Louis D

On 01/12/2021 at 12:38, bomberbaz said:

Cancelled my appointment. I am not prepared to risk making things worse having read some reviews on an NHS website Ratings and reviews - Optical Express - NHS (www.nhs.uk)

Based on those reviews, it appears this isn't 100% covered by NHS?

3 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

I strongly disagree.  When I reviewed a scope several years ago that used a William Optics Binoviewer as standard equipment, adding this Barlow to the binoviewers increased chromatic aberration horribly, added horrible spherical aberration, and added astigmatism and vignetting.  It was a trainwreck.  Adding a simple GSO Barlow was much better.

Sounds like my Arcturus supplied GPCs/OCAs/Barlows.  Both powers are abysmal.  Why are they even supplied if they are so bad?

Sometimes, the cost of a premium upgrade is truly worthwhile.

6 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

The Nirvanas are made by United Optics and available under many labels, including Meade and Stellarvue.

They are made in 4mm, 7-8mm (some companies say 7mm, others say 8mm), 15-16mm (same as the 7-8mm), and 28mm (2")

And, apparently, 10mm and 13mm when Astronomics gets their new ASTRO-TECH 10MM UWA 82° and ASTRO-TECH 13MM UWA 82° eyepieces in stock.

3 hours ago, John said:

And before those Axioms, there were these Axioms

 

 

Yes, that's why you'll notice I was very careful to always say Axiom LX to avoid confusion.

Celestron also had/has both X-Cel and X-Cel LX eyepiece lines to also create similarly named products confusion:

vs

And the Ultima, Ultima LX, and Ultima Edge:

vsvs

Notice a pattern of Celestron reusing names?

2 hours ago, rwilkey said:

Hi Dave, thanks for clearing that up, I assumed they were the same because they look the same.  What I like about the Axiom LX's is that the central part of the eyepiece (the eyeguard) can be twisted up by turning the body, it was quite a novelty to me at the time when I had little experience with ep's.

I think the change from Celestron Axiom LX to Luminos occurred at about the same time that Meade switched eyepiece suppliers, around 2013.  This was about when Celestron was bought by Synta, Meade was bought by Ningbo Sunny, and JOC focused sales through the Explore Scientific brand.  I'm guessing Synta and Ningbo Sunny didn't want to continue buying eyepieces from a direct competitor (JOC), thus the change in suppliers.  The Luminos look very similar to the Axiom LX while the newer Meade 5000 UWAs looked identical to the older ones, just with a few new focal lengths quietly added and some quietly discontinued.  I have no idea if Synta and Ningbo Sunny made them in house (less likely) or contracted them out to another supplier (more likely).

4 hours ago, bosun21 said:

Thanks for the thumbs up for the ES. I had no idea that the luminos Ep’s had received negative reviews. Looks like I’ve pre ordered the wrong ones 

As I recall, edge of field brightening (EOFB) was a big deal for early adopters.  EOFB makes the edges brighter and less constrasty than the center.  Thus, it makes seeing nebulosity more difficult.

The Luminos line is also less well corrected off axis than the preceding Axiom LX line in faster scopes.

18 hours ago, maxys said:

I have a question. Got a tmb optical planetary ii 4mm. My first EP aside from stock sky watcher units. It feels and looks solid and very well made but something rattling inside. I suspect lenses are not properly secured? Did you have same with yours? Should I return it as defective?

It probably just needs a retaining ring to be lightly snugged somewhere.

Lucky (or unlucky) for you, the BHs were designed to be separated.  Unfortunately, it leads to dust getting inside as you've found out.  Most likely, they're on the bottom of the bottom lens of the upper section or on the top of the top lens in the lower section.  Use a bright light at an angle to the glass to get a better look.

Sounds like you'll do fine with those eyepieces.  You might want to add a 1.25" Barlow to get to higher powers without breaking the bank.  I won't make any used recommendations because I'm sure the Finland used astro market is nowhere near as robust as the one here in the US.  Others on here could probably recommend a current production Barlow of high quality for a decent price.

