russ

3 minutes ago, skyhog said:

Definitely saw the colour red and hints of green.  What was particularly illuminating, if you excuse the pun, was how a hand held phone picked up so much colour and detail. Certainly a great subject to show where technology has come on that front.

To the naked eye we could barely see it from our bortle 7 skies. It was so faint I almost dismissed it. But when our neighbour to a photo with his phone we all stood back in amazement. I really should have got in a car and driven somewhere darker.

Nothing on the South Coast tonight. Pretty crummy night all round. 

On 02/05/2024 at 11:31, AstralFields said:

The time when China was copying only simple aspherics and simple Konig designs like the 'red lines' appears to be over. The one I got is a new item (as far as I know) in the AngelEyes line of eyepieces. I prefer AngelEyes as it seems to me they are a brand that know what they are doing, without all the pomp and marketing of SVBony. One thing is always guaranteed with them, you get what you pay for. A 30$ eyepiece is better than a 12$ Plossl.. simple.. and their 87$ is far better than the 30$ eyepiece. This was also the reason I bought it. My thinking was that if a 'budget' brand like Angel Eyes is suddenly selling an 83$ eyepiece, it is not going to be bad and it will have a lot of glass. I was right. Keep in mind, this is with a 20% EU Tax.. You may get it cheaper from AliExpress in another country.

Before I go to the eyepiece, let's get a couple of things on budget China pieces settled down.

I will admit, I've always been a fan of budget friendly eyepieces sourced from China and so far I have not been disappointed, even after spending a full night testing out Morpheus, Explore Scientific, APMs in much better telescopes than mine. Reason is simple, my 8" f/6 is very forgiving and not that bright (making any errors not as easy to see). I think every discussion about an eyepiece should start with the focal ratio and type of telescope it was tested with, otherwise it is a waste of time.

I've noticed there is a huge, and I mean huge difference on how these eyepieces perform depending on the focal ratio of the telescope. The 40mm 2" Kellner is nice to use in my 8" .. in the 12" f/5 it just completely breaks apart 50% out of the field. Something similar, though not as radical happens with the 'red lines' as well.

The whole reason I went in the beginning for the 8" f/6 instead of the 10" f/4.7 was so that I can focus on actual observing and learning instead of spending a ton of money on eyepieces. Also I had no idea what eyepiece to get exactly, why and what focal length. This relatively safe strategy worked really well with f/6 and pretty much all the stuff I got was used at some point. Although I do have two friends, not one but two, who use the 'red lines' and Kellners in their f/4.7. They told me they have simply gotten used to it and are not in a rush to upgrade. Interesting. No coma correction as well.

But then once I got to a 12" f/5 everything pretty much fell apart. One the focal ratio is faster and second the telescope is brighter.. so there are more aberrations and there are easier to see. This necessitated that  I get some better eyepieces. I knew this going into the 12" , maybe I was hoping it wouldn't be so bad, but it was , so I went shopping. I am glad my first scope was not a 10" f/4.7. I would've been lost without the experience I gained with the 8" and my budget stuff.

First choice was simple, the SkyRover 30mm UFF (APM 30 UFF clone). A lot has been said about this one already, I've read a lot about it over the last year or two and it was first on my list. I will say only this, it is a total spoiler. Comparing any other eyepiece to this one makes the other eyepiece look lousy. With this being said, I have not been able to compare the Angel Eyes 14mm to anything else premium in my telescope.

I am also using it without a Coma Corrector in a 12" f/5, so this is something to count with. I don't know how much of the stuff around the edges is Coma and how much other aberrations. I wish I could compare it to something a lot better and more expensive.

I am comparing it directly with the SVBony 'red lines' 15mm that go for about 30$ and my SVBony Zoom 7-21mm. So we are talking a price difference of about 63$. 

The eyepiece line has a 7mm , 14mm and 22mm. I don't feel the need for a 22m as the 30mm UFF is just amazing and covers anything low power I want. The 7mm on the other hand is just too much high power. I am not a big planetary guy and for DSOs this seems a bit too much. Maybe in the future, we shall see.

But the 14mm was the clear winner I wanted because that is what I use 50% of the time. An exit pupil of about 2.5-3.0. In the 12" f/5 this is an exit pupil of 2.8mm. Very bright, sharp, lots of resolution, nice and comfortable. 

