Louis D

If 1.25" eyepieces fit, Agena Astro has GSO Plossls in stock which are of very good quality. A 32mm and a 9mm would be a good start.

My 22mm Nagler T4 is the only Tele Vue I've kept in my A-team case because there's no good alternative to it for 82+ degree field and long eye relief at the focal length.

My father was disabled, but we bonded just fine in Iowa over the years gardening on our acreage, tending to our orchard, maintaining power equipment, and attending county and state fairs, antique tractor shows, etc. Just include your son in all of your interests. As he matures, treat him as your partner in maintaining your home. I did a lot of the heavy lifting for my dad as I matured.

You would definitely see an improvement in resolution for planetary observing and a slight improvement for extended objects. This would be especially true for Synta 127 Maks which only have 118mm of clear aperture while the revised Synta 150 Maks have properly sized primary mirrors to yield a true 150mm of clear aperture.

It really depends on the design of the Dob. It makes a difference how balanced the moment arm is in front of and behind the pivot point. The more equal they are, the more resistant the design is to imbalance. It also makes a difference what materials are used for the bearing surface and the load bearing pads. The more stiction between the two, the more resistant it is to imbalance.

However, practically every report comparing it side by side with the 30mm APM UFF has declared the latter to be the clear winner. It's a nearly 20 year newer design with two more lens elements and employs a novel telecompressor stage at the field lens end instead of a telenegative stage. Here are images capture in daylight clearly showing the better edge correction of the latter: 30mm Pentax XW: 30mm APM UFF: I bought into the hype of the greatness of the 40mm XW versus the 40mm Meade 5000 SWA and was "gifted" one for Christmas, but I found the latter to be slightly better corrected across the field despite costing me 1/3 as much. The 2" Pentax XW designs are not the best corrected designs at their respective focal lengths.

I don't have one and have never looked through one due to the limited eye relief. The 24mm APM UFF that I do have does have enough eye relief for eyeglass wearers and is reportedly just as well corrected. Neither is as sharp edge to edge as the 24mm Panoptic reportedly. Here's a 9 year old article that might be of interest to you, 24-26 mm Eyepiece Comparison, done by Bill Paolini before the existence of the 24mm APM UFF, 25mm BST Starguider, or 25mm Meade HD-60 (all three of which I do have). Edge to edge sharpness isn't the only metric for determining which eyepiece is best for each object. I do have the 27mm Panoptic. It is also tight on usable eye relief for eyeglass wearers, but it is extremely sharp in the central 85% of the field, suffering a tiny bit of field curvature and astigmatism at the edge. I retired mine in favor of the 30mm APM UFF without regrets.

Definitely. A 40mm in a 1.25" has about a 43° AFOV vs 70° in a 2" eyepiece. This equates to an enormous difference in TFOV. Both will have the same exit pupil, so extended objects and the background sky will appear the same contrast-wise.

I have the 30mm ES-82 and the 30mm APM UFF. The former has more of a wow factor, but has some issues toward the edge (ring of fire, aka CAEP). The latter is narrower, but easier to use with eyeglasses, and is basically flawless across the field.

This Month on CN Phil Harrington's Cosmic Challenge Celestial Events on CN Celestial Events Heads Up on SGL

But why stop there?

My 90mm FPL-53 triplet takes about 30 minutes to warm up 10 to 20 degrees F when I take it out of my air conditioned house during our hot, Texas summers. Until then, the star images at high power are all spiky. I had looked at that 125mm, but decided it would be too heavy for my DSV-2B mount. It's only rated up to about a 102mm f/7 refractor. I saw the used 90mm triplet for a good price and jumped on it.

Interesting. They're usually called towel bars in the US. We do have handrails for steadying ourselves, though.

The used market in the US for the Synta 127 Mak is far larger than for the ES/Bresser version. I picked up an Orion and a Celestron labelled version for $200 each over the last couple of years here. I have noticed the used prices have jumped 50% to $300 over than last year, though. However, I've never seen a used ES/Bresser come up for sale. Either there aren't that many here, or there are lots and no one wants to sell theirs. My point is, if you want to buy used, the Synta 127 Mak is really the only option, at least on this side of the pond.

