Louis D

I can vouch for the 20mm Redline working well in a 127 Mak: The Orion is a poorer performing, but wider AFOV, SWA design for comparison. f/12 is pretty forgiving on eyepieces.

Apparently, that bino accepts standard 1.25" eyepieces. So, the SVBONY eyepiece would probably fit. Whether it would come to focus would be an entirely different question.

I've never tried the 14mm ES82, but I do have the 12mm ES92. The ES92 is nearly perfectly sharp and flat of field to the edge at f/6. I would imagine it degrades slightly at f/5. I have strong astigmatism in my observing eye, so I need to wear eyeglasses at the eyepiece. The ES92s have just enough eye relief to comfortably take in the entire field of view with glasses on. As far as I know, the ES82 series does not. I've read multiple reports that the ES92 series is sharper than the ES82 series, though not quite as sharp as the TV Ethos and Nikon NAV-HW series. It all depends on what you want or need from an eyepiece and what your budget is as far as deciding to which to buy.

That Meade green filter is so much brighter than my #58 green filter, and no wonder. Look at the spectral response of the #58: It peaks at just over 50% transmission in the 520nm range, and is much lower everywhere else. It would be nice if someone made an interference filter passing the range from roughly 490nm to 630nm to filter out most of the poorly focused light in an achromat: That Chroma green filter comes close if it was just a bit wider on the right side.

Here's the spectral response of the Meade green filter. Despite not stacking it with the IR cut filter, it pretty effectively cut visible red: By itself: Stacked with IR cut: I'm guessing my eye is not very sensitive to red light at 725nm and higher, but I can try stacking them sometime to see if there is a difference. It would be nice if the green passband were shifted a bit further to the right like the Chroma version to better correspond to the eye's peak color sensitivity: However, I only paid $30 for the set on clearance, not $1700 like the Chroma set; so I can't complain too loudly. 😁

I use a momentary switch that has to be held down for the laser to stay lit. A laser pointer on the ground seen at that altitude would appear about as bright as the full moon at most. That, and the angle would not be conducive to entering the cockpit. If it was at low elevation and the airplane on the horizon, the extinction of the beam would be even higher. I was out tonight trying to use my QuikFinder because I didn't have a mount on my ST80 for a laser, just a QF mount. OMG, what a pain just trying to sight in Venus! I kept looking over my glasses while trying to stoop low enough and twist around enough to see up through the QF, making it nearly impossible to sight it in. Not an issue with a laser finder.

I just got in a #12 Yellow and tested it out tonight on Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, and Luna in my ST80 (80mm, f/5). I had my AT72ED mounted on the other side of my DSV-2B mount for comparison. I used matching Celestron Regal 8-24mm zooms in each to speed up matching views. I also tried a Minus Violet pale yellow filter that is lighter than a #8 Yellow, a Zhumell Moon & Sky Glow, and a Meade interference green filter intended for imaging. My recollections: Unfiltered: Saturn looks best. Least affected by unfocused violet and red, needs all the light it can get due to dimness. Luna has a distinct violet cast, but is otherwise decent. Venus and Jupiter look terrible. I could make out Venus's crescent shape, but it was blurred. Jupiter had no banding visible. Minus Violet: No effect on Saturn. Luna gets a bit less violet and a bit more yellow, slightly improving sharpness. Venus and Jupiter showed no improvement. #12 Yellow: Darkens Saturn too much without improving anything. Luna gets noticeably sharper, but strongly yellowed. Venus sharpens up nicely. Jupiter looks better, but unfocused red now intrudes excessively, blurring bands and other fine details. M&SG: Darkens image, does nothing to remove violet. Nothing looked better with it. Saturn is way too dark to observe. #12 Yellow and M&SG: Cuts a bit of the yellow cast on everything, but noticeably darkens bright objects. I'm not sure it improve sharpness or contrast on any target since it doesn't cut unfocused red. Green Interference: Saturn is sharpest, almost matching the AT72ED. Luna is sharp, but not much different from #12 Yellow. Venus is very sharp, cutting through atmospheric dispersion of red and blue. Jupiter is nearly as sharp as the AT72ED. Belts and a tiny moon (Io?) just off the edge are clearly visible with no unfocused violet or red. The high transmission of this filter in a broad green band is a good match for the achromat's characteristics. Overall, though, the AT72ED stomped all over the ST80 despite giving up 8mm of aperture. The ED scope wasn't perfectly color free since there was a bit of a red/green rim on Luna, but it didn't seem to affect sharpness much. However, if you're willing to heavily filter bright objects, the ST80 can produce sharp images. It also works fine on dimmer objects like Saturn without filtration.

See my post above yours. Some older folks like myself simply can't twist their back and neck like they used to be able to due to injuries to either or both.

I can't twist my back and neck around to use my Telrad and QuikFinder at altitudes above about 40 degrees anymore. I can be on target in under a second with a laser. It's pretty easy to scan the sky for blinking aircraft lights before turning on the laser. You'd have to be near deaf to not hear a helicopter unless it was moving at a high rate of speed, which they rarely do. I can hear them from inside my house with windows closed. Also, resist the temptation to look for the exit beam at the front of the unit when the battery is low. It can blind you in an instant if you get on axis with it. All it takes is a bit of common sense to use lasers safely outdoors. A bigger threat to aircraft this time of year are the Christmas laser projectors that miss the side of the house and shoot 100mW or higher powered beams into the air continuously. All it takes is a passing storm or careless kid to knock them backward and aim them at the sky.

At the risk of restating the obvious, but because a few folks new to Pentax XWs don't realize it, the eye cup twists upward to position your eye at the correct distance from the eye lens. As a result of not knowing this, they struggle with the long eye relief. I thought I'd mention it just in case.

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

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.

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

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.