Piero

What about the 32mm TV Plossl? Same FOV as the 24 Pan, 176g, more eye relief in case you need this, and also cheaper. Only potential downside depending on your telescope f/ could be the exit pupil. p.s. I have a 24 Pan. Very nice little eyepiece. I thought about replacing it with a 32mm Plossl for the less weight and larger exit pupil of the latter. The reasons why I didn't are 1) the 24 Pan was bought new, so this replacement would translate to an economical loss, and 2) it seems I'm kind of unlucky with plossl eyepieces... , 3) I cannot really fault the 24 Pan!

I don't disagree with you (how could I ?! ), but just want to add that a lot depends on sky conditions. My Tak 100 here in Cambridge roughly reveals the same amount of nebula detail as my 8" dobson in Venice Area (Italy). Of course, the dob bests the Tak on E and F trapezium quite easily.

The payload of the UNI CC is 20 kg and it can extend for 39cm. I don't think the planet offers one

The UNI 29 that Mike ( @iPeace ) has should allow you to observe standing. Same CC as in the UNI 19, but longer legs.

The adjustable column is very handy. I've been having standing up observations with my Tak as I used to have with my TV-60.

Here are the safety bolts I use. They are M8-30 with Allen key head. I bought them long enough so that I can hang a weight on each side of the bolt.

I took some photos of the central column installed in my UNI19. The diameter is 1.5", and extends for 39cm.

I installed two M8 safety bolts on each side of my dovetail (which it seems exactly like Sylvian's one). Also, they perfectly for hanging weights, balancing the scope at every altitude when heavy eyepieces are used.

I think the XW 40 is probably the only eyepiece I would get to replace my 35 Pan. Very remote chance though!

Hello Sylvian, In my opinion the central column in the UNI 19 works really well. With my AYO II and Tak DF on top, fully extended legs and central column, vibration damping was just less than 1 second under windy conditions. When legs and central column are fully retracted, vibration damping is a fraction of second. When legs are fully retracted and the central column is fully extended, vibration damping is still less than 1 second (0.5s?). There is a bolt near the central column lever. That bolt can block the central column completely. I only use it at high power for maximum stability. I believe you can transform a UNI 18 into a UNI 19, but you need to replace the tripod base completely (so you only keep the legs). The central column and the tripod base seem to form a single component. I'd suggest to send an email to Marion at Berlebach. He will certainly help you. Piero

Thank you Aki for your comment. I have a 35 Panoptic which is regularly used with my Tak and the 3 deg FOV it delivers are very nice. I'm sure your 41mm shows a lovely picture too, and the slightly larger FOV should help with very extended targets like the Veil, Orion's belt, and Alpha Persei moving cluster.

Thank you Alan. It was pointing to M81 and M82. Lovely sight!

No problem! Out of curiosity, how's the 40mm TMB at the edge with your Tak? There was one 40mm TMB in the classified earlier this year (maybe the one you picked up?), and although I was interested, I decided not to buy it because I was not sure how much astigmatism was visible in the last 10% of the FOV. Not having slower telescopes, it was a gamble for me. Its light weight is a great advantage though.

I believe you meant 40mm 67 deg. The field stop in a 50mm 67 deg should be around 58mm, and given the aperture of 35mm in the T2 Baader diagonal, vignetting should be well noticeable! Also, a 50mm 67 deg would require a 3" focuser!

