Eyepieces for a Mak 127

[Mcphisto]

I have a few questions. Firstly, what is the maximum size eyepiece for a wide field of view on my Mak? I know it has a limited field of view because of the type of scope it is, so is it worth me buying a 40mm when I already have a 28mm that came with the scope?

Also, my father gave me his 10mm eyepiece but when I used it, no matter how hard I tried I couldn't get it to focus on any stars etc even though I could get sharp images of the stars with the 28mm. Is this because it was bad seeing? Or is there another problem?

So as you can see I have the 10 and 28mm ep's, what would you suggest I get as well? And would you recommend a 2x Barlow over a 3x Barlow, and if so why? Does it affect the image?... because a 5x Barlow sounds good to me!

Thanks!!

[M4lcs67]

Hello. I own a 127 MAK and have started upgrading my eyepieces. My ep's of choice are the Baader Hyperions and they work brilliantly with the 127. They give a lovely clear image and they have a 68 degree fov which I like very much. They are a little expensive (around £100, so don't know what they would be in Dollars). One thing to think about however is that with the Hyperions having a wide fov the maximum you would be able to use before you started to see the edge of the tube is 28mm. I also have a Celestron Ultima 2x barlow and it is seen as one of the best.

Ultimately you would be better with a smaller, sharper image than a big fuzzy one and just by increasing the power that is probably all you'll get. There is a maximum limit you can go to with the 127 and if you go over that you will not get a good image.

[Mcphisto]

Thanks for the reply M41, those sure do look like nice pieces of kit, but alas out of my price bracket for a while, but the Celestron Barlow isnt. Do you know what the maximum limit is for the 127? Save me buying an eyepiece thats no good!

Thanks again

[Dunkster]

The Explore Scientific 68 degree series get decent reviews and there is a 24mm FL in a 1.25" form that is currently on sale (assuming you're in north America of course), giving pretty much the same FOV as the Hyperion... and that's about as wide as you'll get from a 127. But the FL is getting a bit close to your current 28mm, so unless you're convinced the 28mm is doing a bad job, you might be better off with a shorter FL.

Rather than the Barlow, you might be better off getting a dedicated shorter FL, something like a Celestron X-Cel LX 9mm (depending on how good the skies are where you are)... again, reasonably priced in north America at around US$70.

Either a 2x or 3x barlow should be OK to use with your 28mm, but unless you frequently get excellent sky conditions, the 3x is probably a bit much for any shorter EP with your 127.

[Mcphisto]

Thanks Dunkster! I'll look into that Celestron 9mm. And I think I'll get a Barlow because if I dont, I'll always wonder what it would be like if I had one! Thanks for the help!

[Dunkster]

Note that it's unlikely you'll be able to gain anything from using the Barlow and 9mm together - just too much magnification.

[JamesF]

The problem with trying to use the 127 Mak for wide field is that it's really not designed for it. The mirror slides up and down inside the OTA on a baffle tube that runs at least half-way up the body and is around 1.25" diameter all the way up. Light travels from the secondary mirror to the eyepiece down the inside of that baffle tube. That means the light cone has to be quite narrow.

I occasionally use a 32mm ep with mine, but mostly for finding objects rather than as a wide-field eyepiece. If I want wide-field I'll use a different scope.

Depending on your sky quality you may not often be in a situation where you can use more than 250x magnification. The 1500mm focal length means you'd achieve that with a 6mm ep. If you use a 2x barlow then you'd probably be looking at using it with nothing much shorter focal length than a 12mm ep. The Celestron Ultima 2x is actually nearer 2.3x or 2.4x, so combining that with a 12mm ep might often just be asking too much of the seeing.

I might be tempted to plan for 18mm and 12mm eps with a 2x barlow to give you effective focal lengths of 9mm and 6mm.

James

[Mcphisto]

Note that it's unlikely you'll be able to gain anything from using the Barlow and 9mm together - just too much magnification.

Ah, I see what you mean. Looks like I'll get a 12mm instead then. Glad I posted this question!

[Mcphisto]

The problem with trying to use the 127 Mak for wide field is that it's really not designed for it. The mirror slides up and down inside the OTA on a baffle tube that runs at least half-way up the body and is around 1.25" diameter all the way up. Light travels from the secondary mirror to the eyepiece down the inside of that baffle tube. That means the light cone has to be quite narrow.

I occasionally use a 32mm ep with mine, but mostly for finding objects rather than as a wide-field eyepiece. If I want wide-field I'll use a different scope.

Depending on your sky quality you may not often be in a situation where you can use more than 250x magnification. The 1500mm focal length means you'd achieve that with a 6mm ep. If you use a 2x barlow then you'd probably be looking at using it with nothing much shorter focal length than a 12mm ep. The Celestron Ultima 2x is actually nearer 2.3x or 2.4x, so combining that with a 12mm ep might often just be asking too much of the seeing.

I might be tempted to plan for 18mm and 12mm eps with a 2x barlow to give you effective focal lengths of 9mm and 6mm.

James

Thanks James, after what you and Dunkster said, I'll be going for the 12 and a Barlow. I have the 28mm but that came as a 2" so maybe get a 32mm as well. Thanks!

[Dunkster]

Ah, I see what you mean. Looks like I'll get a 12mm instead then. Glad I posted this question!

