# How much of a difference do good lenses make?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I recently purchased a Celestron PowerSeeker 114EQ and with it I got three lenses (which I assume are low quality), a 4mm, a 20mm and a 3 x Barlow.

I can get pretty decent views of the moon but a very blurry, small view of Jupiter with the 4mm and Barlow. I can see the color of the storm rings for example, but barely. I've not had a chance to have a go at Saturn yet. A view similar to this…

I've been reading up on this and was looking at purchasing a 4-8mm Plössl lens but I'm not sure if the lens is my weak spot or some other aspect of the telescope. Another thing to note is that I've been using it in a pretty bright street, looking up very close to street lights. I've not had a chance to take out somewhere with less light pollution.

So what I'm asking is, how much difference would a lens upgrade make, specifically to my image quality?

… a very blurry, small view of Jupiter with the 4mm and Barlow…

Be aware that a 4mm eyepiece and a 3x barlow at the same time will give you a very high magnification - too high! For regular Jupiter viewing I would suggest you stick to 100x or 200x at most, unless the air is exceptionally still. (After a few sessions you'll find out what "Still" air means.)

A lot of beginner scopes like this are sold with barlows that tend to give too much power, my advice is to keep it packed away for most sessions.

So I'd stick to using that 4mm on its own, jupiter will look quite small but with practice you can usually tease a bit more detail out of the image.

I don't have one of these scopes, but my experience of comparing cheap modern eyepieces with expensive ones is that the lower cost ones are generally OK these days. 4mm is quite a high power so the extra magnification will cause a lot of blurriness and it will take patience to get the focusing at its sharpest, so don't panic if everything is looking fuzzy at the moment.

For a first stage I would suggest a few things that are nothing to do with the eyepieces at all…

• Collimation - look this up, it just means adjusting the two mirrors so your eye is looking right down the tube in a straight line. For a long focal length scope like yours, it's not likely to be a problem unless one of them is wildly out of line.
• Tube currents/thermal behaviour - on almost any cold night, when the tube and main mirror are still warm from being indoors, rising air currents in the tube will mess up your image and make it shimmery, at high power. Low power will look OK. It might take an hour or so for the image to improve (a guess)

Anyway, in summary my guess is changing the eyepieces straight away won't make a dramatic difference. Eyepiece makers will say otherwise of course :)

## How Do Different Camera Lenses Affect Photo Quality

There are a lot of factors that impact the end quality of the photo, and the lens is almost at the top of the list. Amateur photographers are always thinking about the number of megapixels (click to see how much do megapixels affect photo quality) and other factors like the camera body, but the lens is far more important.

So, how do different camera lenses affect photo quality? The camera lens has a greater impact on the photo quality than for example megapixels because a camera lens has a direct effect on the background blur, sharpness, level of detail, depth of field and these are just some of the more important parameters. In most cases, it is also better to have a high-end lens than an expensive camera body, because a good lens will make a huge difference, almost in every case when compared with a better camera that uses a kit lens.

How lenses impact the quality of the photo is a pretty wide topic, but from this article, you will get a grip on how much a quality lens is important, and what characteristics you should look on when buying a camera or a lens.

If you really want the best for your money then stay with us because we will save you a lot of thinking and maybe a load of wasted money. Let’s begin!

## How much difference does a TeleVue eyepiece make?

I have a C8 and a set of Baader Hyperion eyepieces. I keep reading how TeleVue eyepieces are the best, and are several hundred dollars more expensive.

What difference does it make? Does it let me see more of a nebula or galaxy? Does it let me see more detail in a planet? Are they really worth the price?

### #2 izar187

All ep's are assembled by hand, at some kind of a work station, on a table.

However, more expensive eyepieces are made from more costly component parts.

Smoother finish on the glass, more costly types of glass, more costly coatings, more costly barrel/body, better control of flares, glares and intrusive reflections.

So there are differences to be seen, if a person is aware of them.

If you want TeleVue, then save a little longer, and shop used.

They are among the best coated and best corrected for present day fast focal ratio's.

In whatever field of view category you may want.

Alternative plan B is to simply buy middle tier ep's, and focus on the targets in the night sky.

Much as I like and respect Televue, at present I have none.

As there are no objects that can only be seen in Televue ep's.

Edited by izar187, 25 January 2015 - 11:56 PM.

### #3 mostlyemptyspace

All ep's are assembled by hand, at some kind of a work station, on a table.

However, more expensive eyepieces are made from more costly component parts.

