Louis D

And that exact amount would be, what???? I get exactly 3x using the Meade 140 nose piece on my Arcturus binoviewer, so probably 100mm or so of separation. By itself as originally packaged, I get 2.4x. Both of these measurements were with a 14mm Pentax XL that focuses pretty close to its shoulder.

Admiral, there be whales here! 🐋

Rick Singmaster of Starmaster Telescopes preferred using teflon pads riding on FRP (Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic) wall board (or glass board) for the azimuth bearings.

Each eyepiece focuses at a different point relative to its shoulder or reference plane. Those requiring an extension tube have their focus plane below the reference plane. An alternative to the extension tube is to add an extension ring to the filter threads and add rubber O-rings to push the reference plane downward as I did with my 12mm NT4. This made it nearly parfocal with most of my other eyepieces that focus very close to their shoulder.

I also took a group shot of all my eyepieces, Barlows, and binoviewer for good measure while I had them all out.

I was never satisfied with the LG G5 "full view" images, so I did some research and found that the LG G6 has a much better ultrawide angle camera. It's slightly narrower in field of view (125° vs 135°), has higher resolution (13MP vs 8MP), and is much lower in noise and artifact levels. It's still considered a 2mm f2.4 lens. I finally snagged a used one for cheap in excellent condition for my needs (it can't read a SIM card). I then proceeded to retake all of my ultrawide angle AFOV images under the same conditions as before, edit them, scale them to match the image scale at the center of the older Samsung Galaxy S7 images, and substitute them for the older LG G5 images. All of the original Samsung Galaxy S7 images soldier on because I couldn't improve upon them with either LG's regular wide angle camera. There's also a few new eyepieces in the mix that I have acquired since I posted the first batch that I decided to include. I also retook all of the group shots since so many had new members. This time, I took them with their eye cups folded down where possible to make it easier to see their eye lenses. Without further ado, here they are in one mega post. 3.5mm to 6mm eyepieces: 6.5mm to 8mm eyepieces: 9mm to 10mm eyepieces: 12mm to 12.5mm eyepieces: 13mm to 15mm eyepieces: 16.7mm to 17mm eyepieces: 18mm to 22mm eyepieces: 23mm to 28mm eyepieces: 29mm to 30mm eyepieces: 32mm to 42mm eyepieces:

I saw that as well, but it doesn't prevent me from wanting to collect one someday if I won the lottery. 🤪

Having a big objective lens at the front of a telescope does not generally equate to a wide field of view. It does equate to more light gathering ability as compared to a smaller front objective. On camera lenses, sometimes a large front objective lens does equate to both a wide field of view and large light gathering ability as with the old Nikon 6mm f/2.8 fisheye lens:

I'm assuming one with pure ammonia and no abrasives or sealant waxes.

The refractor will cool down considerably quicker than the Mak. If you can get the refractor for the cost of a new Mak, I'd go that route. The 80ED is roughly double the price of the 127 Mak here in the states.

We just affectionately refer to him as Sir Paul.

Or ditch Crayfords altogether and get a Bellerophon Clement focuser for the C14. It is well reviewed here on a C11.

Since the Newtonian's field of view is flipped and reversed, it's a 180 degree rotation if your head's major axis is perpendicular to the tube. As I always like to point out, if you walk around to the other side of the tube and look over it into the eyepiece with the crown of your head pointing to the ground, the view is correctly oriented, assuming the tube is parallel to the ground. Thus, if you rotate your head 180 degrees, you counteract the 180 degree image rotation. If you were observing at zenith with your head rotated 90 degrees to the eyepiece, you'd have counteracted 90 degrees of the rotation. So, simply subtract the number of degrees your head is from being completely perpendicular to the tube from 180 to figure out how much the image is still rotated. For instance, at 45 degrees altitude, you'd be 45 degrees from perpendicular, so 180-45=135 degrees of image rotation. At 60 degrees altitude you're still 30 degrees from parallel to the tube as at zenith, so 180-60=120 degrees rotation. Only observing at the horizon will you truly be 180 degrees rotated. I'll let you work out whether the rotation is clockwise or counter-clockwise.

And then you'll think, "Hey, I'll just ATM a telescope from this objective lens!":

In that case, it looks a bit like copper sulfate pentahydrate.

I use the same tripod as the OP from 11 years ago did/does, a Manfrotto 475/475B or 058/058B. I picked them up used for $75 and $150, respectively. Check for the older Bogen numbers as well, 3036/3236 and 3051/3251, respectively, to save even more money. You might save a bundle on them. The black versions are cooler looking, but the silver versions are generally cheaper on the used market. I like the variable angle spreaders on them so I can level them without extending the leg sections. I always observe sitting down, so height isn't an issue. I also like the cranked elevator for changing eyepiece height between horizon and zenith observing. The 26 pound capacity is nice when I have my DSV-2B, 90mm APO, and 127 Mak all together on it. Add in 2" diagonals and either ES-92 eyepieces or binoviewers, and the weight adds up pretty quickly. I'm pushing the limit of what that elevator can handle. I'd like to get a Bogen 3058/3258 or Manfrotto 161MK2/161MK2B for their 44 pound capacity. I have no idea how today's flimsy photo tripods can claim 33 pound capacity as in the case of the Sirui AM 284. That's 7 pounds more than the Manfrotto 475. Can a 3.5 pound carbon fiber tripod really be that much stronger than a 9.5 pound aluminum tripod?

Just a guess, but the blue film is probably caused by oxidation (rusting) of whatever element was used to coat the glass for whatever filter effect they were going after. It kind of looks like cobalt blue mixed with copper green.

I bought a version of this lens spanner wrench for such jobs.

The 18mm and 25mm are not as well corrected to the edge as the 12mm; so you'll need to temper your expectations with them or risk disappointment, especially with an f5.5 achro.

Okay, I did so sleuthing on the Levenhuk Ra version of the 68° Long Perng LER eyepieces. I came up with the following: Review of 14.5mm on CN Ernest in Russia's testing/review of the entire line. Both seem to agree that the 12mm and 14.5mm were the standout performers of the line. They were also sold as the Omegon Super LE and Altair Astro Lightwave Premium LER.

My daughter is the main recipient of my gift giving. However, they're given with the understanding that if she doesn't want to use them anymore, they come back to me since many of the items are impossible to find nowadays.

Using a smartphone camera, the 40mm would yield a circular image with most wide angle cameras. You'd have to use a telephoto camera to fill the frame. A 32mm Plossl would work just as well and yield both more image scale and a larger image circle. My favorite for afocal photography is a 22mm 70 degree AT AF70 which is the same as the Omegon Redline SW. However, it is 2" only. The long eye relief, wide field of view, and good image scale really come together in it.

Older coatings, but still excellent lens polish. I've read about many folks raving about the 7mm NT1 for planetary observing. Both will have short eye relief. Try them out and report back here on your impressions of them.

Could you mount an 8x50 RACI finder scope on your OTA? That might help you see the object in a wider field after goto and make centering easier.

You'll have to see what affect the FR has on planetary details at high powers when some planets are better positioned. Did you try looking for the E and F Trapezium components with and without the FR? That would also be a good test.