astronoam

I'm considering the PanaView EP as a wide field finder for a Skywatcher 120ST f5 achromat. I read somewhere that it is a little soft on the edges but I hope it will be reasonable for what it costs and a significant upgrade to my 25mm Plossl. I'm aware that there are better options out here but currently don't want to spend more. 

Which one is the better option, the 26mm or the 32mm?

Which one has better optics?

Should I choose the 26mm due to its lower weight or smaller exit pupil?

My scope is attached to an eq2 mount and I plan to upgrade to a 2inch diagonal.

Any thoughts?

Thanks @JTEC , I'll update if I'll find something interesting.

58 minutes ago, JTEC said:

You said that the 6mm eyepieces don't work well with the Barlow - perhaps there’s a technical/optical reason for that but just as likely, imv, perhaps it’s because, with the equivalent of a 3mm eyepiece in there, you’re pushing the magnification too high with your scopes and conditions especially on those targets. I think timebandit has it right on this. And I think John’s idea of a zoom could be a really useful one and help you clarify just how far the mag can be pushed on different targets before quality begins to decline and extra ‘power’ becomes counterproductive. This would also help you determine whether a shorter focal length eyepiece is really what you need and, if so, how much shorter it’s reasonable to go. 

The reason I believe I can push it further to 4mm is the view I got from this little thing that came with the 120ST that I bought 2nd hand:

Although nothing to be proud of, it was surprisingly better than the soft image I got the same night with the Zhumell 6mm + Celestron Omni Barlow.  This is why I believe a decent EP, let's say the ES 52 4.5mm will still work on this setup.

I understand a zoom + Barlow is a nice combination however I want to keep my setup lighter, I have a 6mm that I like very much and believe it is better than a zoom EP with a Barlow (I'm not talking about the expensive TV stuff...).

1 hour ago, JTEC said:

Could I ask why you are ruling out the Barlow option?  Barlows have a number of advantages not the least of which is to allow the use of longer focal length eyepieces which, generally speaking, are going to be more comfortable to use than, for example, shorter orthos than the ones you have. 

The 6mm that I have is quite weighty and also didn't work very well with the Barlow.

I also have a Meade UWA 8.8 but didn't try with a Barlow yet, I'm afraid that together with the bulky Barlow it will make my scope even less steady, but I'll try it soon.  I also find it less comfortable to switch between EPs, which I do quite often.

One thing I do consider it to thread the Barlow to the back of the diagonal, this way it might be less noticeable, WDYT?

I'm quite surprised no one here recommends the ES 52?! 🙄

7 minutes ago, Philip R said:

Hi @astronoam and welcome to SGL. 

Unfortunately the two major gas giants, i.e. Jupiter & Saturn are low down for Northern latitudes for a few years more, so views are far from perfect. 

I too am no expert on this, but here is my view/opinion. I once said to myself, years ago, I would never purchase a zoom eyepiece [the TeleVue Nagler 3-6mm zoom was an exception] I did purchase a 'cheap' 7-21mm zoom from AstroBoot. Many zoom eyepieces, the AFOV tends to get narrower with higher magnifications at shorter focal lengths. However, for 'grab & go' or to experiment different with focal lengths, they give you an idea of what a fixed e/p length can deliver magnification wise before purchasing a 'fixed' length e/p.

 <--- my 'cheap' 7-21mm zoom

 <--- the TeleVue Nagler zoom.

Thanks @Philip R , @Louis D

I believe the TV zoom is a good solution, however it's *very* expensive!

I already have two nice 6mm EPs that I use for this task, I feel that adding just a little more power will be fine. Considering what I read before including @BGazing's comment to limit power to 4mm I will either get the ES 52 4.5mm or the TMB planetary 4mm (they also have a 4.5mm).

Which one you think will do better in my humble f/5 scopes? 

I know that Explore Scientific gained themselves a good reputation and the 52 series is quite affordable but their reviews is a mixed bag...

On the other hand the TMB clones are only 20£...

Thanks for the info, currently I'm not looking for another scope... maybe in the future.

Any advice on which EP is more appropriate?  I can manage with or without the glasses.

Thanks

Hi guys,

I have two f/5 scopes - a SkyWatcher 120ST (120/600 Achromat) and Orion SpaceProbe 130ST (130/650 Newtonian). 

I'm looking to get the best possible view for planets, especially for the SkyWatcher which I use more often even though the Newtonian is a better fit for the task but less portable.  I'm quite happy with the view of Jupiter and Saturn using my 6mm Zhumell Z EP or 6mm Ortho EP however I want more power without a Barlow.  I wear glasses that corrects astigmatism but must take them off to read and lately I found out that it is more comfortable for me to use the scope without them?! (I can't really explain this, maybe the astigmatism is not noticeable on higher magnifications?).

I'm currently considering getting one of these:

1. Explore Scientific 52 series, 4.5mm - I know this company has very good products however I read mixed opinions on the 3mm, probably some QC issue.

2. BST StarGuider 3.2mm - this series is highly appraised on the forum but maybe this is too much? (0.64mm exit pupil)?

3. TMB Planetary clone 4mm - probably the best value for money (~20 pounds)

I understand that with a 5mm I get 1mm exit pupil which is recommended but this only gives me 120x magnification and I hope for more...

Which one will you recommend?  I don't have a chance to try before buying.

Thanks in advance