Ags

Here is a direct and recent shootout between a another TMB Planetary clone and an SLV at F4.9: Looks like a draw or near draw (considering only on-axis performance) according to the OP and some replies in the thread. Gives me pause for thought.

On the subject of TS HRs, here's a glowing review from back in the day. Do you still have the HRs, @John? I certainly don't regret my HRs but I did feel the 9mm was a bit behind a Hyperion 17 + fine tuning rings.

Just to clarify my above statement - Lanthanum is a rare earth element, so to say the eyepiece has a lanthanum element is the same as saying it uses rare earths.

@Louis D Vixen state SLV use lanthanum glass. https://www.vixenoptics.com/Vixen-SLV-2-5mm-Eyepiece-p/37202.htm

@michael.h.f.wilkinson I will PM you about EP peregrinations! Back on the topic of the SLVs, how do you find the 5mm specifically as that is the one I will get first? I am also thinking of getting the 4 and 6 and 9... and maybe the 15... and then the 25 too to have a complete range... This is to complement ES 68 degree EPs (16, 20, 24) for widefield and ES 82 degrees (6.7 and 11) for the midfield.

I used to live in Lelystad, and travelled up to Sneek and Leeuwaarden a few times, never quite to Groningen. I don't have a car any more or I would be happy to make the trip 😀

That's a kind offer, but I live in the warm glow of Schiphol! Groningen is practically another country 😀 But you've sold me on the SLVs already.

Ten years ago when I bought a couple of TS Planetary HRs (6mm and 9mm) the general buzz was they were almost as good as a Radian. I certainly liked mine and the effect they gave of looking into a magic pool of light (caused I think by the smallish FOV, the twist-up eyecup, and comfortable eye relief). Fast forward to 2020 and the same TS Planetary HRs are now generally considered worse than BSTs... Really? I am looking at getting a few oculars around the 5mm mark for planetary, lunar and double star viewing - and the two types I have my eye on are the TS Planetary HRs and Vixen SLVs. I know the SLVs would be better on axis than the HRs, but by how much? Certainly for lunar viewing 58 degrees would be better than the 45 degrees of the SLVs (the shorter SLVs only have 45 degree fields, not 50). Also weight is a consideration for me - the HRs will be significantly lighter. Can't recall why I sold my HRs... was it because I switched from an F13 to an F5 scope? Is this a factor now I have F6 scopes? But I see that the styling of the HRs has changed since I bought them. Has quality declined?

I have exactly the same problem with my C6 SCT! You would think scope manufacturers would get a basic thing like this right... 😡

In comparison to plossls they are heavy and long.

Seems pretty good! Overall happy. It has been awesome for DSOs and Lunar. Adding a 0.63 reducer improved it - giving both wider fields and better high magnification views. It needs regular collimation though. It's worked out fine on the AZ GTi - I only got the Fi tube not the mount. The weight is 3.3 kilograms. Only weak spot has been double stars - not the best star shapes and not very clean separation between tight pairs.

I got a 20cm M12 bolt (longer ones are available) and the Explore Scientific Dob Counterweight set (with this set you get 2 1kg counterweights for the price of one): By the way, I know this doesn't look very balanced, but my counterbalancing is primarily to reduce strain on the ALT gear not the AZ gear.

Ethos 17mm 100°. Nearly a degree field of view but still about 120 magnification.

My setup (C6 with reducer) doesn't really support 2 inch eyepieces, so the 24/68 is as wide as I will go. Just had another session, still couldn't tease any structure out of the Cat's Eye. Had a look at the Dragonfly cluster (C13) which is very nice with some colored stars and the Double Cluster, again seeing lots of color in its stars tonight with the ES 24/68. Finished off with a quick peek at Albireo, which was so lovely I thought why not have a quick look at the Double Double. Went on to look at Zeta Lyrae, 61 Cygni (a personal favorite, I really like equal strongly colored pairs), Eta Cass and finally Sigma Cass.

@Solar B Aesthetics is a religion not a science, so we'll have to respect our diversity of opinion 🙂 ... I do like the top of the Morphii with their dinner-plate eye lenses. @Stardaze I think it's a 6.7 not 6.8? But it is a special eyepiece - looking through the ES last night I kept thinking "I want more of these" and when I looked through the Nirvana I couldn't help thinking "I want less of these". I'm thinking of adding the ES 82°4.7, 8.8 and 11, and the ES 68° 16 and 20 (I have the 24/68 and it is superb)... How do you find the 11?

I find dew is a problem in warmer weather usually - humidity is higher in the summer, and then the temperature plummets on a clear night...

I also struggle at opticians. Just thinking about going for a check-up makes my eyes water.

I hope bifocals will work for me. I am short-sighted but for the past few years can't see close up with my glasses on. I think my lenses just aren't flexible any more - which might also be why I don't get on with the Nirvana 16mm. I am forever putting my glasses on or taking them off... Seriously considering the Morpheus 17.5 mm now. And thinking the Morpheus 12.5 might be a nice companion for it. Last night's outing was very expensive in more ways than one! The Morphii are a bit pricey for me but seem to justify the cost based on every single review I've read. Aside from price concerns, the other two things that give me pause are (1) the Morpheus line are just about the ugliest quality eyepieces out there and (2) they are pretty heavy. The alternative would be to get the ES 68 degrees 16 mm and 20mm, if these are anything like the 24 mm I know I would be happy with them. The only thing I don't like about the 24mm is the weight (same as Morphii).