Smoother finish on the glass, more costly types of glass, more costly coatings, more costly barrel/body, better control of flares, glares and intrusive reflections.

So there are differences to be seen, if a person is aware of them.

If you want TeleVue, then save a little longer, and shop used.

They are among the best coated and best corrected for present day fast focal ratio's.

In whatever field of view category you may want.

Alternative plan B is to simply buy middle tier ep's, and focus on the targets in the night sky.

Much as I like and respect Televue, at present I have none.

As there are no objects that can only be seen in Televue ep's.

What's a good mid-range EP then, between the Baader Hyperions and TeleVues?

### #4 Rick Woods

Are you looking for a specialty wide-field eyepiece, or just the best quality in the type you have?

For planetary, or other specialty viewing, in my experience Brandons are a step above the others. (Caveat: The Brandon line has been sold, and is now made by a different company than the originals I use.)

If you want ultra-wide angle, Explore Scientific makes an excellent 100 degree eyepiece but then, I have never looked through a TeleVue 100* EP.

### #5 izar187

What's a good mid-range EP then, between the Baader Hyperions and TeleVues?

Hyperions are good mid range.

There are presently 7 different lines offered, plus a few discontinued types available from the used market.

Between Hyperions and Delos. perhaps Vixen LVW's, used Pentax XL's and maybe used Radians, depending on the focal lengths one wants.

### #6 Mark9473

Before spending any money on eyepieces to see more planetary detail, consider getting a binoviewer.

The gains in our visual system from using two eyes far outweighs the benefit you could get in moving from a mid range to a high end eyepiece.

### #7 MikeBOKC

Down in the eyepiece forum there is a long and pretty educational thread on the question of whether premium eyepieces make a major difference. You might read through it. Bottom line, there are several choices in "better" eyepieces running upward through Explore Scientific and Brandon as noted above into other brands and probably topping off at Televue. And as noted there are always plenty in the classified used.

### #8 jrbarnett

I have a C8 and a set of Baader Hyperion eyepieces. I keep reading how TeleVue eyepieces are the best, and are several hundred dollars more expensive.

What difference does it make? Does it let me see more of a nebula or galaxy? Does it let me see more detail in a planet? Are they really worth the price?

Which Televue eyepiece, specifically, and as compared to what other eyepiece(s), specifically?

Having the brand "Televue" on the eyepiece is kind of meaningless without those key contextual details. An 8mm Televue Plossl would compare very differently to an 8mm Baader Hyperion than would an 8mm Televue Ethos.

### #9 Tony Flanders

Having the brand "Televue" on the eyepiece is kind of meaningless without those key contextual details. An 8mm Televue Plossl would compare very differently to an 8mm Baader Hyperion than would an 8mm Televue Ethos.

True enough. Though one thing all TeleVue eyepieces have in common -- at least in my experience -- is very high optical and mechanical quality.

In response to the original question, the difference between a good eyepiece and a great eyepiece is mostly aesthetic -- and not huge at that. In terms of how much detail you will be able to make out, the differences are pretty small. For deep sky, nothing like the difference that increasing the scope's aperture 10% would make, for instance -- and 10% is a pretty small aperture difference. For planets, nothing like the difference that slightly better seeing would make.

I find that eyepiece preferences are very personal. To me, there's something about the "feel" of an eyepiece, the way it happens to fit my eye, that matters more than the image quality.

### #10 Pinbout

I have a C8 and a set of Baader Hyperion eyepieces. I keep reading how TeleVue eyepieces are the best, and are several hundred dollars more expensive.

What difference does it make? Does it let me see more of a nebula or galaxy? Does it let me see more detail in a planet? Are they really worth the price?

with a long focal length telescope you can use lots of more inexpensive wide field eyepieces.

for a 8in sct, I think a 2" visual back and 2" diagonal with a inexpensive 2" eyepiece would be great.

but in a faster dob f4-6 the higher end eyepieces can pull away from the pack.

I was looking at m5 in a 8in f6 dob. At first I had my ES 14mm 82° in the scope, then I put in my TV15mm plossl. It was like someone flipped a switch and turned on the lights with the TV plossl.

the next day I put the 14mm 82° up for sale.

### #11 Rick Woods

Also, how good are your eyes? The better your eyes, the bigger the difference a premium EP will make.

