Louis D

And if you ever want tracking, you can buy or build an equatorial platform for it.

Apparently, the Mk2 really shines at sub-F/4 focal lengths where the Mk1 began to struggle. What f-ratio was the scope you were comparing the two in?

I've been using 2" visual backs on my Synta 127 Maks and haven't noticed any vignetting, just weird oval reflections as bright stars pass the edge of the rear baffle tube/port. The TFOV isn't a little wider, it's a lot wider with a 40mm Meade SWA than with a 24mm APM UFF. 1.7 degrees is noticeably wider than 1.0 degrees to me at least. It's like a breath of fresh air to be able to see more of the context around objects. I might be off on the actual degrees since using a 2" visual back and diagonal extends the focal length somewhat, but the 70% increase in TFOV remains regardless. As far as fitting a Crayford focuser to a 127 Mak, I wouldn't bother. Neither of my 127 Maks has any mirror slop or focus backlash, and fine focusing is quite easy with the supplied focuser knob. The 2" visual backs barely fit back there, so I don't know how you'd get a Crayford focuser to fit. That, and you be extending your focal length even further than by just using a 2" diagonal versus a 1.25" diagonal.

As for the difference between them, I'm not sure how easy the fully GOTO telescope is to use manually if you just want a quick grab and go to peek at the stars without doing an alignment, especially through gaps in the clouds when alignment stars might be difficult to find. Does anyone have experience using these FlexTube GOTO scopes in fully manual mode? How are the motions compared to a push-to? I assume the motors can be declutched from the axes and the scope can be used as ordinary Dob. Can it be used as a push to in this mode using just the encoders?

Synta does not own Orion USA, it is an independent astronomy dealer that sources gear from not only Synta, but many other vendors under their Orion house brand. SkyWatcher is the Synta house brand in Europe and other parts of the world. It only sells Synta made equipment.

Sorry to hear that. I bought mine 20 years ago and haven't had the slightest bit of trouble or breakage with mine. In fact, the original lithium button cell is still going strong. Even catching it on the door frame several times as I brought the scope from outdoors, knocking it loose and having it clatter to the concrete didn't phase it one bit. I always forget how much it sticks out from the tube, and that I need to remove it before carrying the tripod and scope indoors. The fact that it attaches with a plastic locking tab saved the attachment point from being damaged each time. On the flip side, my original Telrad died after AA batteries corroded inside it. I replaced the holder and still couldn't get it to light up. My two replacement Telrads' potentiometers go from off to full on in the last few degrees of motion making it difficult to regulate down the brightness. As such, I've had a pretty bad run with my Telrads over the past 22 years.

Since your telescope is an f/10 system, it will be fairly gentle on eyepieces and indeed, the differences between lower cost, mid range, and premium eyepieces will be somewhat more subtle than if it was an f/4 system, for instance. In that case, the differences are not subtle at all once you get away from the central 30% of the FOV. Budget eyepieces become a blur, mid range eyepieces lose sharpness, while premium eyepieces keep on putting out sharp images at small focal ratios as the edge is approached. Just about any 7+ element zoom will provide very good views in your telescope.

I have a version of the 7.2-21.5mm zoom from that same manufacturer, and though they claim 15mm of design eye relief, it only has 9mm to 11mm of measured usable eye relief, depending on the focal length. It also claims to have a 40 to 60 degree AFOV, but I measured it as 33 to 49 degrees which is significantly less. As such, it's a very claustrophobic and difficult to use eyepiece with eyeglasses. That, and the zooming action is incredibly stiff. It takes two hands to zoom mine. I will grant it is very sharp across its limited field, but so would wider AFOV zoom eyepieces be if stopped down by 10 degrees at each end. Granted, the 9-27mm version has a slightly larger eye lens that seems no less recessed than the 7.2-21.5mm version, so if it claims 18mm of design eye relief, it probably has 12mm to 14mm of usable eye relief by extension from above. This would make it fairly comfortable to use without eyeglasses, but still nearly impossible to use with eyeglasses.

I would stick with the first style. The second one is a misnamed spacer ring that is too large in diameter. The extension tube goes in the focuser followed by the barlow and then the eyepiece.

I have had the older Pentax XL 5.2mm for 22 years and love it. I know at least one user reports eye interfacing issues with the XW 5mm and replaced it with a used XL 5.2mm and has had no issues since. I've had similar issues with the XW 7mm, but not the XW 3.5mm. The Morpheus 9mm is a real keeper. I've read that the Morpheus 4.5mm has some EOFB, but is otherwise very good. There is no M43 thread on the XL line, so there is that. There's also the TV Delos line if your budget stretches that far. If you don't need to wear eyeglasses at the eyepiece, I'd check out the APM XWA 5 mm 110°.

The Telrad has a 4° outer ring that the Rigel lacks. It also has less parallax issues than the Rigel. It's also huge compared to the QF. I have both and prefer the Telrad on Dobs and the QF on refractors and small Maks. However, if you're not into star hopping, a simple RDF will do nicely to put the scope on target.

Yep, up around 200x, M13 should start to resolve into diamond dust on black velvet in a 6" to 8" scope. I haven't tried it in a 5" or smaller scope, though.

If you want to max out your true field of view (TFOV) in that scope, I would get a GSO/Revelation 32mm eyepiece. It will work pretty well at f/5 and won't break the bank. However, I notice they're sold out everywhere in the UK, so I would get FLO's version as it should be very similar.

