John

Nearly. A 35mm Ultima will give a slightly larger true field.

I don't use Sky Safari but I will have to give the Cambridge Atlas another chance. I do have Sky Safari Pro but I don't use a mobile device out with me when I'm observing.

Too true - the scope can be one of the less expensive purchases

I've owned both the ES 24 / 68 and the TV Pan 24. Not much difference in performance to be honest with you. The TV is smaller. I just really like TV's though and I had owned a Pan 24 in the past so it was kind of inevitable that I would end up with another one I've not used the APM UFF 24.

Yes. It is quite an expensive atlas but very good.

The XW's are really superb - they would be better performers than the zoom I think. Not sure about the 6.7mm ES though. I did have the 4.7mm ES for a short while recently and it seemed very sharp but eye relief was tight.

I think that is a key point and, here in the UK at least, makes a big difference to how many sessions you get. I keep my setups very simple and portable and observe just a few paces from where the scopes live. My scopes just take a couple of minutes to set up / tear down. This way I can have quite a lot of observing sessions even though some of those might be quite short due to the unpredictable weather. Our garden is not large enough to house an observatory. If I had complex scope setups and had to carry them someway to an observing site before connecting power sources, aligning mounts etc, etc then the number of sessions I have would be drastically reduced, possibly to the point where I would not actually have the desire to own a scope at all

I tend to make things up as I go along .....

Yes, it is well regarded and comprehensive but I think I prefer the presentation of double stars in Instellarium where you get an immediate indication of the aperture that might be needed without having to go to another section. I'll dig the Cambridge Atlas out and give it another chance though, next time it's clear.

Hi and welcome to the forum ! Where in the world are you ? Zhumell tends to be found in the USA / Canada mostly. Here in Europe the GSO made dobsonians (Zhumells are made by GSO) tend to be found under other brandings.

I have a copy of that and it is very nicely produced but I've not really taken to it for some reason Maybe I need to give it another chance.

That would be my thinking as well. Versatile as well, the planets not being too well positioned over the next couple of years Expanding the interest into the other wonders that the sky has to offer will prove more rewarding I reckon

I have some astro catalogues that date back to the late 1980's and it is interesting to look at what was available then and the prices. Astro equipment is generally a lot less expensive than it used to be and the choice far, far wider

I think adding the diagonal is the issue here. You really need to shorten the finder tube to allow for the light path that the diagonal uses up. If you can get that right then the eyepiece should be able to reach focus without the need for modifications.

Very nice ! I had one many years ago. My first "big" Tele Vue

I did wonder when I saw your latest "for sale" advert

I think upgrades / improvements to aid finding things are the best way to go. Being able to increase the "repertoire" of targets will keep your interest as the seasons progress and such upgrades can simply include more research and practice which don't cost anything at all As well as finders (which you are already thinking about) star charts, software, apps and on-line resources are all worth exploring.

Ooops ! - I have just noticed that you have posted this in the imaging section so that answers my question ! I'm just a visual observer so I will duck out and let the imagers advise you

Are you primarily interested in imaging, visual observing, or both ? Actually the build quality does vary between the refractor brands / price ranges.

If I had £5 for every time I have purchased my "Final Eyepiece" ......... I'd have enough to buy another eyepiece !

Just a further note of thanks to all who responded in this thread. I have to confess that my filters are currently in their plastic cases, in an old wooden cigar box while I work out a more sophisticated solution I will come up with something better in due course though, thanks to all the feedback

I had the Maxvision 24mm 68 degrees 1.25 inch eyepiece for a while and I used it in my 12 inch F/5.3 dobsonian. It was a pretty good wide field eyepiece. Later I got an Explore Scientific 24mm 68 and found no noticeable difference to the optical performance. The build quality and finish of the ES was a step up but optically the performance was the same. If you don't want to go to 2 inch eyepieces at this stage these 24mm 68 degree field eyepieces will show you as much sky as a 1.25 inch format eyepiece can show and a bit more than the 25mm Tele Vue plossl can manage:

I don't have a TOE but I do have Pentax XW's and a Nagler 2mm-4mm zoom. When observing targets which benefit from high powers 4 mm seems to be my starting point with the DL and I'm often using 3.5mm, 3mm and even 2.5mm now and then. At 225x to 300x the scope seems quite comfortable. I have considered the Tak TOE's and, if I ever do go that way, I would actually want to own both the 4mm and the 3.3mm for sure and would be highly tempted by the 2.5mm to compete the set.