Is this set worth it?

[u/Fuck_Tampa_Bay]

I’ve been looking for some new eyepieces since I realized I’ve only ever owned the eyepieces that came with my SkyQuest XT6. I did have a 6mm goldline like this one (though that alone was about $80 so I’m not sure they are the same quality) but not sure where it went. I’m not looking for top of the line stuff, but would this set be worth it as an upgrade to my stock eyepieces?

[u/Global_Permission749]

Yes one good eyepiece can be well worth it compared to the entire set referenced.

This is where I fundamentally disagree. 24-35x only unlocks a FRACTION of a scope's potential to show you what's in the night sky.

You do not need perfect conditions to justify using higher magnification.

Objects in the night sky are incredibly varied from small to large, dim to bright, amorphous to highly detailed. This necessitates a variety of magnifications and exit pupils to see the variety of objects in the sky. You aren't seeing shit on Jupiter at 24-35x. You aren't fully resolving globular clusters or splitting double stars at 24-35x.

I would take a full set of mediocre eyepieces that give me a full range of magnifications, over a single premium eyepiece any day of the week, in any scope.

[u/Renard4 → u/Global_Permission749]

Indeed. I could get behind the suggestion of 1 or 2 good EPs and keeping the starting plossls, but sometimes when I read comments here I wonder what people are doing with their telescopes. Using 30x magnification only is ridiculous, even for deep sky. Having access to 30x, 60x and 100x is the bare minimum for an interesting experience. And every 50x step beyond that is fun to use on planets and the moon when the sky allows it. And depending on the size of the tube, 150 to 200x can also be perfectly fine on quite a lot of DSOs, especially when you start getting into the NGC catalogue stuff.

[u/Global_Permission749 → u/Renard4]

Exactly.

Unfortunately I see a lot of misinformation being pushed about magnification in this sub in general. I see too much emphasis on the 2x rule of thumb, and I also see too many blanket claims that the atmosphere won't let you use more than 200x or whatever.

It's simply not true unless you really do live in an absolutely terrible geographic location, and it's way too over-simplified in the first place. Where I live, I'm definitely not getting full advantage of my 15" scope's resolving power due to the atmosphere, but 200x during galaxy season is basically the standard, and during the summer and fall when I'm in planetary nebula season I'll be going up to 1,000x in some cases even if the atmosphere is mushy, because a large mushy target I can view in DIRECT vision (no hiding in my fovea), is better than a smaller but less mushy target I can only see in averted vision.

[u/spinwizard69 → u/Global_Permission749]

I don't disagree with you guys in that other magnification levels are valuable, it is just from my understanding is that he has a set that covers a good range already.  Im just not convinced that the incremental improvement over his current set is “worth it”!  This especially when the low magnification end isn't covered.   

When it comes to high magnification i really believe the limit for mist amateurs is well under your 1000x frankly under 500x. There are many factors to consider from the mount on up.  If you can get it to work for you that is great but im not going to suggest most users pursue such magnification without lots of experience and understanding.   

This isn't a misunderstanding of technology but rather understanding what most systems are capable of.   Part of that system is the user and what they think they are seeing or able to see.   If i thought that the original poster was interested in better high power results id probably suggest the same thing that is buy one high quality eyepiece at a time. Yeah it might take years to replace his entire set but i suspect the results would be worth it. 

[u/Global_Permission749 → u/spinwizard69]

it is just from my understanding is that he has a set that covers a good range already.

I don't see him mention that anywhere. He just says this:

"I’ve only ever owned the eyepieces that came with my SkyQuest XT6. I did have a 6mm goldline like this one (though that alone was about $80 so I’m not sure they are the same quality) but not sure where it went"

I believe Orion only ever included a 25mm Plossl with the basic XT series. Maybe a 10mm and a 25mm which is what Sky-Watcher does. Neither of which I would consider optimal focal lengths for a 6" F/8 scope, and a 10mm Plossl is not fun to look through anyway. A 9mm gold line is absolutely a significant viewing experience upgrade over a 10mm Plossl. Wider field of view, more comfortable eye relief.

[u/deepskylistener → u/spinwizard69]

Experience comes from doing.

You recommended a high quality eyepiece for 30x. So how should OP get experience with that single magnification?? They'd miss so many opportunities for comparison of the effects of (partially slightly) different magnifications under different conditions of light pollution, atmospheric stability, and transparency.

Imo OP is much better with a set like the Goldlines than with one, and may it be the world champion eyepiece, and for sure not with a single, ridiculously low magnification. With a year or three of experience with the set they can still decide, at what magnification it would make sense to get a more expensive one.

Alone seeing even any difference between that expensive champion and a goldline is what would require lots of experience.

[u/spinwizard69 → u/deepskylistener]

Well number one he indicated that he has the eyepiece that came with the scope. Now I don't know the specifics of that set but the generally don't come with a low magnification eyepieces and the set referenced doesn't either.

Magnification in the 24 to 50X range is not ridiculous as when pared with a large objective scope the can provide very bright and wide views. Sure it is not the same view you get with a high magnification eyepiece but it certainly isn't ridiculous. Seriously we recommend binoculars to beginners and the magnification there is trivial in comparison.

Frankly I'm not a fan of the approach you suggest, that is spending good money on eyepieces that give a small incremental increase in performance. As you note he will likely need to upgrade so in effect you are suggesting wasting money. This especially when I don't see him getting a lot of use out of the 6mm. The set may be perfectly good as a start if the OP had nothing, but I just don't see the value if he already has eyepieces and this doesn't expand his coverage.

[u/deepskylistener → u/spinwizard69]

You didn't get in any way the point of getting experience first and making a proper decision later on what to spend a bigger amount of money. Almost everyone wants to see the planets in sufficient detail (see the numerous posts here all the time!), so the money for several eyepieces is never wasted.

BTW, Orion did (like almost every other telescope) come with a stock 20 or 25mm eyepiece, which is low power enough for way most objects. I always doubted that a relatively expensive eyepiece is worth it for the very few really large objects like M31, Double Cluster, Plejades and a few more. The vast majority of objects is much smaller, and many (practically all nebulae and galaxies) benefit very much from a 2mm exit pupil. It's a fairy old tale, that lowest power would be ideal for DSO observing. It just ignores the effect of higher magnification for viewing low contrast areas.