Louis D

I would get a 50mm RACI finder and a 2 or 3 to 1 finder bracket so you can continue to use the RDF as well.  At 1500mm and using 1.25" eyepieces, I find the FOV is insanely narrow.  In my experience, the finder often gives a more pleasing view of the context of small objects seen in the main tube.  If you mount the RACI finder in the lowest position foot (left-most for this mount), it balances better on the mount as well by putting it more in line with the altitude axis.  Keep the RDF in the farthest right (top-most) foot to keep it from interfering with your use of the RACI.

In the future, you may want to upgrade to 2" accessories with a Mak to SCT thread adapter for the rear port, a 2" visual back, a 2" diagonal, and, of course, 2" eyepieces.  Sure there is vignetting to the tune of about 40% light falloff at the edges, but the wider views with the same scope are so worth it.  The below images taken through my 127 Mak give an idea of just how much the view widens going from a widest field 1.25" eyepiece to a widest field 2" eyepiece as well as the level of vignetting:

On 24/01/2021 at 11:51, Second Time Around said:

Celestron 8-24mm.  The version I bought was the spotting scope one, called the Regal, so it might be different to the astro model. The first thing I noticed was that it was even less parfocal than my Baader.  In fact, none of these 4 zooms are parfocal to my aged eyes, but might be to someone younger.  The field of view was also smaller.  What disqualified it completely for me though was that it wasn't threaded for filters or screw in Barlows.  I therefore returned it without further testing.

Yes, sorry it didn't work out for you.  However, I don't get on well with the BHZ because even with the eye cup removed I can't take in the entire field of view with eyeglasses which is not the case for the Celestron Regal with its eye cup removed.  I guess the non-parfocalness never bother me since it is no where near as bad as the Speers-Waler 5-8mm varifocal zoom.  Since I rarely use filters, the lack of threads is a complete non-issue for me.  When I do want to use them, I just use a fixed focal length eyepiece for monoviewing or screw them into the nose piece of the binoviewer to avoid buying two.

On 24/01/2021 at 11:51, Second Time Around said:

Both the Celestron and Baader have a 43mm screw thread under the eyecup to which a Dioptrx can be fitted.

I'm pretty sure the upper thread is 37mm.  There are generic 43mm to 37mm step down rings that could be added to adapt it to Dioptrx.

On 30/04/2021 at 12:11, starboy71 said:

hi,no i never got the chance,the views are quite nice of the moon zoomed in...but zoomed into say M42 it has a dark ring around the centre...same with the beehive cluster too...it`ll do for now though,i have some other ep`s that i fall back on.

Vignetting?  When you say dark ring around the center, how far out percentage wise does it extend?  I guess what I'm asking is it more of donut of darkness with brighter images inside and around it or does the darkening extend all the way to the field stop.

14 hours ago, Ags said:

One EP that might match my criteria is the Svbony 23mm 62° (barlowed), but I know very little about that beastie, except that it is ridiculously cheap and apparently has a plastic aspheric lens.

I use a pair of them 3x Barlowed in my binoviewers to good effect.  With the eye cup pulled off, there's enough room for eyeglasses.  Since the top is an engineered plastic, there's little risk of scratching eyeglasses on it.

Even at f/6 in my AT72ED field flattened refractor, the images are pretty decent and should meet your criterion of sharp in the middle and softer at the edges.  Just don't try to ever clean the eye lens because it is a fairly soft plastic and is prone to damage.  As such, always wear eyeglasses when using it and you'll be fine.

Here's a comparison of it with other eyepieces in that focal length range from my collection taken with a cell phone camera through the eyepiece:

On 24/01/2021 at 11:08, Philip R said:

You could always get a TeleVue Apollo...  if you have a spare £1k+ 🤔

I think they're sold out of the 300 piece limited edition production run pretty much everywhere.  So, unless you can score a used one, I don't think so.

Upgrade to either a decent zoom or some Starguiders or Paradigms (depending on where you buy them from).  The 5mm, 8mm, and 12mm would be my choices of that line.

3 hours ago, iapa said:

Neither the poster that I replied to don’t live in the USA, and in the UK there are regulations covering price rises including on existing stock.