The 'red lines' and the 2" Kellners I've used with my 8", for all their shortcomings in an f/5, have had a very nice, comfortable eye relief and have spoiled me in this regard. 

This was the reason I went with this one instead of their other premiums, a 16mm 82 degree for 85$ but a 10-12mm eye relief instead of 19mm. I am very curious to see how these perform but 16mm is a tiny bit too low for me, I wish they had a 12mm in that range. Also that 82 degree without a CC is not going to go well.

It has a very comfortable eye relief of 19mm. The image is super crisp, bright and sharp. On par with a simple Plossl. In comparison my favorite 15mm 'red line' was 'softer' even directly in the center, nevermind the edges. I also feel the color of the stars is different.

The correction around the edges is pretty good, except for the last 5 degrees or so. I believe the majority of what is happening there is Coma. It does look like Coma but without a coma corrector I can't say for sure.

The AFOV is more like 66-67 degrees. I am comparing it directly with the 30mm UFF which they say has 70 degrees. So in this regard either Angel Eyes is lying about their 70 degrees , or the 30mm UFF has 73 degrees instead of 70. Anyway , I wish it was the same as the 30mm UFF but 66-67 is very nice nonetheless, especially with the vast majority of the field being very nice and sharp. 

The field is flat to my eyes as far as I can tell. Focusing on a star anywhere in the field focuses the whole field. So the claim of Flat Field is true. To be honest I was not as bothered by the other errors in my other eyepieces as the lack of focus across the field. I'd rather live with shredded stars than blurry stars. Some observations of the Moon at low horizon didn't show any obvious kidney beaning. The 'red lines' are pretty touchy in this area, especially the 6,9mm.

The field stop is sharp and easily seen. I am not a fan of vignetted field stops like the SuperView 30mm or my 'red lines' 6mm and 9mm. I love the clear crisp black line. 

Several discussions on Barlows made me do some testing for an entire hour. I took this eyepiece and tried it with a 1.5x Barlow screwed at the bottom or a 2x Barlow. I compared it with my fixed 'red lines' and there was no contest whatsoever. The image was brighter, sharper, more whiter stars, simply better in each and every way. Would a fixed eyepiece from the same line 7mm be better than a Barlowed 2x 14mm? Don't know. I was using a simple Celestron Omni 2x 2 element barlow. I would be curious to compare but I don't think the results would be worth the extra 83$ for the 7mm. I just don't see how it would be radically better.

So the math is simple here, instead of buying a 6mm , 9mm and 15mm 'red line' it is a LOT better to get their 14mm and an Omni 2x Barlow, basically for the same price. I am not regretting my 'red lines' as that was a valuable learning experience and they were pretty good in my f/6, but the choice here is simple. At the time I bought them this 14mm didn't even exist or at least I didn't see it back then.

The eyepiece is pretty heavy for a 1.25" and for an AngelEyes eyepiece , comes at 300 grams and sits very nicely in the focuser with the rest of the body being at 2". This is the only downside when Barlowing 2x, it feels a bit weird in the focuser. But this is just a cosmetic issue.

Under closer inspection of their design, this appears to be a Panoptic Design with a 'barlow like' lens at the bottom before the focal plane. The 14mm has 6 elements in 4 groups. The 7mm and 22mm have 8 elements in 5 groups. I am very curious to know why the 7mm and 22mm require more elements and more groups? What makes these mid-powers so special and not requiring as much as glass? I noticed this also in the 'red lines' that the 15mm is the smallest and simplest.

The bottom line is that this is some of the best 83$ I have invested into an eyepiece so far, maybe second best to the 179$ of the SkyRover 30mm, that thing is just amazing even for that money, maybe worth easily double that.

Some impressions.

M13 looked amazing , M92 as well and at a Bortle 4 location it showed really nice dust lines (finally) in M51 as it was right above at 90 degrees. It was so good and outperformed my other stuff (even with a Barlow) by so much that I am selling everything and keeping only the SVBony Zoom 7-21mm , this 14mm one and the 30mm UFF + my Barlow 2x,3x. Minimalism at its best. Over time I may go for some planetary eyepiece, like their 4mm 82 degree looks interesting. Need to get some field experience with my Zoom on what is the best high power focal length for my new 12". Once I figure out where I spend most of my time, I can get a fixed one.

