mikeDnight

I'm not sure as regards imaging, but visually Wrattan 11 (yellow) is popular. I've found that blue 80A works well too. Something I have noticed several times in the past, is that filters somehow seem to reduce the effects of atmospheric turbulence. (Not sure why that would be). I generally try to observe Venus while its still set against a blue sky. Once the sky creates a dark background the planet can be difficult. Also, the higher the better, as when close to the horizon you're looking through miles of turbulent atmosphere, making it a difficult target at any phase. As Venus approaches us and the phase becomes a thinner and thinner crescent, its challenging but great fun to try and follow it until its as close to new as possible.

Hi Jaydee. Another option would be to get just one really good eyepiece and a barlow this year rather than two mediocre ones. If you were to buy a 17.5mm Baader Morpheus you'd have a spectacular eyepiece for deep sky. At 17.5mm it would give you a power of ~ 69X, and if you were to use a 2X barlow you'd get 137X. Not at all bad for great lunar views!

The 10mm Pentax XW is superb having great contrast and orthoscopic clarity and sharpness. A 9mm Baader Morpheus may be too much power for your needs but the Morpheus is also a spectacular eyepiece.

That's very sad news. Hopefully because of the distinctiveness of the telescope, it should be instantly recognisable should it pop up anywhere.

Very impressive Paul. Just 25 more letters to go!

I think the dark shadow may well be visible Stu, but how dark is dark? Im reasonably confident ive seen the shadow but that its very subtle, partly because its not that much darker than the valley floor, and partly because its overpowered by the brightness of the north wall. That's my theory for what its worth! Trying to see the rille shadow will make an interesting little project this spring.

The Alpine Valley had always been on my Wish To See list, until one Sunday morning back in 2003/4 (can't remember which), at around 3am, I saw it for the first time in my Tak FS128. The moon was high but I was in an uncomfortable position as the tripod was low, so not a great experience. I have been lucky enough to see it several times since both in an SW 120ED but oddly with more success through my Tak FC100DC. On one occasion in the spring of 2018 I was observing the central rille using my FC100DC with binoviewer, barlow and a pair of 15mm Vixen LV eyepieces (the best view I've ever had of it to date), when I had a call from Paulastro, who was also seeing it. Paul was using a 127mm Maksutov at the time and was buzzing with the same excitement that I was. I think liberation as well as seeing plays an important roll in determining whether the rille will be visible or not. For the most part it looks like a fine broken bright line to me, perhaps because the Sun is striking the northern wall of the rille, but on the occasion Paul phoned, the rill was the most complete I've ever seen it. I've heard it said that smaller apertures are less affected by atmospheric turbulence than larger scopes, and so perhapse that works to the smaller scopes advantage. Whatever the reason, I'd say to anyone who hasn't yet seen it, keep looking. With the high spring moon soon to be upon us and the milder nights, sure success is bound to eventually reward those who persevere.

I've always felt there's more oomph in a scope than the numbers suggest. When looking at linear features who's width is below, and sometimes well below the resolution limit of a scope for example, is often resolvable due to its length. Many lunar features and ultra fine divisions within Saturn's rings are good targets when pushing a scope over the presumed limit. Jupiter and Mars also reveal very tiny but fascinating details when the seeing allows. Infact I spend a lot of my time really studying things so as to try and tease out the most intricate, or most subtle detail which could be considered as being at the very limit of my scope. It's amazing fun, and as a consequence I've been rewarded with very many unbelievably breathtaking views. My friends who observe with me have the same mind set and use their scopes to their limit, and on occasion, beyond. Interestingly, we all tend to use scopes of relatively small aperture as our preference, currently 3" to 4.7". Ours are all refractors, but as your own observations are proving, Maksutov's can play this game too. You obviously have a very good and capable scope in your 4" Maksutov, and perhaps you are a lunar observer but you just don't know it yet. It's addictive, so tread carefully!

I'm all for buying from the used market, and may be I've been very fortunate, but I can't remember ever being sold a pup. I may look at things through slightly rose tinted spectacles, but I feel the vast majority of astronomers are a genuinely honest bunch who look after their precious kit. I don't use much in the way of electronics, so there's not much danger of me ending up with a faulty item, which may be no fault of the seller. Out of all the eyepieces I use, 17 in total, only six have been bought new, yet all are mouthwatering jewels. I must have saved a small fortune buying used.