Actually, that's the opposite of what I meant to get across - sorry about that - let me clarify...

A 12mm is useful, don't get me wrong, but getting a 12mm just so you can barlow it to 6mm is cutting off your nose... depending on your seeing conditions of course, a 9mm would be much more usable - unless you live or regularly observe from a desert.

Personally I don't find an 18mm a very useful FL, but you might find some EPs in that FL that are wider FOV than plossls, etc.

Barlowing your 28mm might give you a more useful FL, depending on the barlow of course Just remember that as you are adding glass to the optical path, you'd be better off getting a decent quality barlow so that you're not compromising on image. They can cost easily the cost of multiple EPs such as the X-Cel LX, hence my original "angle".

[Mcphisto]

Actually, that's the opposite of what I meant to get across - sorry about that - let me clarify...

A 12mm is useful, don't get me wrong, but getting a 12mm just so you can barlow it to 6mm is cutting off your nose... depending on your seeing conditions of course, a 9mm would be much more usable - unless you live or regularly observe from a desert.

Personally I don't find an 18mm a very useful FL, but you might find some EPs in that FL that are wider FOV than plossls, etc.

Barlowing your 28mm might give you a more useful FL, depending on the barlow of course Just remember that as you are adding glass to the optical path, you'd be better off getting a decent quality barlow so that you're not compromising on image. They can cost easily the cost of multiple EPs such as the X-Cel LX, hence my original "angle".

I got a 10mm so I'll skip the 9mm. Think I'll get a Barlow and a 28mm 1.25" ep as my current one is a 2".

Another question for you Dunster is, why couldnt I focus my 10mm on anything? I had great clarity with the 28 but just murky fog and not points of light to be seen with the 10mm? And I had the cap off!

[Dunkster]

Probably just the weather

[Boyleyuk]

I got a 10mm so I'll skip the 9mm. Think I'll get a Barlow and a 28mm 1.25" ep as my current one is a 2".

Another question for you Dunster is, why couldnt I focus my 10mm on anything? I had great clarity with the 28 but just murky fog and not points of light to be seen with the 10mm? And I had the cap off!

sorry to drag this up again but I'd appreciate your views/feedback on the eye pieces you choose as I am in the same situation after purchasing a celestron 127 mak goto,

[Spikey]

I only use one EP, the Baader hyperion 8-24 zoom with mine.

As the Mak is a slow F12 you can also get away with using cheaper EP's

[Russe]

BST 8mm

[BargeGazer]

I have the BST 12mm and 18mm for mine and love them. Also a 32mm. Seems to do well on most nights. Barlow x2 for really clear night's or with a webcam.

[chiltonstar]

For planetary and double star viewing, I'd recommend using a BST 8mm - pin sharp. On nights with good seeing, my 6mm shows a little more, but has less eye relief. For longer FL eyepieces, personal choice comes into it a lot - I personally prefer a smaller FoV sometimes, and it can be easier to show what you're looking at to children or non-astronomer.

Chris

[Capricorn]

sorry to drag this up again but I'd appreciate your views/feedback on the eye pieces you choose as I am in the same situation after purchasing a celestron 127 mak goto,

Your scope will have a 1500mm focal length, personally I would consider 150x as a reasonable and sensible maximum magnification. It should do more but there comes an increasing trade off between size and quality.

So that means the 10mm area.

Your scope will work fairly well with something like a decent plossl, so Vixen or GSO's, the BST range are good and there are planetary eyepieces also.

The Vixen plossl's fit and are either £30 or £40 depending on focal length. They have a 10mm and appear to go in 5mm steps.

GSO's I have no details on, basically they get good reports on here, I am assuming much the same cost as Vixen's.

BST's again a very good eyepiece, presently £47, no 10mm but they do a 12mm and an 8mm, the 12mm is probably a safer single option then the 8mm. Really if getting "eyepieces" then consider 3 at least. 8mm is the smallest you would need for the Mak.

Planetarys, really the TMB clones. Skies the Limit do these at £36 and £47 I think. 2 different eyepieces and a fair price diffecence. Telescope Service do a planetary which I have heard is good - TS HR eyepiece. The 9mm, 15mm and 25mm seem the best for the Mak, they are 58E a piece about £48.

Plossl's: If you wear glasses then the eye relief is probably too small at focal length below 20mm.

The BST's I have and use in a Mak, very good results, from a "safe bet" point of view these are the ones to consider primarily.

For a goto Mak I suggest that you also need one very wide eyepiece, I use a 40mm plossl for this. The use is to have as big a field of view as possible to locate the first alignment star. Doesn't have to be good, just a wide view.

[angusb1]

In mine I use 9.7mm and 32mm Meade 4000 plossls, and an 11mm Explore Scientific 82 degree. I have an Explore Scientific 6.7mm 82 degree as well but I have never bettered the views of the 9.7mm plossl with it as it always shows a soft image in this scope. The 6.7mm is too much power for the seeing conditions I've used it in. A 9mm xcel is well worth a try, and for widest views I would look at either the xcel 25mm, BST 25mm, or the Meade 32mm plossl depending on your budget. Plossls work very well in these scopes because of the slow focal ratio.

[Boyleyuk]

guys thank for the advice, i'm reading through your posts now and its very helpful