2" diagonal

[jambouk]

I'#ve cut and paste this from another website and while this is talking about SCT telescopes, I suspect the terminology is the same for my Mak:

"

The very rear of the Schmidt-cassegrain housing is called the 'rear cell'. In the case of my Celestron 8" SCT, a visual back would be screwed onto the threads of the rear cell, and a 1.25 inch diagonal, or an eyepiece can be attached to the visual back. However, the rear cell's opening in 2", so I have a 2" Star Diagonal attached directly to the rear cell. When using 1.25 inch eyepieces, I use a 2" to 1.25" eyepiece adapter, which fits into the upright part of the star diagonal.

Bill J."

From:

http://cs.astronomy.com/asy/equipment/f/12/t/29500.aspx

James

[alan potts]

This star diagonal on the rear cell is a special diagonal apart from that is should be easy. I am assuming the Mak and the SC is the same at the rear. I think they are because I have never seen a focuser advertised as for a Mak scope.

Alan

[jambouk]

The Mak rear cell and SCT rear cells are different. One needs a mak to SCT converter to make a Mak like a SCT:

http://www.scopesnskies.com/prod/astro-engineering/Sky-Watcher%20Mak/ac789.html

James

[Mark at Beaufort]

I would contact Steve,James or Martin at FLO to get one of these - http://www.firstligh...ct-adapter.html

I would guess that using one of these adapter you could use a 2" Diagonal with a SCT attachment if you didn't want to use the dual speed focuser as an additional attachment.

Mark

[alan potts]

I didn't know, well as least I leant something, I hope when mine comes I can just put the diagonal in and away I go, plug and play so to speak. Getting adapters is difficult where I live, but I read the advertisement on FLO's site I and I think I'm OK.

Why do things always have to be different.

Alan

[jambouk]

I've got a mak to sct adaptor which allows the dual speed focuser to be attached.

The generic skywatcher parts allow the 2" diagonal to be used also.

James

[jambouk]

I think you'll be able to use 2" EPs; my confusion was just the fact the light path travels through a hole smaller than 1.25".

James

[alan potts]

I hope we cleared that up for you James. Alan

[jambouk]

I am going to set it up in day lught at the weekend and compare 1.25" and 2" and see how field of view compares.

James

[alan potts]

Assuming you are using like eyepieces with regard to the FOV you will see a difference. You really need something in the 35mm plus area to give the full effect and 68 degrees would be a bonus too.

Alan

[great_bear]

The Gold Tube Mak 180 does vignette the light cone if anything bigger than a 32mm Plossl is used.

The Mak 180 has been my main telescope for four years - although usurped over the last year by my lovely 1/12th-wave Newt custom-built by fellow SGL member johninderby

You don't get gentle light falloff with the Mak 180 either - just a small fuzzy hole to look through if you use (e.g.) a 40mm Aero EP. But personally I only bought the 2" Revelation Quartz Diagonal as an optical upgrade though - not to upgrade field-width (see the writings of Roland Christan to understand why). It's the best upgrade (on anything astro) that I've done. Planetary views have more detail and it's a much more robust support for the binoviewer than either the supplied 1.25" one or the William Optics 1.25 one (when will William Optics learn not to put shiny surfaces in the optical pathway??)

Be interesting to know what has changed in the black-tube version.

Alan, howcome you're getting a Mak 180 when you've got a 12" LX200?

[alan potts]

Great bear, I think for doubles the Mak will be better, the LX 200 is not that good, I also think the optics will be better on planets. The other reason could be I am mad, this is a by all accounts very good scope for the cost of an Ethos 21mm, it also one hell of a lot easier to move around. Alan.