My interest in all things astro began long before any telescope arrived on the scene. As a small child I was fascinated by programs like Fireball XL5. I remember being woken by my dad and standing in my little striped pyjamas in front of a blazing coal fire, watching the moon landing in 1969 in black & white. I was 7years old. Around that time I remember my first, lone, astro expedition, where after I'd noticed a crescent moon in the south west while looking from my bedroom window, I thought I'd walk down the road until I saw the moon from beneath rather than from the side. It seemed logical to me that if i could see it from underneath, it would look like a cheese triangle. Thick or what!? Anyway, suffice it is to say I never managed to get beneath the moon. In 1979, while traversing the no man's land that was later to become the M65 motorway, (I made this journey every night to visit my girlfriend), id be transfixed by the sheer blackness of the night sky and the brilliance and beauty of the stars. I bought a little observers book of astronomy by Patrick one saturday morning, and the following weekend i bought Guide to the Moon. I read that book from front to back in six and a half hours without moving. Life for me was never the same after that. From then on its been as if astronomy was flowing through my blood. It's an illness! My first telescope was a 60mm Astral refractor which I bought in 1980 from Dixon's for £130.00. In 1983 I bought a 4" F10 achromat from a local telescope manufacturer, but it wasn't the best. It had some false colour issues, so in 1986 I bought my first really serious scope, a 4" F13 Vixen achromat. That was a great scope! During my stint at university I sold my Vixen to fund text books, (I told you I was thick!), and very quickly began to miss my Vixen. I somehow ended up with a 6" F15 Schmidt Cassegrain made by the same manufacturer who made the iffy 4" achromat. It too wasn't up to much. So in 1999 I bought a 120mm Helios Achromat. That was a nice scope, and after being starved of a good scope for a few years I soon fell in love with it. Then came a 150mm Helios Achromat, at which point I felt I'd reached my goal of owning a big refractor. But that didn't last long. 2003 saw a Takahashi FS128 fall through my letterbox 2007 a Takahashi FS152. 2008 a TVNP101 2009 a SW 120ED followed by a SW 120Equinox ED, followed by a SW100 ED, and yet another SW 120 Equinox ED. Then back to Takahashi in March 2015 when I bought a Takahashi FC100DC. And that's where I've stayed ever since. Just the one beautiful little fluorite refractor. Oh I almost forgot, I've also got the loan of a 10" F6.3 Dob.

Nice images Paul. I like them all but I particularly like the second one with the dark clouds beneath the moon. There's just something sexy about it!

Very pretty Paul.

I suppose it boils down to how you define a "good achro". Today with a high number of Chinese chromats in circulation among amateurs, its highly likely that most believe they have a "good achro" in their possession, and if all they use them for is low power sweeping of dso's, then they probably could be classed as "good". But how well do they do when compared alongside a doublet ED? In 1999 i bought a Helios 150mm F8 achromat and it was a wonderful scope for star fields, comets and deep sky objects. The moon and planets looked amazing and the colour fringing that everyone seems to complain about, was to my mind, very well controlled. Then on one Saturday night in January 2003, someone donated a Vixen FL102 doublet apo to my local astro club. When I arrived at the club there were three refractors lined up outside the main observatory building, a 150mm Helios F8 achromat, a 100mm Tal achromat and the Vixen fluorite. It was still twilight and all three scopes were aimed at Saturn low in the east. All three showed a very similar level of detail, but I was confident that as Saturn got higher in the sky the 150mm would wipe the floor with the other two smaller scopes, after all aperture is King!? Well it isn't! The 102mm doublet fluorite all but destroyed the 150 F8 achro and the Tal, so much so Infact that I can't remember ever wanting to look through the 150 again after that night. When a 102mm scope reveals voyager like views while a 150mm shows a much more subdued view, there's a serious rethink needed. The 150mm was a nice scope, and its optical figure was good too showing perfectly straight ronchi lines and perfect diffraction rings, but it was no match for the Vixen. It was akin to Les Kellet vs Bruce Lee.

From a visual observers point of view, the SW 100ED when in focus is pretty hard to distinguish from a good triplet or fluorite doublet. Around ten years ago my now late friend Phil almost begged me to swap my SW Equinox 120 ED for his essentially perfect triplet. The views between the two were to all intents and purposes identical when in focus. The Equinox was considerably lighter though, and more easily manageable. I loved my Equinox and so declined his offer. I loved Phil like a brother, and whenever we were together it took only a few minutes before we were laughing our sides out, usually over the silliest little things. I would have liked to have helped him out but from experience, I knew that the bigger the refractor gets the less I'm likely to want to use it. I'm probably the odd one out on SGL in this regard! Phil & his 127mm triplet

I'm just too lazy to log out.