### #12 Dwight J

I would second what Danny said. You can happily use lower quality range eyepieces in long focus telescopes while fast ones are really helped by Televue Naglers and the like. A good example is an Erfle. I have a 20 mm Meade Erfle that is excellent in my SCT's but when I tried it in my F4.5 Newtonian - yikes! A good example of coma. I put my Televue Pantopic in and all the mess disappears as a well corrected field comes into view. The wider field you want, the more important having a well corrected ocular becomes in addition to F ratio. I don't know what the magic F ratio would be where you would be better off with high quality eyepieces. I suspect around F7. Of course, Naglers, Ethos, and Pantopics work well at any F ratio.

### #13 sevenhelmet

For most scopes, I find a good quality Plossl will go a long way. I sometimes use Meade series 5000 Plossls in my 10" Dob with very good effect, especially on planets and doubles. I do tend to favor the wide AFOV Naglers though, since my scope is not driven. In general, fewer high-quality elements MIGHT improve contrast on some objects, but your results will vary widely based on your setup.

Baader Hyperions have a good reputation. Don't let the gear discussions sway you, TeleVue eyepieces are great but very expensive, and certainly not a requirement to see any object through your C8. They will last you a lifetime though, and the used EP market is full good deals (or was a couple of years ago, when all the guys with money were upgrading to the Ethos line )

Edited by sevenhelmet, 26 January 2015 - 03:43 PM.

### #14 REC

I have a C8 and a set of Baader Hyperion eyepieces. I keep reading how TeleVue eyepieces are the best, and are several hundred dollars more expensive.

What difference does it make? Does it let me see more of a nebula or galaxy? Does it let me see more detail in a planet? Are they really worth the price?

That is an interesting question and I asked myself that when I got my 8" SCT a few years ago. The Baader EP's you have are really good and I'm not sure you would see a major differance with the Telvue in a head to head comparison on say the moon, planets, star clusters. maybe a little if you knew what to look for? Do you where glasses? Makes a big difference with some EP's.

Your Hyperion EP's are 68* FOV and 20mm eye relief, which makes them very comfortable to view. The TelVue would be 50*, 68* or 82* and the exotic expensive 100*. The plossl are under $100, the Pan 68* are$250+ and the 82* are $340+. Most of these do not have the generous 20mm eye relief. I have a Nagler 13mm T6 and the eye relief is only 12mm and a little tight. My 19mm Pan is 13mm. Anyway, as you can see, they can cost up to 3 times as much as your$110 Hyperion's, so unless you want to spend a lot more money replacing what you have, I would add something on the other end for wider views. If you stick with the 1.25" diagonal, the widest you can go would be a 32mm plossl or a 24mm SWA or stick with Baader if you want for the 31mm EP. One of the more popular choices to match features with TeleVue has been Expoerer Scientific at about half the price and have very good reviews by a lot of CN members.

## 10 Best Barlow Lenses 1.25″ & 2″ Why I’d Buy Them

A Barlow lens is a cost-efficient way of enhancing your telescope’s magnification abilities. Therefore, by getting the right one for your needs, you can expand your backyard observational capabilities in astronomy.

##### Quick Cheat Sheet

Are you thinking about the cheap route? Or are you on track for a more exceptional quality Barlow lens? Either way, the final decision is up to you. However, to help you out, here’s a simple buying guide and Top 10 Best Barlow Lens for 2021. That’s 5 best 1.25” and 5 best 2”. We took some time and reviewed each lens and stated their respective pros and cons below.

### Buying Guide – How to Pick the Right Barlow Lens?

Before making any purchase, let’s make sure you know what makes a good Barlow lens. There are three key things you should consider when buying – tube-size, magnification, and price.

#### Tube Size

The first thing you need to know is the size of the Barlow lens that will fit in the focusing tube, and what size eyepieces you currently have. The two standard sizes are 1.25” or 2”. A quick recommendation, if you can accept a 2″ Barlow in the focusing tube, in short, it will allow more light to pass through to your eyepiece.

#### Magnification

The second thing to consider is the magnification of the lens. Barlow lenses typically come in three magnifications – 2x, 3x, and 5x. For most beginners, we recommend you to have 2x power, or something close to it. Too much X power and you will not be able to focus, or your field of view will be narrowed too much with a 5X per se.

To get more in-depth on Barlow Lenses, take a look at this article: What is a Barlow Lens and What do They Do?

#### Price

Like any other product price increases with quality. So, having a budget can be helpful going into a Barlow purchase. Like, knowing how much you are willing to invest based on the telescope you own.

