Rob_UK_SE

25 minutes ago, markse68 said:

My oiii is an astronomik imaging one- do you suppose that could have a negative impact on its use visually? I can’t remember which bandwidth version it is- maybe the 6nm. The imaging version maybe doesn’t have quite as high transmission. I know it’s my sky that’s preventing me see  the veil- one day i’ll get the timing right and have my mind blown i’m sure

If you have the 6nm OIII-CCD version, your filter really targets the 501nm OIII line, but not the 496nm part. It is much more narrow/aggressive and therefore less suited to visual observation.

I have found the Bob’s Knobs springs to be really good and certainly stiffer than the standard Meade and Sky Watcher offerings. Due to their website, I’m never clear about Rother Valley Optics’ stock levels, but this is their link as they appear to be the only UK supplier offering them at the moment: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/bobs-knobs-meade-lightbridge-primary-springs.html

The last set I ordered were imported from the States and did arrive within a couple of weeks. This is the direct link (option D): http://www.bobsknobs.com/Newt/page45/NewtPri.html

Like so many, I also started with a 10” solid tube Sky Watcher. It was my first ‘manual’ large scope having moved away from a Celestron CPC925 that I was finding too heavy to regularly move to a darker observing location (it wasn’t really possible to observe from home at that time). Considering the price I paid for the SCT setup,  I couldn’t believe how well the 250px resolved detail and gave views with, perhaps, slightly improved contrast too. I sold the Celestron kit a few weeks later. The only things upgraded on the 250px were the azimuth bearing to a roller type, some Bob’s knobs for the secondary and stiffer springs for the primary. I still think that they are terrific telescopes - especially for the price. However, this was also around the time that I joined Stargazerslounge (2011) and started to discover the great lure of larger telescopes. Amusingly, I thought my 10” Sky Watcher was a really big scope, but after my first experience of Steve’s old 16” lightbridge it well and truly left me with aperture fever!  

After almost moving up to a 14” Sky Watcher (consulting with many helpful people on this forum at the time), I ended up realising that it would be too heavy -for me- to comfortably move around and transport in the car. Instead, I purchased a 12” lightbridge. The 12” really did take things up a level and gave me breathtaking views which I will always fondly remember. My first time seeing M13, at higher magnification, from a dark location was particularly memorable. The lightbridge was supplied with a reasonable focuser, roller bearing and decent collimation screws. All that was required were some Bob’s knobs for the secondary and a Telrad... or so I thought! I had not realised the challenges of balancing a lightbridge when using heavy eyepieces. My 31N and 17E made it impossible to observe near the ecliptic without the scope becoming an unintended goto and deciding to ‘reset’ back to the horizon! Powermating any of my eyepieces was not an option at lower altitudes. This led to all sorts of attempts at securing counterweights with my preferred solution being taxi magnets holding dumbbell weights ... all very ‘low tech’ stuff.

A few years past and we started a family. Observing took a bit of a back seat - sleepess nights continued, but not under the stars. I kept some of my eyepieces, but sold the telescopes due to the spare room being converted into a nursery. In addition to parting with the 10” and 12” dobs, I also foolishly sold my much loved TeleVue 102 refractor and I still very much regret it now!

Anyway, moving forward a few years and I returned to the Astro game deciding that it could be a shared family experience too. A 300p flextube was purchased and I was delighted with it (as were the family). A couple of enhancements to the focuser and a homemade dew shield (which did indeed look suspiciously like a camping mat) and I was set. However, the weight proved a little too much for me to comfortably move around (following an injury) and I found myself purchasing my current dob - a 12” Explore Scientific ultralight II. Apart from the weight, I thought the 300p flextube was an excellent telescope for the money. It would often not even require collimation adjustments between sessions - even though I always checked. The flextube stems is very well designed. 

I don’t see too many of the ES ultralight dobs around. This is a shame because I have been really pleased with mine. I consider it to be the answer to many common issues with mass produced dobs - even though it is, itself, a mass produced dob. The first ES ultralights were probably released too early as they were littered with problems, but ES appear to have resolved most of these now. This scope can go in the car boot without having to put down the rear seats and this has been a real game changer. If only the ES 16” ultralight was slightly less expensive.

As I read this back I can see that my attempt at a brief summary has turned into a right old ramble. Thank you for the trip back down memory lane and for letting me share a bit of nostalgia with you all!

