John

It is hard to beat the Baader Clicklock system.

If I was just going to use an illuminated reticule type finder on it's own it would be either a Telrad or a Rigel. I have also used the Baader Skysurfer III mentioned above and that worked well. The Baader Super Skysurfer V gets enthusiastic reviews: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/baader-40mm-super-sky-surfer-v.html And if you really want to push the boat out, Tele Vue can help relieve you of quite a lot cash: https://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/tele-vue-starbeam-finders.html Currently I have a Vixen RDF which I use from time to time but most of my refractor finding is done using 6x30 or 9x50 RACI optical finders.

So do many of the longer ones from these sources

Quite right and with the 150 having no collimation provision, if it is out (and they frequently are) it is harder to do anything about it.

A great deal of false colour I think. Personally I would much rather have one of the 152mm F/5.9's such as the one below for deep sky observing: http://ensoptical.co.uk/ts-optics-152mm-f5.9

I think your Baader zoom is the best tool for most of that complimented by a fixed focal length 2 inch. Any of the ones suggested would be good. I would also want decent quality UHC and O-III filters for the nebulae so another £200 needed there

I don't use the locking screws unless I am transporting the scope in the car. Once I got the primary collimated I found that the locking screws were actually putting it out again so I leave them loose in general use.

Having seen a few of the 350's and 400's I agree entirely with Ian. Try and see one up close and assess how practical it will be for you to store and setup the scope. The 400 is definitely a two person job. No doubt that you would notice the aperture difference at the eyepiece but if the scope is not practical initial enthusiasm can quickly wear off Whether the views are worth the cost and hassle is I think only a decision that you can come to. You might find that the BST's need to be upgraded to get the best from the larger, faster, aperture as well.

Actually I find using more magnification helps to tease out more detail on DSO's. For some targets you need the max true field just to fit the thing in but for smaller ones I'm usually using 75x - 150x or more.

It is hard I agree. At F/10 though, your scope does not pose much of a challenge optically to eyepieces so you don't need to spend big bucks to get good performance. My expectation would be that a 40 / 68 would perform pretty much the same as the 34 / 68 in your scope but the 40mm would show about 18% larger true field of view at a slightly lower magnification. Edit: There is a 35mm Aero ED 68 as well by the way.

Good to see and hear the initial report John Although plastics can be used successfully in scopes I'm kind of pleased to hear that they are minimal in this scope. The scope would not have looked out of place on the back page of a 1960's Sky & Telescope magazine, except it has been made today

I've found the Aero ED 40mm 68 degree pretty good in my scopes that range from F/9.2 to F/6.5. I use Ethos 21 and Nagler 31 in my F/5.3 12 inch dob. The Aero ED and clones are pretty light as well, for 2 inch wide fields. In your scope a 40mm 68 shows you a true field of 1.36 degrees and the 34mm 68 1.16 degrees. The Veil, in it's entirety needs around 3.5 degrees but you might squeeze the E or W segment into the 40mm / 68 true field, just !

That does sound interesting

The Meade 4000 plossls are the best for those adapters - they are slimmer than most plossl eyepieces.

You will have to excuse the non-scientists here for not knowing what the term doping means in this respect then All the definitions that I can find for the term refer to something quite different.

FWIW I find the 10 - 3.5 XW's free of astigmatism in my F/5.3 12 inch dobsonian. I don't like astigmatism so if it's there, it bothers me. Eyepieces are very personal choices though. We say this again and again and it is true. What one person raves about, another may well find does not suit them at all

I'm not the pedantic type

I really, really must try a Morpheus some time The only change in my boxes is that I've now had to find a permanent place in box 2 for the Explore Scientific 17mm 92 degree behemoth. After a period when I could not get on with it's eye positioning, I've had a number of much more positive experiences with it. It's correction and throughput are certainly just as good as the Ethos - I reckon these 92's are the best eyepieces that ES have produced

Great report Stu I wonder how they would compare on DSO's ? Would the more up to date coatings and glass of the Tak claw back the 2mm aperture gap ? Find out in next months exciting installment !

The interesting thing about the 14mm and 20mm Pentax XW's is that their FC is the opposite of the 10, 7, 5 and 3.5mm focal lengths. In some scope designs (medium-fast and fast refractors ?) they apparently add to the FC that the scope already produces making it more obvious to those who find it bothersome. Maybe they suit a newtonian better ?

I came across this post on another forum by Roland Christen of Astro Physics. It was dated 2004 though so things might have moved on in 16 years: "FPL53 is the most advanced ED glass with the highest V number, which allows a lens of fastest focal ratio to be made. It is the most expensive of the lot. FPL52 is an intermediate ED glass and FPL51 is a first generation ED glass, which is least expensive. OK4 is the Russian equivalent to FPL52. The overall color correction is dependent on the mating element, and all of these glasses can be made into lenses with any kind of color correction from poor to essentially perfect. The only difference would be that the glasses with the highest V number would have the lowest sphero-chromatism for any given design and F-ratio. Therefore, for equal performance, the ED with the lower V number would need to have a longer focal ratio for equal performance."

I've not visited this thread for a while but having been over the past few pages of posts, there are some amazing eyepiece collections here and some seriously nice boxes and cases as well !

The ED element of the 80, 100 and 120 is Ohara FPL-53 glass and the mating element Schott BK7. With the 72 and 150, we don't know but they seem to work pretty well I never quite know why Skywatcher didn't do a deal with Ohara to put a sticker on. That's the expensive stuff ! I guess Schott is perhaps a better known name for glass generally ?

I've really got to try a Morpheus sometime

Skywatcher now have a policy of not revealing the glass type of either the ED or the mating element for their latest ED doublets (the ED72 and ED150). Vixen and Tele Vue did not used to either. Their policies may have changed recently though ?