The reasons this guy won it is 1.25″ and will fit in 99% of all telescopes. As touched on above, the quality is that in which 80% of telescope users will not be able to notice the quality enhancement with lenses 2 or 3 times the cost. The last reason was that it was the best lens under $100 when I bought it. You get crisp and clear views of your image. It looks good too with the orange accents incorporated in it. The optical quality of this lens is excellent and comparable to the more expensive ones. If you have a slow or fast telescope, this can do very well in elevating its viewing quality. Can you do better in view quality, yes, but overall, you can’t go wrong with this Celestron Barlow as part of your telescope accessory kit. To learn more about what makes a telescope fast or slow, click here. Now all that said, which one would I want if money was no object…The 2” Televue! However, money is an object, and that is why I started this blog to help people get a telescope they can enjoy within their budget. ### Need More? We’ve come to the last part of sharing about Barlow lenses. Hopefully, we have made it worth your time. If you liked this article and would like to learn more about Barlow lenses and what they can do for you, click here. Also, here are some articles that you may find informative as well. IF you have a minute, you may want to check out my Recommended Gear Page where you can see what else I recommend. ## How to choose the best binoculars for astronomy observing Binoculars seem to be everywhere today. Miniature, pocket-binocs can be had for$15 or $20, which is an astonishing price point when you stop to consider how many lenses and prisms are in them. And though these may be perfectly acceptable for quick views of the occasional bird or squirrels, the sheer physics of their limited light gathering make them impractical for usage in astronomy. That leads to the flip side the binocular world: The large aperture, high magnification ones. These seem like a great idea as well: 60 and 70 millimeter lenses with 15, 20 and 25 times magnification. We need more light through the lenses to see more, and higher magnification is always a good thing, right? Well. yes and no. Good, high-quality, anti-reflection coated lenses, BAK-4 prisms, expertly-collimated binoculars make great, specialty astronomy binoculars, but observers with instruments such as these will also need a beefy, strong tripod, because their weight will make them heavy to hold even after short periods of time, and the magnification will require it. Go the other route of cheaper lenses, less coatings, BK-7 prisms, poorly collimated optics and you have a recipe for difficult to focus binoculars with soft / fuzzy star images out the outer edge of the field, vignetting of the field of view, and an instrument that may make your eyes / head hurt! Yes, they are inexpensive (sometimes as low as$60), but is that really worth it?

I'd argue it is not. (Want the TLDR version? Skip to the end.)

### What to look for in astronomy binoculars

By the numbers

First, let's talk numbers. Binoculars are described using two numbers, usually in a "X x XX" format. The first number is the magnification provided by the binoculars. The second number is the aperture of the main lenses (the side the light comes in) in millimeters. So 7x50 binoculars magnify 7 times, and have two lenses of 50mm on the incoming light end.

Numbers, math, and exit pupil

Magnification is less important for astronomy than many beginners realize. In fact, for binoculars, less magnification is better, since very likely the instruments will be hand-held. The more magnification there is, the more any inability to hold the binoculars perfectly steady gets magnified too. That's why many ideal astronomy binoculars are 7x50, 8x40 or 10x50.

The other number, aperture, matters in the same way it does for telescopes: Larger aperture gathers more light, which means the observer can (likely) see more. With binoculars, that is true too - but again, up to a point when all other factors are taken into consideration like weight, coatings and cost. Very often, that good balance will start with 35mm lenses, and top out around 50mm lenses. Again, you can see why 7x50's and 10x50's are popular choices.

You can calculate an important component of ANY set of binoculars called exit pupil. This is the diameter of focused light leaving the eyepiece end of the binoculars. It is roughly calculated by dividing the aperture by the magnification:

##### Aperture in mm / magnification = Exit pupil

So the 7x50 binoculars above produce a 7.1mm exit pupil (50 / 7 = 7.1). 10x50 binoculars would have a 5mm exit pupil (50 / 10 = 5).

Why is that important? During the day, it isn't, as there is sufficient light gathering and very likely the pupils of your eyes will be constricted anyway. This is why those small, pocket binoculars are often useful during the day.

But at night, the pupils of your eyes enlarge, helping you to see better. If you are using small, 10x25 binoculars, the exit pupil will only be 2.5mm. Younger people's eyes can often dilate to 7mm, and those 40 and older may only dilate to 5 or 6mm, but think about that: If you're only getting 2.5mm of light, you're restricting what you can see.

Having a larger exit pupil matters don't restrict what can reach your eye for binoculars (this is different for telescopes at high magnification) artificially based on small exit pupil numbers. The idea is to gather more light for your eyes, so you can see fainter stars and objects in the night sky.