If a budget allows for it, the Astronomik and Tele Vue filters are superb and will show both greater nebulosity and tighter stars. The Baader is close, but -for me- the contrast wasn’t quite as good (albeit very close). However, all of these premium filters are rather expensive and require sufficient aperture to make the most of them.

Personally, I wish that I had been able to invest in premium filters from the start as it would have been cheaper in the long run, but I do also appreciate that this is not always possible.

I echo everything that has been said already about the Astronomik and Baader filters. I currently use the Astronomik one, but owned the Baader before that.

My only suggestion is on the basis that you will -probably- use an OIII more frequently with lower to medium power eyepieces. I would therefore very much recommend investing in a 2” model - assuming your lower power eyepieces have 2” barrels. For me, the Veil nebula was my main motivation for justifying the 2” model and I have not been disappointed with its performance. The filter is used every session in the summer months (for both parts of the Veil and M27, in particular). It‘s utilised for different targets in the winter such as M97. Even good ol’ Orion takes on quite a different character and nebulosity when observed through an OIII filter.

I think that your suggestion of either a 200p or 250px are both great options. They are very competent telescopes -to start with- and both could be upgraded if you ever wish to with stiffer springs, different finder, focuser, different azimuth bearing etc. They also both really open up the possibilities of seeing many more faint fuzzies! A 10” dob can be considered a lifetime telescope. The speed in which an 8” or 10” solid tube dob can be setup ready for observing is also ideal. I regularly observe with someone that uses the Bresser 10” and they are setup ready to go in about 5 minutes while I am still very much ‘assembling’. If you can work to the top end of your budget and manage the size/weight (the Sky Watcher base is both bigger and heavier than other brands), I would recommend a 250px. This is assuming that you can find one in stock or don’t mind waiting. If you think that may, in the future, upgrade the focuser, springs etc it might be worth saving for the Bresser instead which could be cheaper in the long run. From memory, the finderScope supplied with Skywatcher is better (in my opinion) than the Bresser which has a smaller aperture.

Having owned a 250px (albeit about a decade ago) and comparing those memorable views to a Bresser 10”, in my opinion, the optics are pretty much on par with each other. Synta, who distribute Sky Watcher telescopes, are very consistent with their newtonian mirrors. If correctly stored and cared for, the coatings should last a very long time indeed.

While there is quite a learning curve to becoming familiar with the constellations and DSO locations, this is also part of the fun. Below are some useful links to star charts to help you find those fuzzies without goto 😄.

Monthly updated Sky maps: http://skymaps.com/downloads.html

Messier charts: http://www.custerobservatory.org/docs/messier2.pdf

Cadwell objects: https://sherwood-observatory.org.uk/astronomy/finder-charts/caldwell-finders

On the occasions that I have used my scopes standing up, I have found a trekking pole really useful to steady myself. Holding onto the back of a garden chair can also really help. As I try to observe with a small towel or blanket over my head and/or a hood up in the winter (to block out extraneous light and maintain dark adapted vision) I find sitting down essential to avoid embarrassing balance issues!

I use the 21, 13, 8 and 6...

I prefer to see a clearly defined field stop so it’s eye cup down for me. With the eye cup raised I have to push my eye right into it. I have experienced discomfort due to pressure around the bridge of my nose when trying to take in the full 100 degrees this way. For some reason, the eye relief also feels a little tighter on the 6mm, but it is manageable. The 13mm and 8mm are, for me at least, very comfortable with the cup down.

My preferred technique is to lightly touch my eyebrow at the top of the cup (12 o’clock position). It is surprisingly easy to hold your eye position when seated for extended periods this way - including when working at smaller exit pupils.

A positive of the eye cup up is reducing the chances of reflections and extraneous light. For this reason I will occasionally raise it to improve contrast/scatter on dim DSOs.

20 minutes ago, Franklin said:

The tripod with the 2" tube legs is very solid and the whole setup is very heavy which is good. It probably weighs about 20-25kg all in. That is manageable for me. 

I believe your tripod is rated for payloads of approximately 9kg. The pillar is 5kg and your GP2 is about 4kg (excluding counterweights). Not knowing your scope, I am assuming that it probably is around 8kg (calculated based on a Bresser 5” 1200mm or similar). Taking into account the counterweights too, I would say that you are right on the limit of your tripod’s payload with a 5” achro and would recommend being cautious about adding a pillar too.

As the legs on your tripod work on friction, it is slippage or leg failure you have to be mindful of. 

