Louis D

1 hour ago, John said:

666 - the number of "the beast"

 

I was thinking the same thing.  Coincidence?  I think not!

They're only $666 new here in the US, so $621 (converted) isn't much of a discount for us.

5 hours ago, JeremyS said:

At least the fact you got rid of them, John, means you won’t feel obliged to get the Apollo 11 ££££ eyepiece 😊

Im just hoping they’ve all sold out before I develop that urge 

I thought they already sold out some time ago, at least in the US.  Are they still available elsewhere?

You can always use an off axis aperture mask on a larger reflecting scope to see if the image improves.

In that price range, I would probably go down the Morpheus route.  I have the 9mm and 14mm, and both compare favorably to Pentax XW/XL and TV Delos offerings.  The 14mm is regarded as the weakest of the line, and yet it is quite nice in my experience.  I would probably skip the 14mm if starting fresh and get a 12.5mm and/or 17.5mm instead.  The 14mm and below are actually 78 degree AFOV eyepieces while the 17.5mm is actually 74 degrees, IIRC.

11 hours ago, Spacecake2 said:

https://www.celestron.com/products/8-24mm-zoom-eyepiece-125in

That version is a clone of the Vixen zoom, and is pretty well thought of.  It would be difficult to do better at $46.  If it doesn't work out, you should be able to easily recoup your money selling it on.

Which Celestron zoom?  If you provide a link to it, that would help.

4 hours ago, FLO said:

All StellaLyra eyepieces are manufactured in Taiwan by either Guan Sheng Optical (GSO) or Long Perng. 

Thanks for clarifying that.  I had been thinking Long Perng was Chinese like KUO, JOC, and JROIC.  I've been touting GSO products for years, so I'll add LP to that list as well.

Do you wear eyeglasses while observing due to astigmatism?  I've found most zoom eyepieces lack sufficient eye relief for eyeglass wearers.

As far as zooms, I pick up the older Celestron Regal 8-24mm zooms (also sold as Olivon) that came with ED spotting scopes.  I find them on ebay and CN classifieds for about $60.  Once the eye cup is completely screwed off, I can use them with eyeglasses.  Since I tend to use them with a Barlowed binoviewer, they perform pretty well across the field.

On 23/07/2021 at 03:54, Franklin said:

I had a Vixen Lanthanum 8-24 Zoom which I think is probably the same as the Stellalyra and it was brill. However, I did move on to the BHZ MkIV because of the wider AFOV.

🤔The Vixen looks nothing like the Stellalyra:

Not only that, they were introduced about 20 years apart into the market.  The Vixen was Japanese made as I recall, while the StellaLyra is Taiwanese made.

Not every eyepiece is suited for every focal ratio.  That's why we end up with a wide range of eyepiece focal lengths.

I tend to use my AT72ED at 100x and below.  Above that, purple fringing becomes very apparent.  Thus, the 4.5mm would be fine for your ZS73 which will show even less fringing with its FPL-53 glass.

With my f/12 127mm Mak, I tend to stay below 200x due to exit pupil issues.  Thus, the 6.5mm would be about the max for your C5.

Clearly, get both. 😁

Try repeating the lateral color test with a highly elevated, bright star to gauge just how much there is.  My 13mm AstroTech AF70 has the most LC of any mainstream eyepiece I own.  It throws up a very pretty rainbow starting at 70% out from center.

On 17/07/2021 at 14:23, badhex said:

I keep thinking about perhaps picking up another Morpheus in a shorter focal length like the 9mm or 6.5mm but currently have a full EP case... 

Sounds like it's time to start another eyepiece case. 😉

On 17/07/2021 at 14:34, Don Pensack said:

Hmm.

My 12.5" is coma corrected, so operating at f/5.75 (1826mm FL), and the Paracorr is known to have a slight field-flattening characteristic.  I'm 70, and my eyes are pretty much fixed focus at this point, and I see no field curvature at all in the 14 Morpheus.

That could simply mean the FC matches my scope, but if you do the calculations, my scope's field is essentially flat over a field stop diameter of the size of the 14mm, which means the 14mm must be pretty flat itself.

You aren't, of course, the only one to see FC in the 14mm, so I presume a lot has to do with the scope the eyepiece is used in.  It may very well be, like the 14mm Pentax XW, that the scope has to have a very flat field to yield a flat field in the eyepiece in use.

As has been written by others:

| (eyepiece)+ | (scope)= | (field you see)

| + ) = )

) + | = )

) + ) = |

All I can do is comparative analysis on this, and both the 12mm and 17mm ES-92s require no refocusing center to edge in the same scopes, and at a wider AFOV.  Neither does the 9mm Morpheus require refocusing for best edge image.

