Louis D

There's the new 8-24mm Svbony zoom on ebay/aliexpress that's been getting good reviews on CN for about $60 from China.

There's also a set of Plossls on aliexpress for $81 with a 2x Barlow that is similar in quality to the Celestron Omni Plossls.

16 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

Have you tried all of these:

brand	model	FL	AF	ER	FS	elements
Explore Scientific	82 Series	30	82	21.0	43.0	6
Masuyama	Masuyama	32	85	20.0	47.0	5
Meade	Series 5000 PWA	28	82	18.0	38.6	6
Meade	Mega Wide Angle	21	100	20.0	?	7
Meade	Mega Wide Angle	26	83	21.0	41.0	7
Omegon	Oberon	23	82	20.0	?	?
Omegon	Panorama II	21	100	20.0	?	7
Omegon	Oberon	32	82	27.0	?	?
OpticStar (Opticstar Brand)	XL Ultra Wide Angle	30	82	21.0	43.0	6
Orion	LHD	20	80	20.0	?	8
Skywatcher	Nirvana 82	28	82	18.0	38.6	6
Skywatcher	Sky Panorama	23	82	?	?	7
Telescope Service	UWA 82	28	82	18.0	38.6	6
Telescope Service	SWA	21	100	20.0	?	7
TeleVue	Nagler4	22	82	19.0	31.1	7
TeleVue	Nagler5	31	82	19.0	42.0	6

I have the original 30mm ES-82 which is just usable with eyeglasses thanks to the eye lens being flush mounted to the top.

I have the 26mm Meade MWA as I mentioned above, and it comes close to being a 25mm Morpheus except for the SAEP and CAEP.

I have the 22mm NT4, and it is also just usable with eyeglasses.  Perhaps I need to try removing the Instajust barrel to see if it is easier.

I haven't tried any of the 28mm UWA versions of the WO 28mm UWA.  None have their eye lens flush mounted nor have a greater than 30mm eye lens like the 30mm ES-82.

All of the 23mm/24mm UWAs have smaller eye lenses than the 30mm ES-82 and are recessed to boot.

I've read that the 31mm NT5 has slightly less usable eye relief than the 30mm ES-82 original due to the eye lens being the same size but not flush mounted.  Given it has CAEP like the ES-82, I'm not likely to go out and buy it any time soon.

The 21mm Meade MWA and similar have SAEP and possibly CAEP and overstated eye relief and AFOV, while not offering anything the 22mm NT4 doesn't already have.

The 32mm Masuyama is insanely expensive for what it is, an insanely sharp in the center, poorly corrected in the outer field UWA.  I am perfectly happy with my Agena version of the 30mm KK WideScan III clone if I want a poorly corrected UWA with a very sharp central region.  If you put a TSFLAT2 in front of it with about 15mm to 25mm more spacing than needed to flatten the curvature of a refractor scope, it flattens out nicely and is actually pretty decently corrected to the edge with very good eye relief for eyeglasses and a usable 80 degree AFOV with no SAEP or CAEP.  The inner 50% is actually sharper than the 30mm ES-82.  As I've repeatedly said, someone should design a compact FF for it.  If the price is under $100, you'll end up with a sub-$200 80 degree eyepiece of very good correction, excellent eye relief, light weight, fairly narrow build, and no nasty SAEP/CAEP.

The 20mm Orion LHD is interesting, but with an eye lens the same size as the 22mm NT4 and 22mm AT AF70 (both of which I have), it's likely to have no better eye relief than either of them.

I'll toss in a wildcard.  I have a 29mm ES-92 of sorts.  It's was originally a factory return 12mm ES-92 and somehow ended up with no lower barrel elements.  I removed the empty middle barrel and replaced it with a series of step rings to reduce require in-focus from 40mm+ to about 20mm.  It has a measured 48.4mm effective field stop (51mm physical FS), 93° AFOV (96° eAFOV), and 17mm of usable eye relief.  It is decently sharp in the inner 20%, gets progressively stronger chromatic aberrations in the next 50% and gets insanely stretched stars in the outer 30%, and yet still looks miles better than the 30mm Kasai Super WideView 90°.  However, if you keep your vision centered and use it to scan around star fields, it is highly addictive.  The fact that it has a wider TFOV than any 2" eyepiece out there with a near hyperwide AFOV and still be usable with eyeglasses speaks volumes to what could be done.  It just needs some chromatic aberration control.

6 hours ago, Ricochet said:

This isn't a good test as I believe with the 2" adaptor removed from the focuser the remaining hole is larger than 2" so even an oversized eyepiece barrel will still fit. Careful measurement of both the 2" adaptor and eyepiece barrel is probably the best way to determine which is at fault.

By 2" EXTENSION tube, not adapter tube, I assumed the OP is using something similar to pictured image below to reach focus because the primary mirror is too far forward in the tube even with the 2" adapter in place:

In which case the original hole is also 2" in diameter.