I have not had any issues with movement from the 16” extension pillar once the bolt is tightened from under the tripod (I am using a Berlebach uni 18). It feels very secure. As far as I am aware, the pin is mainly intended for lining up north on equatorial and/or motor driven mounts. It’s not really for added security. I would, however, check on the maximum load of your tripod as the extension pillar does add a considerable amount of weight. The positive of this is increased stability, but it will be much more demanding on your tripod. You also have to carry the mount fixed to the pillar (if you are moving it) which further increases the weight of your rig.

9 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

I recommend the 30mm APM UFF for a lower power with a somewhat wider field than the 21mm Ethos.  The 30mm's field is ~5% wider.

It's not quite as wide a true field as the 31mm Nagler, but then, is way less than half the cost.

Between the 10mm Delos and the 10mm XW, I would pick the Delos.  I found it sharper than the XW AND the Ethos (though, of course, the field of the Ethos is a lot wider).

The Delos 10mm measures a 73° field and is stunningly sharp--I've looked through orthos with softer star images.

Look at the specs here:

http://astro-talks.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1483#p41976

 

Thank you, Don, for this helpful advice and also for your great insight into the Ethos range. I was surprised to hear of the differences between the 4.7mm and 3.7mm. I would very much like to observe through one (or both) of the Ethos SX for Uncle Al’s ‘Spacewalk Experience’ of the lunar module simulator. It sounds the 3.7mm is very much the one to have. Perhaps one day.

...hopefully I haven’t done the wrong thing!

I ended up placing two orders yesterday morning. One was for a 30mm XW (following Don’s suggestion to acquire this focal length again) and the other for a 10mm XW. Both should be arriving today.

I found a good price on the 30mm XW (£270), but couldn’t find the 30mm APM available anywhere in the UK - just from APM directly or from other suppliers in Germany. 365Astronomy may be having an eyepiece clear out as they are selling off some of the XWs, including the 10mm, for £210. I would have loved to have a full set of green and black (adding the 10mm Delos and 31mm Nagler again), but this is not possible at the moment.

10 hours ago, Stardaze said:

Looks like you’ve simplified your set perfectly. It’s a slippery slope I foresee..

what size nanuk case is the bottom image. I have a 910 and already need a foam replacement 

The larger case is a Peli 1500. The internal measurements are: 435mm (length), 292mm (width) and 155mm (depth). The other case is a Peli 1300 which is now being used for a Telrad and collimator. 

the 13mm Ethos is certainly my most used and the one I find easiest to take in the entire 100 degree field of view.

I have directly compared it to the 13mm APM and found that they were very close indeed. For me, at least, the benefits of the Ethos were the eye cup (I found the APM one slightly less comfortable and needed to fold it down), slightly improved transmission and contrast as well as stars being sharp across the full 100 degrees. I would say the APM is a good 80-90% of the Ethos. If I ever had to replace it, I would probably buy the APM and be very content.

I have made many changes to my eyepiece case/s over the years, but the 13mm has always been a constant.

The images below are from 2012, 2016 and 2019 (before I got the 6mm Ethos from FLO). The 13mm Ethos has survived all major changes... so far.

When travelling to a darker location I try to adopt a ‘less is more’ approach and only take kit I know that I will use. In a funny sort of way, I feel that this actually improves my quality of life as I don’t have to deal with too many cases and more frequent trips back to the car. However, an observing chair is always a must -for me- as I like to spend quite a long time on each target, attempting to tease out detail. I also find a chair much more relaxing when observing at smaller exit pupils. 

Having previously had back problems, a riser base for my Telrad certainly improved things quite a lot - particularly when observing around the zenith. 

A flask of hot blackcurrant juice (Ribena) is very welcome, too, when things get a little colder.

I use a Geoptik bag and have been pleased with the protection and plushness of the internal padding.

This one is suitable for 4” scopes with focal lengths up to 750mm: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/geoptik-padded-case-for-100mm-refractors-f750.html

This is for focal lengths up to 1000mm: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/geoptik-padded-case-for-100mm-refractor-f1000-ota-neq6avx-tripod.html

...depending on how close your scope’s length is to 800mm.

Rob

Thank you for these suggestions.

John, it’s interesting to read that you tend to stick with your Ethos set for the 12” dob. I was assuming that your XWs might have some benefits in the dob too (in terms of light transmission, scatter control, object framing etc.)? I have certainly been very pleased with the Ethos quartet and don’t plan to part with them - especially for DSOs. I think we are all, to some extent, eyepiece addicts on this forum!

