bomberbaz

I don't wear my glasses when viewing @Louis D, I use a dioptrix which gives a few extra millimetres ER than when using glasses. Below a 3mm exit pupil I don't bother with anything. My astigmatism doesn't bother me at this point. I have tested several times and I should theoretically use it to 1.5mm exit pupil but like I say, at 3mm and below I don't need it as there is nothing there that I can notice. As for what FOV, you have to move your eyeball around to get the full field of view, but your guess at 80 is probably close to it. However from what I have read this isn't native to just the nikons, I believe all ultra wide (+100) eyepieces have the same issue. Still feels like your falling into it when you put your eye up against it though, exquisite. Steve

Great website that Don. I notice the astronomik changing versions of UHC but when compared the bandwidth remains pretty much the same. However the same comparison with the already tighter tv nebustar shows the the v2 one tightens up even further over the v1. Not reading anything into that, just curious. Regarding the ES O-III and HB they appear to have some bandwidth drift which in the case of the O-III is quite significant on the face of the lab tests. It would be very interesting to run a comparison on relevant bandwidth appropriate DSO's.

Wow it is a huge difference in price, if I were starting from fresh then I would certainly be factoring that into a new decision. Although I forgot to add that each eyepiece comes with an EIC (read mini barlow) so you get two eyepieces for the price of one. BTW I didn't realise they had increased so much in price. Also i would like to, if possible run a comparison between these and equivalent ES.

I have to throw Nikons into this discussion. I have researched these a lot both before purchasing and since. Most commenters shade the views through them at just edging it over the Ethos. Not massively but it's apparently there none the less. I do occasionally and unashamedly congratulate myself over taking the plunge and shelling out on these I have not yet had opportunity to run a comparison to the Ethos and with the current situation that is unlikely to change in the near future. I am looking forward to running them side by side when the time comes. Weight wise they are quite a lot lighter than the ES, especially the 12.5mm. The 17 is 950gm but the 12.5 is a mere 672gm. The 17 is a 2" fitting and takes 2" filter, however the 12.5mm which is also 2" has a 1.25" nose and so only accepts the same filters. However I use a coma corrector which accepts 2" threads so it's not a huge issue. I am by no means a EP expert, many on here have far more experience in comparing and dissecting glass results. But all i will say is that as long as my eyesight allows, there is no way on earth I would part with them.

Hi Mark. Watch this brief video. Guys pretty cheesy but very helpful. He has loads of other videos as well. I find some of his stuff very useful.

I recently purchased a astronomik uhc filter and was very surprised at the increase (should that be decrease) in filter bandpass effectiveness. However I have only used in briefly on the owl nebula as I was at a new dark site (which turned out not that dark) so I wasn't actually there testing the filter. I will try to give all my filters, uhc, hb, 03 (all astronomik) and uhc-s a thorough workout next time I have a chance. However I am still waiting opportunity to test out my 24mm/65 apm against a range of other eyepieces though. I think the latter will be the first to get a workout, the apm looks beautiful.

I bought the 2" version. I have never been completely happy with the hotech adaptor. My moonlight focuser had the EP clamp ring right where the expansion, centring part of the adaptor was. That's not going to help.

thanks for the heads up, being the spontaneous type and having read reviews on CN it looks like it's worth having, button pressed. EDIT: I should add that I am soon taking possession of a truss dob. Secondary mirrors tends to hold well on solid tubes, this isn't the case so much for truss/flex tubes' So I have bought this to use with a cheshire. If it works well, the laser I have will pay for the TS concenter.

Hello Don, love your contributions to these threads, you bring a lot of science and knowledge to them. I have a UHC-S dating back to 2015 I think although I am not sure. I note from your testing you stated UHC-S post 2017. Regarding my UHC-S I don't find the results subtle at all, to me the differences were quite noticeable with good contrast. I have also used it on Jupiter as it really helps the whole planet and especially the GRS stand out. Do you know if the post 2016 models of a different design by any chance.

been there, done that on several occasions baz. Currently waiting to test out a variation on my mak with a spotting scope plus ZWO camera. Inability to do thins because of the weather is sohhhh frustrating

This thread has suddenly become a little bizarre

Good point and well made James. However in the long run just owning something that oozes quality can continue to give you that feeling of contentment. I have some very quality eyepieces, as do many members on here. There is something very satisfying in occasionally taking these beautiful instruments and simply admiring them. Holding them in your hands, knowing it's a thing of precision, maybe just giving a bit of buffing with an appropriate cleaning cloth. Although you don't need to own top of the range eyepieces, just something you can look at and admire for the qualities you know it possesses. Steve

thats why FLO love you 😁

I use a street lamp to do my focusing and alignment on. It's about 100M, as john mentioned above away.

congrats on your first, but probably not your last scope set up.

Be careful trying to find it, you are not that far away from the sun afterall and it only takes one bad move. I will be getting up early to get the moon into my maks fov mounted with my 60mm spotter and imaging it through that. Watch and shoot as they say.

I think the difference will be less noticeable at the shorter focal lengths Ben. That said, I haven't tried the BSt's below 15mm. I found the 18 and 25 bst's to be pretty poor in the F4.7 dob.

hahaha, I didn't actually notice that John. 😳😆

I tried a luminos some years back and then returned it. Out of the box it looked the business but I did not get on with it at all. Kidney beaning seemed to be a major issue. A quality zoom is a great compromise if you are on a budget although I own a relatively cheap OVL one used mainly for solar. I used to have a 8" celestron 8SE and I used hyperion eyepieces in that. Now I was relatively new at astronomy back then so might have missed things I would pick up on now however that said, I didn't have a problem with the hype's and to me the performed perfectly well in the F10 ota. The hyperions were only sold when I changed the 8SE for a F5 dobsonian. They do not perform well at all in a fast dob.

Looks very good for a travel scope at just 7.5kg. Just wondering why they didn't increase the focal length to make it a bit of an all rounder.

Only cos I have owned and used one I think a celestron x-cel 18mm is well under budget and a great performer. IMHO it out performs the BST's too, sharper across more of the fov. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-x-cel-lx-eyepiece.html

^^^ See my link above geoff, that is the one. And trust me, it's next to useless

No success at all. I think I removed it and replaced it with a telrad finder. Much much easier. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/telrad-finder-astronomy.html

If it is the finder I am thinking of it is pretty rubbish. Tiny red led dot which you try to line up with a small ring. Is it similar to this link I had one on a scope years back. I went a bought a telrad instead and problem was solved.

This one is worrth watching as well sam.