John

A picture or two would be so useful to determine the make and model of the scope and how you have set it up.

I'm sure a quick solution would then be forthcoming

Well I didn't manage E & F Trapezium tonight. The seeing and transparency were just not good enough. I could barely see the 9th mag star in Sigma Orionis which is a decent "barometer" for E & F Trapezium.

Never mind. Nice session anyway

Just for kicks I've been using the 6mm Ethos with the refractor to pretend to be an astronaut approaching the moon

It makes quite a sight at 150x. The full disk is visible plus a thin frame of blackness around it. When I relax my eye I can almost feel vertigo !

Also had a look at the Pleiades at 38x with the Panoptic 24mm. The 1.8 degree true field Just about gets the whole of this cluster in the field. At that low power the seeing is fine and the "diamonds on black velvet" look is very apparent.

If it stays clear I'll have a go at the E & F stars in the Trapezium once Orion is higher. They can be quite challenging in a 10cm aperture.

Cold out there - we might have a frost.

Thanks for that feedback folks

Good to know that it's not just me

I suspect @JamesF is correct with his assessment. Got to roll with the conditions and make the best of it

Clear conditions prompted me to pop my Tak FC100 refractor out earlier. Mars and the Moon make a very attractive pairing. The seeing conditions though, are not so attractive. Normally this scope handles 200x - 250x without breaking any sweat on these targets but this evening even 150x is proving rather much for the unsteady conditions.

Some darker areas are visible on the Martian disk and the tiny south polar cap pops into view occasionally in a rather teasing manner but the clarity and contrast of the views is lower than I've enjoyed a couple of weeks ago.

The nice close double star Alpha Piscium is resolvable at 150x but the normal razor sharp star definition that this scope is capable of is missing just now. Same for that unequal brightness pair Theta Aurigae over towards the north east.

The Lunar phase is an attractive one from an observing point of view but again the seeing is limiting my ability to burrow into the finer detail with high magnifications. It's more enjoyable throttling back and observing the whole disk at around 100x. Comparing the tones of the various terrain types is interesting. Shades of grey, quartz white and pitch black but also suggestions of a tawny tint in some areas. A refractor is a good tool for this - they show contrast very well.

It is a nice night for observing lunar rays splashed across the illuminated portion of the surface though. One of my particular favourites are the twin rays that emanate from the crater Messier A located, along with it's partner, Messier, in the Mare Fecunditatis. Tonight these bright and well defined straight rays are prominent as they extend for 100 km or so across the Mare. At right angles to the direction of the Messier A rays, a more indistinct lengthy fan of brighter material "flows" past crater Messier, widening northwards.

Another great sight this evening is the Palus Somni, the entrancingly named "Marsh of Sleep". It is dominated by the marked, vivid and angular terrain colour variation caused by bright rays fanning out in a dramatically uneven fashion from the very brightly rimmed crater Proclus. A super sight tonight.

Returning to Mars at lower magnifications is delivering more satisfying views now too. Despite the small image scale at 125x, the surface features stand out more clearly and the color of the disk is more saturated under these conditions.

I'm starting to enjoy myself even though high magnifications are not delivering that well. Give the medium power eyepieces a chance to shine. Sometimes less is more

Nice Mark

Jupiter is now more or less impossible to observe from my back garden due to its current positioning, unfortunately. Saturn is not much better

Have to turn my attention to non-planetary observing as Mars recedes I think.

Nice report. I think the Telementor is F/13.3 (840mm focal length). That and the smaller aperture will make a big difference to the amount of CA that the objective produces:

As can be seen from the above, a 60mm F/13 achromat will be producing noticeably less CA than a 102mm F/9.8 (the Vixen 102M). No special glass needed !

Not yet. Other priorities have taken over so I'm still using the Baader T2 Zeiss prism diagonal with my Tak.

I think it might be a Swift refractor. I think it is more likely from the 1960's - 1970's or even earlier. This is a 1964 Swift 50mm refractor and you can see the similarities:

There is a larger one of these involved in this 3 scope review but here branded "Eikow" and again from the 1960's:

http://www.joebergeron.com/shootout.htm

Wow !! - 6 years and still no 1st light.

That's tough on you and the scope.

Would something more portable and quicker to setup / take in be more useful to you ?

14 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I never said I own a 36mm Baader Aspheric, but based on everything I've seen and read online, it performs similarly to the 35 Aero in that it is an improvement over the Erfle design, but not corrected to the level of a Panoptic or XW.

Apologies Louis - I misinterpreted your post.

I did own a Baader Aspheric 36mm, but not for very long. I've not owned the 35mm Aero ED though.

16 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I was comparing the 35mm Aero extensively last night against other, much better corrected widest field eyepieces such as the 40mm Meade 5000 SWA, and it was pretty poor on the moon in the outer 30% at f/6 even with a CC in comparison.  From online images I've seen, the 36mm Baader seems to be similar.  Even in 2x Barlows, the 35mm Aero would not clean up very well in the outer 20%.  I just didn't want the OP to buy one and be disappointed with it in his 14" Newt.  It would probably be fine in a f/12 to f/15 Mak, though.

