1.25" vs 2" eyepiece use !!! ( Advice please )

[stuartjones]

Hi all Just looking for a little help advice and it's probably a stupid question but I recently purchased a new setup and the new scope has a 2" eyepiece holder, which at present I have got a 2" to 1.25" adapter, due to the fact all my current eyepieces are 1.25".

So what I would like to know if possible is would it be worth me starting to buy some 2" eyepieces for this scope or would I really not gain a huge amount. it's just they are not that cheap for the 2" but if the seeing is seeing is going to be a huge improvement then i can justify buying them.

Hope you understand what i am getting at and hope it's not too stupid a question to ask

Many thanks stu

[rwilkey]

Hi Stu, 2" ep's are mainly used for low power widefield stuff, and usually you would only have one or two in your collection. A 32mm is a good low power one to have. You will always need 1.25" ep's for medium and high power. So if choosing a 2" ep choose carefully, there is also the question of 2" filters which are also more expensive. If you get the right 2" ep it will give stunning widefield views, I am a fan of the 82 degree widefields.

[Dunkster]

Hi Stu, as Robin rightly says, the 2" EPs are for a wider view... in your scope (1000mm FL), the maximum FOV you can get from the widest 1.25" EP is about 1.5 degrees across, whereas with the widest possible 2" EP is 2.6 degrees across. Given the circular nature of our portal through the EP, the area of view is 1.88 degrees^2 and 5.57 degrees^2 respectively... so the widest 2" EP can show you essentially 3x more sky at once compared with the widest 1.25" EP. This is of course taking it to their extremes, but the main reasons for using the 2" barrel are to show more sky or to accommodate big/heavy EPs that are better gripped by the 2" holder.

As you've noticed the 2" EPs tend to be more expensive... more glass, more barrel, more of everything really. For the widest views available iirc, the Vixen LVW 42mm, TV Panoptic 41mm are quite pricey, but the 40mm SW aero is almost as wide and more reasonably priced - although I have no experience with refractors to gauge how well it might work in your scope

[russ.will]

Stu, can I ask what your current EPs are?

Russell

[alan potts]

If Robin is correct with the "one or two in your collection" then I have something seriously wrong with mine.

Of course he is correct, again I would go with the 32mm choice as well. When you read the marketing prose and yes I believe most of it is a story. They say better contrast with 2 inch, well I have to say I can never tell and I have some very fine eyepieces. Mainly as far as I am concerned it is for the wider field of view that comes with them, if you don't want this then I would say stick to what you have as the full system will not be cheap unless you alredy have a diagonal.

The Meade 32mm S Plossl is a fairly good 32mm and you may even get an end of line at Telescope House on this one.

Happy New Year,

Alan.