The 35mm Aero ED is still available from a few vendors (verify availability first) and has a field stop only 1.5mm smaller than the 40mm Paragon, and at a higher power to boot. Correction-wise, Ernest in Russia has tested it to be above the 30mm and below the 40mm. It's decent in the inner 75% at f/6. If you look in the center and keep the outer field in your peripheral vision, it should work well for you. It's priced very competitively, it's light, and it's compact. Here's how it compared to my other 32mm to 42mm eyepieces (minus the 40mm Pentax XW-R which I didn't have at the time):

I have the 40mm Meade 5000 SWA version, and it is slightly better corrected across the field than my 40mm Pentax XW despite costing me 1/3 as much. It is about 7 ounces heavier than the Pentax once decloaked, though. The Pentax has slightly less SAEP and significantly less usable eye relief (17mm vs 24mm) due to the inexplicable 7mm eye lens recession. The tapered top of the Pentax makes it more comfortable. The Pentax is also slightly wider in AFOV (70° vs 69°), eAFOV (66° vs 65°) and TFOV (46.2mm FS vs 45.7mm FS) than the Meade. Overall, though, I haven't been able to make up mind as to which will reside in the A-team eyepiece case. They're more alike than different.

There certainly is a 30mm 100 degree eyepiece for refractors, the 3" Explore Scientific one. You just need a 3 inch compatible focuser and a 3 inch diagonal. It is reportedly a very well corrected eyepiece.

Excellent eyepiece not at all related to the Paragon. It is world class in every way. It is better corrected than the 30mm Pentax XW despite being cheaper, lighter, and thinner. You do give up quite a bit of true field of view relative to maximum true field of view available in a 40mm 70 degree eyepiece. It is available under the Altair UF and Meade PWA brands as well. They're all made by KUO in China. You see how well corrected it is compared to my other 29mm to 30mm eyepieces below: The full width views are taken with a super wide angle, but lower resolution, camera to capture the entire 70°+ views that extend beyond the edges of the narrower, higher resolution camera used for the first set of images.

I'm under Bortle 5/6 skies and find views at f/6 with a 40mm eyepiece to be very rewarding. If you're looking at bright open clusters like the Pleiades, the brighter sky background isn't a big deal. I can even pick up on some of the nebulosity around some of the stars despite the low contrast.

I'd totally believe that. I wonder if a fluorite doublet outperforms an FPL-53 triplet. Based on the cost, you'd think it would.

From my yard stick field stop measurements: 24mm APM UFF: 27.5mm FS 22mm AT AF70: 28.4mm FS There is a bit of falloff/fuzziness for the APM at the edge, so it's not a good, clean 27.5mm FS. Measured AFOV=63°, eAFOV=66° The AF70 has low distortion toward the edge, helping maximize its TFOV. Measured AFOV=70°, eAFOV=74°:

Here's my comparison image of ~24mm eyepieces. Your 25mm Celestron is probably similar to the 25mm Meade HD-60. The 24mm APM UFF is optically identical to the Altair Astro. It's a decent eyepiece that suffers a bit toward the edge. I much prefer my 22mm AT AF70 (Omegon Redline, TS Optics Expanse) for just a bit more TFOV. However, it does require a 2 inch focuser.

This diagram from telescope-optics.net gives some idea of the color correction of various glass combinations. Seemingly, an FPL-51 triplet will perform similarly to an FPL-53 doublet at like aperture and f-ratio. This question has been discussed repeatedly over the years on both SGL and CN. Google "fpl-53 doublet vs fpl-51 triplet" for hours of reading.

Small, lunch sized coolers also make great binocular cases.

Or this is a huge plot by Chinese companies to buy up non-Chinese companies (e.g., Meade, Celestron, etc.), move production to China, keep prices low taking advantage of their lower production costs until they've bought all non-Chinese companies in a particular market, and then raise prices back to pre-Chinese ownership levels and pocket the difference and use it to buy up more non-Chinese companies in another market. Nah, they wouldn't do that. 😏