John

10 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Well I think it is Skywatcher that is sneaking up the quality on things really- their mirrors are getting some VG reviews these days and I respect David Shen/Synta for bringing astronomy within reach of many. These Synta 100 deg eyepieces might be an indication of more things to come.

Steve (FLO) told me a while back that Synta could beat the very best if they put their minds / resources to it.

The Esprit triplet refractors encountered a lot of resistance on the CN forum initially but I notice now that they are often recommended as high end options.

I think TV has said that they won't go further than 21 for the 100 degree field so the door is ajar. ES had a go but I've read quite a few mixed things about their 25mm / 100 and it's a £600+ eyepiece here.

Maybe Lunt can step up to the mark ?

Might as well hang onto my Ethos's now that they aren't worth much !

4 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I would like to see this someday- there is so much history where you are, I'm envious!

Lots of interesting history where you are as well Gerry, as my wife and I found when we visited Canada last year. Really enjoyable trip - we will be back !

My little holiday included viewing the Doomsday Book, one of the 4 Magna Carta copies in existance and visting Isaac Newton's birthplace so a very enjoyable and stimulating trip

I do think that manufacturers produce a number of quality gradings which are available to selected brandings depending on the size and value of their order, specficiations etc, etc. We can make guesses where the other stuff ends up !

I think it might be a 4 element objective but I'd have to do a lot more research to find out for sure.

Fascinating reports Gerry

The only reason that I've not commented is becuase I've been away since Thursday so missed all the fun !

My Leica zoom arrives tomorrow so thats going to be very interesting to compare against my Ethos / XW's mix over the coming weeks

Sounds like the Lunt contains subtly better optics than the Myriad / WO XWA's so perhaps not a clone or made to higher standards ?

Good to see something that will take on the Tele Vues without asking for more £'s / $'s and even leaving a few in the bank for other purchases

Bit late to this thread.

The scope is a rather early APM collaboration with Mathias Wirth. The interesting thing (which I don't know the answer to) is whether Wirth was involved with figuring the objective lens. If so then the scope is very special indeed. I've seen a scope with the same tube for sale around 10 years back in an optical dealer north of Bristol for around the same price as it's being offered for here.

The risk is in the objective. A triplet is a specialist job to collimate. A quad even more so I feel

It is quite a heavy scope for it's spec - my F/9.2 130mm APM / TMB / LZOS triplet is 9.5 kg all up (rings, diagonal and finder included).

I reckon that the scope might take a while to find a new home at virtually £3K. We will see ....

2 hours ago, garryblueboy said:

Thanks Guys never been so excited before as I was waiting for this to arrive just got sort out a finder I'm not paying Tak prices for a average finder .

The Tak 6x30 is superb quality but it's not RACI and thats my biggest gripe about it. I use a Skywatcher 6x30 RACI now and it's fine.

I guess I'll keep the Tak finder and bracket in case I ever move the Tak on (very unlikely). They cost around £170 I think

I agree - it's a minor issue.

1 hour ago, Joe G said:

I've been following this topic closely for a number of reasons but can't figure out the thinking behind why generally telescopes  with Crawford focusers with theit inherent " track line" issues, paint their drawtubes while telescope manufacturers such as Tak, Vixen, Stellarvule  generally don't with their r&p  focusers. I understand Moonlite  giving  costumer choice  but GSO thinking  makes little sense to mention

Not all GSO crayford focusers have an anodised drawtube. I've had a couple which had a polished alloy drawtube. The track lines still get there but they are not as apparent.

All the focusers of the scopes that I've owned (around 30 over the years ) have eventually showed some sort of marks on their drawtubes from friction either with bearings or the pads that hold them in place. This includes my Takahashi and Vixen refactors. The one exception is the Feathertouch crayford on my TMB / LZOS 130mm refractor -  it's 11 years old but unmarked

5 hours ago, avtaram said:

A Moonlite should be arriving on monday for my 120 ed, hope I'm not disappointed with its performance in light of some negative comments about this focuser.

Avtar

I have one on my ED120. It's much better than the William Optics crayford that was on the scope previously.

Very "blingy" of course so remember to put your sunglasses on before looking at it

Very nice scope !

9 hours ago, Joe G said:

Dave

I  realise the GSO focuser is not one of the original focusers  mentioned by Spaceboy  but  do " track lines" similar to the Moonlite  eventually appear on the  drawtubes after a certain amount of use? Thanks in advance Joe

I've seen these "track lines" on many brands of crayford focuser including GSO (see 1st photo below of a used but still good GSO refractor crayford). It's caused by the small bearings (usually 4, in 2 pairs) rolling against the drawtube under pressure from the steel bar that pressed against the flattenened section on the underside of the drawtube. These bearings are an important part of the design. Some designs of rack and pinion focuser use such bearings as well and you get these lines on those too. My understanding is that it's part of the normal wear that you get with such a focuser. There are a few designs where steel tracks have been inset into the upper side of the drawtube and the bearings press on those rather than the anodised tube (see 2nd photo below).

Hope that helps.

31 minutes ago, wookie1965 said:

Thank you I will have ago tomorrow. Can I do the same thing to check collimation of the diagonal?

Yes, but you need to do the refractor first and confirm that the optical axis of the focuser is aligned with that of the objective ie: with no diagonal in place, a well collimated laser in the focuser should exit the objective lens pretty much bang in the centre. If you then put the diagonal in, put the laser in the diagonal, and find that the beam now exits the objective lens off centre, that is a diagonal collimation issue.

