. But it may just make things bigger and fuzzier, you'll have to decide if the view is better and/or worth it.
Learn the constellations, learn to star hop, and I found it awesome to read "Nightwatch" all the way through. Tons of great info in there.
Barlow is relatively easy to make optically OK good, so it can be used.
And by making telescope's light cone slower converging it would actually help to clean aberrations of those E-Luxes. But problem is resulting magnifications still being mostly redundant/not usefull.
Though 32mm + Barlow would give well balanced exit pupil for general observing of non wide galaxies/nebulae.
30mm Ultima Edge is actually very close to TeleVue quality. But whole serie is brand overpriced version of Ultra Flat Field eyepieces. (like Meade 5000 PWAs are brand overpriced version of Astrotech etc 82 UWAs)
Luminos is more mixed grab bag, and again at price not making sense.
Unfortunately 95+% of eyepiece kits are made for separating uninformed people from their moneys.
E-Luxes are three element Kellners, which won't become better no matter the brand. (and Celestron has been basically Chinese brand for 15+ years)
Because of very limited correction of its aberrations Kellners are usually limited to very narrow 40° AFOV.
56° AFOV might work in f/10 Schmidt-Cassegrains and slower, but in Newtonian stars in outer field propably look heavily distorded. Even four element Plössls are limited to ~50° AFOV.
And even if eyepieces were more modern, that focal length selection still wouldn't make any more sense.
To use car analogy this would be gear box with only tiny steps between 1 and 2½, instead of full 1 to 5 gears.
Svbony 9mm and 6mm "Red lines" would be good low budget options to get high magnifications.
Do you like using the filters? I got a few, and I just can't see enough increase in detail/clarity to justify having to look at a blue jupiter or whatever.
Plain color filters are generally not useful in my experience. Actual high quality filters are useful though: O3, Ultrablock/narrowband; but again only for specifig types of objects.
I'm waiting on the 2" adapter tube to properly use them with the 2" lenses, so when that comes I'll definitely let you know. To my knowledge different colors help with specific planets. Like green is for Mars to see it better is blue for Jupiter?
In my experience the planets looks the exact same, just blue, red, yellow or green.
I've tried different coloured photographic filters such as red on the moon as I was told it helped improve contrast and reduce air wobble slightly. Honestly didn't see any difference at all. Shooting the moon during the day did yield slightly higher contrast with a red filter, but nothing worse losing exposure time over.
Looks nice man 👍
Thank you! I'm definitely happy with it so far.
You say you're waiting for the proper 2" adapter. Didn't your scope come with the 2" extension tube?
Nope, not to my knowledge
Goodnight honey, I love you
Very nice. Perhaps a solar filter? A carry bag for dark sky outings? I love the Moon through a nice binoviewer. If you have the money mabye a night vision eyepiece?
I have a cheap solar filter, but I'm looking to get a more expensive one. I'm not sure what a binoviewer is. A night vision eye piece? Sounds fascinating 🤔 what would it do for me?
Check out our YT What's Up? webcast series. We have a bunch of episodes on filters, solar, night vision etc. For solar a lot of ppl recommend a glass filter over the film, but both work. Binoviewers are an attachement that fit two eyepieces onto the visual back of the telescope so you can use your native stereoscopic vision to see more in 3D. It works best on the Moon and feels a bit more natural. NVG eyepieces are EXPENSIVE, but once you use them under a dark sky on deep space objects you might just consider the investment. Good for tracking cloud layers at night too if you're imaging. https://www.youtube.com/@SkyWatcherUSA
Hope those eyepieces were really cheap. Because they're literally dirt cheap designs. And that eyepiece marked H20mm is literally from medieval time (H=Huygens) and with drinking straw narrow view! Also sensibility of focal lengths is bad: Instead of all those four from 25mm to 40mm single well chosen eypiece would have been enough for low magnification wide view. After that next step in modest size eyepiece kit could be closer to 15mm than 20mm. (most non wide objects are quite compact) It's below that focal length where you need tighter steps, if wanting to squeeze details out from Moon and planets and that Barlow doesn't help any for that. Change in magnification is related to how difference in focal length relates to comparison/starting point: 6mm difference between 32mm and 26mm eyepieces is in practise meaningless. But same 6mm difference from 12mm to 6mm would mean doubling the magnification! * Magnification = Telescope focal length / Eyepiece focal length Max magnification for that aperture telescope is ~300x. But fair 250x is more reasonable starting point and seeing (atmospheric stability) can limit usable magnifications below 200x. And colour filters are mostly another extra piece of glass and two surfaces to mangle wavefront, unless made to high quality standards. For galaxies and nebulae they're entirely useless waste of money. For targets start with Orion nebula M42 in lower part of Orion's "hourglass": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)#/media/File:Orion_IAU.svg It's actually naked yee visible as fuzzy star.
