John

I was hesitant over using the word as well. Probably a mistake to use it in my last post Why do you feel that embarrassment is a more acceptable word though ?

I would think so, with the help of a filter. A UHC filter helps a lot with it. An O-III even more so

I've seen the Eastern Veil with 11x70 binoculars on an excellent night here and under really dark Dartmoor (Devon) skies but not in smaller binoculars, thus far.

It's bloomin cold and windy out there plus the seeing is none to good either. I decided to set my Tak FC100-DL up for wider fields so I was able to give the focuser some work to do with the 2 inch diagonal and this beast ! While the seeing is rather poor the transparency between the scudding cloud patches is excellent. The views of the M31 group and the Perseus double cluster are superb

That is a very good point and does chime with me. I suppose pride of ownership also comes into the equation as well

Similar here. I am out with my refractor having a quick look at Jupiter and Saturn but a) it's cold, b) it's gusty and c) the seeing seems to be rather poor. I doubt that I'll be out much longer

I'm not a regular binocular user but I found a pair of older, Japanese 11x70's by Opticron (the Oregon LER I think the model is) pre-owned and find that I can hand hold them reasonably comfortably, which is a big plus for me. I think the current Oregon binoculars are different though - the LERs are out of production now.

When I tested them back in 2010 the scopes I used were a 250mm F/4.8 newtonian, an F/5.9 150mm mak-newtonian and an F/6.5 102mm ED doublet refractor. The astrgmatism (which is what I think I was seeing) was very apparent in the outer 20% of the field with the newtonain and quite a lot less, but still there to some extent, in the slower scopes. I suspect that @bomberbaz is correct that around F/8 and slower will enable the Hyperions to show their full qualities (and they do have them). The Hyperions are thoughtfully designed and nicely made eyepieces.

The SLVs have a very similar presentation to the Pentax XWs I felt, but with a smaller AFoV of course.

I found that being loaned equipment (many thanks FLO) to try out and report on for the forum helped with observer bias. Not having had to invest my own hard earned money meant or worry about re-selling losses did help keep a level head and clear mind when comparing items. It also meant interesting packages arrived from time to time

I suppose that is what is lacking - quantifiable testing of optics in an unbiased way. The French magazine "Ceil et Espace" used to publish eyepiece group tests that included a whole array of optical bench tests alongside the more subjective practical observing ones. There is a Russian based astronomer known as Ernest who does something similar for eyepieces. Herr Rohr in Germany used to do quite a lot of independent optical testing of scopes but not so many lately: http://interferometrie.blogspot.com/2014/?view=classic To counter that, there are many folks (me included) who are more interested in how a scope performs to their eyes, under the stars, than in looking at lots of technical test reports. Having owned a couple of expensive scopes for over 5 years now I'm in the camp which feels that they perform a little better than much lower cost alternatives but in the cold light of day, justifying the additional cost on that basis of that performance difference alone would be challenging Luckily, I don't have to !

The independently measured AFoV of the Baader 8-24 zoom is: 43.8° at 24mm 48.9° at 20mm 54.0° at 16mm 59.4° at 12mm 68.4° at 8mm (source: Don Pensack's Eyepieces Etc website) With the Baader Q-Turret 2.25x barlow I can see clear vignetting of the AFoV of the 24mm Panoptic (field stop diameter 27mm) but none with the 17.3mm Delos (F/S diameter 21.2mm). My guess is that the field stop diameter of the Baader zoom will not be large enough to cause noticeable vignetting even at the 24mm setting.

This does work. I have 6 scopes located in our dining room now. 3 in an alcove one corner and 3 hidden from view in a cupboard in the opposite corner. I've offered to put some sliding doors over the alcove but my other half says that the scopes don't bother her. They do create a "conversation point" if we ever have guests but that has been very, very rarely over the past 18 months of course. I don't have grandchildren just yet but when and if that happens my kids are already joking that I will be known as "Grampy Telescopes" Better than "Grumpy" I suppose !

I think this is what lies behind this labeling: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65

For astronomy equipment I agree. For practically everything else I'm not bothered to be honest. That's probably just me though

I've read of "blind testing" sessions for eyepieces occasionally but not of telescopes. It's an interesting idea.

With some of the ES eyepiece ranges, what seems to have happened is that ES signed an exclusivity deal with a manufacturer with a 2 year (or so) term. Once that ended, the manufacturer was free to market the design to other brands. I've seen a similar thing with other designs, eg: the Long Perng made 82 degree range. Originally it was only available under the William Optics branding (the UWAN range) but after a while started appearing under other brandings, often at a lower cost. Now whether the specifications are exactly the same in all respects, is hard to tell. In the past it has been possible for a brand to specify better quality coatings for example, especially if they were ordering a large quantity.

I think that is the least likely reason for wanting to own one. Astronomers are practical, down to earth folks from the ones that I've met Curiosity was probably the strongest driver for me, having been in the hobby for many years and having read about these almost mythical brands and models. When the chance came to procure one (or two) of my own, the temptation was too much to resist My observing circumstances are such that I am "aperture limited" as well and the 12 inch dobsonian is as far as I can go in that direction so the other direction to aspire to is quality. Interesting responses so far - many thanks

That is my understanding as well. The Californian requirements very stringent apparently and have resulted on such labeling appearing on a surprisingly wide range of products.

This is a genuine question that I have been asking myself for the past 5 years or so but I'm still unsure what the answer is. We have access to some excellent scopes these days for great prices and yet there seems to be unabated enthusiasm still for similar specified scopes from the really expensive marques. My personal experience seems to indicate that the actual performance differences between moderately expensive scope and one of the really expensive versions amount to perhaps 5% or so (depends on how you quantify performance I suppose) but the price differential is often very much more than that - sometime 2x or 3x as expensive. So what is it that motivates quite a number of us (including myself) to want to own these expensive instruments ?. My best guess is that, once you have been in the hobby for some time, you develop a burning curiosity to see "what the fuss is all about" with these highly reputed brands. With widespread reporting, through forums such as SGL, I think expectations on what they deliver are, broadly well managed so there is no expectation that whole new target areas will become attainable but it is more about an enthusiasts desire to be using something that is, or is close to, as "good as it gets" within it's niche. I'd be very interested in others views on this though, both those who have "taken the plunge" and those who have not I've avoided the terms "premium" and "top end" deliberately because I'm not sure that they are helpful.

Great stuff as usual Mike I find it fascinating that you have sketched that magnitude 13.2 star next to the Ring Nebula. I have seen it with my 100mm / 102mm refractors as well and yet the limiting magnitude for the aperture is often given as 12.8-12.9. Personally I think the scope performance calculators "understate" the capabilities of a quality refractor

That goes through my mind from time to time as well. My 1.25 inch eyepieces are Delos and Pentax XW's. Then again I sometimes think about staying with the bigger eyepieces and disposing of most of the 1.25 inch set I used to be indecisive but I'm not so sure now .....

It has been rather poor here as well. I've had a few short sessions observing Jupiter early evening and then it's clouded out the rest of the night If my 100mm refractor was not very quick to cool I'd have probably not observed at all on those nights.

This evening, another 20 minutes or so observing Jupiter while supper cooked. After supper, it has clouded over. This is turning into a pattern lately It is just as well that the 100mm refractor hardly needs any cool down time.

Thanks Dave. Since then I have moved over to eyepiece sets with Ethos or Pentax XW / Delos eyepieces at their core because I felt that these delivered both the widest views I wanted (Ethos) more eye comfort (XW / Delos) and slight performance improvements over the Naglers in the areas of sharpness, light scatter and neutral tone. The performance differences are slight though - the Naglers are excellent eyepieces.