John

I've also had the Maxvision 24 / 68 and I think I'd prefer that over the X-Cel LX as well. I'm not saying that the X-Cel LX's are bad at all, they are pretty nice in fact but the ES 24 / 68 and the Maxvision 24 / 68 are just a bit better IMHO There is a lot of competition in the ~25mm eyepiece niche. Picking between the Maxvision 24 / 68 and the ES 24 / 68 is a matter of build quality and ergonomics I think, more than optical performance.

I've owned both and have no hesitation in saying that the ES 24mm 68 is the better eyepiece both in performance, ergonomics and build quality. I recently moved from the ES 24 / 48 to a 24mm Tele Vue Panoptic and I can't really tell the difference between the two in all honesty. The ES 24 / 68 maxes out the true field in the 1.25" size as well, which the X-Cell LX does not quite match. I can't advise on whether the difference in performance is worth the extra price. I would be to me but I'm not you

Nice cases Mark I've taken a very similar route with 2 cases (I've just managed to consolidate 2 small cases and a larger one into 2 large ones). I have quite a bit of focal length duplication but somehow can't get around to pruning the sets to reduce / remove this Nice to see the T6 Naglers. I've recently picked up a 13mm T6 again. It was one of my early UWA premium eyepieces and I love it's compact form. Amazing how Al Nagler managed to shrink the T2 13mm down such a lot as well as delivering even better performance I must try a Delite someday soon !

That pluck foam preserves the memories of former occupants of the case

Thanks. I did consider the APM 140mm FPL-53 doublet but I managed to get the 130mm F/9.2 triplet at a very attractive price and relatively local to me. I was intrigued by the respect that it seems to be held in so I could not resist.

Thanks folks I might have a think about some rings although the clam shell does a good job. Tak made it a bit longer for the DL version of the scope. Must have been costly to make just 100 bespoke clam shells

Very nice indeed ! The tube rings on the Tak FC100 are a nice alternative to the tube clamp - can I ask where you sourced them ?

You can, of course, apply surgery to a Telrad to make it's footprint more of a paw print: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/53099-i-cut-my-telrad-in-half/#entry690308 It thus becomes a "Telr"

Taks don't need finders ....... you just whisper gently to them what you would like to observe and they find their own way there

The batteries for the Rigel are the CR2032's. Available widely I've found and quite inexpensive but they last for ages anyway. My Telrad took a PP3 battery (2 terminals at the top end) rather than penlight batteries.

I use the Rigel Quickfinder on my 12" dob but it would do well on a much smaller scope too. The Telrad is great of course but it can look a little ungainly on a small diameter tube. The Rigel is a little more resistant to dewing than the standard (unmodified) Telrad as well. You get 2 bases with the Rigel unit, radiussed for larger and smaller tubes.

I use that sort of approach for all my fracs. It's dead useful to be able to simply slide the OTA back and forth as needed. You just need to put a supporting hand under the OTA as you loosen the DT clamp, for security.

My diagonal herd comprises: - 2" Tele Vue Everbright Enhanced Aluminum (on the ED120) - As above but the dielectric version (on the Vixen ED102SS) - 2" Astro Physics MaxBright Dielectric (on the LZOS 130 F/9) - Baader T2 Zeiss Prism (on the Tak FC100 F/9) I've given up trying to see any differences between them to be honest with you. There probably are some but nothing obvious to my eye If I had to live with just one I think it would be the Astro Physics but thats probably mostly because I've always wanted to own something by AP and the diagonal is all that I've had, thus far !

I think Baader have really minimised the effect with this product but my understanding is that it's inevitable to some degree. It's probably only going to show on the brightest of objects and then you may have to look for it. If the fully corrected image is a priority then this is probably as good as it will get from any manufacturer currently and I can fully see why you went for it.

Ah, yes I can see there are slight differences in the casing design. The one you have uses an amici prism design and has a clear aperture of 31mm wheras mine uses a standard prism with a 35mm clear aperture. Baader stuff is great but it can be confusing working out which componant is which ! It will be interesting to see if you witness the amici spike effect.

The picture looks just like the one I have and use with my Tak 100. Mine shows an upright image but left & right reversed Maybe there is more than one version that looks the same ?

Is this the one you are trying Mike ?: http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-2-90-degree-amici-erecting-prism.html

I'll take the optical quality every time and handle the (for me minor) issue of the reversed left and right. I've sort of got used to it over the 35 years I've been using scopes with diagonals. I'd probably get confused if I changed to a fully corrected image in the main scope ! Also I can't see the point in using a top end objective and eyepiece and having something in between that is less than that

I'm not making any argument either Mike - just kicking ideas around - which is fun

I understand that a lot of Japanese observers prefer to view "straight through" with their refractors, mak-cassegrains etc. That sort of explains the accessories that are supplied with Japanese made scopes like Vixen's and Taks eg: long extension tubes for the focuser to ensure that focus can be reached with no diagonal. When using a correct image prism diagonal the poor old photons are being really messed about after their long journey - inverted and reversed by the scope, corrected by the diagonal, magnified by the eyepiece, inverted again by the human eye lens and finally corrected again by the human brain !

Very interesting report Mike I like my finders to present an image that matches what my eyes see but I can cope with what the scopes present. Apparently our eyes present an upside down image to the optical nerve but the brain turns it the other way up.

I picked up a pair of Opticron 11x70's last year off e.bay. Unlike the Chinese made 70mm binoculars these Japanese ones seem to operate at full aperture. The FoV is a little narrower than some (4 degrees vs 4.4 degrees) but the field you do get seems pretty sharp across the majority of it and very little in the way of CA shows on the moon. At 11x handholding is possible for short spells. I'll dig them out and post a pic later.

Lovely to see a Tak FC100DL "down under" I was reading on the IceinSpace forum that only 2 or 3 reached Australia ! We have similar taste in scopes - my 130 is just a bit longer and with a Russian objective !

Those Swarovski 10x50's look lovely ! I managed to find an old pair of Swarovski Habicht 8x30's in a charity shop. The body was rather battered and worn but the optics are crystal clear and superb. The price ? - £7.99 !!!! I was quite shocked to find out how much these retail for today

Thanks Chris The Tak seems pretty skinny and folks tend to think it's an 80mm or 90mm rather than a 100. The Vixen is a fattie by comparison, even more so with that outward flare at the back end of the dew shield. I feel that I've neglected the ED120 a bit of late but it's optics compare very well with the more exotic ones in the Tak and TMB / LZOS.