What is Reddit's opinion of Gosky 32mm 1.25inch Plossl Telescope Eyepiece - 4-Element Plossl Design - Threaded for Standard 1.25inch Astronomy Filters (32mm)?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I also wanted a low power 1.25" eyepiece a while ago. I bought this. It's not fancy but does the job well for the price. I have no idea if you can purchase it on Amazon UK.

Gosky 32mm 1.25inch Plossl Telescope Eyepiece - 4-element Plossl Design - Threaded for Standard 1.25inch Astronomy Filters (32mm) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07F7N9QFK/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_Xd-TBbZYD904Q

Probably Meade 97D 90mm f/11 Maksutov-Cassegrain?

Please check for markings like this (<-probably it) or that.

If it's a 90mm Maksutov, 1000mm focal-length.

Measure if the diagonal takes 1.25" or 0.965" diameter eyepieces.

> catch the comet

Maksutovs show a rather small maximum field of view.

You can observe the comet with your naked eyes or binoculars quite well.

> eyepiece

You need multiple eyepieces.

• A 32mm 52° shows the largest field (40mm just are limited by the barrel diameter and show the same field effectively). Random link

• For planets, the telescope may handle up to 160x realistically. But things will already get dim, dull. Sadly short cheap eyepieces usually have poor eye-relief. A 9mm 66° eyepiece would be on the safe side, a 6mm 66° if you really want to push it. Link, link. A decent 7-8mm eyepiece would be more expensive ($50-$70 unless you get it via eBay, Aliexpress from China).

• One or two in-between, e.g. 15mm 66° or Plössl-type.

There are zoom eyepieces, I usually don't recommend them, but they can be fun for a Maksutov as it also makes for a nice day-time spotting scope. (Orion 7-21, Celestron 8-24, avoid the cheaper no-names. The down-side: At the lower magnification they have tunnel-vision. Overall, fixed magnification eyepieces are better performer).

Make sure the ebay focuser fits, it was a random link. If you can adapt a 1.25" drawtube/focuser you'll have it a lot easier in the long run :-)

> Would a 32mm be too large/not magnifying enough? I think this originally came with a 25mm. What is the advantage of the 32mm besides a wider fov? Would you recommend both or is the 32mm just much better? Would you recommend me getting a 12.5mm in 1.25” format? What qualifies as a short plossl vs a long plossl?

Have you looked at the eyepiece field of view simulation?

For an overview and finding stuff like nebulae, a larger true field of view is better.

An older kit eyepiece like the 25mm might only have 40° apparent field of view, showing less field. The 32mm Plössl shows about the maximum field on a 1.25" focuser.

A 32mm costs $17.50 via Aliexpress, $19 via eBay, $26. The 25mm are indeed a bit cheaper, but IMHO the additional field is nice to have. 40mm exist, but don't show more field in practice, just have a narrower afov.

• https://www.amazon.com/Gosky-1-25inch-Plossl-Telescope-Eyepiece/dp/B07F7N9QFK

• https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-32mm-Meade-Series-4000-Plossl-telescope-eyepiece/293553791370

• https://www.amazon.com/SVBONY-Telescope-Telescopes-Eyepieces-Astronomy/dp/B076ZMJ7FK/ref=sr_1_8?dchild=1&amp;keywords=32mm+eyepiece&amp;qid=1591078187&amp;refinements=p_85%3A2470955011&amp;rnid=2470954011&amp;rps=1&amp;sr=8-8

• https://aliexpress.com/item/32851876371.html / https://aliexpress.com/item/32780720204.html

• https://www.ebay.com/itm/Black-Astronomy-Telescope-Lens-Eyepiece-Plossl-32mm-with-1-25-Filter-Thread/223930199410?hash=item342347ad72:g:PsMAAOSw~ppeWIrh

&nbsp;

If you're just interested in only planets, the 4.5mm-6mm eyepiece along with your 12.5mm will do. You don't need a 25-40mm to find them.

But you'll need a (cheap plastic reducer) adapter for using your existing 0.965" eyepiece then. And a 10-15mm Plössl costs $10-15 at Aliexpresss/eBay perhaps.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32805977303.html

https://aliexpress.com/item/32923085731.html

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H8YZHFT/ref=twister_B07MVSSW4V?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1

There are the HR Planetary clones directly from Amazon and others, if you want fast shipping, but at the cost there ($50) you could almost get a BST Explorer, Dual ED or better eyepiece.

Plössl+Barlow works too.

I'm not a big fan of barlows, they reduce the contrast. A good barlow costs more and only makes sense if you have a decent, more expensive eyepiece to start with.

The Mars kit can be nice, color filters sliiiiightly enhance planetary detail, https://www.amazon.com/94312-Celestron-Mars-Observing-Telescope/dp/B07DGRZ6P1, but the barlow isn't (much) better than some of the $15-$20 barlows.

