John

2 minutes ago, Dantooine said:

You have tv diagonal, I think that has. My baader doesn’t, it’s a straight edge all the way to the glass. Best I “rough it” for now with the dual barrel  just in case. 

I have an AP and a couple of TV's. Both brands have that stop. I used to use a 2 inch barrel on my Zeiss T2 prism diagonal but with that arrangement the body of the diagonal makes sure that the 2 inch barrel does not get to the prism.

If you are using the 2 inch skirt you have to watch for that 1.25 inch barrel. More than one person here has dinged their prism !

I mostly use the Ethos in my 12 inch dob so no problem with that of course. My fracs tend to get my 1.25 inch eyepieces.

50 minutes ago, Dantooine said:

It must be close to the prism. With a filter on the skirt I would imagine my Zeiss prism wouldn’t be very happy. 😡

There is usually a ring down inside the barrel to prevent anything coming into contact with the optics of diagonals. Well there is on mine anyway.

1 minute ago, Dantooine said:

Would the 13, 8 & 6 still fit in a diagonal with the baader skirts fitted? I have the 2” click lock and this would finish off the eyepieces really well. 

Yes they do. It does affect their focal position though because the full length of the barrel plus the extension is a bit longer than a normal length 2 inch barrel and it won't fully insert into most 2 inch diagonals.

The Ethos focal positions are all over the place though so a small adjustment does not make a lot of difference in practice.

3 hours ago, Franklin said:

Also, even though the gas giants are pretty low at the moment, in moments of good seeing by far the most detailed views I have had are at twilight. As soon as the sky begins to darken the glare washes out finer detail. Try locating them not long after sunset, if you find them you will be surprised.

Spot on - my best views of Jupiter have come when there is still quite a bit of light in the sky

Excellent report - a good O-III filter is such a wonderful tool for the Veil and other nebulous targets. I use mine a lot more than a UHC filter.

Not that I've had clear skies for quite a while - which made reading your report all the more enjoyable

1 hour ago, Simon Dunsmore said:

Hi John, 

Thanks for your reply. Any thoughts on alternatives? 

Thanks again Simon 

A Celestron X-Cel LX 9mm might be worth considering. It is in budget and they have a decent reputation:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-x-cel-lx-eyepiece.html

If you are happy with the 26mm ES 62 then the 10mm might well be the one for you though - I've not used that range.

There were at least 3 different variants as well over the years - each "run" could have it's own serial numbering system.

I used to have a very early TAL 100 RT which I purchased new in 1999. It came overland from Sibera in it's wooden coffin but I can't recall the serial number of that one though.

29 minutes ago, Jiggy 67 said:

Absolutely correct, but as always happens with this topic, the conversation turns to the age old argument between GoTo fans and manual fans....and their entrenched positions 😀😀.....always amusing and never reaches a conclusion, it’s gotta be the oldest running argument on these forums...long may it continue!!

GOTO or not, I guess the OP will want to stick more or less to their budget

The Baader 2.25x barlow is for use with 1.25 inch eyepieces.

The 1.25 inch eyepiece adapter for the scope is the last 2 items in your photo screwed together to look like this:

The Hyperions are nicely made eyepieces but they are not too well corrected towards the edges of the field of view in faster scopes. The Skywatcher 250P is F/4.7 which is considered quite a fast scope.

I have not used the ES 62 so I don't know how that will do at that focal ratio.

10 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

With any good high quality eyepiece then you should notice a difference between medium performers. I know when I had the Pentax 5mm XW I noticed this was visually a noticeable step up in optical performance . Sometimes the transparency of the Sky's can sub due a noticeable difference. Or the scope itself you are using may not get the best out of certain eyepieces. I suggest you try your eyepiece over numerous nights\weeks  to get a true picture of its a step up in performance to your personal eyes before you make a decision. If you still are not getting the results that satisfy you ,then you will need to go eyepiece chasing again. I am lucky as now with the short set of Pentax XW and the BGO , then I am in a very satisfied place with my eyepiece choice these days. 

 

 

 

Good points above - when I used to compare eyepieces I always tried to have several sessions with them on different targets, in different scopes and under differing conditions before reaching any conclusions and reporting anything on the forum. That's why there was often a fair time gap between me receiving the items and a report appearing on the forum. The UK weather is not always kind to astronomers trying to carefully compare equipment performance !

Anything viewed through a scope moves across the field of view at pretty much the same speed, planets, stars, deep sky objects. View at higher powers (as you often do with planets) and that rate of movement is magnified so becomes much more apparent.

That said, many members of this forum observe at high powers with un-driven mounts and often alt azimuth mounts as well and seem to enjoy their observing

It's worth recalling that the original posters budget was £300-£400 for the scope AND mount.

