Does the 4mm eyepiece (175x) offer sharp views? What about the 20mm with barlow lens (105x)?
1133161
It's difficult to answer this question but will do my best. The views can be very sharp...it simply depends on the distance of the object being viewed. There is a limit to this lens, obviously. I feel it is quite good, but I have also purchased the additional set of lenses for this telescope giving me even more range and depth to what can be seen clearly and sharply. I hope this helps.
1133373
Are you focusing right? I have the same telescope and I can see the bands on it with just the stock lenses. This is in Southern California too with light pollution. I have this barlow lens as well, and it does help with the bands and rings.
283852
I got the "MULTI-ADAPTER MA5-4" from this website [ http://www.desertskyastro.com/Dovetails.html ] $25 plus $6 shipping. I have the scope attached to a Celeston CG-2 mount I got for around $120 on Ebay. It's fine for just viewing but I wouldn't recommend it for photography which I am not into. I highly recommend getting the double stacking filter if you haven't gotten it already...it's very much worth it. It greatly enhances the viewing experience.
1713859
Hello, I would say the images for me are the same as I have the basic eyepieces and two sets of as you need two sets for the bino viewers but what I like is the eye relief that you get when looking through them and a almost 3d effect like you get when looking through binoculars. If you can afford it I would highly recomend it, not for just yourself but for other viewers as well. I have a Celestron 8SE and looking at Saturn, Jupiter, the moon, well its pretty awesome. My plan is to do astrophotography, if I was really into eyepieces I would go with the two inch and some nice Nagler eyepieces. Hope this helps, Good luck and dark skies.
1570502
It can indeed be used--just about any 1.25-inch eyepiece will physically fit, but I presume you're asking about the optics. This will Barlow Shorty will work fine--just be warned that using a 2x barlow will decrease the brightness of the image significantly. For planetary viewing, that won't be an issue, and for photography, also not an issue as you can use longer exposure times. But for viewing nebula or deep sky objects, this wouldn't be an advantage.
1385697
it takes alot of patience with telescopes...even if you don not have a finderscope. Find your target with the 20 mm eyepiece. Zoom in on it and use ur 4 mm
254054
Chis... Your question is incomplete. The Universal T-Adapter has two applications. Visual observation and Astrophotography. For astrophotography, the T-Adapter attaches your camera to the visual back of the telescope and proides a focal-plane imaging system. No occular (eyepiece) is used. However the built-in Barlow lens provides an effective doubling of your telescopes focal length (i.e. a 1000mm f/10 SCT is effectively a 2000mm f/20 "lens"). For visual observing, the adapter will accept any 1.25" occular. The Barlow lens is removable for either application. For eyepice-pojection astrophotography, consider the Tele-Extender Deluxe. This will allow you tu use most 1.25" occulars as a projection lens. Not that the optical speeds of this approach is extremely slow. f/30 would be good. So it is only practical for very bright objects (planets, moon, etc.).
757052
Hope my answer is not too late. The included 20mm and 10mm eyepieces reach 50X and 100X power. In daytime landscape viewing, especially a lake in summer, the power might be too much. Mostly you will not see a stable image due to evaporation. I tried viewing farm land in summer, the image was not stable when reached 30X with my other eyepieces. So you probably will need eyepieces with longer focal lengths. You can also try spotting scope with zoom magnification.
911878
I can't specify "field of view," but what I can tell you - that I think is important for you to know - is that when I replace a 10x eyepiece in my low-power binocular microscope (1x objective), the image is greatly magnified from what it would appear through the eyepiece . . . perhaps about 5x as much (50x total?). I really would have liked it to stay the same, but I can understand why it doesn't. If you have a 40 or 50x eyepiece (or so) that you replace with the camera, my guess is you will see about the same picture as you see through the eyepiece. The clarity is good. Of course, it could be better, but probably not for the same price. Now that I understand the limitations, etc., I am quite pleased with it. I built my own lens and stand for it, using the barrel of a cheap flashlight and a double convex lens that just happened to fit the tube perfectly (24mm). I added a diaphragm to increase depth of field, and a baffle between the lens and camera to minimize "splash" within the tube. These are all held in position within the tube by O-rings (from Harbor Freight). The added diaphragm requires an additional light source, which I got from eBay for $3.50 (music stand LED lights on flex arms). Works pretty good!
2026022
It's really not critical to have a Barlow lens but it's nice. When I first got my telescope, I just used the lens take came with it. Later on, I purchased a Barlow lens and some filters. With these items, I was able to see better details. Now I wish I had a bigger telescope. I guess just like any other hobby it depends on how much can you afford to spend. You might want to try to hook up with a astronomy group some night and see for yourself before you decide.