Really please I found it too, the sky was uncommonly bright last night and "normal" is Bortle 8 for me. C6 seemed almost too bright to be a nebula, and the pale green color was quite apparent. Will definitely revisit this one on the next clear night, and would love to image it. Good it is quite northerly so it will stay in my skies for longer. Would love to see it under a dark sky, but travel is out of the question for now...

Thanks, I guess I was due a new prescription anyway as I think I need bifocals now. That Nirvana 16 mm is bugging me. The off axis blur can't be field curvature from the telescope as the .63 reducer is a flattener. Despite liking it on some nights I think it has to go, it just doesn't work with my eyes. Maybe the Morpheus 17.5 is what I need. Or for less weight and money the ES 20/68...

Bring on the dread, cold howling dark of Winter, I say!

I was wondering whether to do visual or imaging tonight, but decided on visual as the skies looked less than perfect. I waited til midnight for dark and when I went out I nearly gave up - the sky was still inky blue. I had an observing plan consusting of the northern Caldwells east of Polaris and I flew through C1, C2, C4, and C6 finding nothing. Went back to C4 and still nothing. Tried C6 again and bingo - a fuzzy star, a definite fuzzy star! Ironic I should finally find C6 with my C6 telescope! Time to up the magnification and do some observifying! I must be "well padded" as I felt absolutely nothing as I sat down to observe Caldwell 6 and utterly crushed my spectacles. C6, the Cat's Eye Nebula is a new one for me and I had no idea I could observe it at all. I think in my years of observing and hunting for planetaries I have only had definite observations of M27 and M57 (I might have spotted the Little Dumbell once), so to see C6 plain as day was a real thrill. It is really bright and looked a bit greenish to me. I could see no structure in it though so I had the idea to screw the lens unit of my Revelation barlow into my Explore Scientific 6.7 mm to get it down to about 4.5 mm. This was the point I reached for my glasses on the eyepiece tray and did not find them, then checked the chair with a sinking heart, and picked up all that was left of them - twisted, snapped wire! After a few minutes of staring futilely at the broken glasses, I got back to the important business of C6. I really like the ES 6.7 with the Rev barlow screwed in - it feels sharp and precise. C6 was bigger but no structure to be seen. I should have tried a full 2x barlowing, but somehow that did not occur to me. Perhaps a bit of context might be needed here - my SCT has a 0.63 reducer so the 6.7 mm eyepiece gives an exit pupil of about 1.1 mm and with the barlow 0.7 mm, so the magnifications aren't really extreme. I tried to have another go at C2 - the Bow Tie planetary. I did find something but not sure what - a magnitude 10 star with faint puffy nebulosity around it visible in averted vision. Not having Seen Mr Bow Tie, I don't know if I can chalk this one up. I had another go at C4 (Iris Nebula) but still nothing. Never seen this thing... Is it a hard one or do I just not have the Right Stuff? I have a suspicion that the faint fuzzy I found when looking for C2 was actually C4 and I had simply got confused when entering the coordinates! It would kind of sum up the evening i was having. Fireworks Galaxy - C12 - was the next target and another failure, but it did lead me to NGC 6939 nearby - a small star cluster, new for me. I paid a visit to M57 because I always do. It's actually much fainter than the Cat's Eye. Around this point I decided the skies were just too bright and went in to find my emergency spectacles. This was my first visual outing with the AZ GTi counterbalanced with 2 kgs for a total load of 6 kgs (but balanced). Not too sure it is an improvement - the counterweights introduce vibrations and maybe I will change my counterweight shaft from a longer threaded rod (which feels springy) to a shorter bolt which feels much more stiff but obviously provides less balance. Vibrations aside, tracking was much better with the counterweights. I spent the night switching between a Nirvana 16 mm and Explore Scientific 6.7 mm, and the Nirvana did not fare well in the comparison. Stars are just not sharp across the field in the Nirvana - a real problem when looking for fuzzy stars that might be planetaries. On some night I enjoy the Nirvana but on most nights the view feels poor, perhaps my eyes are more tired and can't adjust for field curvature. The apparent field of the Nirvana also seems smaller and harder to take in than that of the Explore Scientific 6.7 mm. All in all, a very unsuccessful evening with the awful disaster of my glasses, but still feels like a high because I got a good look at the Cat's Eye.

The Nagler 4.8mm is 82 degrees and has a tiny eye lens. That's simply because there is no eye relief - as your eyeball is right next to the eye lens it doesn't have to be big. The morpheus has something like 20 mm of eye relief so the lens has to be bigger.

Don't lick the eyepiece? A health warning on everything kind of loses the effect...

That's a Berlebach Report 112 Astro tripod. Very light and very strong, but very short! It's fine for me as I always observe sitting.