Not sure whether the Zeiss prism variant is cheaper when you add the clicklock and nosepiece. Actually the BBHS prism diagonal (which is Zeiss too) is a bit more expensive than the silver one. I opted for the BBHS silver mirror diagonal because: 1) it received a very favourable review by W. Paolini. 2) My Tak does not show any trace of spherical aberration, and it is suggested by some people that prism diagonal slightly overcorrect (which can be a benefit for slightly undercorrected optics as the prism would help balance spherical aberration). 3) Based on Baader's admin comment on the Baader-planetarium website (page: 2" BBHS prism diagonal), Baader reported that a prism might help when the first diffraction ring showed some red colour. In my Tak there is no red colour in the first diffraction ring in either inward or outward focus. 4) After reading many comments on high quality prism vs mirror diagonals (dielectric and Vernon silver), it seems to me that the Baader Zeiss T2 prism slightly reduces light scatter and promotes the red shades on Jupiter. The BBHS silver mirror diagonal was also shown to increase the red tints on Jupiter, so to me the main difference appeared to be in this marginal increase in light scatter in the BBHS silver mirror vs the Zeiss prism. This is not enough to convince me to strongly support the prism over the silver mirror diagonal, though. Having observed with the BBHS for a while and also used a TV Everbrite dielectric diagonal, to my eye small particles of dirt depositing on the mirror and eyepiece quality affects more in terms of light scattering than the material making these two diagonals. 5) Discussing red colour again, it seems to me that prisms are praised by members because of their "ability" to exaggerate the red colour tone, and therefore reveal Jovian's features a bit better. Whilst this is highly praised by planetary observers, nobody seems to discuss the downside of this effect on targets which might not respond well to this effect. I'm not in a position to discuss this due to my lack of experience, but I believe it would be interesting to have an extended comparison between diagonals on DSOs with coloured tints (e.g. extended and planetary nebulae) and see how contrast is affected. In terms of colours, the BBHS silver mirror is neutral (it's a mirror in the end!) and is able to show more red colour because of the larger reflectance range (390 to 2000nm) compared to standard dielectric mirror diagonal. The silver layer helps too I believe, but not so much as the Vernon silver diagonals were not reported to increase the red tone on Jupiter as far as I am aware. 6) Comments by members on other forums and here, owning both the BBHS silver diagonal and the T2 Zeiss prism did not indicate enough evidence (actually any..) to make me favour one between the two. 7) Finally, cost.. My BBHS silver mirror diagonal cost £330 new, a bit cheaper than the BBHS prism diagonal.

it's 2", but I have to say that given its size I expected it to be heavier (it's 451g).

I use the Baader BBHS silver mirror diagonal and this also works very well.

Who does use an Astrozap dewshield with this scope? I was thinking one for stray light actually... My Russian Monk hood works so well, that I believe the telescope might be happy with its own hood!

@BGazing What you said is true! My 2" eyepieces are 35 Pan, Zeiss zoom, and Docter (which natively works in 1.25", but I use an additional adapter with it). The latter two are used with the Baader VIP in 2" mode. If you will only use 1.25" eyepieces, you could get the DC now and in case you decide to move to 2" in the future, you could update the focuser with an FT one. Just an idea. I forgot to say one thing about the finder. I could attach my TV-60 to the other arm of the AYOII, and that would be a 4.3 deg FOV finder. I haven't yet tried this though.

That was my aim: building a system able to support both high magnifications and wide field views, with my set of 2" eyepieces.

Not yet, my AYOII is 1 month old! I've observed with it at high magnification though, and tracking was dead easy in my opinion.

Having tried the Tak clamshell many times, I don't see the single bolt as a potential issue at all. The telescope does not slide (unless one intentionally untightens the bolt), and the clamshell does not "open up" easily either. Personally, I don't see any reason to panic about the Tak clamshell. It's really well made.

LOL! A downside of spell checking programs on mobiles.. at least it made a nice joke! I apologise for this typo.. Edit: the "do" disappeared too.. "I can do star hopping" => "I can star hope".. interesting.. I might have to update my phone software..

Well, I don't use a finder because my 35 Pan gives 3 degrees of field making star hopping quite easy to me. I can also star-hope with 1 degree FOV without too much difficulty. As far as finder quick release shoes, FLO sell this: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adm-misc-mounting-accessories/adm-takahashi-quick-release-finder-bracket.html . I don't know if it fits the Tak FC100, but having dealt with them many times, I am sure they will give you a quick and complete answer. Permanently fixing the finder to the telescope does not look great to me either, as you said. Yes, I bought a clamshell 95mm (it's the short one. The long one is for the DL version). The clamshell should be a bit heavier than the rings I believe. For visual, the benefit of the clamshell is that you can easily balance the telescope by loosening and tightening the clamshell main bolt, rather than the mount clamp holding the dovetail. The clamp should weigh more than the rings, but it will allow you to use a short dovetail. It's a trade-off really and it depends on your preferences I feel. Personally I'm happy with the clamshell but I know that other members are happy with the rings. At least visually, the clamshell is more than adequate to hold the telescope firmly. My Tak + clamshell + Ayo + UNI19 has a vibration damping time of <= 1s (even when the central column is extended) in these windy days. Otherwise, it is just detectable, lasting a fraction of second.

