John

We had an interesting discussion on moon filters last year:

6 minutes ago, fifeskies said:

Yes as much as I love the moon I sometimes resent its presence on the few clear nights we seem to get as it rules out a lot of other targets

It rules out extended deep sky objects such as galaxies and a number of nebulae types but asterisms, open and globular clusters, planetary nebulae, double stars, asteroids and the planets are still quite accessible in a moonlit sky

The vast majority of the time that I'm observing the moon, I am using quite high magnifications, which has the effect of dimming the brightness of the image making it comfortable to observe for extended periods.

I would not start looking for targets that need dark adaptation after observing the moon. Usually because such targets are not at their best anyway when the moon is in the sky !

I've used a 10 inch F/4.8 newtonian on a Giro-type mount which I reckon had a similar capacity to the Losmandy G8. It worked pretty well. It was an Orion Optics newtonian which are a bit lighter than the Bresser or Skywatcher ones.

15 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

The weight is considerable, but all my focusers handle the Nagler 31T5 well, so this one shouldn't be a problem (it is a whole 2 g heavier than the 31T5 "Panzerfaust")

The 17mm is a bit heavier than the 31N at 1160 grams. The 31N seems to be 200 grams lighter. I've just weighed them both

I reckon the 12mm ES is a little lighter than the 17mm.

I observe the moon regularly with my 12 inch dobsonian and don't find the need to use a moon filter

If you find it uncomfortable by all means do though. I have a moon filter with me at outreach events in case any one looking though my scope would like to use it.

I've owned both the 17mm and 12mm ES 92's. I still have the 17mm. They are superb optical performers - the best ES eyepieces that I've used (that includes the 20mm 100 ES) and my 17mm fits nicely between the 21mm and 13mm Ethos without giving anything away in performance.

I found the 12mm eye placement just didn't suit me as a non-glasses wearer though so I let that one go to a new home. The 17mm is better for me although that took some getting used to.

The weight and bulk is the main challenge with these - you do need a good solid focuser / diagonal setup.

I'm sure you will enjoy your 12mm 92 Michael

41 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

I have had very few opportunity's to view Mars of late. (Or observe in general) The planet has shown some excellent detail on most occasions so I guess I am quite lucky. When a dust storm occurs what happens to the detail seen? I assume Mars is just a kind of reddish disc in this instance? 

 

Cheers

A localised dust storm tends to change / blur the boundaries between the pale and darker areas (the later image below shows a localised dust storm)

A more extensive dust storm considerably obscures the darker features across much more of the disk so it basically appears plainer and relatively featureless:

I don't have experience of the Astro Fi 125 but I have owned a couple of other Celestron C5 SCT's and they looked, paintwork apart, exactly the same as the optical tube of the Astro Fi 125 and the specification of the Astro Fi 125 seemed just the same as the other Celestron C5 SCT variants.

At least we were spared a major dust storm at opposition this time around

On 15/11/2020 at 09:46, chrispancho said:

John, being that you were an owner of the 22mm T4, transitioning to the 21mm Ethos... would you recommend the Ethos over the T4?  Thanks!

Sorry Chris - I missed your question yesterday.

Yes I would but I didn't have the 17mm Nagler at that time, I had the 13mm Ethos. Having tried an Ethos, I was sold on them !

Good to hear that David Nagler was able to offer some good advice.

15 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

The StellaMira 80mm f/10 I use only manually on the ScopeTech and whilst it's a lovely mount, balance is critical, so I'm sticking to lightweight (and closely matched weight) eyepieces in that for now and I can use the Hyperion Zoom Barlow if needed. Mainly use the DeLites 13mm & 18.2mm, Panoptic 24mm, TMB 8mm and (occasionally) the Aero 35mm. I did use the Nagler 3-6 Zoom, but sold it as unfortunately I just wasn't getting on with it (eye relief, FoV, prone to dewing)...

 

I take a similar line with my refractors. I have a 1.25 inch eyepiece set which are mostly used in those. The 82-100 degree monsters are what I use in my 12 inch dobsonian.

The Tele Vue Big barlow is good for newtonians but I understand will not work well in many 2 inch diagonals due to it's length.

The Powermates that I've owned have been pretty much flawless in their operation. You just don't know that they are in the light path, apart from the amplified magnification.

