Is a top level barlow lens worth the price difference?

Olaf Fritsche:
Dear Stargazer, 
Finally my Celestron EdgeHD 925 has arrived and I am experimenting with Jupiter and Saturn. My camera is a ZWO ASI462MC. I did the first tests with and without 0.7x reducer. The results are mediocre. There is still a lot to learn. 

I also took pictures with a cheap 2x Barlow lens for visual observation. The images were larger, but did not show more details. Maybe that was due to the seeing. 

My question: Is an expensive Barlow lens worth it if the seeing is good? After all, the price difference is almost a factor of 10. I am willing to spend the money later if it increases the quality of the images. 

What are your experiences?

Thanks for tips and opinions!
Olaf

Hello Olaf,

There are a lot of threads on this very subject over on CN (Cloudy Nights) but IMHO I wouldn’t use “cheap” barlow on the images we take with our equipment that costs $1000s. It then becomes the “weak” link in our setup. Over the years I’ve done alot of visual (and still do) and still endup going back to my TV barlows. 2x & 3x. These are the “standard” models not the Powermates that many like to use.

Now I do have a GSO 2” 2x ED barlow that is very good on the moon and in fact I use that for shooting lunar images when I can’t get to my TV 3x because of seeing. Even though its an ED barlow on colored images I get a slight color tinge around bright stars etc.. which I’d have to say would be CA so shooting in BW or on the lunar surface I don’t see any problems. BTW the only reason I had the GSO ED barlow is I got it in a package years ago before I got into more serious imaging and found it to work ok.

Bottom line at least in my eye’s I wouldn’t cheap out on a lesser barlow then a good Tele Vue or AP barlow. 

Dale

Hi Olaf,
I use the Baader “Fluoride Flatfield Converter FFC”, which is expensive, but worth any cent. I can adjust any magnification and has a great resolution. 

CS
Rüdiger

The quality always comes with a price tag (vice versa not always the case though).  As mentioned above,  there is no medicine against bad seeing . Extremely short exposure maybe helps , but Barlow just makes it slower… 
One thing to have on mind , Barlow does exactly opposite to focal reducer , so using them together is not the most optimal. 
Master your imaging on a native FL (without focal reducer) , and judge how often would your seeing conditions be as a such that Barlow would make sense. If you go for Barlow, get yourself a high quality one .(not to mention well known brands here)

Ruediger:


To overcome seeing restrictions you can use a barlow and lucky imaging techniques. So seeing is not the limiting constraint for a barlow application. There are situations you breach the limits on purpose. E.g. I work sometimes at a EFL of 8m which is far beyond any seeing would allow. 

I totally agree to the argument for long DSO exposures. 

So seeing is not the (only) criteria, it is more the use case. 

CS
Rüdiger

Well , lucky imaging has some limitations . You can shorten the exposure time , but it ends at the point where you do not have enough light or your communication with PC can't handle the frame rate. With Barlow your exposure time goes up, so your chance to win the seeing by faster recording decreases.  What I want to say is that if your lucky imaging results without Barlow are not  good, Barlow will not make it better
CS

Ruediger:
Hi Olaf,
I use the Baader “Fluoride Flatfield Converter FFC”, which is expensive, but worth any cent. I can adjust any magnification and has a great resolution. 

CS
Rüdiger

Wow! That's really a prize! 
The reviews are gushing about it. Let's see if my budget is that big, if a Barlow lens is worth it for me.