Highburymark

Same here in London - clouded out

Just a word of warning. If you struggle to merge properly collimated binoculars, it’s very likely you will struggle with binoviewers too. So if you can possibly test a pair first it might save you a significant amount of money. Even some of the most experienced observers have trouble with them - so it’s not uncommon.

That’s the problem Neil - every etalon is different, as Peter has highlighted. I’ve seen some single stack scopes that perform like double stacks. It’s become a cliche but it’s luck of the draw. The best advice if you’re buying new is to choose a retailer with a good returns policy like FLO, just in case you get a lemon - though these are pretty rare these days, particularly with Lunt. The LS40 seems to be a particularly good scope going on forum reviews alone. The other option is to wait for the right secondhand scope to come up, which they do fairly often. This also gives you the opportunity to try before you buy, so you know what you’re getting.

There’s a double stack filter for the Lunt 40 being launched - don’t know if that would be in your price range but I’d take that over a PST double stacked if possible. If that’s too pricey, then personally, I’d go for a Lunt 50 SS over a PST DS, and wait to save up in the future for a secondhand Lunt 50 DS filter, no matter how long it takes. In the meantime you’ll still get nice views - in particular of prominences, which are stunning in single stacked scopes, although you’ll get less detail of surface features like filaments. But the Lunt 50 will also give you more resolution than the PST - and it’s considerably better built. The PST is really showing its age now, and the customer support from Meade is patchy since the company’s financial problems a couple of years ago. So my decision would be to go for the Lunt 40DS if affordable, and if not, LS50, with a view to double stacking in the future.

They must be DFs, I reckon Jeremy. The DCs have the extra section before the focuser, and the DZs have dew shield screws. Do I win the nerd of the day award?

They can be - I had a Baader MkV which was very heavy, but the cheaper pairs (WO/Celestron/OVL/TS etc) and the more expensive Maxbright II are reasonably light - you can compare weights on FLO’s website and those of other retailers. Most people use smaller eyepieces with them to keep the weight down. Having said this, even the lighter units still require a good focuser. I’ve had a couple of scopes with stock focusers that weren’t robust enough for binoviewers. Then there’s the issue of working out which BV/barlow/EP set ups come to focus in your scope. Lots of research to do - but the views are very much worth it.

Fantastic - I’ll be interested to hear how you get on with the eye relief. I’m hovering above at the moment with the 5mm to avoid any contact with the lens, so not quite seeing the field stop - but am finding it’s relatively easy to hold the view.

I haven’t compared them tbh Gerry - I tend to use them for different functions, and physically changing from an extender to a barlow during a session is a bit of a kerfuffle. I’ve heard good things about the ES 82 degree range at shorter focal lengths - at least as sharp as Nagler T6s.

I do Gerry - I have a VIP too and my feeling has always been that exceptional eyepieces don’t stop being exceptional with the best barlows and extenders. I think I remember Bill P saying the same thing once with barlowed orthoscopics. I stopped believing in the minimum glass rule when I first looked through a six element TOE.

Highest power I generally use with my TSA-120 is 360x with the TOE 2.5mm. The 5mm XO (although some say it’s 5.1mm) will give me 180x - perfect for average evenings. But I bought it for better than average evenings! So I have the 1.5x Tak extender which will bump things up to 270x. Yes, it’s more glass, but then it turns the TSA into an F/11.25 planet killer.

I’ve reported this elsewhere several times, but I find XWs and Delites impossible to split at planetary powers. If you want width, go for the XW, if you want smaller size and weight, go for Delite. There’s a tiny bit of edge false colour in the XWs, but otherwise, both ranges are pretty much perfect, even in an F/6 scope. However, the TOEs (and presumably the HRs) clearly show intricate planetary detail more readily than either, as long as seeing is steady. What will be interesting is establishing how well the XO performs in this company. The main drawback with the XO is obviously eye relief - the TOEs are very comfortable by comparison (10mm ER rather than under 4mm), but it’s easy to hover above the lens so you’re not touching it with your eyelashes, but this really requires a tracking mount, as I only see (an estimated) 60% of the fov. To see the field stop, you need to get much closer, and make sure you don’t blink. In fact the 2.5mm XO has a tiny bit more eye relief than the 5mm.

Congratulations Gerry. Fantastic find. Look forward to hearing your impressions. I’ve just bought a 5mm XO, but haven’t had chance to use it yet. I’m a big TOE fan, so will be interesting to see how the XO compares.

Fascinating - thanks for posting. Must say I have always found those incredible photos from the Russian Venera probes in the ‘70s and ‘80s among the most enigmatic of all planetary images. Didn’t realise they had the odd sunny day on Venus.

Nice job Neil. That paint tin looks suspiciously like the treacle tins of my youth. I’d end up poisoning myself if that was anywhere near my kitchen.

Stunning collection!

Go for it. We’re seeing lots of chromosphere activity and will do for a few years yet in this cycle - solar Ha is the most compelling form of astronomy in my view. Yes it’s expensive, but the technology is complex - and what a privilege to be able to study our own star in such detail.

Agree with pretty much everything above. I am now 100% binoviewing for solar WL and Ha, and lunar. About 50% planets. Good Plossls and orthos are perfect, unless you want width. And then - if you can stretch to the Baader Maxbright II over the WO - it’s a big step up. NOT - I hasten to add - in sharpness or quality of views on axis, but in pretty much every other respect. It bears repeating, the optical difference between a £180 and a £1300 binoviewer on axis is very slim. But it’s vital to pick the right solution for your scope and needs. Binoviewers and associated eyepieces become as personal to the user as a pair of spectacles.

Beautiful image Ian. How are you finding the RST-135?

A modern take on an old pirate’s telescope - image intensified.

Have followed your posts on this scope with great interest Paul. Given half the chance (darker skies, more space), I wouldn’t hesitate to buy one too.

Ha ha - brilliant idea Gerry. 4x DS100s on a TOA binoscope. Fact that you don’t really need apo colour correction for hydrogen alpha is a mere irrelevance. In export markets, where Solarscope prices are around double those of the UK, that would be some outlay.

A TeleVue 4” refractor with double stacked Solarscope 100mm Ha filters. The ultimate solar scope. Can’t complain too much though - it was a dream to acquire the smaller 70mm pair for a TV85 when I discovered, to my surprise, that they were actually cheaper than the Lunt 80 here in the UK.

I know what you mean Gerry. It’s amazing how often we see the phrase “experienced observer” used in product advertising - though never explaining how or when to qualify for such a lofty position. I think if a novice with good eyesight is educated about the targets he or she is seeing, with a decent enough scope and conditions, and has the patience to allow detail to gather, then there’s no reason to presume a more experienced observer always sees more.

And speaking of mounts….. Skytee 2 with ADM clamp is a superb, affordable, rock solid option for slo-mo alt-az. I have one on a heavy duty camera tripod and it’s all I need, even with 120mm triplet and binoviewer.

I’ve been amazed at the capabilities of this little mount over the years in Stu’s posts. I had a similar one for a while, a mini giro, but the WR seems exceptional for its size