If it is actually the SW 2" adapter below to which he's referring:

Then yes, it's a larger opening into which it's being inserted.  However, I don't see a compression ring in the adapter image or in any other I've found online, and the OP clearly stated it has a compression ring.

Perhaps the OP can clarify if he's referring to the OEM 2" adapter or an aftermarket 2" extension tube.

It sure would be nice if SW would switch to a GSO style Dob focuser with a native 2" opening that accepts a 1.25" adapter to avoid confusing users:

The 150p base can't be that much bigger than the 130p base since the 150p only has 100mm (4 inches) longer focal length.  Given that the altitude axis is roughly at the mid point, the 150p base would only be about 50mm (2 inches) taller if it is proportionate to the 130p base.  I can't imagine it would be that much bigger than the original 130p base.

Besides, you'll probably move it to an alt-az mount on a tripod someday so you don't have to use it on a table top.

2 hours ago, starboy71 said:

the extension tube has a compression ring....my other 2inch ep just drops right in  perfectly but this orion ep has a machined raised part to its tube...thats whats causing the tightness.

Due to the relative cheapness of extension tubes versus eyepieces, I would err toward sanding the extension tube.  I haven't read of anyone else having insertion issues with that particular eyepiece.

Have you tried removing the compression ring and using just the thumbscrew to tighten it down?

6 hours ago, starboy71 said:

hi louis, yes it fits perfectly without the extension tube. i thought the same thing as yourself...get some emery cloth. it may only need a miniscule shaving off of it but thats a lot of rubbing!

Either get a new extension tube or sand down the interior of the extension tube you already have.

5 hours ago, F15Rules said:

If only they'd been able to make a 24mm and 30mm too...sadly, they reached the limit for this design at 17.5mm. Still, we do have plenty of good choices at those focal lengths with other brands..

The 24mm and 30mm APM UFF work well at those focal lengths for folks who need long eye relief at a similar weight and size to the Morpheus.

I haven't found any eyepieces with 18mm to 20mm of comfortable eye relief and at least 75 degrees of AFOV in the 20mm to 32mm range.  I would instantly buy a 24mm to 26mm ES-92, for instance, if one were made.  I bought the 26mm Meade MWA hoping it would work.  It does turn out to have 78 degrees of easy to view field with 18mm of eye relief and an actual focal length of 25mm.  However, it has some residual SAEP (kidney beaning) even using that amount of field, so not exactly a Morpheus.

2 hours ago, F15Rules said:

the price of the Morpheus has been edging up, to closer to the Pentax XW range.

Only $30 separates them in the US right now with the XWs on sale for $269 and the Morpheus at $239.  The TV Delos are way more expensive at $352.

I paid $229 each in 1998 for my 14mm and 5.2mm Pentax XLs.  That works out to about $372 today, so the XWs are lower in price than ever if you consider them the logical extension of the XLs.

1 hour ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

I have put the extension ring in the 6.5 & 4.5 now. The 4.5 has never been an issue for comfort to be honest. However I now find the 6.5 to be an improvement from an eye relief perspective. If I put my eye well pressed on the eye cup I have had some great views of the moon this week with my Bresser AR102s   it feels like I'm in a kind of viewing somewhere in the middle of having and no having the extension on as I really do press my eye into the eyecup to get get views.

Cheers

Baz

You might want to see if there's a 43mm diameter replacement eye cup out there that's taller than stock one but shorter than the combined extension/cup height.

Several folks recently bought those 70x300 to 70x400 telescopes that are everywhere on ebay and Amazon.  I bought one a year ago to convert into a super-finder on the cheap.  I knew what to expect and even I was surprised a bit by it.  It's hard to tell folks that it just doesn't make for a very good telescope.  A low power spotting scope, maybe.  Sadly, the price on them has jumped from $25 last February to between $70 and $90 now.  For some reason, there's no shortage of them.  Below, I sum up their pros and cons:

Positives:

• A decently figured 70mm glass achromat objective
• A decent plastic lens cell
• A decent metal tube that disassembles easily for modifications
• A decent lens hood
• Puts up decent images at low powers

Negatives:

• Terrible table to tripod
• 50% metal aperture mask directly behind objective, but it is removable
• 50% metal aperture mask in focuser tube that can't be accessed
• 0.965" Huygens eyepieces that actually aren't all that bad
• Really oddball long barlow (didn't actually try it to see if it works)
• Not really capable of what most folks are looking for in a telescope due to short focal length and small aperture

2 hours ago, johninderby said:

Maybe we could start a new thread?

“101 things to do with a department store telescope”

• Plant pot
• Shooting target
• Shaving mirror
• ?????????

Great idea.

One more:

Put it in an ad or commercial and set it up backward:

3 hours ago, iapa said:

My only use for lasers is in collimation.

