1.25" v 2"

[Odd Thomas]

I've never used, had or even looked through a telescope equiped with a 2" eyepiece set up.

If I get myself one, (and a 2" star diagonal as well) what differances could I expect with my C8SE?

I would ask if it would be worth it too but I suspect I may be the only one who can answer that one!

[kniclander]

just a wider field of view at low powers. nothing more (except you will have less money for other things...)

[lukebl]

I only have one 2" eyepiece, the stock 28mm Skywatcher one, but I find the rich wide field achieved with it is really striking, and much easier for me as a spectacle-wearer. For high-mag viewing I just use 1.25" eyepieces or Barlows (much cheaper, too!)

[johninderby]

The small diameter baffle inside the C8 OTA will limit the effectiveness of 2" eyepieces so you wouldn't want to use too long a focal length. For the C8 perhaps one 2" eyepiece of about 30mm would be useful.

John

[NickK]

Sometimes the scope will need an adaptor to allow correct focus. My scope has this - 1.25" is fine, for 2" I have to remove a large chunk of the focuser russian doll then screw in a 63mm to 2" converter and a focal adaptor to the EP to be brought into focus (otherwise it'll be floating in thin-air!).

[fatwoul]

I, too, only have the standard SW 28mm one included with my 80mm frac. However, I love the view it gives me compared to the 1.25" Vixen 26mm plossl that came with my dad's scope. The only way I can explain it is that it feels like the difference between a normal cinema screen and IMAX; my peripheral vision is employed more with that 2" eyepiece, so I feel more immersed in what I see. With the 1.25", I realise I am looking through a telescope at something, but with the 2" 28mm, I can sometimes forget all the expensive glass and feel engulfed in a field of stars.

If that is the difference I get from a 1.25 and a cheap 2", I'd love to see what a really good 2" is like.

[Odd Thomas]

Hmmm, plenty food for thought there. Thanks all.