Don, I have checked the magnification steps, based on your suggestion, and can see that the biggest gap does indeed appear to be between the 13mm and 8mm Ethos. In the 12” the spacing is 73x between these two; it is 43x in the 130mm APO. Given the current UK price for Ethos I can’t -regrettably- stretch to a 10mm now, but could go for an XW, Morpheus or similar. Reflecting on this focal length a little more, in the 12” it would result in 152x (2mm exit pupil) and 92x in the 130mm APO (1.4mm exit pupil). I think both of these magnifications and exit pupils would be useful. 

The views of both parts of the Veil (in the 12”) are lovely, but it does struggle -even with the 21mm Ethos- to frame the eastern part properly. When using the 21mm in the 130mm APO the exit pupil is down to 3mm which may well account for the dim view which isn’t nearly as immersive. One of my biggest regrets in this hobby was selling my 31mm Nagler, but it is now too expensive to be replaced for only occasional use. Further to your suggestion and linked to the 10mm, perhaps a 30mm XW or APM UF is indeed needed too? With an exit pupil of 6mm it could still be useful (at dark sites) with the dob.

Baz, your point is one I have wrestled with for quite a while in this hobby - wanting to spend more time observing than auditioning eyepieces.
 

Decisions, decisions...

How time moves on... I haven’t posted for a while, but regularly read and appreciate the treads here.

When I started this discussion (8 years ago) I really wanted to get the largest aperture I could afford. I had most certainly caught the ‘aperture bug’ - particularly after seeing Steve’s (Swamp Thing) old 16” Meade which was my first experience of a large scope. I was sold on larger aperture immediately. 

My experience with a 12” lightbridge and then a Sky Watcher 300p Flextube -that followed- confirmed that I very much enjoyed the views, but still needed to change my approach. Instead of the biggest aperture I could afford, it became a priority to find the biggest aperture I could both comfortably and regularly move. I missed too many opportunities to observe due to transport issues (... and a bad back). After a period without a big(ish) dob, I settled on a 12” Explore Scientific Ultralight II and a 130mm APO refractor which are, for me, much more manageable. Interestingly, the refractor sees much more use than the dob. An Orion Optics (UK) VX14 would be perfect (for me), but is out of my price range at the moment.

I would love to own and regularly observe through a 14” or 16”, but the Chinese made ones are, regrettably, too heavy for me. However, I bet galaxy hunting is superb through your scope, Paul.

Rob

Well, I am now a very happy owner of a Meade 12" Lightbridge. It arrived early this morning and was out of the boxes in no time at all.

I was surprised to see that there have been a few updates made to the 12" Lightbridge, at least compared to ones I have read about online. Firstly, the trusses are now black, rather than silver. I was very pleased to see this, despite a sense of very mild frustration having purchased the black foam truss covers - I'll just have to double up! Meade have also updated the collimation and mirror locking screws to ones similar to Bob's Knobs. Sadly the springs are still terrible and I look forward to the new ones arriving in the post from Bob's Knobs. The focuser is nice a smooth with the fine adjustment having virtually no impact on OTA vibration. The azimuth bearing is also very smooth. All looks promising.

The only negative is a typical Meade issue - quality control. Although a minor point, the felt has only been stuck to one side of the altitude bearings. Ed, at Harrison Telescopes, has spoken to Meade already about this on my behalf. It's certainly not his fault, but it is frustrating that Meade aren't checking for details like this before telescopes leave the factory.

Thte Lightbridge is quite a lot larger than the Skywatcher 250px dob it replaces. Although, all credit to Skywatcher -the 250px is far better balanced. I have made up a basic counter weight system for the Lightbridge and will have to bulk order some more taxi magnates as a more permanent solution. After a few tests I have worked out that I will need around 2.5=3kg of counter weight to balance the 31 Nagler, light shroud and a Telrad.

I have attached a photo of the 250px and 12" Lightbridge to illustrate the size difference.

Looking at the Met Office's site there may even be a bit of clear sky tomorrow evening... this would, perhaps, be a first - to actually be able to use a new scope on the same weekend it arrived would surely be madness!

Regards,

Rob

Well, I took the plunge today and ordered the dob!

