Eyepiece views?

[Bart]

Hello all

I was out last night for the first time in ages. Took the 10" out. Was using all my 1.25" EPs as it easier than messing with balance going 1.25 to 2".

Near the end of the night I went to the ES 100" 20mm to explore Virgo. Enjoyed the wide view so much, I got the ES 100" 14mm out and it was a treat.

Now, here's the thing. I really got the urge to buy the 100" 9mm

It would mean the Nagler 11mm and Pentax XF 8.5mm would be largely superfluous, or would they?

In my 10" I would have x60,90,140,180 and 210

In the 16" I would have x90,130,205 and 260.

I feel it might be a big gap in the 16" between 130 and 205.

For that gap, I thought maybe a BCO 10mm for detailed views at a reasonable price.

The 11mm and the 8.5mm would go a fair way towards the cost of the ES 100" 9mm, delivered from Germany for just under €300

My EP selection has been steady for ages and not sure if I'm just getting itchy fingers. Any views appreciated.

Thanks

Barry

[RichM63]

LOL, read your own signature.

PS, did you mean ES or TS 9mm 100°?

[Pig]

All the eyepieces I ever need  does that sound familiar to anyone else ? or just me

[alan potts]

Barry,

I think X130-205 is too much, I always prefer Jupiter at around X170 even though I have eyepieces that will go up and down in small jumps either side. I tend to jump from 35mm up to at least 8mm in my shorter scopes if on planets, also I feel you need something between these two for globular clusters (x150-170) would be my choice. I rarely go above X250 even on the Moon.

Alan

[John]

I found the same when I got the 13mm Ethos Barry - the 8mm, 6mm soon followed and a bit later the 21 mm. Those 4 replaced 6/7 Naglers and cover most of the bases with my 12" dob.

The ES 100's are similarly addictive if you are a fan of hyper wide views

You might not find the gap between 130x and 205x that much of an issue really - hyperwide eyepieces tend to change the rules a bit !

For me the steps are 265x - 199x - 122x - 76x which seems to work out fine.

[Bart]

Rich.

You're right, I wrote that signature as a reminder to myself, but as I use tapatalk all the time, I don't see it!

I meant the ES one

Barry

[Bart]

Thanks for the input gents. I find if I have too many eps I almost use them as a zoom, ie. go through the lot, with little difference in between. I also tend to use the 2" EPs in the 16" and the 1.25" EPs in the 10". It would be nice to have one set. Maybe I'll go for it and patch the hole with the BCO if I need to. My eyes will probably go wonky going from the 100" to the 45 in the BCO!!

Barry

[swamp thing]

Barry 

In the 16" I would want something in the 150x region as this is a great mag for average Jo galaxies in a 16" scope. I would also want something up around 300x - 350x for globular clusters and planetary nebs. 

[alan potts]

As high as that Steve on gloubulars? I must try somewhere up there with the LX, OK it is not like yours, coffee table size but other peoples ideas should always be tried out.

[swamp thing]

I used to use over 300x on globs with my 16" LB Alan. It fills an 82˚ eyepiece beautifully with stars, wonderful sight. The high power gives separation too and allows you to resolve the core areas better. It kinda brings the glob right to you. 

[alan potts]

I will have to give that a try on the LX which is easy as it is driven and in a couple of weeks the new Dob. I think some nudging partice is required beforehand though. Maybe that extra 4 inchs of the LB makes a lot of difference though and in your scopes case it must be near 3 times the mirror area of mine.

[Bart]

Barry

In the 16" I would want something in the 150x region as this is a great mag for average Jo galaxies in a 16" scope. I would also want something up around 300x - 350x for globular clusters and planetary nebs.

Steve

You're probably right. Maybe I'll keep the 11mm Nagler, or maybe get the 10mm BCO for closer inspections of the DSOs. Wish I was a millionaire.....

Barry