GazOC

I've owned various sizes/ combinations of Ethos, Myriad, APM and ES 100 Deg eyepieces and there's not a huge difference in between any of them IMHO.

I bought a couple of these zooms off EBay for £42 each with the intention of using them as a pair for lunar binoviewing and as a single for quick looks. The eyepieces are very light which is an advantage when you're putting all that extra kit on the back of a scope, the zoom action is smooth enough but with no click stops. I used the eyepiece(s) in my ED120 and 127mm Mak/Cass, as expected the binoviewers needed a Barlow element screwed in to reach focus on the ED120 but worked fine without in the Mak. The views were sharp throughout the magnification range but showed some astigmatism

Aye! I'm certainly not knocking the optics or the fit and finish. It's just a fair bit of money for a 80mm visual scope, "too rich for my blood" as they say The other side to that is that on the occasions I've debated whether to buy gear that was slightly out of my price range I've never regretted it in the long run once my bank balance had recovered .

It's an amazing looking scope, Holly but a little pricey for me to consider. I'd definitely be interested in a cheaper "bare bones" version that had the same optical specs with less of the extra trimmings. Obviously that wouldn't fit in with the premium StellaMira badging but maybe it could be done under a different label?

Those diagrams show why the claim "I could see no false colour either in or out of focus" should be treated with extreme caution

I guess you need to find some user reviews of the scope or a clone? At least then you'll know it performs as the specs suggest it should and it'll remove the gamble of taking it over the ED120.

Asuming the prices were similar, I think for the sake of an extra 5mm that isn't going to be noticeable at the eyepiece I'd probably go for the tried and tested (and lighter) ED120.

If you can stretch to something a bit better than the AZ3 I'd recommend it. The mount can only track so far before it needs moving or re-setting and is pretty lightweight.

I never seen one in the flesh but I'd always imagined C9.25s to be smaller than that for some reason.

Aye! Having one Hyperion already would have made my choice easier too.

Reviews seem to be good "for the price", Rob. I got the pair for just under £90, hopefully they'll be reasonable quality for lunar use

I've just ordered a pair of Svbony 7-21 zooms for my 127mms Mak, I couldn't stretch to the Hyperions especially as I don't envisage using the zooms for anything but lunar views. Hopefully the IP distance will be OK as I've only binoviewed with small plossl EPs in the past

There's not much there TBH, just a bloke saying it's 170mm ish. I measured the primary, it's definitely 200mm. I did I bit of Googling afterwards and there is a difference of opinion on whether the testing methodology used to arrive at the effective aperture figure is valid, I can't really comment on the ins and outs of that as most of it went over my head but what I can definitely say is that the people who claim the effective aperture is 170mm because the primary is 180mm are wrong.

I have a gold 180mm Mak and the primary is 200mm, if Skywatcher wanted to push it they could have sold it a 8 inch Mak! I've seen people saying the mirror is 180mm and that gives a reduced effective aperture but that's not the case. **If** the scope for resigned at some point to add effective aperture (and Skywatcher kept it secret!) then it wasn't because the primary is undersized as seems to be the reason that is most often quoted.

Yep, it's a doddle. Just goes straight on