Wide Angle eyepieces

[Debash]

Hi all.....I'm looking for a 2", 32 mm wide angle eyepice for use on 6"MCT (MK67) and tempted to get a University Optics Konig - just the normal one, Konig MK70 beyond budget as well as all the grenades....have some questions:

1. How is UO 32 mm 2" Konig (I think its afov is 60*, not sure whats the eye relief), in terms of view at the edges - if you have any personal experience with this eyepiece - with what kind of scope, if it matters at all. One thing I don't like about UO eyepieces is lack of rubber eyecap and hate to get eyelash marks on lenses.

2. How does the UO Konig compare with:

a) Pentax (not sure which one I should compare it with) wide angle eyepiece 32 mm, 2". Do you know of any indicative price of Pentax, just to compare it with Konig, and

b) Antares Erfle 2", 32 mm (afov 65*).

3. Should I rather be using 40 mm, rather than 32mm to capture a wider field?

Thanks in advance for sharing your views. Cheers

Debash

[VinSnr]

Hi all.....I'm looking for a 2", 32 mm wide angle eyepice for use on 6"MCT (MK67) and tempted to get a University Optics Konig - just the normal one, Konig MK70 beyond budget as well as all the grenades....have some questions:

1. How is UO 32 mm 2" Konig (I think its afov is 60*, not sure whats the eye relief), in terms of view at the edges - if you have any personal experience with this eyepiece - with what kind of scope, if it matters at all. One thing I don't like about UO eyepieces is lack of rubber eyecap and hate to get eyelash marks on lenses.

2. How does the UO Konig compare with:

a) Pentax (not sure which one I should compare it with) wide angle eyepiece 32 mm, 2". Do you know of any indicative price of Pentax, just to compare it with Konig, and

b) Antares Erfle 2", 32 mm (afov 65*).

3. Should I rather be using 40 mm, rather than 32mm to capture a wider field?

Thanks in advance for sharing your views. Cheers

Debash

why dun you consider the 2" 30mm RPD 82 degrees eyepiece that Samuel is selling?

You Nagler like effect at the great price. I have that eyepiece, and I think it's a great eyepiece.

[harlequin2902]

3. Should I rather be using 40 mm, rather than 32mm to capture a wider field?

Thanks in advance for sharing your views. Cheers

Debash

If comparing eyepieces from the *same series*, then a longer focal length eyepiece in that series will give you a wider *true field of view* (given by *apparent field of view* divided by *magnification* on the scope with the eyepiece concerned).

For example, say if you are comparing a standard 40mm Plossl and a standard 32mm Plossl from the same series :

Standard 40mm's usually have a 43 degree *apparent field of view*.
Standard 32mm's usually have a 52 degree *apparent field of view*.

On your 1800mm focal length MK67,

the 40mm standard Plossl will give you 45x magnification, so using the formula above (43/45), you'll be getting a *true field of view* of 0.956 degrees.

the 32mm will give me 56x magnification, so using the formula above (52/56), you'll be getting a *true field of view* of 0.929 degrees.

So now with the example above, you can just apply them to any other eyepiece by plugging the formula with the relevant figures required to find out the actual field of view of the sky you are framing within the eyepiece.

Hope this helps.