Two Inch, or not Two Inch?

[dick_dangerous]

Hi All,

Two inch or not two inch, that is the question?

Wither 'tis nobler in the mind to stick to the lovely set of BST 1.25'' I have already or suffer the slings and arrows of outrageously expensive equipment and by buying a nice 32mm 2'' eyepiece thus have better widefield views?

But seriously...

I'm in a bit of a down season right now - my job finally got responsible so I haven't had the energy to go out stargazing into the wee hours. I'm doing what every astronomer does when they've shut down their 'scope for a month or so and have started to think about what I could get to improve it. The plan is not to upgrade the 6'' until we either leave London or I buy a car. So the current set-up is:

• My 150P Dob - 1200mm focal length and 150mm mirror
• My trusty BST eyepieces - 5mm, 8mm, 15mm and 25mm
• A rubbish barlow lens
• A UHC filter

I'm wondering if it would be worth augmenting that little lot with a 32mm wide-field eyepiece in readiness for the return of night in August (And the prospect of annual leave!). I'd like to invest in something half-way decent, but don't want to go too pricey - after all, I'd like to get a bigger mirror in a couple of years. I was wondering what people suggested and is it worth it? I get an inkling that having those 4 BSTs might be considered enough!

Many thanks,

Paul

P.s. Yes, I did remember to keep the 2'' adaptor!

[ronin]

I have a 2" eyepiece, never really used it, says 80^o on the box.

Really too big and too much trouble, like you I have the BST's and if I wanted more magnification it means taking the 2" out, taking the adaptor out, putting the 1,25" adaptor in then the BST. By which time the Orion nebula has ceased to exist or Betelguese has gone nova and during all the messing round I will have missed either or both events.

Then I am left with a great big chunk of 2" eyepiece - they are big, they do not fit in a pocket.

Also if you are not using the scope then wait otherwise you are not using the scope and not using the 2" eyepiece.

[John]

A 2" 32mm eyepiece will have wider views but not necessarily better. If you have some light pollution to contend with you may find the 25mm BST shows deep sky objects a little better because it delivers higher magnification which darkens background skyglow a little making finter DSO's a bit easier to pick out.

Also, I guess your UHC filter is 1.25" inch so it won't be useable with a 2" eyepiece, which you would want to do to enhance the views of objects such as the Veil Nebula.

If I was in your situation I'd probably stay with your current eyepieces / filter.

[PeterW]

Maybe upgrade your ep to "better" models, but 2" is only NEEDED for long focal lengths in order to fit the field stop in. I only have a few, including a zoom I use for the sun. I "could do" with a big low power one, but then for wide angle fuzzy hunting I have other kit.

Lots of people seem to have ep collection addiction!

It's Astro closed season at the moment, maybe time to dust off the bat detector instead.

Cheers

PeterW

[damnut]

Stick to the BST's until you add to your scope list! You will get EP & scope addiction!.

[dick_dangerous]

So the 2'' eps are probably not worth it! I'll stick with what I've got and spend the money on something else.

The bat detector has had a couple of outings, but I'll be back out with the telescope fairly soon!

Paul

[John]

2" eyepieces are great things, if you need what they do,

[rwilkey]

Hi Paul, above comments and your conclusion is wise for now.  For me I do most of my stargazing at low power and the advantage of wider fields really suits my observing preferences, however, the 2" world is an expensive one but you only need one or two eyepieces in that range, me, I have the ES82's in 18mm and 30mm and I find that sufficient, plus the 2" filters which can be double the price of their 1.25" counterparts, but I do feel it raises my game.  Your choice of the BST StarGuiders is a wise one, they are the best out there and will be great with your current set-up.  Clear skies!