In the USA I understand there is also regulation to cover price gouging, at least where prices are increased by >10% in a state of emergency.

I can't Imagine enforcing those new old stock laws on ebay where people pick up new old stock from store foreclosures and estate sales.  Who knows how much a 45 year old, unused socket wrench set originally sold for in the 1970s.

1 hour ago, CraigT82 said:

Good for you. You must be very proud of your stuffed furniture.

Very! 😁

Watch out for the pitfall of getting a scope that takes a fair bit of setup.  I find I use scopes that can be hauled out in one go more than scopes that require several trips and some assembly outdoors.  I've read of others as well who use scopes less that require more assembly.  If you can carry a fully assembled C8 SE out the door in one trip, more power to you.  I find it too awkward and top heavy to do that.

1 hour ago, Piero said:

Like this? 😁

 

Honestly, my girlfriend is actually happy about having it in the living room as it looks nice.

She only asked me not to store both this 16" F4 and the other 12" F6 next to each other! 

Looks less like a living room and more like a mud room/entry foyer.  Our living room has oodles of stuffed furniture, television, gas logs in the fireplace, etc.  It doubles as a home theater.  Different floor plan entirely.

Using a 14mm Pentax XL which focuses at the shoulder as near as I can tell, I get 2.4x natively for the Meade 140 2x Barlow, 1.6x with the nosepiece screwed into the filter threads, and 3.0x with the nosepiece screwed into an Arcturus binoviewer's nosepiece.

I've never tried it screwed into my WO 1.25" diagonal alone, so no measurement there.  I did manage to get 1.0x using the nosepiece spaced 45mm ahead of a 0.5x focal reducer which was then screwed into the front of the binoviewer.  That leads to field curvature, but a nice wide field of view.

21 hours ago, iapa said:

I believe that’s illegal these days.

Why?  Last I checked we don't live in a state run economy.

15 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Yes. With the C9.25 my usual mag was x235 and very rarely x296. In the last few weeks I've been routinely using the 120mm close to x300. Even with some loss of contrast and smearing due to CA I was seeing the same level of detail or more. The C9.25 has twice the resolving power but can't actually do it in the real world, even when the optics are really good. It can with imaging, which is why you see such good planetary images taken with it. It's all down to that big obstruction and how it affects MTF.

Try resolving M13 or M22 to the core with each.  I find there's no substitute for aperture for globs.

4 hours ago, Piero said:

The telescope is left assembled in the living room

My wife would kill me if I left my 15" Dob assembled in the living room.  Perhaps if I get a second home in retirement I can find a spot for it there to leave assembled.

I just find it relaxing to get outdoors, under the stars once in a while, and just wander around the sky with a scope (or two).  I know roughly where the "good stuff" is and take another look at them once in a while; but really, I just need to unwind and get away without ever having to go more than a few feet from my back door.  I also enjoy comparing equipment being an engineer by education and practice.  It can be a fairly technical hobby and dovetails nicely.

My wife also likes her "me time" while I'm outside not bugging her.  If I'm having a poor observing night due to weather or bugs and come in early, she acts rather disappointed that I'm done so soon.

Some people get away by camping, hiking, horse back riding, riding bikes (motorized or not), 4-wheeling, boating, etc.  I do it without much advance planning or travel.  Sure, there are those who pack up everything and travel to dark site or star parties on a regular basis, but that's not why I got into astronomy.  I can travel thousands to millions of light years without ever setting foot outside my backyard.  Merely looking at internet images isn't remotely the same.  I read APOD daily, but that hardly diminishes my desire to look directly at the heavens above us.

4 minutes ago, Pitch Black Skies said:

I wonder are you effectively only paying for the name with the Orion or are maybe the coatings different?

I'm sure you're simply paying for a different name imprinted on them.  To get a different lot run with different coatings would be prohibitively expensive for a single retailer.  Besides, you'd hope that the designer optimized the coatings and wouldn't vary them from lot to lot.  The exception would be Tele Vue which has been known to update the coatings on their older eyepiece lines as newer coating technologies have become available/affordable over the past four decades (their Plossls were introduced in 1980).