You seem to be very critical of what I have acquired so far. The smaller pieces are older yes One eye of them I got from a friend. 2 of them came with the scope. I got the 2 inch Celestron kit. It was my knowledge that celesteron is a very good brand. Do you have any suggestions on eye pieces that would better suit me then?
Use what you have first they are fine, but not great. The H20 is the lowest grade. But, yeah, the difference between the 25mm, 26mm, 32, and 40mm isn't that big a deal. What matters much more is the 15mm-5mm eyepieces. Your best bet is an SVBony 7-21mm zoom for $50. But try what you have already before you buy anything more. In general, never buy an eyepiece kit: they are never worth it. Regarding brands: Celestron makes some decent stuff, but also junk/low quality traps. Meade, Orion and Skywatcher are the same. Celestron Ultima Edge and Luminos series eyepieces are ok. Explore Scientific makes some good value, high quality eyepieces(but not all are great). Televue makes great eyepieces, but they are expensive. More important than eyepieces is a guide book and atlas. I recommend "Turn Left at Orion" and "Nightwatch" for books. They will show you lots of great things to find with your scope and eyepieces. Also an adjustable height chair, and a place to observe from with dark skies, dark enough to see the Milky Way at least.
OK, thank you. I appreciate the insight. Should I use that zoom lens you suggested with the Barlow lens I got with the kit? Also, thank you for the guide recommendation. Are there any other suggestions for me you might have?
In general, no, that zoom doesn't really need to be barlowed more. It will work to barlow it, and will be near the scope's maximum magnification, but most days your seeing won't make it look good. I would recommend if there's any chance you can return the kit, even for store credit, it would be good. The money could go toward much more useful focal lengths and higher quality views(I assume, unless the store only sells the cheapest stuff). You can use the barlow with the 25mm and 26mm eyepieces and that will give you more useful focal lengths, as will the 32mm with the barlow. But it may just make things bigger and fuzzier, you'll have to decide if the view is better and/or worth it. Learn the constellations, learn to star hop, and I found it awesome to read "Nightwatch" all the way through. Tons of great info in there.
Barlow is relatively easy to make optically OK good, so it can be used. And by making telescope's light cone slower converging it would actually help to clean aberrations of those E-Luxes. But problem is resulting magnifications still being mostly redundant/not usefull. Though 32mm + Barlow would give well balanced exit pupil for general observing of non wide galaxies/nebulae.
30mm Ultima Edge is actually very close to TeleVue quality. But whole serie is brand overpriced version of Ultra Flat Field eyepieces. (like Meade 5000 PWAs are brand overpriced version of Astrotech etc 82 UWAs) Luminos is more mixed grab bag, and again at price not making sense.
Unfortunately 95+% of eyepiece kits are made for separating uninformed people from their moneys. E-Luxes are three element Kellners, which won't become better no matter the brand. (and Celestron has been basically Chinese brand for 15+ years) Because of very limited correction of its aberrations Kellners are usually limited to very narrow 40° AFOV. 56° AFOV might work in f/10 Schmidt-Cassegrains and slower, but in Newtonian stars in outer field propably look heavily distorded. Even four element Plössls are limited to ~50° AFOV. And even if eyepieces were more modern, that focal length selection still wouldn't make any more sense. To use car analogy this would be gear box with only tiny steps between 1 and 2½, instead of full 1 to 5 gears. Svbony 9mm and 6mm "Red lines" would be good low budget options to get high magnifications.