John

These distant and ancient clusters are fascinating. I tracked down NGC 2419 back in March this year:

I think the 7.2 - 21.5mm zooms do offer a bit more performance un-barlowed than the Seben / Celestron / Skywatcher / whatever 8-24 zooms, personally.

I've also owned the Baader 8-24 (a couple of those) and the very expensive Leica ASPH zoom mentioned by @dweller25 above which is the best performing zoom that I have owned but it didn't really gel with me so I sold it on after a few months comparing it with Pentax XW's etc.

I was going to suggest the Castell O-III as a lower cost alternative that gives you a good dose of the "O-III experience". Mark has mentioned it above already !

Low cost eyepieces used with scopes of F7, F/6, F/5 etc often do show astigmatism in the outer parts of the view.

It looks sort of like this:

3 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Same here!

And here !

1 hour ago, alex_stars said:

@John which zoom do you prefer over your fixed focal length EPs?

I use the 2mm - 4mm Nagler zoom (no use in your 180 mak of course !) and a moderate cost 7.2mm - 21.5mm zoom which is sold under a number of brandings. I use the latter with a 2.25x Baader barlow lens for a 9.55mm - 3.2mm zoom which is really effective.

I've been as surprised as anyone that the latter combo has worked so well but there it is. It was purchased as an outreach / travel setup but gets a lot more use than that.

(not that travel and outreach has been on the agenda for quite a while now !)

My skies must be better than I think. I can get the E & W Veil with my 4 inch fracs quite easily even with a UHC filter. I have glimpsed the brightest section (eastern segment) with 11x70 binoculars (unfiltered) on one of the best nights I can remember here. With my 12 inch dob and the Lumicon O-III (one of the earlier good ones ) the detail in the segments of the Veil is outstanding.

It is worth checking out the transmission charts of filters - there are a bunch of independant tests somewhere on line which tell all sorts of interesting stories.

Of my two O-III's I reckon my Lumicon is a touch better than my Astronomik especially in my 12 inch dob but both are really effective tools

2 hours ago, dweller25 said:

TSA102 John

Ah - now that will make a very interesting comparison

I did the same re: the finder.

Your current 4"  scope - is that the FS102 ?

As above. That's normal for a dob.

Congratulations on the new scope and welcome to the forum

Well I never !

Nice one David, very, very nice one in fact

27 minutes ago, johninderby said:

The Nagler 3-6 zoom would work very nicely but not exactly cheap. One zoom that compares favourably with an  ortho eyepiece.performance wise. 👍🏻

Zooms are great for high power observing - I've become quite a fan of using them now. My short fixed focal length eyepieces are feeling a little neglected I think 

Zooming makes so much sense when playing around to find what the conditions / target will bear.

I've become quite a convert - my fixed focal length eyepieces are getting a bit neglected !

I like the $ sign incorporated into the scope mount graphic - very apt !

3 boxes as usual - Tak know how to package properly

Looks very like my DL boxes ????

I've owned a Pentax XF 8.5mm. It's quite a nice eyepiece but it does have some distortions - pin cushion I think it's called ?

Interesting review here comparing the XF 8.5mm with a BST Starguider 8mm (the Paradigm is the branding they use in the USA for those) in a similar scope to yours:

https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/user-reviews/review-of-at-paradigm-8mm-and-pentax-xf-85-mm-r2737

Using a 3x barlow will introduce it's own issues I think. I doubt that sort of magnification will get much use in all honesty - it doesn't in my 12 in Orion Optics dob.

4 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

Thanks Don that’s really helpful. At least I know that the 8 and 6 are going to both be the same, the most problematic at that. 

The 8 and 6 Ethos look identical as well. In low light its easy to muddle them up !

The usual problem is making sure that the finder scope is very accurately aligned with the view that the main scope shows.

The patch of sky that the main scope shows, even at low magnifications (ie: longest focal length eyepiece) is very small so it's easy to "miss" a target unless the finder scope is accurately aligned.

If you saw a blur then it's quite possible that the scope was pointing at a star but the focus of the scope was way out.

