Is it a waste to have a short tube refractor and no 2" diagonal?

[Saturninus]

I know this is probably an entirely subjective question, but would it be a waste to have a short tube refractor, say a 102mm F7, but not invest in a 2" diagonal a 2" eyepieces? 

I know the strength of a short tube refractor is to produce wide field views with large exit pupils, and to maximize that it would seem that one should have 2" long focal length ultra wide eyepieces. But that can be very $$$

I am wondering if I can get by with a 16mm 82deg AFOV Nagler in 1.25 format to make use of the rich field capabilities of a 102mm F7 refractor. Or would it just be a waste to have a scope like that and not step up to 2" ultra wide fields in the 24mm or longer focal length.

The reason I am thinking this is not just to save money, but also because I think I would rather go with a large binocular for low mag wide field views anyway. For the price of a $$$ panoptic, I could get a 20x80 binocular that might serve that specialist purpose better

[rwilkey]

Hi Saturninus, the choice of 2" diagonals and field of view is purely down to personal preference, so 1.25" is OK for wider fields of view, the 16mm 82 degree FoV would be good, one of the best widefields in the 1.25" format is the 24mm Panoptic, but a bit expensive, the ES82's are also very good, as are the Luminos 15mm.  Will be cheaper on filters too so there are lots of benefits by sticking to 1.25".

[Saturninus]

Thanks that's good advice. There's no substitute for just trying it out and seeing if it ends up being something I can't live without. When I first started acquiring equipment, I would obsessing over planning everything out and trying to make sure every purchase made perfect sense. Now I realize that it kinda doesn't work that way - you just have to try it on and see if it fits, and also realize that you will probably change your mind anyway at some point down the road 

[Stu]

That is very true! I have tried plenty of things out recently, buying and selling second hand so I don't loose much sort from some postage and am finally nearing where I want to be. Has taken a while though.

Regarding your question, I do think it is worth having with just the 1.25" if that is all you can justify. I have a 106mm f6.5 refractor and do have a 2" diagonal and eyepieces, but also have a 1.25" 24mm Panoptic. This gives a very nice 2.37 degree field which, whilst not the 3.68 I can get with a 31mm Nagler is still very nice for widefield viewing.

Stu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronin]

My tuppence worth: I have 4 refractors all smaller diameter and faster then yours, I do not use a 2" diagonal on any of them.

Considering I have had a couple of them for 10+ years and the other 2 for 4-5 years not having a 2" has never given me any cause for concern.

[ollypenrice]

You don't need to spend a fortune to get a wide FOV in 1.25 format. The TV 32 Plossl goes as wide as the format allows and these are good value second hand. I think mine was £50.

That said, I do personally use a 26 Nagler and 2 inch setup in our smallest rafractor, a 70mm Pronto. You can take in the whole Veil Nebula, Stock 2 with the Double Cluster, the Pleiades in context, the entire Rosette... I really love this kind of observing.

Olly

[Mr Spock]

A 32mm is as good as anything. I have a 32mm Meade which is perfectly sharp.

I don't bother much with wide field where I am, too much LP. On the occasional visit to dark skies I take my 80ED and 22mm T4 Nagler - at 3° the views can be quite amazing.