Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    SGL 2017 SP


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About SpaceWalker

  • Rank
    Star Forming
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Photography
  • Location
    US East Coast

Recent Profile Visitors

395 profile views
  1. Manufactured by Long Perng. Some variety of outfits. But the optics should be the same.
  2. John is right as usual, they seem are well-known 5-element Masuyama-like. For example, there is an older thread on CN discussing Kasais IIRC, Bill Paolini posted on CN he liked longer FLs better than TV Plossls and vice versa for shorter FLs.
  3. John, Thanks for sharing your experience. I knew that the Antares Orthos, UO HDs and BGOs are considered pretty much the same optically except coatings, but haven't had a chance to try BGOs in person so my gesstimates based on multiple positive reviews across the web like from Alvin Huey ( etc. It seems the grass as usual is greener on the other side of the fence . As for TV Plossls some experienced observers claiming that the older Plossls provide brighter images, for example here ( J.Gardavsky says that about the older 13mm and 21mm TV Plossls. I can guess that well known Okulartransmission( data from Markus Ludes showing high light transmission in the TV Plossls based on the older TV EPs.
  4. Excellent BGO collection, congrats on your find! Any owner of a good refractor can dream about it. With the time I more and more appreciate Orthos over Plossls. Even in my Dob they work really great, I don't care about the narrow field. Maybe it's just me, but Orthos show views slightly sharper than Plossls with more contrast
  5. I have the 7mm Antares HD Ortho. While I agree that the Antares HD Orthos are excellent and optically the same as the BGOs, they still differ being *Multi-Coated* vs *Phantom Multi-Coated* BGOs. Those famous proprietary Baader Phantom Multicoatings are, probably, what makes BGO stand out by adding just few percent extra transmission, IMO.
  6. It doesn't matter. The older 2" Meade 82*AFOV eyepieces as well as the ES82s are made by the same manufacturer, JOC, so the optics are identical. It's NOT the field stop. As John has correctly noticed the FS in many modern ultra wide angle eyepieces is buried inside, so your choice would be either to trust manufacturer's info if available or to disassemble the eyepiece for measuring the FS. Although, you can figure out the real AFOV in a different way. Hold the EP at arm's length directing it toward light source like a lamp and take a caliper into the other hand and measure the exit pupil. Than do math.
  7. I'm afraid that's not true. Check out the 24mm ES82 specs on the Explore Scientific website (, it says 33.5mm.
  8. IMO, one of the best planetary solutions could be a Zoom + 2x Barlow. That's what I used to do. It allows to dial proper magnification on-the-fly so you catch rear moments of stable seeing between turbulences which frequently last only 20-30 sec or even less. When you changing fix FL eyepieces you usually missing these moments. BTW, I have the 11mm ES82 and it works pretty good combined with my 2x TeleXtender at 218x on my 1/6 Dob when the seeing allows this magnification.
  9. I noticed the same thing and it puzzles me a lot. Until recently I thought Barsta is a manufacturer but now... I'm not sure...
  10. Dark, transparent skies cost $$$$$ Objective/Mirror quality cost $$$ Observers experience cost $$$ ................................... ................................... TV eyepiece(s) cost $ If you have dark, transparent skies I agree, even any decent plossl (Celestron, GSO) or *lesser* wide angle eyepiece (BST Explorer? ) on a reasonably small scope (e.g. ~100mm) will show you a lot. If you have LP poor quality skies, whatever eyepiece, TV or not will show you much much less even on a large Dob. If you can't *buy* dark skies than buy a larger scope. If you are not planning on buying a better, larger scope, than the TV eyepieces would be a good option and worth it. Everything is just my subjective opinion, I'm OK if others mileage will vary.
  11. Why do you want to burn your money on Go-To? Are you planning astrophoto? If you are it's a totally different story. But if you're planning visual, then why not getting a decent Dob like Messier 8" Dobson or even Explore Scientific Ultra Light Dobsonian 254mm? They are within your budget and you'll save some extra money on quality eyepieces. YMMV.
  12. Very nice guide! But the link to Messier Charts seems outdated. Everybody can try this Messier Finder Charts with the TelRad circles.
  13. As practically everybody has said above, for M31 (as well as for all galaxies) most important is not an eyepiece but a dark sky. A month ago I travelled to rural Florida with my family and got an excess to ~ Bortle2 sky. I had just my cheap Chinese 90mm f/8.9 frac. The best views were in my 32mm TV Plossl (25x, exit pupil 3.6mm, 2*TFOV) and 20mm ES68 (40x, exit pupil 2.2mm, 1.7*TFOV). Boy, it was amazing! All three, M31, 32 and 110, in a single field! M31 stretched from edge to edge and M110 was quite large and was shining like a street light . I usually don't see M110 in my red zone near DC even in my 8" Dob, and the others two look like just small blurbs. So, if you find a really dark observing spot I'm sure you'll be happy with what you have. Any eyepiece that max out your scope TFOV (2*52') will be appropriate, be it the 25mm ES100, 30mm ES82, 31T5 or 40mm ES68. But it makes sense if you have access to a dark sky, IMO.
  14. Hi Ruud, Thanks for the useful info. Sounds good to me. I wanted to upgrade my 6.5mm Meade HD-60, so I'm considering the 6.5mm Morpheus as a most appropriate candidate. The HD-60 works excellent in my f/6 Dob, no complaints except that the 60* views look a little bit claustrophobic after looking through 82*AFOV eyepieces. I can get a used 7mm Nagler T6, but prefer slightly darker background and higher contrast provided by shorter FL eyepieces. As for the 12.5mm Morpheus I can skip it and get the 11mm ES82 instead. Clear skies.