Alfian

The spirit of Xmas, well done. (and commiserations too!)

I've got both the 114 reflector and a 90 mak as grab n' go scopes. The 114 at a fast f4.3 is a better scope than I expected it to be and compared to the 90 Mak gives a lower power wide field of view. The focuser is not brilliant but its what you get at this price point. The 90 mak however is a cracking little scope with a real solid feel to it. Optics are pin sharp and the focuser not bad at all. Yes it has a narrow field of view but that fov is very good and on a tracking mount objects should remain in view if all is set up ok. Luna views are brilliant for such a small scope and I doubt if you will be disappointed. Good choice.

If using a 2" diagonal, with 1.25" adapter, doesn't create any issues (balance?) then there is no reason not to use it. Personally I've found on 'scopes used in the past that having a 2" diagonal to use just one "lower power"EP to give wide field views, when the rest of my EPs are 1.25" is a lot of extra weight for just one eyepiece. I now find that a 1 .25" diagonal and EPs is adequate for my particular setups.

Many thanks John, just what I was looking for.

Thanks Peter, good to hear that your 20mm works well for you, and the Mirador info is useful. I know Dave (f15) was pleased with the 16mm and I'm hoping that using it with F10 + refractors and maks the wide field fall off will not be so bad though 84 degrees is asking a lot. I had read somewhere of your connection of sorts with Fullerscope so it didn't surprise me that you chipped in.

I have just bought a "vintage" 16mm Fullerscope 1.25"wide angle EP (thanks Dave) but so far have not had opportunity to try it out. In appearance it looks like a very nice plossl but I'm guessing the internals will not be a standard plossl configuration. In trying to find out a little more about the Fullerscope eyepiece(s) I can find quite a lot of mention of Fullerscope telescopes and the history of the company and the link with Telescope House, but nothing specifically about the eyepieces. I'm guessing they were imported, rebadged, from Japan but would like to know who made them. Are there any other similar eyepieces marketed with a different name that might give some idea of their construction etc l but I'm really looking forward to a first light when I can assess the performance for myself. Anybody on SGL have any experience of or information about the Fullerscope EPs?

It really is worth reading the small print as to what courier insurance covers and indeed whether they will deal with optical equipment in the first place. When I came to sell and ship a scope a while back I came to realise that for most of the couriers I got a quote from the insurance was worthless and the one that seemed ok would have been prohibitively expensive. As to the couriers mentioned after unfortunate experiences I would never use them.

Just thinking about the last line of the OP in terms of what makes us happy. Its made me think back to many years ago to when I was really big into hifi getting ever better equipment but there came a point when I spent more time listening out for the imperfections in the reproduction than actually enjoying the music. Effectively the tail was wagging the dog. I stepped "back" to something simpler and started to get back into the music. I've had a couple of pefectly good very usable scopes but somehow did not do it for me, whereas I have what might be deemed as a technically lesser scope that I find somehow more satisfying to use (when I can) - it hits the spot. I'm not suggesting for one moment that upgrading, or whatever, to something better or more capable is wrong just that just maybe its not necessary for an agreeable level of satisfaction. What is an agreeable level to one however is of course different to another and certainly it doesn't stop me looking and wondering but the question of where our hearts lie is a good question to ask.

To pick up on and reinforce Peters point, when I find myself looking at bigger and/or better astro'equipment, when either I'm ashamedly not or can't use what I have, I try to remind myself of what Galileo used so influentially. To misquote somebody, serious is as serious does.

That's a very nice image given its just a smartphone. Hope for us all!

I've had the Opticron iMagic 7x50s for a while and also have the iMagic 10x42s. I've never had the steadiest of hands but with age I've found hand holding binoculars more frustrating and with the 10x42s I've needed to have arms well braced to get a satisfying image. With the imagic 7x50s at such a bargain price it was too much to resist and I was hoping they would work better for me. I was aware that with my eyes the 7x50s would function closer to 7x40s. The 10x42s and 7x50s are virtually identical in build apart from the scale and size of the optics. The build quality is excellent, eg no rocking movement in the bridge. Optics are very nice with good coatings, and ergonomically they feel nice in the hands although of course the 7x50s are larger. They come with a good strong carrying case and the usual adequate lens caps and rain guard eyepiece covers. The 7x50s have a stiffer focuser action than the 10x42s but this is not an issue, indeed once focused it stays put! A feature of both binos is that for their given optics (like Pentax PCFs) they have a narrower field of view than many other binoculars such as Nikon Action Ex series. This means that the eyepiece afov is narrower but I for one would prefer a better quality narrow field eyepiece than a poorer wide field item at this price point. In practice this works out that much (but not quite all) of the field of view in these two binoculars is very nice in terms of being usably sharp. I found the 7x50s very slightly better in this respect , only the very edge is the image falling off. Focusing also has more of that snap-to quality about it too. In both binoculars there is some and I mean just a suggestion of stray light when viewing objects near to a bright moon but apart from that there is nothing to grumble about and certainly not at this price. I've found the 7x50s, for me, are easier to use but do lament the loss of the higher power but as I can't justify to myself the cost of buying a Canon IS binocular its a compromise I'll have to live with. I should point out that I have some 15x70s which I tripod mount so I'm in no way badly off! Its worth adding that 7x50s make for an excellent terrestrial bino too and they come with a 30 years warranty.