 

 

 

I was only looking at these today on Aliexpress. Their offer of the day. Look nice. I bought my son the SVBony 18mm and 24mm UFF eyepieces. We were so impressed with those. Maybe one of these at 14mm to compliment the other two.

5 hours ago, John said:

Hmmm .......

I've just read Roger Vine's review of the Skywatcher ST 102 F/5 achro. Maybe this is an option ?:

Sky-Watcher StarTravel 102 Review (scopeviews.co.uk)

 

 

I have made myself up a small travel setup for when we use the family home on the Isle of Wight. Initially it was a Starwave 70, much like yours but also wanted more aperture to make the most of the much better skies. A dob, even a 6", was out of the question. Not enough room in the car and the flat isn't big enough to leave a scope behind, we share it with my sister's, so there is an agreement to always leave it empty. 

So I went with the Orion ST120. Really didn't care about CA, only doing widefield and DSO visual. The ST120 sits nicely on the Vixen Porta. All slots in the car without annoying Emma. And the views are what I want. It's my ninth ST120 since 2003. I love it but always seem to go looking for something else and then end up back at the ST120.

Great review. It is one of the best value eyepieces on sale. I wouldn't swap mine for anything. I've sold all my high power eyepieces.

That looks great Rob

Amazing images. 

Just seen this here and on You Tube. Total shock. Only watched his comet update last weekend. Very much miss his You Tube videos. 

My sincere condolences to his friends and family

5 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Thanks Dweller, it seems we have been on similar trajectories. The mount I have been considering, and that has been a constant compared to scope choice 😁, is the az-eq6, due to its az ability, in addition to eq. It is a bit more expensive than Eq6, but potentially more flexible, especially if I was to mount a 10inch Newtonian on it. I suspect the latter can give better planetary AP than the C8 I had in mind. I might swap the Askar scope for the StellaMira 125 though at similar cost. 

Thanks for taking the time to come up with these suggestions 👍

Also remember, what ever you decide to go with, it will be the wrong choice. It's a given. A couple of months or year down the road, you're start getting niggling doubts that you should have taken a different route. Then it starts all over again. It happens to us all.  

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Have they improved the focuser on it recently?  5 years ago, I was looking at buying a used one that had been upgraded to a MoonLite focuser because the stock focuser was not so great.

For visual with lightweight accessories the original focuser is fine. But for 2" accessories it need swapping out. I just put the Astro Essentials focuser on mine and love it. As for a mount, the ED120 Pro is not heavy. If I can't be bothered lugging out the NEQ6, I'll use the CG5 and it works well for visual. In fact, I really do not know why I bother using the NEQ6 with the ED120. The ED120 Pro with rings, dovetail, diagonal and eyepiece, weighs in at 5.5kg. Very comfortably in the operating range for EQ5. And an absolute breeze for HEQ5. NEQ6 total over kill.

3 hours ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi

Given these two choices, which one would you pick? 

Use for planetary and double stars predominantly. 

Thanks 

Mark

If it was me, definitely the ED120 if the price is similar. I'm sure the optics are very nice in the Starfield 102 but I know for a fact they are great in the 120 as I use one as my main scope. Detail on Jupiter this past season, when conditions allow, has been superb. Doubles are extremely nice. 

I have a few (ED80, ED120, C6, OO 10") but really, really fancy a C11 ota. My goal to find one for the summer and next planetary season.

1 hour ago, SuburbanMak said:

Baader Classic Orthos - now £54 each I believe and the 18mm & 10mm are as sharp and flat as I've seen, narrower field at 45 degree yes but stunning fidelity for the price. The 6mm is tight on eye relief but equally good if you are ok with getting up close and don't wear spec's to observe. The 18mm is my favourite eyepiece and always finds itself slipping into a pocket as I am heading out  

SVBony 3-8mm Zoom -  a new addition to the stable but really can't fault this considering the alternative is the Nagler 3-6mm zoom at over £300 more, I paid £120 on Amazon for the convenience of availability and speed but understand these can be picked up more cheaply direct from China.  Flat field, very sharp and contrasty (detail on Jupiter indistinguishable from my Pentax XW 5mm). Also a lightweight but sturdy form factor, brilliant value without compromising quality in my view. 