I use the nosepiece from a vintage Meade 4000 #140 APO 2x Barlow screwed into the front of the Arcturus nosepiece for exactly 3x.  They come up fairly often on astro classifieds over here for $40.  I have no trouble reaching focus even with a low profile focuser.  The views are sharp and high contrast.  Most, if not all, versions were made in Japan.

Another vintage option are the Celestron Ultima/Orion Ultrascopic/Parks Gold Series 2x shorty Barlows.  I picked up a copy of the Parks GS second hand and use it as is.  It works out to about the same magnification and seems just as sharp and contrasty as the Meade.  They're a bit more expensive than the Meade in the used market, but the Parks tend to go for less because folks don't know they're the same as the Ultima/Ultrascopic.  There's even the Antares 3 element APO version found mostly in Canada.  In Europe, it was sold as the Baader Triplet 2x.  I don't know what brand they were sold under in the UK.  All brandings of it were made in Japan.

I don't know how well the newer Taiwanese and Chinese made Barlows with detachable nosepieces work with BVs.  There are certainly high end Barlows that would probably work well, but I'm trying to keep the price around $40 to $60 while maintaining premium level quality.

1 hour ago, wulfrun said:

I used 3mm thickness of this (as recommended to me by @Tiny Clanger)

https://www.efoam.co.uk/closed-cell-polyethylene-foam.php

Probably not that useful a link to you over the pond but I'm sure you can source something similar. At the risk of stating the obvious, it needs to be thick enough to be rigid but not so thick it'll start obstructing the light path.

Thanks.  There's an equivalent supplier here (Foam Factory).  What sized sheet did you end up going with before cutting to size for your Heritage 150P?

I have to turn on CC for the new Doctor Who sometimes to figure out what she's saying when she starts talking a mile a minute.  Even then, she's using phrases unique to England that mean nothing over here, so it doesn't help me to understand it any better.  After replaying a phrase from the DVR several times, I'll finally turn to my wife and ask "Any idea what she's saying/she means?".  It doesn't usually matter because the dialogue is mostly a bunch of made up gibberish anyway and not really important to following the plot lines.

For about $60 to $70 (new price of 30mm NPL), I'll probably keep looking for a used 30mm Celestron Ultima/Antares Elite/Orion Ultrascopic/Parks Gold Series instead.  I don't really need one, but I've read so many good things about that particular eyepiece that it intrigues me.  They reputedly compete very favorably with the 32mm TV Plossl.  I'd really like to get a used 32mm Meade 4000 Plossl smoothie, but they're as expensive as a new TV Plossl.

To put this back on topic, what material have other folks been using to make their light shrouds for the Heritage scopes?  I'm thinking I might get one someday as a travel scope.

4 hours ago, vagk said:

I read somewhere here ( or in other similar forum, I don't remember where) that an ES 20mm 100° had fallen from the height of the telescope down and was not damaged.

It depends on what it hits at the bottom.  I've dropped heavy eyepieces onto grassy soil from 5 feet with absolutely no ill effects.  I would not try the same on concrete with any eyepiece.

Don't forget, the ES is also heavier than the APM by 290g (43% heavier).  The ES also has a bit less usable eye relief by having its eye lens more recessed.  I've never had an issue with non-waterproofed eyepieces relative to my waterproofed ones.

33 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

The more I use my Vixen 30mm NPL, the more impressed I am with it. Clear, sharp image, no coma and a huge eye relief. I reckon it would Barlow very well.

This isn't just a Plossl.... it's a Vixen Plossl!

Do these work as well as Tele Vue Plossls in faster (sub f/5) scopes?