The problem is that there is always something slightly better out there somewhere. Before there were forums we didn't know a lot about what was available apart from the occasional magazine review or what colleagues at the astro society were using.

With the rise of the forum you can almost instantly get feedback on a wide range of alternatives from folks who use and enjoy them and occasionally from folks who used them and didn't think so much of them.

Then there are folks like me who were lucky enough to have eyepieces loaned for nothing by a kindly supplier so that I could add to the confusion by reporting on them to this forum

There is a risk that you can endlessly chase small performance gains rather than settling down to become familiar with and fully exploit what you already have. I've been down that road more than once, often with little or no overall gain which showed that I should have trusted my initial instincts that what I originally had was pretty good 

The grass will often look greener but it's not always so by the time you get there.

Enjoy your Tak 5mm LE. I'm sure it's a fine 5mm eyepiece

I tried the night before last with my ED120 refractor but the seeing was so poor that I was barely able to make out more than the two principle belts let alone any finer details

That scope has shown Galilean moon disks against the Jovian atmosphere so I might be in with a chance if we ever get another clear night and the seeing is steadier than observing through a waterfall !

I wonder if it is going to be simpler and lest costly to add some locking screws to the current arrangement ?

Well done on finding a good deal on the 8mm.

I use 28mm Baader Fine Tuning Rings as 2 inch barrel extensions on my Ethos 13, 8 and 6. Mostly because I can then use 2 inch filters with them.

9 hours ago, RobertI said:

I read a long thread from quite a while back where the different focuser options are discussed - I think the conclusion in the end were that there were three or four different versions over time!

Yep - I've got the OVL brochures somewhere that show them changing over time.

I think the crayford focuser that this thread started out on is the latest focuser type used on this scope.

Astrobaby reviewed here 2008 model and that had the crayford fitted, rather to her surprise:

http://www.astro-baby.com/reviews/TAL 100RS/TAL 100RS Review.htm

The TAL Apolar 125 that I reviewed back in 2011 used a revised version of the crayford focuser as well:

Just a further note on upgrading this.

The metal dish piece that forms the end plate of the scope acts as a stiffener for the alloy tube that Orion Optics use. If you replace this piece with another mirror cell, you will also need an end ring to fit the tube otherwise it will simply not be rigid enough.

You can see such an end ring in use in this Orion Optics scope fitted with a much more up to date mirror cell:

I thought long and hard about upgrading the mirror cell when I had the 10 inch version of this scope and concluded in the end that it was more trouble than it was worth.

1 hour ago, Stardaze said:

Out of interest John, what are supposedly the best of the range? I have a feeling when I have a complete set (not all Ethos, APM 100 deg too) I may swap the APM 13 out for an Ethos, if I find a good one at the right money secondhand. But that's a way off yet.. 

Not sure. I like all the ones I've owned / currently own. The 10mm is the only one that I have not owned or used - perhaps that's the best one !

If Don Pensack sees this thread his opinion would be valuable I think.

4 minutes ago, Gfamily said:

I don't know if it's illegal to give the lamp post a good wobble (works better with metal ones than concrete ones).

They are usually fitted with cut off devices to cut live power from the base in the event of a traffic accident, so it's not doing anything that isn't part of the design requirements.

As I say, I don't know if it's illegal.

It's vandalism. If caught doing it you would get charged with putting public property out of action.

Do I have to keep repeating myself in this thread ?

No suggestions of vandalism or anything else of a similar sort please, or the thread gets locked.

This piece by Phil Harrington is quite useful as well:

https://astronomy.com/-/media/import/files/pdf/8/c/7/0805_nebula_filters.pdf

1 hour ago, Stu said:

 

I am really chuffed with the performance of the Lumicon 1.25” filter; I had been on the verge of ordering an ES one when I saw this and am glad I did....

I think the Lumicon is a MUCH better choice than the ES. I currently have an ES UHC and it's mediocre to say the least

Sounds like your scope is one of the old Europa models. I had the 10 inch version with the same rather basic collimation / cell arrangements. Seemed to work OK though.

My 12 inch dob is slightly more recent and does have locking bolts but I don't tend to use them unless transporting the scope in a car.

Perhaps you could add locking bolts to the arrangement that you currently have ?. They are just bolts that press against the bottom of the cell that holds the mirror.

Inside the back cover of your scope will look like this:

The seeing was poor here during the short period of clear sky that I had.

Iota Cass is usually wonderful with my ED120 but had mushy star definition last night. Saturn and Jupiter were far from their best as well.

@Sunshine congrats on Zeta Herc with the 115mm. A tough one !

When the seeing is better I'm enjoying challenging my refractors on Lambda Cygni - another toughie !