After much pondering following the many helpful suggestions on this thread (thank you to all), and trawling through a number of older discussions, I ended up ordering a Lightbridge 12" - mainly because Ed at Harrison Telescopes was very reasonable about a Saturday delivery and the scope is in stock. He also mentioned that it has recently had a duel speed focuser upgrade which will at least get me through the first few months (before a Moonlite is affordable). Again following advice, I have ordered the upgraded springs and knobs from Bob's Knobs and a decent light shroud.

I am working on the principle that if I order a scope when the weather is truly shocking, I may have clear skies when I finally get the thing built? ... perhaps this is just wishful thinking. Alternatively, I may have just condemned the astronomy world to a month of bad weather.

Steve, it would indeed be great to meet up again. How's the dob build going? Hopefully we will start to see darker skies over the next couple of months (just in time for a nice full moon on the only clear night!).

I look forward to posting a first light review...

Regards,

Rob

An update...

I have taken the Tele Vue scope off various sale sites and have firmly decided to keep it.

However, I still intend to get something a little larger for DSOs. Therefore, the 10" dob has to go and will be replaced with either a 12" or 14". To be honest, a third scope would land me in soo much trouble with my better half that there is no other option . This is the only way I can justify the upgrade. I have called around and completely failed to find a 14" Flextube in stock to view, however, looking at the rocker dimensions I think it is probably just too big and heavy. If finances allow it, I would sooner order the 16" as it is so similar in weight to the 14" anyway.

I know this question has been posted a fairly health number of times on SGL, but given everyones current experiences which would you go for: Skywatcher 12" Flextube or a 12" Meade Lightbridge. Both are the same money, one requires an immediate upgrade to the springs, the other is slightly heavier and more bulky.

Which would you suggest has marginally better optics? Anything else that makes one slightly more appealing than the other?

I'm afraid I have turned this thread into yet another Skywatcher vs Meade posting... sorry folks.

Rob

Following the many helpful suggestions (thank you to all), I drove to Telescope House hoping to look at the size and weight of some of the dobs discussed. They had a 16” Lightbridge and seeing one with daylight allowed me to realise just how big the thing really is. My only previous experience of one was Steve's, however, the weather (typical sudden cloud) put a stop to experiencing it in ‘full glory’. After my visit, and further consideration, my head did tell me that a 16” dob is just too much for me to manage on my own - even though my heart was ready to hand over my bank card and run – well, stagger out slowly, dragging a series of rather large boxes!

Unfortunately, Telescope House don't sell the 14" Skywatcher flextube so I was unable to see one in the flesh, but I am wondering if it is similar in scale to the 16" - particularly when considering the size and weight of the base being so similar to the 16" Lightbridge?

They did have the 12” lightbridge. Interestingly, it was somewhat bigger than I remember from previous use of friends’ 1500mm focal length dobs. Perhaps I am better off scaling my ideas down in favour of a 12” dob (which would probably result in the sale of my 10" dob) then keeping the Tele Vue for those moonlit nights and changeable weather moments. Not to criticize Skywatcher or Meade scopes (after all, I own a Skywatcher dob too), but I am now a little concerned now about selling the Tele Vue towards a dob that may have a limited lifespan when compare to the scope I would sell to pay for it.

I am still searching for a 14” to see one up close, but increasingly with an understanding of why so many choose 12” as their large scope. Maybe this is the better way forward, keep the refractor, but upgrade the 10" to a 12” dob for DSO.

Oh the joy of aperture fever…

Rob

I'm really grateful to you all for sharing your views on this this topic. Ultimately, I am going to have to compromise – I do recognise this. In an ideal world I would keep the Tele Vue as well, however, funds simply won't allow this.

The two dob idea has really grown on me and your thoughts have helped to solidify this - thank you.

I have now advertised the scope and hope to unlock the money tied up in it shortly. However, I am now wondering whether the Skywatcher is the best scope for my budget after your post Moonshane commenting on Skywatcher Dobs. Perhaps I should be looking at alternative large dob options? For example, should I be considering the Meade Lightbridge 16 for a little more money, or the Orion 12 intelliscope (not that I am looking for the intelliscope bit) for the same money as the 14" Skywatcher? As my wife and I are both around 5ft. 8" I have been slightly put off the idea of standing on a platform for observing, but maybe this is worrying over nothing.

