STAR DIAGONAL?

[AstroJOE]

Just to confuse you a bit more....I've just read an old thread on here where there was a discussion about using a 2" diagonal in a 127 Mak and the general consensus was there wasn't much point in upgrading as the Mak's FOV was too restrictive. I don't know how accurate this as I have only ever used it in the CPC1100 and it certainly work well in this. Perhaps other members could offer some advice on this?

[bmc]

thanks you have answered my question. i'll be getting a 1.25" diagonal. 

[red eye]

bmc,

It doesn't really matter if you upgrade to a 1.25 or 2 inch, as long as you replace the stock plastic 1.25 diagonal that comes with most scopes. In my case, that is the first upgrade I make on any scope I acquire, and I have just got in the habit of buying whatever 2 inch dielectric is on sale at that time. From then on, you know that if you drop in a quality eyepiece, the optical train is good, at a reasonable price.

David

[bmc]

cheers David, a new 1.25" dielectric diagonal is on my Christmas list   

[Tinker1947]

cheers David, a new 1.25" dielectric diagonal is on my Christmas list   

Think about a Starlight feather touch, it makes focusing a real joy to do, throw in a Celestron f6.3 Focal Reducer and you have a whole new scope wider fields of view much easier to focus, the Feathertouch from FLO is a lot cheaper than some of the other retailers as its not a Dollar/Pound straight conversion...have a merry Xmas...

i would recommend the 2" Diagonal, the 31/36mm Hyperions would need it......

[red eye]

bmc,

I really would advise that you give serious consideration to a 2 inch dielectric over a 1.25 dielectric diagonal. The reason is that as your eyepieces move in focal length above 25mm, many become dedicated 2 inch barrels to take advantage of a wider FOV. The 1.25 will not allow you that flexibility in wider view eyepieces. I personally use a 25mm Explore, a 31mm Aspheric, and a 36 Meade, and they are all  exclusively 2 inch format for wider views when scanning around. Heck, I even drop the 22mm Pan into the 2 inch holder, even though it is normally  used in a 1.25 inch diagonal. Give some thought to not boxing yourself in to only being able to use 1.25 inch eyepieces.

David

[Caldwell14]

The WO carbon fibre diagonals are very good, I have had both 2" and 1.25, very good build quality indeed. I had a 1.25 second hand TeleVue, 70 quid I think, fitted my TV eps a treat, a lovely sliky fit. As John says the Revelations are very good, I have owned 2 inch and 1.25 versions, watch out though the are different versions, one uses nasty SW style thumb screws, the other compression joints. SW deluxe diagonals are very good by the way, its one of these I am using at the moment, a 2 inch number. 

[John]

I've just reminded myself that the original poster has a 127mm mak-cassegrain. I'm really not sure a 2" diagonal would be worth fitting to this type of scope due to the limited diameter of the rear port on the scope - it's smaller than some of the field stops in 1.25" eyepieces let alone 2" ones.

On the William Optics 1.25" diagonals and their clones, they are very nice but they do have a thick ring retaining the 1.25" eyepiece holder onto the body of the diagonal and this causes some vignetting (loss of field of view) with eyepieces which use large diameter field stops, eg: 32mm ploss, 24mm Panoptic etc.