I've just realised that its my "old" 35mm EP that we are taling about! Glad its seeing good service. Tripod wise, I've used various mounts with both aluminium and steel tripods and without question the steel legs make a big difference when using anything other than a lightweight scope. However given that the AZ3 is part of the deal, there is no harm in using it and see how it works out.

The ST120 is noticeably bulkier than the 102 but will be fine on the AZ4. Dont know about the AZ5. The Aero 35mm is a nice EP but it will give a 7mm exit pupil at F5. May be OK with nice dark skies and younger eyes than I have, just something to be aware of.

My son drives big (300 + miles) distances fairly regularly but its not something I would consider these days. This is down to traffic density, delays and significantly, having to have eyes in the back of my head , to cope with the bad mannered crazy driving that is frequently encountered. A couple of hundred miles is about my limit and that is with a break for lunch! Driving 200 miles to look at a potential buy but with the possibility of maybe not being convinced it being 100% is not something I'd consider lightly.

Great images Paul, love the first one really crisp and contrasty.

Snap! that's the edition I have.

Regarding a 5mm EP if funds will not stretch to an SLV, a very nice EP, then the BST Starguider is a good cheaper alternative.

Excellent!

My first influence into stargazing was via my father who pointed out the more obvious constellation and stars. Although aware of the Sky at Night program and of course of Sir Patrick as the public face of astronomy the program was on after my bed time. After that a school friend who was very definitely a young and enthusiatic astronomer with a proper telescope (and did a convincing Sir Patrick impression!) hooked me into astronomy as a proper interest. Pocket money was saved and the Observers book of astronomy was purchased and I still have it. I grew up with the space race and particularly the Apollo program and with that came an appreciation of Sir Patricks great passion for astronomy and particularly the moon. With later teenage years came other interests and distractions but after a long long gap the astronomy bug bit me again and with that Sky at Night became compulsory and a full appreciation of just what a key roll he has played in the astro community.

With just one scope the sensible thing is to for an all rounder of the best quality affordable many of which have been suggested. Of the "all rounder" scopes I have owned the Skywatche 150p f5 and the ED100 fit that bill but things are not that easy because my Tal100r is the most "satisfying" scope I have owned so I would go with that. There is just that something that makes it pleasing to own and use. On that basis the Tal100rs would be nice or maybe a Lyra

The 130EQ that I had 10 years ago came with 2 eyepieces. The first was a 20mm erecting image eyepiece which by design is already compromised for astronomical use. With the 20mm I assume that Celestron tried to market the 130EQ as both an astronomical and a terrestrial scope which was not a good idea in my opinion. The second was a 10mm EP that I am guessing was a Kellner. It had poor eye relief and felt like I was looking down a tunnel so I'm guessing it had quite a narrow field of view. When you are starting out in this hobby and are looking through a scope for the first time and having had no experience of what to expect, a magnified image of the moon , for example, is quite satisfying. For me this early "honeymoon" quickly faded and it wasn't until I bought 25mm, 15mm plossls and a 9mm WA EP that I realised how much better things could be even with this relatively humble telescope. Strangely I still have a 9mm Celestron EP that came as standard equipment with another 'scope and although its not the bees knees its quite usable and Skywatchers standard issue 25mm is similarly usable, yet another Celestron standard issue EP, a 3mm, was a plastic lensed abomination. Such variations are a shame as budding new astronomers need something usable and adequate to start with otherwise enthusiasm can easily fade.

The Tal1 does have limited travel but when I had mine, I think it was a 97 or 98 , I had no problem focusing Vixen NPL plossls. There was a problem focusing just about everything else especially anything with a built in barlow type element. Eventually I did a big makeover job on it and replaced the focuser with an item off a Celestron/Skywatcher 114mm scope. Not an easy job and the focuser was nothing special but it had the travel to focus just about anything which was a big improvement.

As someone who cut my astronomical teeth on a Celestron 130eq I can only strongly reinforce the need to upgrade the supplied EPs as soon as possible. The difference will be very noticeable THEN get a barlow if desired or another EP for higher magnification. A 2x or 2.25x barlow with a 24 or 25 mm EP will give views not so much different from a 10mm in a 650mm scope, so a 5 or 6mm EP may be better. With the 130EQ the collimation needs to be pretty much spot on to get decent higher magnification views. I found with the seeing in my location that 150x was the practical maximum. In terms of barlows I can also endorse the Baader QTurret 2.25x. I once had a Revelation 2.5x ED and that was pretty good too.

In terms of CG2 or CG3, it gets confusing with Celestron as a CG3 is as near as matters the equivalent to Skywatcher EQ2. There is no comparison between a CG3 and an EQ3-2.

Well done! My forays into astro' diy are humbled by your work here but there is something very satisfying in tailoring things to your own requirements and it all working out well.