As we will be loosing a high quality instrument to fund this dob I would like to end up with something we would be happy to settle for (once the usual upgrades / mods have been completed etc). This really does need to be a scope that has some longevity. I genuinely have finished my eyepiece collection and have no need to either upgrade or purchase additional glass - I would like to think I am investing in a large aperture scope that is a keeper for, perhaps, approximately 10 years.

So my final dilemma is weighing up between a 14" Skywatcher Flextube vs 16 Meade Lightbridge vs 12” Orion Intelliscope vs something else that I don't key know of...

Eek!

Best regards,

Rob

Greetings fellow stargazers,

I find myself with a rather frustrating dilemma...

We have recently moved to a new home that (finally) benefits from pretty dark skies and a south east position from the garden. I now also have the ability to store the scopes in a securely locked garage.

Since the move, the Skywatcher Dob (10”) has been out on every clear night and our Tele Vue 102 refractor has remained permanently indoors. I am relatively new to dobsonian scopes having come from the SCT then Refractor camp, but am absolutely sold on their design. The set up time is half that of our refractor. The only area the refractor really wins on is cooling down to thermal equilibrium.

I always believed that a high quality APO was the best companion to a dob, however, I am now starting to think that a 10” dob is a good ‘Grab and Go’ companion to a much bigger dob – such as Skywatcher’s new 350p flextube? I have the room to store it, however, it will probably be just me setting it up.

The frustrating bit is that will have to sell the Tele Vue 102 to finance the 14 dob and required upgrades (Moonlight focuser, Astrozap light shroud, Telrad / Rigel finder, etc). After consideration the 16" would be just too big for me to handle, but I think the 14" might be ok?

As wonderful as the views are through the Tele Vue unfortunately aperture fever (may) win over as the hunt for galaxies is my guilty pleasure – an area that the Tele Vue was never really designed for- its more of a planetary / double star scope. It would be a great scope for astrophotography, however, I am purely a visual observer.

Does anyone else use a smaller dob as a grab and go, with a bigger scope for those moon free nights? I am so very tempted to go down this road, but don't know enough about the 350p flextube to take the plunge yet - there isn't that much available online about them.

Would you do it... sell the refractor for a big(ish) dob + little(ish) dob?

Best regards,

Rob

I've not started it, as yet. Interesting to read your views on the topic anyway so thanks for posting them

For me, I think there is something a bit special with the Tele Vue eyepieces. The range has increased over the years so there's something for all types of observer - the dedicated Plossl user, the super wide angle fanatic courtesy of the Ethos (which I regrettably now include myself in), the flat field high quality 68º user with their dob and the Panoptic, the wide angle super sharp and flat Nagler and the planetary delight that covered by the Radian focal lengths. The new Delos looks intriguing too.

I'm not going to go on about the flat field, or minimal / no kidney beaning, sharp optics, comfort and nice cardboard presentation box etc, instead I am going to assume we would all argue over this and ultimately agree that many other manufactures offer these things too... for less money.

Therefore...

I think a Tele Vue eyepiece is a bit like buying a sports car. The miles per gallon is terrible, the initial cost is simply shocking, they have a rather striking look that some like, but others think is OTT and lastly, we become paranoid about handling them and lending them to our friends and family.

However, these very same eyepieces make us smile like a five year old who was just presented with a triple scoop, chocolate saturated, giant flake in a bowl of your favorite icecream... when you were expecting a choc ice. Again, like the sports car, they are made with passion, obsession and a genuine attention to meeting the modern day astronomers requests. There are many other offerings out there - at far more competitive prices, but Tele Vue bring that sports car excitement and something that makes you stay at the eyepiece for that little bit longer, despite the frostbite and limited feeling left in your fingers.

For me, I would rather pay for a small company to produce something that has been created with a desire to craft the perfect tool for the job, than a more generic approach that meets the need, but perhaps does not provide quite the same sense of drama. Other eyepiece manufacturers have imitated the designs, but at a price or some other sort of compromise. I would be more than happy with a set of Pentax XWs, for example, but would miss the 100º FOV of the Ethos and 81º FOV of the Nagler.

I wonder if I am making sense with all of this? Perhaps other Tele Vue owners might be able shed light if I am alone in this belief?

Hopefully this doesn't sound like a snobbish post - it's certainly not supposed to. I have perviously owned a variety of plossls, Baader orthos & Hyperions and briefly Celestron X-Cel (which really were a challenge). However, like many others I too ended up with a set of TVs... even if I did have to sell everything but the cat to afford them!

Rob