(& yes, my other top value find is the Stella Lyra 30mm UFF, stunning eypepiece & well worth saving up the extra £29 beyond the remit of this thread topic!) 

I second all of this. The Baader Orthos are superb and the SVBony 3-8mm zoom is my outright fav eyepiece, trumping the TV DeLite and Pentax XW in my collection. For all my planetary views in 2023 and my single only view in 2024, I reach for the SVBony over all else. So much so, that there was no place in the collection for the 6.5mm Morpheus and 9mm Delite. 

Also a shout out for the Baader 8-24 zoom but its just not as special as the SVBony. Baader has a variable AFOV, which is annoying and the build is not is the same league as the SVBony. 

That looks awesome, hope it's a cracking shower for you.

That was my plan too and the forecast was holding up and then suddenly yesterday all the forecasts changed and now wall to wall cloud until Wednesday next week.😭

1 hour ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

Different people see pain and pleasure in different ways. I for one get great pleasure from observing DSOs through my eyeball.

some people like to do a similar thing with a computer and camera. I personally love the EP, like the camera, hate the computer.

Marv

That sums it up for me too.

The blurp sounds good and I did enjoy my LE 5mm and 12.5mm. Just not sure I want another straw like afov. 

The Starbase link is all Japanese and not much cop.

Here are the specs:

TPL-12.5
Focal length: 12.5mm
Eye relief: 9mm
Apparent field of view: 48°
Lens construction: 4 elements in 2 groups
Size: φ39 x 51mm
Weight: 90g

TPL-18
Focal length: 18mm
Eye relief: 13mm
Apparent field of view: 48°
Lens construction: 4 elements in 2 groups
Size: φ39×60mm
Weight: 110g

TPL-25
Focal length: 25mm
Eye relief: 18mm
Apparent field of view; 48°
Lens construction: 4 elements in 2 groups
Size: φ39×71mm
Mass: 140g

The more automated and high tech AP has become, the more I don't want to do it. And that's how i felt in 2008  

But I really get the appeal to those that love their tech. It looks absolutely awesome. 

On 10/07/2023 at 09:25, wookie1965 said:

Nothing because of this thing. 

I cannot view from home now and not found a place I can nip to, to be honest looks like I am going to sell up. 

I feel your pain as well. I have a railway goods yard at the bottom of the garden. They have a hundred of those lamps. Creates a massive light dome brighter than a full moon. I just limit myself to moon and planets mainly.

Our neighbour has also taken to growing huge tree like shrubs all down the fence line. They are currently 10-12ft tall and block my entire North East to South East horizon. I think he has done it to spite me knowing I go out with the scope. 

Lotto win is the answer. House with no neighbours in a bortle 2 sky. 

7 hours ago, Rob said:

Near 15 years to get to this point!. Super happy mind. Not shown but also have a Meade 5000 SWA 40mm in box…. It’s a beast!

 

Very nice Rob

8 hours ago, John said:

It is, but not last night. I got clouded out about 30 minutes after I took that pic 😬

That's a shame John. The forecast was a bit off that night. I set the alarm for 2:30am and woke up to total cloud cover. Was supposed to be 100% clear.

30 minutes ago, John said:

No electronics involved here but it suits me just fine 😁

Waiting for darkness on a warm summer evening.

 

Wow I bet that's stunning to look through.

3 hours ago, russ said:

Out this morning at 3am for Saturn, Jupiter and Moon. All were epic, especially Saturn. Which held up well to 300x using the SVBony 3-8mm zoom in the ED120. Moon was razor sharp. Seeing excellent. Paid for it at work today, felt pretty crummy around 3pm. 

Scope is ready to go for some deepsky action tonight. If i can hold it together that is. 

New plan. Can't stay awake. So getting back up for the planets and the moon. Spend Saturday recovering.

Really nice images Neil. Especially the mono Jupiter. Cracking detail. 

Seeing our way this morning was pretty darn good. I had Saturn up at 300x and a nice clean view of Cassini. Jupiter will be epic in a month or so.