John

I think it was the folks in the USA using their very large scopes under dark skies that found the Baader Classic 10mm such a good performer on small DSO's. They placed theirs somewhere between the Zeiss ZAO 10mm and the Delos 10mm in terms of ability at that task. I guess some quality variability in complex products is inevitable even with the best brands. Academic really - it looks like the OP has gone for another option and I hope that works out well

I have seen evidence of QA errors in a new Baader Genuine Ortho that was sent to me for testing. The issue there I think was that the lens groups were touching in the centre due, I suppose, to an incorrect spacer or similar. It took me quite a while to work out why the view was sharp everywhere in the FoV apart from a small area right in the centre of the field where it went decidedly mushy as a target passed through it. So it does happen.

Thanks for the fact check

I think that used to be valid but modern glass types and optical coatings have evened the balance up. If you look at what are considered to be the very best planetary eyepieces there are low glass designs (eg: Zeiss ZAO ortho, TMB Supermonocentric) but the Pentax XO, which is right up there, has 5 elements, the Takahashi TOE 6 elements and the Vixen HR 7 or 8 elements. Of these, only the Tak TOE are still in production I think.

The Ethos 21mm is just a touch heavier I think.

I suppose it depends where the expense in the expensive scope goes. It it is towards aperture (more than you currently have) then there is a good chance that you will a) see improvements in sharpness /detail / contrast in familiar targets and, b) see some things that you have not been able to see thus far. If the expense goes towards better optical performance (but no increase in aperture, maybe even a reduction) you will hopefully get most of a) above but probably not much of b). That seems to match my experiences to date anyway. I'm sure others will have different experiences to mine though

The 10mm BCO punches way, way above it's asking price in my opinion (and others).

If you peel the sticker off there is probably a small P65 warning notice printed on the reverse side relating to the ink and glue used on the sticker

Now that is another very interesting topic in it's own right

If you are OK with the FoV and ER, orthos provide excellent contrast and light scatter control for a reasonable price. If you would like a little more viewing comfort (20mm eye relief plus a significantly larger eye lens) I found the Vixen SLV's compared extremely well with high quality orthos. In fact I could see no differences at all when I compared the Baader Genuine Ortho 6mm with the Vixen SLV 6mm on a number of occasions when observing Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. I seem to prefer a bit longer eye relief and a wider field of view these days

I've used my FC100-DL with a Lunt Wedge. It works very well.

Oddly, the security light might actually help a bit when it comes to planetary observing, as long as it is not glaring right down the barrel of the scope.

It is a whopper - 2.2 lbs ! When I'm using it with my dobsonian I do need a heavier counterweight.

Just popped outside with nothing but my eyes and spotted Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. Quite a bit of cloud plus low temperatures rather off putting but at least we have no snow here, unlike more northerly parts of the UK.

Or even, Stu could make one ?: https://www.jodrellbank.net/make-your-own-planisphere/

This current thread in the eyepieces section enquires about suitable eyepieces for a 200mm F/4.5 newtonian which is going to be a little more demanding on eyepieces than your 130mm F/5 but some of the information will be relevant: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/387007-eyepiece-recommendations-for-a-200900mm-newtonian-considering-the-baader-zoom-or-individual-eyepieces-around-the-same-price/#comment-4175578 From the recent post by Don Pensack in that thread it looks as if the APM Ultra Flat Field (UFF) 30mm, or one of it's clones, might be a reasonable option for you as well ?

Great looking setup That also demonstrates that quality lasts undiminished over the years. My 102 Vixen refractor is 20+ years old now and my 130mm 15+ years old and both perform just as well as when they were made I'm sure

Excellent and detailed review of what I think is the current Opticron Oregon 15x70's here: http://alpha-lyrae.co.uk/2015/07/04/opticron-oregon-15x70-binoculars-review/ Are these basically the same as the Celestron Astromaster 15x70's ?

Great report ! Well done on NGC 604 - it always gives me a thrill to see that little blob of light thinking how immense and far off it is Despite the cold blustery wind, the transparency was pretty good last night but the seeing was none too steady.

When I started this thread I did not intend it to be just about refractors of course. We hear more of the expensive brands of that design and that is where my personal experience lies but I'm aware that there are instruments of high excellence (and cost) available of many of the other scope designs as well. My earliest experience of a really high quality scope was probably with an Intes (Moscow) 150mm F/5.9 Maksutov-Newtonian. The cost (pre-owned) was not that high but the scope, while looking a little drab externally, was mechanically and optically made to very high standards. That is one scope that I wish I still owned . I guess we all have a list of those though !

That's an interesting comment. I agree with you regarding the mechanical build and finish differences between the Synta refractors and the Taks but, having owned a Skywatcher ED120 ED doublet for a decade now and a Tak FC100-DL fluorite doublet and a TMB/LZOS 130 F/9.2 triplet for nearly 6 years now, I have not noticed the ED120 being outclassed in terms of optical performance. I had expected that I would move the ED120 on after I acquired the much more expensive refractors but that has not been the case and I'm very pleased to still have it. Maybe my ED120 is an outlier in performance ?. It does have a Moonlite focuser on it now which addresses one of the most common criticisms on the mechanical side of things.

It was bright earlier wasn't it ! I've been popping in and out to the scope observing a few easy targets at low power. The gusty wind and cold temperatures dissuade me from spending long out there. Some nice low and wide views but the seeing and the wind did not support anything near high magnifications.

Low weight and low complexity have long been high priorities for me. I need to be able to move the scope around my observing area quickly and relatively easily to make the most of the observing opportunities. I like to be able to setup and tear down quickly as well without the need for power supplies, alignment procedures etc. I enjoy hunting down new and familiar targets so I don't need a GOTO or Push To system on my mount which saves cost, setup time and a little weight.

I think that will need a different thread Geoff but its a good question

I'm pleased if people have been interested in the thread, for whatever reason The responses have been diverse and thoughtful - but I would expect that here