I'm not a big fan of this style of zoom eyepiece due to the very limited eye relief. If you did want to get one, I would order it from FLO and have it cross imported to the US for at least $30 less than High Point. There's no import tariffs into the US for personal purchases below $800/day, no VAT because you're outside the EU/UK, and no sales tax since FLO has no nexus of business in any US state. That, and it supports our sponsor. The zoom most recommended on here is the Baader Hyperion Zoom Mark IV 8-24 mm. Again, you'd be saving over $80 cross importing it from FLO to the US. For some reason, Baader products are much cheaper in Europe than in the US. If that's out of your budget, then the Meade/Celestron/Agena 8-24mm zoom is usually the next best choice. The work fine and are well priced. My personal favorite is the Celestron/Olivon Regal 8-24mm zoom originally sold with spotting scopes. It lacks a filter thread, but has better eye relief, eye cup, field correction, wider field of view, and smoother zoom motion than the cheaper Celestron zoom above. Also, the top doesn't rotate during zooming, unlike the BHZ above, so winged eye guards can be used with it. Sometimes, you can find it on Cloudy Nights classifieds or ebay local to the US.

Generally, power progressions are in square root of 2 or 1.4x increments. Thus, 35mm, 25mm, 18mm, 13mm, 9mm, 6.5mm, 4.5mm, 3.2mm would be one power progression. Often, folks skip by powers of 2 and go 35mm, 18mm, 9mm, 4.5mm. However, at high powers, the jump from 9mm (or 8mm or 10mm) to 4.5mm (or 5mm) may be too much for the seeing conditions, so they my try 6.5mm (or 7mm). That's because power rises rapidly with decreasing eyepiece focal length. At long focal lengths, many folks will skip directly from 35mm (or higher) straight to 13mm or so, depending on the object.

I was going to suggest it, except that I don't think it's available in the US from any dealers. I also don't know if any UK dealers will ship it to the US. I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to ship the 130p version due to an exclusive licensing agreement with AWB OneSky in the US.

I'm going to go in an entirely different direction and recommend a Baader Morpheus 9mm if you won't be upgrading your scope any time soon. It will get you a 2.25 exit pupil which is just about ideal, it is an excellent, nearly ultrawide eyepiece that should deal well with your fast primary, and it will produce about 50x which is good for a large number of objects. Personally, I would prefer one really good eyepiece, especially in a very fast scope, over a bunch of mediocre ones. If you can get an extension tube, you should be able to use your Barlow with it to observe planets and planetary nebulae.

Bortle 5/6/7 skies depending on the direction any time of the year since I'm right on the edge of farm country. However, summer skies are lighter than winter mostly due to swamp-like humidity levels at night. We are often at 98% humidity most of the night which gives a slight mistiness to the air that helps to reflect light pollution further into the darker parts of the sky. I'll see haze around stars or the moon and think I've got equipment dewing until I look up naked eye and see a glow around bright objects. To add insult to injury, it can stay over 90°F until after midnight as well, so I have to run a box fan across me perpendicular to my observing direction to avoid dripping sweat on my equipment and to blow away mosquitoes. Here's my yearly nighttime chart from that website mentioned above, with the radix on the summer solstice: It gets fully dark year round for at least 6.5 hours, but it means staying up much later on work nights to access it in the summer than in the winter. Between that and the oppressive heat, humidity, and mosquitoes, I tend to do much less observing in the summer than in winter. Our winters tend to be mild, dry, and bug free. However, the atmosphere is much less stable than in the summer, so planetary observing does suffer.

@bomberbaz How did the 25mm BST perform with the Powermate? At almost f/10, the edges should have been massively improved.

Perhaps on hard contacts. 😉 Don't give Zeiss any ideas on how to charge $600 for a single pair.

The OP's scope is a 1.25" only telescope, so a 30mm eyepiece is going to yield closer to a 52 degree AFOV. The OP's eyepieces already cover what's included in most eyepiece kits. Filter kits come up fairly regularly on CN classifieds for $20 to $30 all the time if the OP wants to get filters. Again, 2" fit only. It's not going to work in a Meade EclipseView 114 mm: Totally agree here. In fact, not only is the 40mm yielding a 10mm exit pupil, it's also showing the central obstruction as a 3mm to 4mm shadow dead center which would be almost impossible to work around until fully dark adapted. Rather than spend money on more eyepieces, I would probably recommend the OP to get another scope with a longer focal length and more aperture for higher power work. This scope, and everything else in the OP's sig, will be fine for low power work. Something like a 6" f/8 Dob would be a nice improvement without getting too bulky.

You could try "chasing the threads" with a cheaper filter. Basically, keep threading and unthreading the filter to work it farther and farther onto the eyepiece until you feel confident it is threaded on far enough to avoid coming loose during observing.

I've had one for some time now, but I can't say that I've experienced anything quite like that. I am irritated by some chromatic aberration near the field stop that is not present in the XL 5.2mm or XW 3.5mm. Do you see bright stars turning into prismatic rainbows near the edge in your XW 7mm? If you get your eye exactly lined up with the star, the prismatic effect mostly goes away. Perhaps this and your experience are related? Try lining up your eye with the incoming light rays from the edge image to see if the effect changes.

Or it could be the Baader filter itself causing halos, although I didn't see that mentioned in the article:

I can't help you sort out which 30mm 80 degree UWA clone is best, but I can point you to my new thread showing the view through my Agena Astro version of this eyepiece in a 127mm f/12 Mak. It improves to the point of being a very usable wide field eyepiece.