The stack can get long though !

1 hour ago, newbie alert said:

Dunno about that, a couple of friends have 127 triplets that I was shocked to learn that they have fpl51.. I've seen worst with fpl53 

Here is an example:

https://astromart.com/reviews-and-articles/reviews/telescopes/refractors/show/orion-120ed-vs-astro-tech-127edt

Both good scopes but the ED doublet did seem to show less CA than the triplet in this case.

45 minutes ago, JamesF said:

I thought it all sounded rather implausible myself.

James

Me too.

Despite it's fame, the Crab Nebula is rather underwhelming unless viewed with a really large aperture scope from a really dark site.

A UHC filter helps a little with this one. I can just start to see a little of the filamentary structure across the nebula's surface with my 12 inch scope and a good UHC filter on a dark night here. 

Through my smaller aperture scopes M1 is generally rather featureless, vaguely oval shaped, patch of light.

It's a difficult one to show folks at outreach events whereas the Ring Nebula is quite a strongly contrasted object which actually does look like it's name suggests.

Rather odd story from the BBC regarding Martian Terraforming by an amateur using a laser

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-54930207

37 minutes ago, globular said:

Thanks Michael.

Shocking how so many companies think nothing of producing misleading information, often hiding behind very conveniently rounded figures.

There are many instances of actually measured specs not quite matching claimed specs as well.

One brand whose specs do seem to be matched by reality consistently are Tele Vue. They also carry comprehensive and up to date data on their website:

https://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=214&plain=TRUE

There are a couple of features that do look a bit linear and I've seen those a few times this opposition when the seeing has been at it's best. They are among the more challenging features to spot visually I've found. This great image from Pete Presland shows them:

3 minutes ago, LeaWoo said:

My partner saw Mars' scar yesterday so we are certain it's Mars. It seems to focus on one small part of the planet and then the outer part is blurry, but no matter how much we play with the focus it doesn't seem to change or improve. 

I feel we are doing something wrong here but I don't know what.

Not sure what Mars's scar is but the image that I have posted is what Mars looks like with a smallish scope at the max magnification that you will be able to use with the eyepieces and barlow lens you have.

I suspect you are well away from sharp focus as suggested above. Mars will look like a very small pink disk perhaps with vague dark markings on it even at the maximum power you can get, eg: 10mm eyepiece plus 2x barlow lens. Something like this:

It was quite a while ago that I had the VIP Barlow and I used it pretty much exclusively with the Leica ASPH zoom. I did get it to focus OK with my 12 inch dob but the Orion Optics scopes have a focus point well outside the tube wall so most things do come to focus. Not sure about the Bresser dobs ?

I used a different extension setup than the standard one that comes with the VIP barlow (a pair of 15mm extension tubes) and that will have affected the focus position as well.

That's the thing about the VIP barlow, it's (as Baader say) a modular system with many options.

@Stu did a report on it a few years back:

I've owned a few Powermate's and a Baader VIP at some time or other. Both excellent. Slightly different concept from barlows, the Powermates / Telextender / Focal Extenders - they have little or no effect on the focal position and eye relief. Also they tend not to vignette longer focal length eyepieces whereas some of the barlows can.

30 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

Mine is the one that was sold with the Hyperion Zoom as a bundle, so might be different indeed.

I am now actively looking at Barlow options, and so any of these suggestions are good thanks to all 👍

Yes - the Q-Turret and the Zoom barlow are different. Sorry about my mix up

4 hours ago, MrFreeze said:

I think £69 is quite a reasonable price for these.

The ones at RVO do not appear to be in stock (they say low stock and to email them - which always seems to mean they have none left). I had been looking at getting a 2" eyepiece in the Aliexpress 11/11 sale, and the GSO Superviews are available at £59 + £7.50 postage (+ VAT + post office extortion fee no doubt). 

Being a long time customer of theirs I ended up purchasing a Svbony SV136 34mm 72 degree eyepiece which was cheaper and looks like one of these - does anyone know if it actually is the same eyepiece? I guess I could ask Rita or Ida, but I'm not convinced they would know the answer.

David

I agree with FLO. My bet would be very similar to a William Optics SWAN 33mm. Apart from the slight FL difference, the AFoV, appearance and the element count / grouping match the SWAN.

Not a GSO Superview, the topic of this thread.