best eyepiece for Celestron Regal 80F-ED
I recently purchased a Celestron Regal 80F-ED spotting scope (from Optics Planet) and used it at the range for the first time today. It is a big step up from previous scopes I've had and I want to make sure I will get the most out of it.
I have tried to follow your other discussions on fixed power, 1.25" eyepieces, but I've never owned a scope that will take one before, or even seen one up close, so it's all kind of academic to me at this point. The 20-60 zoom on the Celestron was very good today at no more than 35-40x, 85 degrees, gusty/windy, .223 at 220 yards, but I think the scope is capable of performing even better.
What's the best eyepiece I can get for the Regal that will give me somewhere around 40x, not break the bank, yet let it be all that it can be? Say $350ish range for starters.
I love the Pentax XW, though it is expensive, right there at about $350. The XW 10 would get you 48x in your Regal. Great eyepiece.
1) I find eye position to be very critical. I assume the same theory holds true as for high magnification rifle scopes: the higher the magnification the more critical the eye position, so my question is would the XW 14 eyepiece (~35x) be noticeably less critical on eye position or are we talking a small difference not worth worrying about?
I really like this XW 10 and its 48x and want to keep it if at all possible, so the XW 14 would have to be a huge improvement e/p wise.
2) Eye relief on this XW 10 is poor too, but I can live with that as well. Do you know of a rubber eye cup that screws on in place of the removable rubber ring that comes on the XW 10? It would be a big help.
The barrel portion of the Pentax XW 10 that inserts into the Celestron is longer than the barrel of the Celestron zoom eyepiece and does not insert/seat all the way. Leaves maybe 1/4" silver barrel exposed. Would this have anything to do with the poor eye relief and head-in-a-vise eye position required mentioned above?
I see in the Pentax XW specs that the XW 14 is 1/2" shorter than the XW 10. Is the barrel length of the 14 any shorter or the same as the 10? I guess I'm asking if the XW 14 is really a better fit for my Regal 80. As much as I would hate to give up my new XW 10, in spite of its shortcomings, I can exchange it for a 14 in the next few days and will do so if that would work out better in the long run.
As if you couldn't tell, I'm new to eyepieces and really appreciate your patience and information.
You are very welcome.
Inserting the eyepiece deeper into the scope will not affect eye relief or reduce the fussy factor with eye placement. On the other hand, yes, I have found the longer focal lengths to be less fussy about eye placement and I also think 35x is a bit better do-it-all magnification in a fixed power spotting scope eyepiece. Not sure I would call it a significant improvement, but I do think the 14mm is worth trying if you find the 10 to be annoying.
DANL wrote:Yesterday technical support at Celestron informed me that only eyepieces with the glass located very near the end of the barrel will work properly.
I'm not trying to be funny when I ask which end of the barrel is Celestron talking about? Did they define "very near?"
I exchanged the Pentax XW 10 I wrote about above for an XW 14, and as Joanie says just above, the improvement in eye position and relief is certainly noticeable. My view with the XW 14/Celestron Regal 80 is now outstanding and doesn't require me to lock my head in a vise.
There is probably <1/2" difference in barrel lengths between the Celestron zoom and XW 14 (I don't have them sitting side by side right now, but that's a good guess). On the eyeball end the Celestron eyepiece glass is farther away from the end than the XW's with the diopter ring moved out, which some people need. So I'm not sure how much more properly the XW could work or how much better the "picture" could be.
I'm happy with the XW 14/Regal 80 combo as it is.
DANL wrote:I believe it is the end inserted into the scope body, not the end where the eye is located.
Their telephone number is: 310-328-9560.
If calling is a problem for you, I could call them back and post their response.
I have no need to call Celestron, my spotter/eyepiece are working just fine.
The Regal F-ED series spotters have a 1.25” eyepiece holder and the OEM-supplied zoom eyepiece is easily removed from the scope by a twist of a knurled ring. Because 1.25” barrel-diameter eyepieces are very widely available, you can use other eyepieces with your Regal.
However, not all eyepieces will work with the scope because of the design of the internal focusing and 45-degree prism assemblies. This places the image plane for the spotter’s objective at about the back of the knurled ring. So the Regals have a small back focus distance.
Eyepieces that have long 1.25” nosepieces or barrels (with field lenses recessed about 1 inch or more) generally won’t be able to achieve infinity focus with the Regal spotters. Nor will 1.25-inch- type T-adapters or Barlow lenses work with the scopes.
The OEM zoom eyepiece has both a short nosepiece and its field lens at all magnifications is close to the end of the nosepiece tube. Eyepieces that will work with the Regal will have similar physical characteristics. As an example, most eyepieces of the Celestron X-Cel series have these characteristics and will work with the Regal F-ED series.
http://www.celestron.com/c3/support3/in ... cleid=2329
Thanks for the information. Probably 99% of my spotter use is for bench/range shooting and it never occurred to me to check my Pentax XW 14 eyepiece at infinity. So I got my heavy duty tripod out of the truck and set up my Celestron Regal 80F-ED, testing both the XW and OEM Regal eyepieces. It's lousy weather here today so all of this was done from the bedroom window, but with a view of several miles.
The XW eyepiece barrel does indeed leave about 3/16" barrel exposed when it's fully seated. Just an estimation, but I'm guessing the XW lens Celestron is talking about is recessed a little over 1"from the end of the barrel. But in my "tests," the XW focused on roof vent pipes on houses several miles away. So did the Celestron OEM eyepiece of course, but the Pentax gave a noticeably better, and focused, "picture."
I'm not into astronomy, but you have piqued my interest. I'm happy with this or any other scope/eyepiece arrangement that will let me see .223 holes at 250-300 yards or (hopefully) .243 at 500. But now I'm going to have to set up in my driveway the next clear night and see what the man in the moon looks like through both eyepieces. It won't change my opinion of the XW 14--it's still a great eyepiece for my uses--but should be interesting.
Of course, another option is to buy a Pentax 80 ED body, but I think I'll try it my way first: use the XW 14 for range and field and change to the OEM eyepiece if I ever have to look at the stars.
Have used the XWs for both astronomy and day use and can vouch for either application, day or night. Believe me, not all premium telescope eyepieces can do this. In fact, the XWs were first introduced and marketed as telescope eyepieces. You will not be disappointed in the XW for astronomy.
Have you used the Pentax XW eyepieces in a Celestron Regal 80F-ED spotting scope? If so, any focusing problems? Problems focusing at infinity?
As I said above, I haven't run into any problems with a Pentax XW 14 eyepiece in my Celestron Regal 80F-ED at the range, or even viewing at a distance of a few miles, but I haven't tried to view the stars with this setup.
If we know the finite distance to the moon or Mars or whichever star/planet, doesn't this take them out of the infinity category anyway? Kinda kidding here, but you get my point, which is my Celestron spotter with Pentax XW eyepiece should do the job I want it to do, and we might be splitting hairs and straining at gnats with the infinity thing.
Do I have this right or am I missing something?
No, anything astronomical is well past the infinity focus point on your scope or any scope, for that matter, so a non-issue. A typical spotting scope reaches infinity focus somewhere around 100-200 yards, depending on the magnification. Any object beyond that is at infinity focus, as far as focusing is concerned.
Haven't used that eyepiece in that scope, per se, but I have used an XW in a Celestron Refractor 80ED spotting scope, as well as an ETX-90 spotting scope (and an ETX-90 astronomy scope), all with good results. Should be a good match for any spotting scope intended for use as an astronomy scope. There are limitations to using a spotting scope for astronomy (mostly the mount if using a phito tripod), but that XW won't be one of them.