F15Rules

"You have a beautiful set-up there Dave! Your 103mm makes my 100DC look pathetic!" Er, I don't think so, Mike.. mind you, I'd love to do a side by side comparison of the two, that would be interesting! Dave

That tripod and pier extension is a work of art, Steve Dave

Great pics Jeremy..I really think the C8 looks great in "refractor white"! Dave

Lovely John☺. The goto handset on the Bresser reminds me of how big mobile phones used to be!! That must have been very cool back then.. I suspect your lovely ED102SS will have to be prised from your cold hands many years from now?. Dave

I have loved Vixen telescopes and mounts for nearly 30 years. I think they are a very underrated brand, and they have (and still do) produced some of the best, most accessible amateur scopes and mounts ever. From achromats to reflectors, mak-cassegrains to apochromats, they have offered, in my experience, excellent optics, understated but attractive build characteristics and very pleasing instruments. Their Super Polaris, Great Polaris and GPDX mounts were the original (and best, IMHO) affordable equatorial mounts, much copied, but not bettered for longevity and quality of engineering for the price. I have owned the following models: SP102m, Custom 80m, Pulsar F13 102mm all achromats), and 2 ED103s doublets...and 2 wonderful GP mounts. I'd love to see your pictures of Vixen scopes past and present, of whatever type, and with any anecdotes or stories about them that you are happy to share. Here is my starter, my ED103s doublet, seen here fixed to a CG-4 mount with a Takahashi FS102 clamshell. It is optically excellent, very lightweight and portable, and makes me smile every time I use it. Looking forward to seeing yours Dave

Just superb Jeremy! Dave

That's s lovely setup?. Dave

I think the thrust of this thread is that the Mission Controller needs a rocket up his solid fuel booster! Still it's given us all a lift to watch it... Dave

Depends what you mean by "travel"..if you mean airline carry onboard travel, then fair enough, but if you mean travelling to a dark site by car, then I think both scopes are "portable", whether fixed or sliding dewshield. And the same for "grab and go" portability. In those applications there would be no reason to keep unscrewing the dewshield. I'd actually love to see a 4" F12 or F13 Fluorite doublet being offered..now that would be a special planetary and double star scope - and blow the portability? Dave

I suspect that if the optics are clean and well collimated it would hold its own very well ?

Great story Mike☺. Thanks for sharing! I had an ED120 for a short time, but didn't get on with it. I also had a DS Pro, and didn't fall in love with that either. It must be me, as I know there are loads of paid up fans of the ED120 on SGL. The Tak, Vixen and D&G are the ones that really got to me..

Below is my old GP mount which was a pleasure for me to use. Only sold it to help finance my Tak. Great, well engineered mounts ☺. Dave

One more..

Mike, that FS152 is magnificent! I assume that you sold on your FS128 when you acquired the 152? How much of a step up is the 152 Vs the 128? A couple of shots of my 128, my first ever Tak, complete with EM2 mount☺

Pystab, If you read this,how did you get on with your Vixen GPE mount? Pictures please?? Dave

Many congratulations John! A wonderful thread which I only saw this morning. I was rivetted. I know I'll never see the HH through my 5" apo, but what is the smallest aperture you have heard of it being seen through? Another question..do you observe through your Dob always standing up? Or for lower down objects can you do it seated? I always find I concentrate better and keep my head more still when I can sit down. I think that one of the things that's always put me off reflectors was the (for me) discomfort and awkward angles for viewing that I experienced the only time I owned a reflector an 8"Helios Newtonian (not a Dob). And I only had a couple of sessions before concluding it wasn't for me. I guess I maybe need to try again, with a Dob next time, and give it more chance. Certainly it's the only way I'll really be able to step up in aperture. For now, though, my fracs keep me very busy on the all too short and all too infrequent sessions I get?.. Thanks again for sharing that wonderful report! Dave

Mmm...nice aperitif Mike. What's on the main course????.. Dave

I had an hour outside last night in sub zero bright moonlight. I was checking out the Plato area on Luna and also M42. The seeing wasn't much good, neither was transparency, but I just wanted to get outside for a bit. Specifically, I wanted to compare the Pentax SMC zoom with my 7mm and 10.5mm XLs. The conditions were tough on all the eyepieces..I am only the most casual of Lunar observers, and I tend to usually just have a 5 minute scan around and then move on to something I'm more interested in. Last night, I didn't have much choice, given how bright the moon was, as so many favourite objects were pretty washed out. Anyway, I had a good look at the Plato area and I thought all 3 eyepieces did well, but the 7mm just made the shimmering of the atmosphere all the more apparent. The 10.5mm was better, but the zoom really was the best choice last night, having the flexibility to dial in different mags without swapping eyepieces about. I saw some nice detail in general, but no sign of any craterlets, the conditions and brightness of the 3/4 full moon being just too much, washing out the contrast almost completely. M42 was a similar story, but again the zoom at between the 24mm setting down to the 12mm setting was best on the night. Actually, the view at 24mm was lovely, the one I enjoyed most. It looked almost like a photograph, with the nebula framed beautifully against a surprisingly dark sky and the Trap fully resolved into 4 sharp individual points, with the bat wings clearly evident despite the moons' proximity. And this was a FOV of only 40 degrees, yet it never felt tunnel like. Each time I use the Pentax zoom I like it more and more. Yes, it's a big eyepiece, but with it securely held in the Baader clicklock the zoom action is very smooth, and the build quality is the best of any eyepiece I have owned IMHO. I see that FLO have a brand new SMC zoom on their sale at £296 at the moment..considering a single XW new is £249, to me that price makes this zoom wonderful value. Add a decent SWA Pan 24mm, LVW 22mm (my choice), or ES24mm and you could have some great observing sessions with just two eyepieces?. Dave