48 minutes ago, Ian McCallum said:

By getting this second hand SW Evostar 120, I hope to have cured my refractor itch! 🤞🤐😄

I hate to tell you, but you'll need a "booster refractor" sooner than you realize as this "cure" wanes in effectiveness over time. 😉

28 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

But if you really have discovered a 90° AFOV Plossl, you might want to let us all in on it 🙂

It would probably perform even worse than my 29mm 90° AFOV Rini Modified Plossl (possibly a 3 doublet (6 elements) Erfle variant in reality).  It's the one second from the left below and second one down in the FOV images.

It measures out to have a legitimate 90° AFOV photographically.  Projection yields a wider and more inaccurate AFOV measurement because the lower barrel forms the field stop, and the projected circle gets quite fuzzy and indistinct near the edges, so I won't list it here.  Usable eye relief is 10mm, but it feels much less in use.  The edge is a blurry mess of astigmatism and other aberrations, so it is of limited utility.  I didn't pay much for it from Paul himself back in the day, so I keep it as a rather unique, hand crafted eyepiece against which to compare other UWA/HWA eyepieces.

It's ironic that it performs about as well or better than the 30mm Kasai Super WideView 90° (which is really only 83° AFOV) and cost over $400 20 years ago.  It was a bad 30mm Leitz 88° copy, was priced at a fraction of it, and was still a terrible deal.

One plus for the Rini is that it somehow has no chromatic aberration across the field while the Kasai has loads starting just off axis.  Check out the neat rainbow effect in the edge view of the Kasai.  I don't know of another eyepiece with that much chromatic aberration.

On 26/11/2021 at 01:29, ollypenrice said:

If you want to go all the way, these are the volumes you need:

https://www.amazon.com/Night-Sky-Observers-Guide-Vol/dp/0943396581

https://www.amazon.com/Observers-Kepple-George-Robert-Hardcover/dp/B010WF4B34

However, they cover many objects which require a large aperture at a very dark site so they may be overkill. Wonderful books, though, and well bound, which is important.

Olly

Hold off buying these second hand.  The AAS should have Willmann-Bell's existing new inventory available online in the near future once they've completed relocating it to an ecommerce fulfillment center.  Hopefully, the prices will be closer to the old new prices rather than the current used prices.

13 hours ago, cajen2 said:

Well, the super-deluxe (etc) light shield didn't last long - it tore tonight while I was setting up. Without it, seeing was problematic with a lot of reflections from street lights. One of the disadvantages of a skeletal dob, I suppose. Big shame as otherwise, seeing was good: even Sirius didn't look so much like a glitter ball!

So, job for tomorrow: make another light shield. If that doesn't work, I'll have to order thicker foam.

What material did you use?  I'd probably use ~1/4" closed cell foam sheeting.  There's even heat moldable versions that would retain their shape after cooling and not droop into the light path.

42 minutes ago, LDW1 said:

As usual when talking about these great scopes, these classics, a photo would be nice as a feast for our eyes, lol.

 

There, I added one for the Starmaster 7" Oak Classic from an Astromart ad.  It must have been a later version because it has a Zambuto mirror.  The earlier ones were equipped with Raycraft mirrors.

2 hours ago, BEC0MM said:

Annecy, a small city with bortle 3/4 sky only 30 minutes away.

Welcome to SGL!

WOW, what a picturesque town.  I'm envious.

If you're in the US, the 10mm Pentax XW goes for $269 right now while the 12mm ES-92 goes for $799, a huge $530 difference.  In fact, you could almost buy three 1.25" XWs for the price of one ES-92 (you'd need $8 extra).

Another possibility would be the APM Hi-FW 12.5mm.  You would still have great sharpness while remaining in a 1.25" barrel.  The price is $375 in the US and €247.90 in Europe, both excluding taxes.  This puts it in the XW price range.

Another possible "classic" would be Rick Singmaster's Starmaster 7" Oak Classic which was practically a classic from day one as its name boasted.  I rarely see them come up for sale publicly.  They generally never get sold until the original owner passes away or are privately sold among club members at many times their original price.  It has been imitated but never duplicated over the years.