You could combine it with a 9-10mm Plössl (but <10mm already have very short eye-relief).

&nbsp;

> I want the finder scope to be useable and fit in the stock holder if that’s possible. It doesn’t have to be $8 but I’d like to keep it under $75 if possible while still achieving the goal of relative clearness. I own riflescopes so I know that you generally get what you pay for with optics.

You could adapt your riflescopes if that's an option :-)

> fit in the stock holder

As for optical finders, I wouldn't go for the cheap 5x24. But that's probably what will fit in the stock holder only!

• https://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-5x24-Finderscope-Bracket-Plastic-Accessory-Kit-for-Astronomy-Telescope-HOT/192839371340?hash=item2ce61f4a4c:g:Q-wAAOSw~gRVtohW

• https://www.ebay.com/itm/Meade-5x24mm-5x24-Crosshair-Telescope-Gold-Finderscope-Viewfinder-NEW/232505039186?hash=item3622615952:g:U60AAOSwI6RZzXwX

If possible though,

• https://www.ebay.com/itm/6x30mm-Crosshair-Erect-Image-Right-Angle-Telescope-Finderscope-Bracket-White/362971785214 (At least a bit better, right angle is more ergonomic)

• 50mm finders are th best optical finders, but they cost quite a bit and certainly won't fit the stock finder.

  • 50mm- Won't fit, but shows more, 1, 2. Right-angle / RACI costs even more,

• If you like to tinker, you can get 60mm and 70mm short refractors (70/300, 60/300) which can be adapted as finder, but as you want the stock finder bracket, that's no option then

You could also go for a red dot

• https://www.ebay.com/itm/Red-Dot-Viewfinder-Star-Finder-Scope-Set-for-Celestron-80EQ-80-90DX-SE-Telescope/114240215230 (The cheap ones aren't particularly good, ideally avoid the cheapest with red tinted plastic, that's bad for finding things at night), https://www.ebay.com/itm/Red-Dot-Finder-Scope-Star-Finder-Sight-for-Celestron-EQ-DX-SE-Telescope-US-Ship/172766346818

• Or Telrad/Rigel. More expensive though. Can usually be taped to the tube.

Really boils down to your goal. To find the moon/planets, you can use anything, even some DIY iron-sight or long tube. For deep-sky, a larger optical finder or Telrad and maps is the way to go :-)

&nbsp;

> isn't as stable

Yeah, sadly it's an issue with all sets. They are often delivered with an EQ1 or EQ2 mount, and nowadays even worse weak aluminum tripods. Such a telescope belongs on a NEQ3/CG4 type mount, that would cost more than the entire set... That's why the manufacturers put it on a weaker mount to keep the kit price attractive :-/ And the CG4/NEQ3 costs almost as much as a complete 6-inch dobsonian telescope.

A dobsonian rockerbox is usually the only cost effective upgrade.

• http://www.ringohr.de/tmp6/rockerbox_einfach.jpg

• https://10minuteastronomy.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/how-to-build-a-dobsonian-mount-for-a-5-inch-telescope/

Else, to increase stability, don't extend the tripod fully, place some weight under the center plate.

&nbsp;

> y I could get away with not cleaning them

Good, you found the tutorial :-)

As telescope mirrors are first-surface coated, meaning the delicate coating is on-top of the glass, not behind it. So micro fiber cloth or glass cleaners can make things worse :-)

&nbsp;

> collimated

Great :-)

&nbsp;

> phone

You can take nice shots of moon and planet with your phone even, or modified webcams, there's no benefit in a DSLR or anything. :-) There are planetary cameras, but there's no need to invest that much right away. People manage to capture amazing images with phones.

&nbsp;

Clear skies :-)

Eyepiece field of view simulation:

• https://imgur.com/m61cLaE

&nbsp;

Overview

• A 32mm or 40mm Plössl shows the most field. The 40mm have a narrower apparent field of view so that's why they cost less.

  • 32mm,
  • OR cheaper 40mm
  • Even cheaper 25mm with a bit smaller field than the above
  • Aliexpress/China 0/1/2

Planets

• DECENT 4mm 58° ALiexpress/China, they cost $50 at Amazon, not really worth it for this telescope I suppose :-/ At this point consider the below option.

-Less magnification, but cheaper (and can be modified), 6mm 66°, Amz, Ali, Ali without reviews.

• Budget: 2x, 3x, or 5x barlow (e.g. 5x with a 25mm eyepiece it's the same effect as using a 5mm eyepiece, but with some lowered contrast, chromatic aberration)

In-between:

• Eg. 10-15mm eyepiece, Amz1, Amz2, Ali1 / Ali2 12.5mm $8.40

Random links! YMMV!

If the telescope only takes 0.965" eyepieces, you can just get one of the poor sets, used or for $15 in China, ~$25 in the US 1, BUT performance is very, very poor.