1047642
I don't really know what type of barlow is this, but I like to use it specially for terrestrial observation and the image quality is good (I have a 20mm erect-image eyepiece and with the barlow it makes a 10mm). For observing the sky, it does get objects at the edges a little bit out of focus but overall I think the quality is good.It's not the best barlow you can get but it's definitely a good first barlow lense, and the price is excellent!!
927309
It's your back focus. For starters. You don't need a Barlow to view Jupiter. It is going to be small. You want a big Jupiter spend the cash and get a planetary lens or a nagler. Your looking for the image you see in pictures. You'll need a camera to zoom the image. Even with a 9mm planetary I get about 2 degrees of Jupiter ( aspirin size). Your focus point is minimal with a Barlow and an 8mm eyepiece. Not to mention loss of light and having your scope collimateddamn near perfect. Advice on focusing. Get an electronic focus control from Orion. It's adjustable to a very slow speed which helps. Sorry but the only way to fill Jupiter in your entire eyepiece is using imaging It's your back focus. For starters. You don't need a Barlow to view Jupiter. It is going to be small. You want a big Jupiter spend the cash and get a planetary lens or a nagler. Your looking for the image you see in pictures. You'll need a camera to zoom the image. Even with a 9mm planetary I get about 2 degrees of Jupiter ( aspirin size). Your focus point is minimal with a Barlow and an 8mm eyepiece. Not to mention loss of light and having your scope collimateddamn near perfect. Advice on focusing. Get an electronic focus control from Orion. It's adjustable to a very slow speed which... » Read More It's your back focus. For starters. You don't need a Barlow to view Jupiter. It is going to be small. You want a big Jupiter spend the cash and get a planetary lens or a nagler. Your looking for the image you see in pictures. You'll need a camera to zoom the image. Even with a 9mm planetary I get about 2 degrees of Jupiter ( aspirin size). Your focus point is minimal with a Barlow and an 8mm eyepiece. Not to mention loss of light and having your scope collimateddamn near perfect. Advice on focusing. Get an electronic focus control from Orion. It's adjustable to a very slow speed which helps. Sorry but the only way to fill Jupiter in your entire eyepiece is using imaging « Show Less
1713858
The eye piece view is crisp and clear, had problems at first getting them to focus but playing with them I found that if I use my 2x Barlow lens the focus was great, so if you think this might be a problem I would suggest you take this advice when choosing your lenses. I ordered two 12mm lenses to go with the bino viewer and it cut it down to a 6mm because of the 2x Barlow.
591605
the 20mm lens is a bit slower to focus but considerably sharper, I used them both with Cross Country action shots, and the 20mm blew the 17mm out of the photographic water so to speak.
2025668
Depending on your barlow's quality, yes. Image quality will improve as you effectively double the focal ratio of the system, making aberrations lens noticeable. However this higher focal ratio will require 2x the exposure length if using the lens T-adapter for photography. It will also reduce true field of view, which combined with the narrow apparent field of view of this eyepiece will give you more of the "looking down a paper tube" view.
801416
The 70 Travel Scope can handle a "Shorty Barlow" from the top of the diagonal. The Scope is 70 mm, so It's Magnification Max is 140 power. Your 20 delivers 22.5 Magnification, the 10 mm 45. The Scopes power is the ability to not surpass 2 X the MM appeture (front Lens Diameter) so 70 X 2 +140. A Two times barlow would double your current numbers; a triplet would get you 135 Power with your 10 mm. That's 5 mm under the scope capacity so as not to darken the Picture. This Scope is great BTW, we used It to film the Venus Transit across the Sun and other Dark Sky Objects, great for Landscape photography as well (on a budget :) Though make sure It's a "Shorty" Barlow Lens, some are too long to go into the "top" of the diagonal (you need the Diagonal because It's part of the 450 mm Focal lenght ) from the "tube side" you won't be able to focus. Celestrons shortys work well as Meades. Hope this helps.
219910
Its a great lens but obviously very different from the 10-18mm f4. I use the 24mm Zeiss almost exclusively indoors because it gets me to an equivalent focal length close to 35mm and helps with low light because of the wide 1.8 aperture. It also gets the nice shallow depth of field with that wide aperture and nice bokeh. I would love to own the 10-18 f4 but it would really be for a totally different purpose - super wide outdoor landscapes. Also, it's a slower lens with that f4 aperture and won't get a shallow depth of field under really any circumstances.