Field matters

In astronomy, it helps to know how wide the field of view is that is visible in binoculars. 5 to 7 degrees of field is really where binoculars excel over telescopes, which can restrict the field of view to a degree and a half or less (see graphic above).

It's similar to the "zoom" function on a camera: If you're trying to get a picture of your whole family at a holiday, that might be difficult if the camera's zoom is stuck halfway or all the way on zoom. You'd need the widest view possible, so you'd zoom out.

That's what binoculars do. Higher magnification binoculars start to restrict this field, often pinching it down to 3 and 4 degrees. That is still better than most telescopes, but the benefit of binoculars is having that widest field of view, to find objects in the sky more easily or simply take in a larger view of the cosmos than can be seen naked eye.

Separating the wheat from the chaff

So why so much? Well, remember all that glass in there. Have you ever checked your hair in a car window or piece of glass on a building? Glass reflects some light. And every SIDE of that glass reflect a bit so one piece of glass has two surfaces that are reflecting light back - that's why you can sometimes see two images of yourself in a window.

Binoculars may have 12 to 16 of these surfaces PER SIDE. That's a lot of glass surfaces to reflect light!

Binocular manufacturers reduce these reflections by treating the lenses with anti-reflection coatings. And it costs money to add these to each lens, so for each one, you can hear the "Ka-ching! Ka-ching!" of money being added every time another anti-reflection coating is added.

Good, high quality anti-reflection coatings are a deep green, and are referred to as multi-coated lenses. Single layer coatings are a light purple in color, and are often just called anti-reflection coatings. Cheap coatings that really don't offer much anti-reflective properties that are useful for astronomy applications at all are red, ruby, gold or orange colored.

To lower costs, companies change how many lenses actually receive these coatings. Ideally, you want the best light-through-put, "fully multi-coated" binoculars are best. They are also the most expensive. "Multi-coated" or "fully coated" binoculars will sometimes have multi-coated lenses on the outside glass surfaces, and purple single layers on internal glass surfaces.

These are certainly acceptable. Lower cost binoculars may say, "coated" lenses, and only coat the outside lens surfaces. It really helps to read the sales literature carefully, and trust me - marketing people will do all they can to get you to think that more surfaces are coated than perhaps are. You can get a good idea by the difference in prices.

Weighing other features

The weight of binoculars is another important component to consider. It gets tiring holding binoculars that weigh more than about 2 pounds (32 ounces /

1kg). The flip side of this is making sure that the instrument has enough metal in it to hold collimation and protect it from occasional bumps too lightweight and the slightest mishandling could knock it out of alignment. Something in the 24 to 30 ounce range for 7x50 or 10x50 binoculars is likely to be ideal.

Bending and bouncing

Binoculars are compact because they use internal prisms to bounce the light path and "fold" it into a smaller package. There are two ways to do this: One is with 'roof' prisms, often used on those pocket / compact binoculars. Roof prisms aren't very practical above about 40mm in diameter, so starting around 35mm aperture companies employ something call porro prisms. These allow more light to enter them from the main lenses, although there are differences in the type of glass used.

Lower cost binoculars use BK-7 glass. It is less expensive to manufacture, but it does not transmit as much light. And if they are not coated, they'll transmit even less! Better binoculars use BAK-4 prisms, a more expensive type of glass which transmits more light.

Better binoculars also use larger BAK-4 prisms, to avoid vignetting the light coming from the main lenses. The idea of astronomy binoculars is ti have as much light possible reach your eye - cutting it off artificially because the prisms are too small reduces how much you can see.

Knowing all that goes into binoculars, determine a realistic budget. With essentially TWO optical systems in one instrument, remember that it is like joining two small telescopes together - AND - they need to be well-collimated with each other, or you'll be seeing double (or straining your eyes to 'merge' the two images, which can cause a headache!).

And there's more than just those two lenses there's another set of lenses where the eyepieces are - usually consisting of three elements per side. Add to that the two sets of prisms. $75 to$100 is really the very low end of decent binoculars. "Good" binoculars start in the $200 to$300 range (yes, I know that is as much as or more than many telescopes).

To zoom or not to zoom?

Definitely not. Seems like a great idea. Terrible for astronomy. Trust me, you'll be wasting your money. Same for any binoculars labelled "focus-free" ones. Save for something better and more suitable. Pinpoint stars are the hardest thing for optics to focus zoom and "focus free" make it that much harder, and the results aren't pretty. Avoid these.