At f/6, the 9mm Morpheus is all but indistinguishable from the 10mm Delos as far as aberrations.  The Delos is maybe a hair contrastier and more pinpoint, but it is ever so slight and might just be me wanting to justify the higher price.  The 14mm Morpheus has detectable field curvature and chromatic aberration at the edge at f/6 with my fixed focus eyes.  Younger eyes probably won't see it.  My 14mm Pentax XL has much more field curvature, but refocuses to pinpoint perfection at the edge, unlike the Morpheus which has a bit of residual astigmatism at the edge.  20+ years ago, my 14mm Pentax looked flat field to my accommodating eyes.  When it came time to choose one to keep in the A-team case, those extra 13 degrees (I've measured the Morpheus at 78 degrees AFOV vs 65 for the XL) of field more than make up for this slight issue.

Long eye relief relative to a positive-only designs (Kellner, Plossl, Ortho, etc.) at short focal lengths, not long enough eye relief for eyeglass wearers, though.

2 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Would that work for an RDF ?

Probably a bad idea because you'll be looking in the direction of the sun to align it.  If you use a 6 inch or larger section to dim the whole region around the sun, that might work.

16 hours ago, saac said:

Is it the Belt of Venus ?      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_of_Venus

Jim 

Belt of Venus shows up most clearly in the opposite sky from sunset/sunrise.  The OP states it was in the NW sky, which would be in the direction of sunset.

3 hours ago, Ags said:

Tomorrow I  will figure out how to attach a finder.

There should be a black screw for attaching a finder foot to the left of the focuser rotation lock thumbscrew according to these instructions.  I assume you'll need to find an appropriate screw to replace the black screw once it's removed to attach the finder foot if it's similar to my AT72ED.  On it, the black screw equivalent is just a set/grub screw to keep dust out of the threaded hole.

It depends on your aperture.  You want about an extra inch or so all around for secure mounting.  Add 50mm to your aperture diameter and that's the minimum size you need.

3 hours ago, Ags said:

Red, black, yellow, silver and blue... My setup is more colorful than yours! If I get a purple Vixen SSW eyepiece and a green Skywatcher wedge, I will have all the colors 😀

Missing orange.  How about a vintage orange Celestron finder scope? 😉

Sounds like some of the big fracs that work their way around our local club.

2 hours ago, Stu said:

I use a Baader Coolwedge with a ND3.0 filter and continuum filter visually. ND3.0 is safe for visual, no need for ND5.0. A continuum filter knocks the brightness back to comfortable levels and also enhances the contrast on faculae and granulation.

Quote from FLO website about the two versions available:

Baader offers two versions of their Herschel Wedge: 

Visual V

The Version-V for visual use comes with a pre-installed ND=3.0 (required for safe viewing) filter and a 2" Continuum Filter.

Photographic P

The Version-P for photographic use is essentially the Version-V with three additional Baader ND filters (ND1.8, ND0.9 and ND0.6). The additional filters are handy for further dimming the image for white light viewing, or attaching to eyepieces or a T2-15 Reducer, and are particularly useful for imaging.

I suppose it's safe with just the ND3, but it's insanely uncomfortable for more than a quick glance.

I've used some of my Optica b/c color notch filters with my wedge and agree that they sufficiently knock down the brightness such than no additional ND filters are necessary beyond the built-in ND3.

My Hercules wedge came with a variable polarizing filter.  It works well to set a base brightness.  I can then spin the eyepiece in the holder to adjust it further thanks to the polarized light coming from the wedge.

The variable iris, though, seems useless.  I don't know why the designer wasted money adding it.  It's incredibly nice with lots of curved blades and a smooth action, but still unnecessary.

1 hour ago, John said:

The rig also works very well for outreach sessions. I feel that it is safer than an "over the front end" filter because, if the wedge falls off the back of the scope, the eyepiece goes with it and all the solar energy will just exit the back of the scope tube. I guess a singed crotch is a remote possibility but, so far, so good

Probably not an issue because the light cone will spread out again on the other side of the image circle.

2 hours ago, Ags said:

The most common one is a Herschel Wedge, which looks like a telescope diagonal, but it only reflects tiny percentage of the light to the eyepiece

Not true.  It actually reflects about 4.6% of the light impinging on it.  You still need about an ND5 filter equivalent in the upper part of the wedge to bring the light down to a safe level visually.  An ND3 is sufficient for astrophotography, though.  As such, most wedges are sold with an ND3 permanently mounted in the upper section to allow for photography and require you to use either a polarizing filter or ND2 filter to bring the light level down for visual use.  I've found an ND3 is too much and cannot locate a low cost ~ND2 filter.  If anyone knows of one, let me know.  I only know of the Baader ND1.8 for $49.  At that price, I'll just keep using my variable polarizing filter which is more flexible anyway.