Thanks for the advice about the chair. That was a temporary purchase until I figured out which tripod to get. My current tripod has a central column (see photo) so I don't need an adjustable chair. When that camping chair will come to an end, I will either use a normal chair or simply observe standing (which is my preferred way of observing). Now, back to your questions. >>> I have been looking and DC and DF and am trying to discern the exact differences. DC can be used in 2in mode, but it requires adapters. Any compromises associated with it, as opposed to 2in out of the box DF solution? Does it vignette? What about 2in filters? The only difference between the two versions is the focuser. The DF has a 2" sturdier focuser (the same as in the Sky 90), whereas the DC has a 1.25" lighter focuser. This difference makes the DF 0.7kg heavier than the DC. Also the focuser travel is shorter in the DC. You can get a rather expensive adapter to use the DC in 2" mode. I don't think the DC with this 2" adapter shows any vignetting. 2" filters can be screwed onto the diagonal nosepiece or at the eyepiece barrel. If you are interested in the DC, I would also drop Baader an email and ask them whether they have a 2" clicklock fitting the focuser of the FC-100 DC (which I believe is the same as in the Tak FC-76..). If they do make one, this could be cheaper than the Tak adapter and possibly even better. >>> Microfocusing is either Tak solution or FTF. FTF shorthens light path and some EPs do not focus and binos have to be used with a barlow. (Note: I do not use binos but am trying to be futureproof). Have I missed anything? Which solution is lighter? Shorter? Yes, the FTF light path is shorter but you should be able to reach focus with an extension tube. As far as I know the DC focuser can be shortened (there is one part in the focuser that can be removed, making the focuser rather short. The FTF should be the shortest one. I don't do binoviewing but I believe there should be enough path if one uses a Baader T2 diagonal and screws the binos directly onto the diagonal body (replacing the diagonal eyepiece holder). The DC and the FTF are lighter than the DF (we are talking about <= 0.7kg). I have so far lived without microfocuser, but I'm aware that other members find it necessary. Dunno, maybe my hand can micro adjust? There is a FT microfocuser which can be installed onto the Tak focuser. Not sure whether this is a good solution. I'd rather get a complete FT focuser rather than the separate FT microfocuser. Personally, if 2" eyepieces will be used, I would go for the DC+FTF or DF routes, rather than the DC + 2" adapter. The FTF will make your "binoviewing experience" easier because of the additional path, but you might need an extension tube with some eyepieces. The DF will not require an extension tube with 2" diagonal + 2" (or 1.25") eyepieces, but you will have to be careful with binoviewing combinations I feel. I don't know who observes with binos and the DF here on SGL. You could ask this on CN. There are a few Tak owners over there too. >> Finally, @Piero which mount did you choose and how does it perform. I am lookint at AYO paired up with Berlebach Report, not sure if it fits the bill. My mount is an AOK AYO II and the tripod is a Berlebach UNI 19 (like the 18 but with central column. I also added the leg spread stopper and double clamps). The AYO II is attached to the tripod via 3/8" UNC bolt. It seems a great mount to me. If you order one, be prepared to a long wait (nearly 6 months). I chose it because of the large bearings design. The mount is very smooth on both axes but the adjustment bolts can block them completely. The feeling I have when I use it, is to use what I believe would be a high quality dobson mount: smooth, but precise, with the option to tighten the axes completely if needed. With the Tak + accessories (~6kg), I don't use any counterweight on the other arm. No problem at all for this mount. Regarding the tripod, here is my research thread about the Berlebach UNI 19 (https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/305237-ideas-about-a-berlebach-uni-tripod/ ). Hope this helps, Piero