1 minute ago, johninderby said:

Orion products are generally quite a bit more than the same product under a different brand at least in the UK.

In the past, at least, you were paying for their no questions asked, no restocking fee return policy.  They're more expensive than other retailers in the US as well.  Despite that, their version of that zoom is still quite a bit cheaper than the BHZ.

Baader products are quite a bit more expensive in the US than in Europe.  The BHZ is $289 most places and $325 on Amazon.  It's $213 from FLO (when VAT is removed to have an apples to apples comparison since US retailers don't include sales tax in their prices because it varies from locale to locale).  That's a $76 to $112 difference right there.

The Stellalyra zoom is $172 from FLO, making it only $27 less expensive than the Orion version.  The BHZ is an absolute bargain at $213 from FLO by comparison.  If I wanted one, I'd probably cross import it since that avoids sales tax and is well under the $800 daily duty free import amount into the US.  Even with shipping, it's only $229.  That's $60 less than the best US price with free shipping and out-of-state/no sales tax.

13 minutes ago, Pitch Black Skies said:

I think I read that Orion had a version of the BST Starguiders too, but we're a lot more expensive. I could be wrong though.

19 minutes ago, johninderby said:

The Orion Epic II ED and the Starguiders are the same eyepiece, just a lot more expensive.

 

They used to sell them, but I think they dropped them because everyone else was selling them for $60 apiece every day when they wanted $60 to $100 apiece depending on their sales.  FLO sells the entire set of Starguider eyepieces for $335 shipped to the US, making them only $48 apiece.  Not many Americans have realized this relative bargain.

On 27/04/2021 at 18:21, Pitch Black Skies said:

It's looks well but I'm wondering if it would be better to pay the extra £30 or so for the Baader zoom.

In the US, the BHZ is $125 more than the Orion version of the Stellalyra zoom, so I'd probably get the BHZ if you're seeing such a small difference in price.

You could also try removable wheelbarrow handles.

From what I've read, a lot of NV observing is at low powers (1x to 3x using Galilean camera telephoto adapters) to enhance naked eye viewing of the night sky on a grand scale.

On 27/04/2021 at 14:47, Stu said:

I’ve been an Ercole ‘snob’ 🤪🤪 for a long time, seemingly immune to the lure of the SkyTee 2 with its rugged (agricultural?) manufacture but strong reputation for capacity and stability.

Now that I've seen how poorly they're made (zinc(?) castings that break under normal loads?), it's almost an insult to equate them to agricultural equipment.  I grew up around farms in Iowa and all the farm equipment there was very robustly made from steel.  Any castings were also very durable.  That's not to say things didn't break, but it was generally due to getting a large rock or similar in the workings.

2 hours ago, johninderby said:

Rowan did say they would like to bring out a lighter mount but with them being so busy it will have to wait for a while. 

I've noticed most custom astro shops always trend toward the high-end over the long run because it has the highest margins for the amount of work put in.

Similarly, just about the only passenger vehicles made in the Detroit area nowadays with full union labor are high end pickup trucks and large SUVs that start in the $70,000 range and go up from there.

14 hours ago, Roy Challen said:

Yeah, this kind of alloy usually has high zinc content.

Reminds me a lot of the metal used in die cast tractor toys.  I've read it's a zinc, aluminum, magnesium, copper alloy.  The Chinese may be having issues with zinc impurities causing zinc pest.

Makes me glad my DSV mounts are CNC machined from solid 6061 aluminum and use stainless steel fasteners throughout.  No castings or welds anywhere.

If they have an x at the end, just multiply it by the focal length or focal ratio to get the final FL or FR.

If they say f/6.3, it's really an 0.63x R/C because it was assumed it would be used with an f/10 SCT.

55 minutes ago, CraigT82 said:

The input box asks for ambient temperature in centigrade. US users would have to do their own maths! 

Or blow it off and mess up everything because they can't be bothered. 😉 😁

20 hours ago, CraigT82 said:

Quite helpfully, Astrobin allows user input of the ambient temp at capture... 

 

Is that in C or F?  For US submittals, does it autoconvert from F to C?