John

That's a great result Stu

I have the Lumicon O-III in the 2 inch size and it's my best and most used deep sky filter.

Hi Paul,

This article below explains the difference between these types of filters.

A UHC filter, if it is properly executed, should fit into the category of narrow band filters explained in the article.

The Light Pollution Reduction Filter fits into the category of broad band / LPR filters as explained in the article.

I hope that helps a bit :

https://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/useful-filters-for-viewing-deep-sky-objects/

I have toyed with the idea of the 10mm Ethos. It is reputed to be one of the best in that range. My frequency of feeling the need for something between the 13mm and 8mm is low though so it's difficult to justify a £600 investment on top of the 10mm Pentax XW

I'm obviously not quite 100% addicted !

It looks like some fluid between the lens elements ?

An F/6 is more of an all rounder in my view. Slightly kinder to wide field eyepieces as well.

7 minutes ago, ndabunka said:

But that's the rub, isn't it?  Those of us just starting out are buying these as our FIRST scope so don't really know how to determine if we have gotten "a good one" or not. 

Here researching what and how to do things with a brand new SW 100ED that is scheduled to arrive from B&H sometime around the 1st week of September

Welcome to the forum

At least you can post on here on how you find the scope and if there is anything that you wish query you will be able to get some feedback on it. Also lots of suggestions on how to test the optics.

My "100"'s are 21mm - 13mm - 8mm - 6mm.

These 4 focal lengths are my "staple" set with my 12 inch F/5.3 dob. I have a 1.25" set which I use with my refractors and that has more focal lengths in it so I guess you can make do with less eyepieces if you use 100's.

My refractor set includes a 10mm Pentax XW but I only very rarely use it with the dob. I do use the 5mm and 3.5mm XW's with the dob when I want really high magnifications. I do find closer spacing of the short focal lengths useful to get some more choices at higher powers.

I did have a 17mm Ethos for a while but found myself often skipping that focal length and going straight to 13mm. I currently have a 17mm ES 92 degrees in that slot because its very good but a lot less expensive than an Ethos 17 so I don't feel so guilty if it does not get much use.

I really ought to amalgamate these two eyepiece sets into a single one to serve all my scopes but I suppose I am still to some extent an eyepiece addict. Not the best person to talk you out of expanding your collection, really

Yes - that was a very early model. Don't see many of those for sale now.

I always think your observatory looks like a rather posh if small dining room in which someone has installed a very large telescope Mike !

I have one under another branding and it does not have a T-thread under the rubber eye cup I'm afraid. The eye cup is actually quite difficult to remove and when you do what you are left with is a metal ring that twists up and down (usually with the eye cup on it) but no T-thread.

I do think all the versions that you link to are the same eyepiece though. The Lunt does have a different colour segment but otherwise is the same design. I don't think the AFoV figures are always given that accurately. Same for other zooms ie: the Baader 8-24 which has been measured differently from what the specs say.

By comparing it with other eyepieces that I have, I would estimate the AFoV to be around 38 degrees at 21.5mm and 55 degrees at 7.2mm.

Here are a couple more versions of it:

http://www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Accessories-Telescopes-Opticstar.asp?p=0_10_5_1_8_330

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p4651_TS-Optics-Premium-Zoomokular-7-2-mm-bis-21-5-mm---1-25-.html

I'm very pleased with mine despite all the above confusion and use it often with a Baader 2.25x barlow to get a high power 9.55mm - 3.2mm zoom

I have to admit though that my version cost well under the prices currently being asked even by FLO.

On 18/08/2020 at 21:39, Dantooine said:

Just a quickie,

is there a price justification on performance either the 2” poweremate and the ES 2” focal extender? 

Sorry for the delayed reply.

I have not used the ES 2" focal extender but I have used the 1.25" inch version and found it's performance very good. I'd hesitate to say that it is 100% as good as a Powermate but it must be 90% of the way there. I would expect the 2" version to be similar.

34 minutes ago, bish said:

Good excuse to order yourself a shiny new 11mm? I have mainly been using meade hd 60"s which are not bad but a bit over priced I think.

I can't really justify it, unfortunately .

I have the Delos 14mm, the Ethos 13mm, the Pentax XW 10mm and the Ethos 8mm. And a zoom which covers 7.2mm - 21.5mm for good measure.

They are the ONLY reasons that I've not bought a Tele Vue 11mm Apollo of course

https://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/tele-vue-apollo-11-special-edition-eyepiece.html

Eye cup position is usually the key to avoiding these sorts of issues. I don't wear glasses when I'm observing and find that the uppermost eye cup position is almost always the one that works best.

As long as it has been looked after.

If a triplet gets a knock then it can be a specialist job to get the elements re-centered, aligned and collimated.

I owned all the Nagler T6's at one time, except the 11mm !

In fact I don't think I've owned an 11mm eyepiece for around 20 years for some reason

I expect the ES 11mm 82 is a pretty decent eyepiece and close to Nagler performance.

The limit of the Skytee II seems to be quoted at either 10kg or 15kg, depending on which vendors website you read. FLO's is more conservative, probably sensibly.

With the stock clamps it's about 1kg !

Interesting to think that Meade used to sell the the 10 inch SN on the LXD55 mount and an alloy tripod. Makes you wonder if anyone ever got a decent view or image through one of those setups

I found this pic of an older Stellarvue 130 EDT which looks identical to the objective on the one that you have pictured:

21 minutes ago, 200pman said:

You need this.i built it a few years ago.works really well.very stable .you wont go back to a std dob ever.

Is this the same scope ?

10 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Why on earth would you doubt it now. You would know if you ... 

Regards Andrew 

I was just being honest Andrew - hope that is OK ?

I can't recall the diameter of the counterweight bar on the NEQ6 but if it is 20mm then the EQ3 counterweights will fit:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-mount-accessories/skywatcher-counterweight.html

12 minutes ago, Stu said:

... I know, having failed for many years on Zeta Herc, that I am now genuinely seeing it rather than imagining it!.....

Honest opinion needed here Stu:

- Do you think I was imagining splitting Zeta Herc when I first reported it with my ED120 back in 2013 when the pair were closer ?

- Do my frequent reports of splitting Sirus with my 12 inch dob and my 130mm refractor seem plausible ?

I'm starting to doubt my observations currently

The one that created meteor crater could have been 50 metres across they reckon. An iron one too.

My last TAL 100 cost around that much. That was a 100 RT, the same as is being sold on Gumtree.

They stopped doing the wooden "coffins" when they moved to the plastic dew shield, green lens coatings and better focuser I think.

13 minutes ago, skyhog said:

....I say this because I just couldn't imagine observing without tracking. I know a few here seem to do it but for me at medium and high magnifications it must be a right pain. All for the application of a simple dc motor!! 

 

 

 

            

Far more than a few  I think

I used to have one just like that. The first version. Limited focuser travel and no 2 inch option but superb objective and those wonderful purple coatings.

I've owned a couple and I can't really justify another, otherwise ......