Once the focuser axis is aligned with the objective lens, you check the tilt of the objective using the cheshire method described by AlisairW.

1 hour ago, Dave In Vermont said:

... I really don't see how people can shell out the £££'s when you can have a 10:1 Crayford that focuses 'scalpel-sharp' in basic-black. To the original question in this thread, my guess for a reason hinges on having that "Bling!" that a golden-metallic colour is supposed to cause in the local star-parties the owners' bring their scope to.

If they'd had the opportunity to try a GSO 10:1 Crayford before shelling out their cash on a Moonlite (or the other aforementioned brands), they likely would realize that there is really no way or purpose to improving on these. They work beautifully. But to each there own. I, persoally, would prefer to stick to the GSO models. The money I'd save could buy me something with an even better resolution and clarity - like a TeleVue® Nagler or such - or even a nice 'grab & go' telescope like an ST80.

 

I have used a number the lower cost GSO type crayfords Dave. The Moonlites are better engineered and take heavier loads in my experience and the Feathertouch even more so. Not just "bling" and anyway some of mine are in the all black finish.

If the GSO's work well for you, thats great. Each to their own, as you say

My scopes have Moonlites apart from the Tak which has the stock R&P and the TMB / LZOS which has a Feathertouch. For my visual observing needs they all seem to do the job pretty well. I'm sure I'd be happy with a Baader as well. 

14 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I just ordered it.

Don't blame you Gerry - "you only live once"

With your dark skes and experience, the reach of a 24" scope is going to be awesome !

3 hours ago, Paul73 said:

Don't get me wrong, the ES is a very fine eyepiece. The view just wasn't quite as immersive as the Ethos. It also lost a tiny bit on contrast. As expected, the narrow gap between the two got narrower in scopes slower than f5.

Paul

My findings were similar.

I also found that I needed to fold the eyecup of the ES 20 / 200 down to see the full FoV easily wheras I can do the same with the E21 with the eyecup up. Occasionally this seemed to lead to some stray light getting between my eye and the folded eyecup and onto the eye lens, reducing contrast a little. My observing site is not completely dark !

Very small differences though and I could have lived with the ES quite happily I'm sure.

15 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Those are great reviews John.

I've had a couple of nights with the 20mm Lunt HDC and this eyepiece so far is VG. In the 15" f4.8 I notice no astigmatism at all and will try it at f3.8 once that scope is up and running. The Lunt is very sharp on the moon @ 91x, and it does exhibit a bit of off axis "gold fringing" to my eyes, not to be confused with the blue ring of fire at the field stop. The 21E also exhibits off axis fringing, thinner than the Lunt with green on one side of the moon and purple on the other. The 21E has a similar blue ring of fire.

With the SQM-L between 19.8 and 20.5 and the moon subsiding I caught the Veil and more importantly a bit of Pickerings Wisp with the 20mm Lunt/Lumicon OIII. This is a good sign IMHO. I detect a small amount of FC in both the 21E and Lunt 20mm HDC, but could be scope related.

So far I really like this eyepiece.

Thanks Gerry.

My favourite of the Myriads was the 20mm. Not just because it performed well, there was something about it that was just "right" in mt 12" dob

An eyepiece that you can leave in the focuser all night for galaxy hopping !

Here is a link to my review of the Myriad 100 degree eyepieces for anyone interested:

Plus something I did comparing the William Optics XWA 9mm and the Myriad 9mm:

Sorry - I forget that the ED PRO series refractors from Skywatcher are also part of the Evostar range.

My Vixen ED102SS matches the Skywatcher ED100 F/9 that I owned before it for CA and SA correction. I'm not sure that all scopes of a similar spec would do that though - Vixen make very good objective lenses.

The ED100 Skywatchers are very close to Takahashi scopes of a similar spec. The TS 102 F/7 might get close but without trying one I don't know whether it would match the Skywatcher ED100 F/9

It's not just about the ED glass element of course but the figuring, coating, mounting of the objective and the match of the glass of the 2nd element that creates the overall performance.

Amongst my weaponry (Python - Spanish Inquisiton ?) I have an excellent Vixen ED102SS refractor that has an ED doublet lens that uses an FPL-51 (probably - Vixen didn't specify) ED element.

It's a really good all round instrument which can deliver low power views up to 3.8 true degrees in extent as well as handling magnifications of 220x when the seeing is good. While it's not totally colour free in the way that my Tak 100 F/9 Fluorite is, the Vixen's control of CA is far, far better than any Evostar achromat refractor that I've used, even the F/10 ones.

If the TS 102 F/7 can get that sort of performance it would make a good all round scope

2 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Have you tried the two Nikon HW offerings?  Tamiji Homma has compared the 17mm offerings at least and found the Nikon slightly better than the Ethos.  That, and their EIC unit effectively doubles the usefulness of each eyepiece.

Not yet Louis

It matches the colour scheme better than an Ethos would

45 minutes ago, Mark at Beaufort said:

Gerry I notice that Lunt now offer a 3.5mm, 5mm, 9mm and the 20mm which is the same range as the Myraid. Having been pleased with the 9mm and 20mm I have been thinking of changing my 4.7mm ES82 for the Myraid 5mm. If the Lunt gets reviews on the same lines as the Ethos range I will have to consider the Lunt 5mm as a possible alternative.

Have you ever used a Pentax XW 5mm Mark ?

After a year of comparing them, I eventually reached the conclusion that the Pentax XW 5mm and 3.5mm were just a wee bit better performers than my Ethos SX 4.7 and 3.7. 

Not 100 degree eyepieces of course but so, so sharp