The world famous amateur Leslie C Peltier had the use of a beautiful 4" Mogey refractor that was loaned to him for variable star observing by the AAVSO. His book Starlight Nights, The Adventures of a Star Gazer, has a lovely chapter about it. I'd love to use a Mogey like the one in the pic above, but I think I'd take some convincing it would be worth $21,000+.

I'd really like to see Vixen increase their HR range. The ones I've used have been truly superb, and surprisingly comfortable. I haven't yet tried the TOE's but read that they are from the same manufacturer that made the Fujiyama's, but Tak have effectively ended the Fujiyama ortho flow. Apparently they did the same with the Masuyama clones, so they could use that design for their LE's. Luckily the pseudo Masuyama's come up for sale secondhand from time to time at rediculously low prices, and are every bit as good as the Tak equivalents.

Wonderful image all the same Paul.

That's very pretty! And the scope and mount are beautiful too!!

Nice to see what you've been upto over the year Nick. I haven't logged the number of sessions I've had for a few years now, but its a nice habit to get into as it can be surprising to see just how many opportunities we have to observe. An imaging friend once grumbled that here in the UK we hardly ever get an observing opportunity. So I began logging my hours and did so for a number of years. I surprised myself at the time I spent at the eyepiece and was able to prove the uk wasnt as bad for clear skies as some might believe. As an imager, my friend undoubtedly has chosen a more difficult and somewhat more stressful aspect of our hobby to follow, and I recognise things must be more difficult for him. As for me, I'm just grateful I'm happy to look through an eyepiece at anything that's on view. This year I had a good start but it fizzled out a bit as summer came along, and I became distracted with other things. As a consequence I've only made sixteen sketches, which for me is a bit shameful. 2020 is almost certainly going to be a better year for me as Mars will be high and large. Also, when the spring Moon arrives on the scene, I know my get up and go will return with vigour.

They really are beautiful though, and you might not notice it so much if you buy one at a time. e.g. Add to basket, add to basket, add to basket.......etc, etc.

I think this is a really good question. There's so much talk about colour correction these days that many might conclude that it alone determines a refractors performance, and even put some off ever choosing a refractor. Also, the high demands of imagers, who naturally want the purest image from their scopes seems to have somehow leached into the visual observers realm, where miniscule levels of residual CA is by no means as important. The human eye is nowhere near as sensitive to CA as todays imaging cameras, and in most good refractors is barely noticeable, if at all. At times it seems that all astronomers look for in a refractor is false colour and they will use everything in their arsenal to find it. The truth is that even a good achromat can give any modern apo a serious run for its money, if its made well. A good doublet ED or fluorite doublet will bring all the colours so closely together that the image can be termed apochromatic. Many older apochromatic triplets, even from top end manufacturers such as Astro Physics, show more CA than many of today's ED Apo doublets, so the fact a scope is a triplet is no gaurantee of Apo performance. Most of today's ED doublets deliver such great views they are entirely capable of giving a lifetime of flawless enjoyment.

I had a spell with Takahashi LE's some time back and have owned quite a number of them, but some suffered from some of the worst internal reflections I've ever seen in any eyepiece. I own none now because I don't trust them any longer. Also, the 30mm LE had its eye lens set so far down the barrel that I'd to force the body of the eyepiece into my eye socket to see the full field. And to top it off it was left standing by a 30mm circle T Erfel. The pseudo Masuyama 's such as the Meade 4000 Japan version are from essentially the same design as the LE's but don't suffer from internal reflections. In fact they are exquisite eyepieces, especially considering the low cost. Others of the same design are Parks Gold, Celestron Ultima's, Orion Ultrascopicsand Baader Eudiascopics (all Japanese). I read somewhere - probably on CN - that Takahashi somehow took control of the design for use in their LE's, effectively halting the manufacture using the other brand names.

I used to have only Televue but now have none. Pentax XW's were my favourite for a long time, but even they gave way to more simple designs. I now use Masuyama clone pairs ranging from 35mm to 7.5mm in a binoviewer and they are exquisite. For high power high definition I use Vixen HR eyepieces, while Baader Morpheus are my choice for wider field viewing.

Grab it and run! 🏃‍♂️