Still dangerous if the mirrors are sending the return beam back out the front and you look down the tube to see what's going on only to look straight into the return beam.  I always wave my hand over the front of a Newt's tube to locate the outbound beam before looking down it.

3 hours ago, iapa said:

Green lasers actually emit infrared and pass through a crystal to shift frequency to green. If that’s not properly set up, you still also get IR emitted, invisible, but eye damaging.

Even the visible light can be eye damaging.  Just make a habit of never looking down the front of a laser pointer even if it appears to be off, never using it around others, never bringing them to star parties, never leaving them lying around the house with batteries loaded, etc.  I tend to be ultraconservative with them and have not had any issues.

18 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

EQ platforms are surprising effective. Every dob owner should have one 😜

The question becomes, why are there so few affordable options out there in the astro marketplace?

15 hours ago, johninderby said:

 However you have done the smart thing and asked questions on SGL firsr and not just bought the first scope that was available.

One of my pet peeves is newbies who buy a discount chain store scope and THEN ask on here "Is the XYZ scope any good?  I just bought one down at the MegaLoMart."  Why do they do that?  Do they plan on returning it if we say it's terrible?

I really appreciate beginners who ask on here first BEFORE buying as the OP has done.  Kudos, @Longy717!

15 hours ago, johninderby said:

Yes itis a bit frustrating at the moment with scopes being in such short supply that you can’t just go and order the one you want and have it in a day or two.

Even for us experienced folks with lots of gear already, it's annoying to not be able to buy our next toy on a whim.

5 hours ago, Don Pensack said:

They are essentially the same thing.  In the US, the term OCA is used (Optical Corrector Assembly), while in Europe GPC is used (Glass Path Corrector).

They move the focal plane backwards to compensate for the additional inches of light travel through the binoviewer prisms that would normally require inches of in-focus.

I see Louis already answered this.

Is there any truth to Baader's claims below that their GPCs actually correct for added chromatism of the binoviewer prisms?  I've never seen this claim made for OCAs/OCSs.  I just use the nosepiece of a Meade 140 2x Barlow to reach focus at 3x and have never noticed any chromatism in my images.

A Baader Glaspathcorrector® is not a Barlow lens! The reason for this name is only secondly the displacement of the focal point

A Glaspathcorrector® is primarily intended to correct the prismatic color fringing that occurs on Refractors due to the high amount of glasses used in binocular prisms

6 hours ago, wookie1965 said:

my first one the Illuminator top just started spinning rather than turning off and on like this one. 

And yet I've had better luck with that style.  Go figure.

3 hours ago, wookie1965 said:

https://www.robtics.nl/en/finders/1274-robtics-illumation-unit-for-finders-crosshair-eyepieces.html

That's the style I had solder issues with.  The top thread just under the dimming knob kept unscrewing which put strain on the pot to LED solder joints.

3 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

I had a similar plan to swap my rigel quickfinder from mak to dob, it came with two bases , so why not use them ... but while looking through the raci from the side is OK, mounting the rigel on the lower tube half (there is no surface suitable on the front ) and getting behind it to look would be a total pain. So I just use the original RDF in combination with the RACI. A telrad would suffer the same problem,

Perhaps you could 3D print an adapter for the current RDF clamp that would hold the Rigel QuikFinder.

The member in this video had issues with decentering using the Baader Clicklock.  It doesn't evenly cam down from all sides like a proper locking collet.  Instead, it simply pushes in from one side like a glorified brass compression ring.

Only ever had this issue with a Rini homemade eyepiece that used an aluminum insertion barrel.  I had to sand it down with emery cloth to get it to fit.  You shouldn't have this issue with commercially made eyepieces and extension tubes.

Does it fit in the original focuser without the extension tube?

For visual or photographic use?  For visual in my Dob, I use a GSO/Revelation CC with a 25mm spacer ring between the optical section and the eyepiece holder.  It requires only 11mm of in-focus.

Something weatherproof, light, and flexible like thin, closed cell foam sheeting or Kydex plastic sheeting.

7 hours ago, johnturley said:

Don

Apologies for my ignorance, but what do OCA and GPC stand for.

John 

OCA = Optical Corrector Adapter

OCS = Optical Corrector System

GPC = Glass Path Corrector

The first two are terms commonly used in the US while the third is commonly used in Europe.

The first two are mainly there to help reach focus while the third claims to correct for chromatism in the binoviewer prisms.  Of course, if you're using the latest Zeiss binoviewers with more mirrors than prisms, I'm not sure you'd want to use a standard GPC designed for an all prism binoviewer with it since it might overcorrect chromatism.

So far, I've found all modern illuminators to use the same thread.

I've left the translucent 1.25" field lens cap on my 12mm NT4 because it's hard to see and remove up under the 20mm 2" skirt extension to make it parfocal.  You get some light, but you know something is wrong.