Stu

It’s worth bearing in mind the exit pupil differences too, particularly if your skies are not pristine. The 24mm will give a slightly darker background and better perceived contrast on clusters than a 32mm Plossl or the 28mm in question above. Regarding the rectilinear distortions in the 24mm Pan, I found recently when using mine with the Tak as a spotting scope, it wasn’t great, and yet for astro it works very well and I prefer the design bias towards reduced astig and field curvature. I rarely use the Pan for viewing the moon off axis so find it great for astro. Such a compact eyepiece too.

Superb idea! This year is unlikely for me, but would certainly like to head south again sometime in the not too distant future.

Doesn’t make good reading really does it Chris? Not surprising really I guess, it’s still a low cost, very fast achro and it is stuff like spherical abberation which kills the detail at higher powers. It remains to be seen how well it performs in Ha and for white light solar. I reckon a continuum filter will be needed to tighten things up enough to be decent ish in WL.

Last night’s effort, not as good as I had hoped but this was with the Samsung S9 using fonemate adaptor onto a 24mm Panoptic (with the diopter adaptor). Being weird as always, I popped the Pan into one channel of the Binoviewer with Barcon and x2.6 GPC giving the mag. When I can afford a higher power EP which takes the fonemate things will get easier. Anyway, if you squint you can see GRS . Seeing was a bit dodgy, and also I think if I use the headphones to trigger next time I might eliminate a little shake. Visual was much better than this obviously

Keep the Pan and buy the Plossl!

It’s not a strimmer is it? Sorry, couldn’t resist. Are you going to give us a clue?

I just really enjoy the fine focus on the FTs. The LW version is even more expensive though, ironically for less material. You pay for the additional machining to reduce the weight. It’s a nice to have not an essential (the LW I mean)

Yep, I can’t tecall exactly where I took mine but it was much easier and lighter than say a TV76. Optically better too I reckon.

Now you just need the Lightweight Feathertouch for it Jeremy

Lovely stuff Jeremy. I used to have a split tube 76DC, very sharp optically and also highly portable to take abroad etc.

Should do the job nicely

That’s great Paul. I do hope it performs as well with the Quark as with the Herschel Wedge. I think, for the money, it is well worth a punt. You should, I think, get full disk views with it. I reckon a 32mm Plossl would be worth trying. Quarks are funny old beasts, the overall focal ratio you are operating at makes a difference to the contrast seen as I recall. Somewhere are f6.5 for the scope is optimum, which is why the Pronto is a good option. But the combination of aperture and an f ratio within the recommended range should be good I should think. Just don’t forget the x4.2 barlow included and assume that you will need long focal length, simple construction eg Plossl type eyepieces and you should be good.

That’s a shame Derek. I rarely, if ever use 2” eyepieces for solar, I tend to favour 1.25” simple designs like orthos or Plossls over even the 24mm Panoptic. Will be interesting to see how it performs for astro.

Lovely job! On my list of 'must look through one', if not 'own!' A big beast indeed!

Lovely scope Ade, really nice design and I bet it performs well too. If I didn’t have my scope that must not be mentioned, I would have been very tempted. Look forward to hearing about first light.

I too used a 3.7 SX as in theory it made an ideal highest power eyepiece in a few of the fracs I owned at the time. In practise I didn’t get on with the eye relief and actually found 110 degrees too much. I couldn’t take it all in, and more often than not found myself seeing more of my eyelashes than the stars!

Be careful John, the views could knock your socks off....

Sorry, not quite sure what you are asking Derek, probably just being a bit slow! I just measured the outer diameter of the objective cell on the Tak and picked the Lenscoat which covered that range. In this case it was 114mm or 4.48” and the Large Lenscoat covers 4.25 to 4.75”. They are elasticated and very easy to fit and use. Wish I had discovered them years ago! Let me know if that is not what you meant!

I have just received a Large Lenscoat for a slightly different Tak related requirement. When I disassemble mine for transport, I normally have to bodge some kind of protection for the objective and rear opening when it sits in its Pelicase. Thanks to @johninderby I think for originally pointing this out on another thread. This one works fine for the front, a medium is on order for the back

What a great build John. I would love to build one myself so might take inspiration from your project. I have owned a couple in the past and find them amazing bits of kit, very simple to use but so effective. As you rightly say, you see so much more when the target remains centred and the scope steady.

That is neat Simon, who did you get that done by? I’m sure it would be a very handy mod for others to adopt. The OCS can sit very handily in the bayonet fitting too so it is a good system and very flexible.

I suspect that one of the few things missing from @Peter Drew ‘s CV is taking his hacksaw to a Tak, so be careful!!

Good luck Steve, hope you get sorted. If it helps, this is my setup which works natively, helped by the direct T2 connection between Binoviewer and T2 BBHS mirror diagonal (could be any T2 diagonal or prism)

That looks neat Mike. I have to agree, widefield views may be over-rated in binoviewers, they are much better suited to mid and higher power views where they can counteract floaters very effectively. EDIT What is strange is that Steve is struggling to reach focus even with an OCS. I will have a look at my setup, hopefully tonight to see how it differs

There may be some useful info in this thread if you haven’t seen it already...