Mmm...A full set of LVWs, nice!! Dave

Hi, I believe the optical quality is very close to that of the fixed length Pentax's. I'd sum up the pros and cons of the zoom as follows; Zoom Pros. - Versatile, just dial in any magnification from 8mm to 24mm to suit the prevailing conditions - save time having to swap out various fixed length eyepieces - optically very good. In particular does not suffer from FC as do the 14m and 20mm XWs. Contrast is very very close to the XWs IMO, maybe 96-97%.. - eye relief is a minimum of 18mm and a maximum of 22mm (source: Ricoh website specifications). Very comfortable at all settings. - Superb, exemplary build quality- maybe even a notch above the XWs.. Zoom Cons - Big and heavy compared to fixed length units (zoom is 550g Vs 405g for the 7mm XW...shorter FL XWs are heavier than the 7mm but here the 7mm is the nearest magnification match to the 8mm-24mm zoom)..see photos below, for scale, of left to right the Zoom, 7mm XL, 10.5mm XL, and Vixen LVW 22mm..Note:. My XLs shown in the photos are slightly different dimensions to the later XWs, but very similar for the purpose of this comparison☺. - Narrower field of view versus XW and XLs. This is the single biggest negative against the zoom. In fact I honestly believe that if the FOV range was more like 50-65 degrees these zooms would have sold in much higher numbers. The XWs are slightly wider field (70 degree) than the older XLs (65deg). I personally find the difference very slight. - not so much a Con, as a note of interest. The zoom, being JIS4 water resistant, has an internal O ring seal which can make the zoom rotation seem a little stiff. The solution is to mount the zoom in your diagonal or focuser using a Baader clicklock 2" to 1.25" reducer. This grips the zoom very tightly and really makes zooming in and out very easy. Note on Prices - although not cheap to buy new (£329 currently), that one zoom eyepiece covers 4 individual XW focal lengths (7, 10, 14, 20mm), each of which new (assuming all are still available) would cost £249 each, or £996 for the set! As used buys, you should get a zoom for c £250, whereas used XWs average around £170 each, or £680 for the 4.. Hope that helps?. Dave

Yep, I moved on my XW20 due partly due to its field curvature (though not as bad as the XW14), but mainly after extensive side by side comparisons with my then newly acquired LVW 22mm on M42. To my eyes the LVW definitely and absolutely is the better eyepiece. The Pentax short FL versions are superb though (both XW and XL versions). I have today received a 7mm XL and already have a 10.5mm, which is a wonderful eyepiece ?. With a 12mm XF and my Pentax SMC zoom, almost half my EPs are now Pentax..but the LVW22 is a keeper! Dave

+1 for that logic. I can barlow my Pentax XL 10.5mm to c 5mm (Baader x2.25 Barlow) and I've just bought a 7mm XL which I can Barlow to c3.1mm ?. Dave

My EP set has changed in the past week, but still contains 6 brands (including the Barlow). I needed to raise some cash, so sadly the 2 Tak's had to go..but I found 3 lovely but much cheaper ones to replace them and am looking forward to first light.. From Left to right, back row: Genuine Burgess/TMB 3.2,mm, 4mm, 5mm, Pentax XL 10.5, XF 12, Baader Zoom Barlow X2.25 From Left to Right, front row: Celestron Ultima Wide Angle 15mm (rare), Vixen LVW 22mm, Revelation Superview 30mm, Pentax SMC zoom 8-24mm... and a pretty spare Tak diagonal for good measure.. And my mismatched pluck foam kind of matches my mismatched eyepiece set?. Dave

I know many people like the symmetry and order of a single brand eyepiece line up. Personally, I go by what I think are the best eyepieces for optical quality and for my needs at a given time. I know from experience that you can't assume that all eyepieces in a given range are as good as each other. For example, take the Pentax XW range.. few would argue that the XW range is a top class one, but I am convinced that (in my scopes, to my eyes), the shorter 5,7,10mm focal lengths are noticeably better performers than the 14 and 20mm versions. I've found a similar situation with the LVW range (in reverse, ironically, with the longer LVWs outperforming the shorter ones, but with less of a difference to the XWs though). Budget also plays a part for me too, as does field of view. I don't mind a narrower field for high power, as I view planets, moon and doubles mainly, whereas at lower powers I do like a wider field (the widest I have ever used is a 76deg Morpheus). So, much of this is, I feel, subjective... going back to the original post, my current lineup consists of: Tak 3.6, 7.5mm, Pentax XL 10.5, XF 12mm, Pentax SMC 8-24mm zoom, Vixen LVW 22m and GSO Superview 30mm..so, quite a variety of brands. I also have a Baader Hyperion zoom 2.25x Barlow. Interestingly, the Tak's, Pentax's and LVW are all pretty much parfocal to within a mm or 2 of each other. But even if they weren't, I'd rather turn my focuser a bit more but have the views I want, than have less good performance but with perfect parfocality?.. Dave

I agree Alan. I didn't get on with the 12mm SLV I tried about a year ago. I actually preferred the NPL (albeit at 20mm and 30mm) !!?? But I know the SLVs are highly regarded by many and completely respect that..you just never really know if an EP will suit you until you spend an hour or two under the stars with it. And that is just as it should be.? Dave