Celestron X-Cel LX Series Eyepiece - 1.25 2.3mm 93420
Score By Feature
OveReview Final Score
Product Description
Questions & Answers
a 2. 3 will give you over 500 watts, a c90 can handle a maximum of 180 watts with good viewing, divide 1250 by the lens's mm, and you'll get a maximum of 6 mm.
In essence, no; it will "fit," but it will not be usable due to the excessive magnification. Magnification is calculated by dividing your scope's focal length (650mm) by the eyepiece's focal length (650/2). The power of three is equal to 282. The scope's maximum power would be around 175 mW, but a 5mm at 130 mW would likely suffice. A 9mm for 72X would probably be more useful.
This eyepiece will give you 36 power through your scope, allowing you to see the entire moon. Divide the focal length of the telescope by the focal length of the eyepiece (900/25 = 36 magnification) to figure out how much power an eyepiece will provide. Up to around 90 to 100 power, I can see the entire moon through my eyepieces. To see craters in greater detail, you'll need around 150 magnification or more, which means you'll need a 6mm eyepiece (900/6=150) on your scope. br>Also, the theoretical maximum effective magnification of your scope is around 160 power; to calculate the theoretical maximum of a telescope, multiply the aperture of your scope in inches by 3. 15 inches multiplied by 50 equals three. 157 is calculated by multiplying 15 inches by 50. Maximum power is 5. However, because the moon is a large, bright, and user-friendly target, you might be able to get away with 200 power for looking at it, but not much else unless you get a scope with a larger aperture. So, if you want to study the craters a little closer in your scope, you could get a 9mm eyepiece with 100 power and then use a 2X barlow lens to double your magnification, but a slightly cleaner image at 150 magnification might be possible. However, some sources claim that the theoretical maximum magnification multiplier is 60, not 50, per inch of aperture, putting your telescope's maximum power at 189 rather than 157. In any case, I wouldn't use your scope for anything more than 200 power. I hope this has been of assistance.
You don't need a Barlow, let alone one with a 3x magnification and a focal length of 1500mm. Even a 5mm eyepiece can produce 300x magnification.
Selected User Reviews For Celestron X-Cel LX Series Eyepiece - 1.25 2.3mm 93420
This eye piece, with a focal length of 25mm, is ideal for those who want to see large portions of the night sky at once. Why is this important? This is the type of eyepiece you want if you just want to explore and feel like you're floating in space with the stars, seeing what you can find in space. If you already know what you want to see, such as Jupiter, you'll need more power to see the storm clouds and moons. It's possible that this isn't the right eyepiece for you. br>br>To see details of Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn, I use a 7 to 12mm lens. To get lost in the night sky, I use lenses of 15 and 25mm. br>br>What's the point of just stargazing with a 25mm eyepiece at night? When a satellite streaks across your view, it comes as a complete surprise. When you're looking up at the sky and you accidentally 'run into' the Andromeda galaxy for the first time, you'll get a lump in your throat. br>br>So 7mm to 12mm when you know exactly where you're going and what you want. br>12mm to 25mm when you just want to enjoy the exploration process.
I purchased the 4mm eyepiece to use with a 114mm reflector that has a FL of 500. I was skeptical at first, reading reviews and hearing from many "experts" who said it would provide too much magnification. This thing has excellent magnification and produces a detailed image, so I'm guessing they saw 114mm and assumed the worst! Full Review: br>br> br>There are two factors that are more important to people looking at this eyepiece than the primary mirror's size. The first consideration is quality; I use an Orion telescope, but there are other excellent options available. You're wasting your time if you're using a low-cost Barska or another department store brand; the focal length is the second most important factor. According to my research, due to the atmosphere, the best magnification a ground-based telescope can achieve is around 300x. There will be exceptions, such as remote locations or unusually calm atmospheric conditions, but these will be rare. It's inevitable, in my experience, that atmospheric conditions will prevent you from seeing much detail at 100x. Furthermore, if you want to get the best view of planets, you should wait until they are as directly above you as possible to reduce the amount of atmosphere you see. As a result, to determine the magnification of an eyepiece, divide your focal length by the eyepiece's size. As a result, (500/4=125x). That's a lot less than the 228x scope limit. The size of a reflector is multiplied by two to determine its limit (114 x 2 = 228). As a result, the higher your FL, the more magnification you'll get. With a FL of 700, this eyepiece will undoubtedly give you more bang for your buck, but it's still excellent on the lower end, and I recommend it. With what I know now, the only way to possibly do better is to get a 5mm and a Barlow 2x, both of which I already have.
I know this isn't the best plossl eyepiece on the planet (I got the 12mm), but it's light years ahead of the stock eyepieces that came with my telescope (Celestron Astromaster 130eq). I intend to gradually upgrade all of my eyepieces, but this one is fantastic! The Omni line has a nice feel to it, as if the construction quality is good (I have the 2x barlow as well). I'm happy with my purchase in general. br>br>I took the attached photo by mounting my iPhone XS to the eyepiece, recording a short video, and then stacking the images and removing noise with software.
So, I've got a Powerseeker 114 EQ on my hands. It comes with a 20mm and a 4mm lens as standard. Both are fine, but I was hoping for a more detailed image of Jupiter and Venus. At 3,000 feet above sea level, I live in the American Southwest. br>Before I got this, I talked to Celestron customer service about my telescope, and he suggested this lens and the X-Focal Plane. The lens is a Cel LX 5mm. This one is currently in my possession, and it performs admirably. Quick tip: get the 20 mm lens to help you find the object, then swan it out with this lens to save time; once that's done, you can focus and see these distant objects like I have. br>Note that my telescope is a Newtonian scope with a focal length point of 900mm. br>Before making a decision, please contact Celestron customer service. They will be able to assist you with the type of telescope you have.
I wanted to use my Celestron Omni XLT 120 refractor with the widest eyepiece I could afford. I bought the 40mm version first, thinking that the longer focal length would give me a wider field of view. The 32mm eyepiece has a 50-degree apparent field of view, while the 40mm has a 43-degree view. I'd forgotten about it, but I'm waiting for both eyepieces to arrive so I can test them out and compare them in my 1000mm scope. br>br>Both are reasonably sharp, but the edges begin to blur slightly, which is to be expected for an eyepiece in this price range. The 32 mm lens provides a slightly wider field of view than the 40 mm. It's possible that this is due to the following factors: 1. The eyepieces have a 25-inch format, which limits the scope of the view beyond a point. That's why, if your focuser allows it, 2 inch format eyepieces with larger openings for a wider field of view are a good choice. Because a shorter eyepiece focal length translates to more magnification, I noticed that the 32mm's slightly wider view was also slightly magnified than the 40mm's. br>br>I put it to the test last week in clear skies, and while the Pleiades cluster didn't fit into the field of view with the 32mm, it still provided bright, crisp views almost to the edges. The star cluster simply spills beyond the scope's field of view, but keep in mind that my scope's focal length is 1000mm, so it's not a particularly wide scope. br>br>The eyepiece's finish and construction are excellent, and the rubber eye cap is excellent and very useful if you wear glasses like I do. Even when not in use, it acts as a shield to keep stray light from degrading your image. The eye relief is also satisfactory. br>br>The end result - Here, the 32mm is clearly the winner, and I'm not sure why Celestron would even offer a 40mm version in 1. The format is 25 inches wide. I'm going to return the 40mm, and I'm hoping that my experience will help others who are undecided.
Related Products For Celestron X-Cel LX Series Eyepiece - 1.25 2.3mm 93420