If I had a choice, I would not choose the Aero ED's (in any focal length) for use in an F/5 14 inch newt. I've not used the 35mm though. The 40mm is certainly better corrected than the 30mm and is possibly the best of this design. Not a particularly useful exit pupil with an F/5 scope though.

Maybe your 36mm Baader Aspheric is better than the one that I had ?. I was rather shocked to see astigmatism in the outer field in a 150mm F/12 refractor I must say

For a 14 inch F/5 dob I'd get the counterwieghting sorted out and and go for a 21mm Ethos or 20mm APM XWA and soak up the fabulous views 

I might not even bother with a longer FL eyepiece.

A 6 inch F/8 dob could be a 5 inch apo refractor "killer" potentially, at a far, far lower cost.

Interesting thread from 2017 on a comparison between an F/8 6 inch and a F/5 of the same aperture:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/294136-6-f5-vs-6-f8-newt-planetary-shoot-out/

The Bresser dobs were not around then though.

With reference to filters used to enhance the views of deep sky objects, namely nebulae, I have found the more expensive filters (UHC and O-III) better performers than the lower cost ones.

Not that the lower cost ones don't work, they do, but the more expensive ones do seem to deliver stronger contrast enhancement in the targets that they excel at.

Are they 2x, 5x or 10x better ?. No but then nothing works like that with astro equipment. It's an exacting hobby though and as the observer gets more experienced they push the boundaries of their kit and themselves more and more and that's where the better performance starts to show.

I'm a visual observer so I can't speak for imaging filters and the above refers to deep sky filters rather than to those intended for solar, lunar or planetary use.

Others might well have different experiences though so it will be interesting to hear them

I thought the Stargazers Lunge was the movement made by an astronomer when an expensive filter has been dropped from cold fingers  ?

Nice report Dale - thanks for posting it

1 minute ago, Don Pensack said:

If you are looking for an inexpensive wide field eyepiece good at f/5, you will buy a lot of different eyepieces to discover that such an eyepiece doesn't exist.

Cheap---well corrected in the outer field---wide field.  Pick any two.

 

I nearly posted that maxim a while back in this thread. I've been thinking hard over whether things might have changed a little lately making it less relevant, but I don't think they have really

I reckon the 2nd hand market will be awash with gear in the second half of 2021. It will become a buyers market for a while.

I think peoples tolerance of optical issues varies a lot person to person. What one person finds annoying might not bother another observer at all.

From looking at the above photos I reckon the Orion Deluxe 2 inch 2x barlow is made by the same manufacturer that made the Antares 1.6x barlow. They put a longer barrel on it, used the same optic (they look identical as well) and the longer distance between the eyepiece optics and the barlow element creates a 2x amplification.

26 minutes ago, Louis D said:

The 35mm Aero isn't going to be much, if any, better than the 36mm Baader Aspheric. 

Having owned a 36mm Baader Aspheric and not found it brilliant even at F/12, I'm a little surprised to read this. The 40mm Aero ED is certainly a much better corrected eyepiece than the Baader Aspheric IMHO.

They used to be imported by the "Skys the Limit" chap Alan I seem to recall.

I can see a couple of fungus spots on the objective which detract a bit from the value I guess.

18 minutes ago, johninderby said:

The Bressers use slightly larger secondary mirrors so slightly greater obstruction but doiubt the difference would be noticeable for visual.

 

 

 

Thanks John.

I was wondering what the term "Planetary" meant in terms of optimisation for this purpose.

Thanks John.

How do the central obstruction %'s compare in the 6 and 8 inch apertures between the two brands ?

I have a couple of questions on the Bresser dobs, if thats OK ?

They do seem to be better appointed than the Skywatcher and GSO dobs, better focusers, altitude bearings and tube rings, that sort of thing. These seem to be a good step above the Skywatcher and GSO offerings. The finders seem to be not quite so good on the Bressers - is that fair ?

What about the optical quality of the mirrors, which are, after all, the heart of the telescope ?. I've owned and used a number of Skywatcher newtonians / dobsonians and I have found the optical performance of these consistently pretty good. I've owned a couple of GSO made dobs and the mirrors on those were figured OK but not well over-coated.

Is there any evidence that the mirrors that are used in the Bresser dobsonians are of better optical quality than the equivalent Skywatcher instruments ?. I'm sure the over-coatings are good quality but what about the figure and polish ?

Just trying to get a comprehensive picture on what the additional costs buy you with the Bressers. Optical quality has always been high on my list of priorities and I can accept small compromises in other things (which can latter be modded) to get this.

Thanks

You will need a filter that fits over the front aperture of the scope. Something like this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/solar-filters/astrozap-baader-solar-filter.html