TLDR (Too long didn't read everything above) a.k. Bottom line

To sum up: Binoculars for astronomy are best when they provide a low magnification, wide field of view. In addition to providing a substantial exit pupil of light leaving the eyepiece, when chosen at a weight of two pounds or less with fully coated surfaces, they can provide substantially more light reaching the user's eyes and assist in observing wide fields of much fainter objects than the naked eye can see.

For those reasons, 7x50, 8x40 and 10x50 binoculars are often the best compromise of features and price for astronomy binocular users. Choose some with fully multi-coated or fully coated optics for best performance. As tempting as those 15x70, 20x80 or 25x100 binoculars may look compared to the price, they will very likely still be around to serve as a second set of specialty binoculars for astronomy. Learning the sky will be substantially easier with the lower-power, lighter weight options listed previously.

The very best binoculars will come from Canon, Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, Steiner, Swarovski, and Zeiss, but these are likely to be in the $300 to$500 range and up. For more budget-minded optics, consider the binoculars sold at Orion Telescopes and Astronomics, though I would be careful about the large, lower-cost Celestron binoculars as the reviews have been quite mixed on these instruments.

I personally own 7x50 Scenix binoculars from Orion they run about \$100 (sometimes on sale for a bit less). I bought my wife a set of the 8x56 Mini Giants from Orion - while these are on the upper end of weight for hand holding, they provide pinpoint stars and lovely views across the entire field. While I own about a dozen pairs of binoculars, these two are my most used ones.

Low magnification (7x and 8x) and easily hand-held. I hope you'll believe me when I state that there's a reason why you might want to consider something along those lines for your first pair, too.

## Difference between Cheap and Expensive eyepiece

A good eyepiece has a number of design features that help with producing a clearer image. Some of these features are lacking or totally absent from cheaper eyepieces and that is what makes all the difference.

Here is the list of design features that you are likely to find in a good eyepiece…

### Quality of lens

Very cheap telescopes can sometimes come with a plastic lens. The plastic lens is very cost-effective and easier to make but has many disadvantages and should always be avoided.

Nowadays most of the lens are made of glass but as you go from the cheap eyepiece to expensive the quality of glass also increases. A good eyepiece has a really high-quality lens with no structural deformity and perfect shape. These lenses do not suffer from optical aberrations.

### Matte black paint

Scattering can lower the quality of the final image and is also responsible for strange artifacts which appear when looking at a bright star called ghosting. It happens due to stray light reflecting off the internal walls of the eyepiece,

A very simple way to reduce this is to paint the internal walls and the edge of the eyepiece with matte black paint. A more sophisticated eyepiece can also have the edge of the lens painted black to block stray light from interfering.

### Baffles

Baffles are the raised rings inside the barrel which reduce reflections and captures stray rays.

### Metal Casing

Cheaper eyepiece often comes with plastic casing instead of metal. The downside to plastic is – the matte paint has a hard time sticking to the plastic, over time it may chip off. An eyepiece with metal casing lasts a long time and gives better protection against accidental drops.

### Elements

An entry level H ( Huygens ), R or SR ( Ramsden ) type eyepiece use two lenses. They have an apparent viewing angle of around 35º∼40º and usually used with Short focal length and long f-ratio telescopes. These eyepieces are some of the oldest designs and have limited optical capabilities.

A K, Ke or RKE ( Kellner ) or MA ( modified achromat ) is what you will likely find in the budget to medium range telescope. They use three element lens and have a slightly wider apparent viewing angle of ∼45° which gives you decent viewing experience.

If you really want to step up your game than the 4 elements Plossl eyepiece can be a great starting point. It can reach ∼50° field of view with around 20mm eye relief. They are not expensive and can work with any kind of telescope. They sometimes come as a kit lens in medium to expensive telescopes.

You can go higher in terms of price and find eyepiece with 8-9 or more elements with an enormous apparent field of view and great eye relief.

Eyepiece with few elements is not a bad thing provided they have been properly weighed. They can give a very bright and sharp view if the optics have been crafted carefully enough.

### Lens Coating

Lens coating reduces reflection and ghosting (appearance of secondary “ghost” images). A high-quality eyepiece has multiple layers of coating, sometimes on every single element.

### Rubber Eyecup

Rubber eyecup gives comfortable padding for your eyes to rest. It can be helpful if you wear glasses.

## Conclusion

These are the main types of lenses available, each of them with their own advantages.

When considering a new lens, think about how and why you will use it. A lot depends on the type of photography you tend to shoot.

You should also choose the best lens to match your camera as a lot depends on the size of your camera sensor.

Now that you know all your lenses, get off auto mode and take stunning images in real life with our Photography Unlocked course!