The Owl Nebula is nowhere near grand as the Veil but it does respond well to an O-III filter.

Hi Greg - welcome from me a bit to the SW of you at Portishead.

Excellent images so far - look forward to seeing more

I have the Lumicon and the Astronomik O-III filters (one is 2 inch and the other 1.25 inch) and can heartily recommend them.

I have not used lower cost ones so I can't really comment on those. I have used lower cost UHC filters though and generally found them to be less effective than more expensive ones so I suspect that filters are one area where spending a bit more does deliver noticeably better results.

The new Tele Vue Bandmate II O-III filters seem to be developing a really good reputation as top performers as well. Again not a budget option though:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-bandmate-oiii-filter.html

22 minutes ago, skyhog said:

Nice report Robert.

I've never been fan of filters for visual astronomy apart from the OIII. I've got quite a few and its the only one I'd ever use now. I would rename it the 'veil filter' to be honest as I clearly remember the first time I used in on that object many years ago. It went from being indistinct to clearly visible with direct vision, the structure blew me away. Never tried it on a pair of binos but you have definitely whetted my appetite.

Funny how the veil was never mentioned in a visual observing sense when I started in this hobby. Its image graced countless astronomy books but it was never discussed as a target for moderate telescopes. Strange when Herschel was describing it at the eyepiece back in the 18th century much as how we now see it. Transparency as you say is everything mind you.

 

Ed

Until decent narrowband and line filters were available it's possible that the Veil Nebula was not considered a good target for amateurs ?

Even with my 12 inch dob I can't see much of it without a filter. Put the O-III in an, wow, what a difference.

Until I discovered that I could actually see this object with a scope (about 10 years back with a 100mm refractor and a Baader UHC-S filter) I thought it was a photographic only target. Now it's one of my favourite deep sky objects.

Eye cups up for me. I like to nestle my eye socket into a soft eye cup. No problem seeing the whole field of view I've found, unlike some other 100's that I've used. I observe standing 95% of the time.

I used the eye guard extender on the TV 32mm plossl when I used to have one because the rubber eye cup on that is not quite long enough. Don't need one with the Ethos's

This is a personal preference thing I think.

38 minutes ago, Dantooine said:

I dream of mags of 199x 😂

what I mean is, I put eyepiece extenders on the ethos and fold the cups down on the eyepiece extenders. I’m finding this very comfortable viewing as I don’t have much luck hovering and get on better with a firmer eye cup. It really does make them feel like using a wider Delos to me. 

I don't like "hovering" either. I like to nestle my eye socket into a soft eyecup. The TV Delos and Ethos eyecups are great for this. I think quite a lot of whether we "like" eyepieces or not is down to ergonomics, preferences, face contours etc.

Perhaps there is a niche for a bespoke eyepiece "fitting" service in a post virus world. "Suits you sir"

I don't seem to need to fold the eyecups down to see the full AFoV with my Ethos. I did with the ES 100's though.

I love the 8mm Ethos in my 12 inch dob. 199x and the views of globulars and planetary nebs are amazing

47 minutes ago, LDW1 said:

Over on our side we have been discussing the virtues of zoom eyepieces quite extensively vs cost and performance. Svbony is a rather recent newcomer to amateur astronomy, they have quite a wide range of products at very low, reasonable prices while keeping excellent quality. I have several of their filters and eps and their performance is up there with the much more pricier brands of good average models, we aren’t talking the out of this world models at prices you just have to shake your head about, the prestige stuff, if you will, with very little more in return. These Svbony zooms, I have 2 a 24 - 8mm, 7 element, 4 groups and a 30 - 10mm,  5 element, 2 groups, FMC, the first parfocal and the second very close. They are as good as my older Meade 4000 and new Orion E series models. I was and still am wondering what experiences and thoughts the great astronomers on this site have with Svbony products in general and especially their zooms !

What is the 7-21mm Svbony zoom like ?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SV135-1-25-7-21mm-Zoom-eyepieces-astronomical-telescope-eyepieces-multi-Coated/283809071527?hash=item421456c1a7:g:2uMAAOSwwBZdgY~j

I've only used their filters, which are very average.