Help getting started EP's

[sidis5]

Iv'e been wanting a scope since I was young and saw my first issue of Sky and Telescope. It's been many years and daydreams since and I have finally acquired what I think is the scope I wanted.  Obviously, there are so many different opinions and types of equipment out there that I would just become more confused the more I researched.  I suppose one thing I have taken away from the endless posts I have read through, is that no matter what type of scope I went with, it was not going to be excellent at everything.  With that being said I am going to try and work through with what I have.  I bought a Meade LX200GPS f/10. I upgraded the mechanics myself with all the peterson stuff including the 2' eye opener. Now I am trying to figure out the EP science. I recieved an 1 1/4 meade SP 26MM with the scope and bought a 2" Meade Xtreme wide angle 14MM with 100 degree fov. Both seem clear but the 14mm xwa is pretty crisp right out to the edge of the eyepiece. I talked with another person and they said these are really the only two eyepieces I need. But, what about a barlow? 
After reading some of these posts I'm not sure if one will work or not. I saw someone mention that a focal reducer wouldn't help because of the 2" eye opener. And just so we're all on the same page, I am brand new to this and am not sure if I would be canceling one out by using the other.  Do I need a focal reducer? Do I need a barlow? Will either work with this scope? I mean I would certainly like to get in a little closer with the 14mm if I can double it to a 7mm but would that be to much power on that scope? Iv'e tried figuring out the calculations on my own, but I'm really not sure if I'm close.  Iv'e also bought a revolution imager and wondering if that is compatible with a barlow also? Or is that even a workable combination? 

[Mak the Night]

I'm not familiar with the scope but I think it's got an f/l of around 2000mm. The 14mm will give you a magnification of around 143x. For lunar and planetary viewing that is quite decent as you need around the 150x mark to appreciate any detail with those objects. You could double (or more depending on the strength of the Barlow) that magnification with a Barlow lens. A 7mm giving you 286x (approx if the scope focal length is 2000mm) would be a nice high magnification for an 8" aperture, especially for the Moon. Depending on conditions of course. 

However, for fainter objects such as nebulae or galaxies, or even viewing open clusters inter alia a much lower magnification is usually employed with a wider view. The 26mm Meade would give you around 77x if I'm correct in assuming the focal length of your Meade SCT. 

Most people tend to amass a collection of eyepieces, with long and short focal lengths, to use with a variety of targets. I have everything from 8mm to 40mm. Ostensibly you could observe most objects with what you've already got. Many telescopes are supplied with a basic short f/l eyepiece and a longer f/l for high and low magnifications. 

Personally, I think everyone should own a 32mm Plossl as a general low power EP at least. Although you may find the 26mm Meade adequate if it is 2". I'm not sure about focal reducers on an f/10 SCT. You could get a 40mm or 55mm 2" eyepiece if your diagonal will accept 2" EP's to get a 4mm or 5.5mm exit pupil for very faint objects. I'd just experiment with what you've got first before splashing out too much money though. A decent inexpensive Barlow can be good.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-omni-plossl-eyepiece.html

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-eyepieces/celestron-2x-universal-125-barlow.html

The above links are to FLO but these eyepieces can be obtained anywhere and there are probably Meade equivalents if you prefer them.

[sidis5]

It's a 12" with a FL of 3048.  I'm using the 14mm 100degree now and it definitely has more viewable area than the 26mm.  Well, if anything I'll still have a barlow for something I suppose. I guess I'll just try and find one of those celeston barlows. It seems like meade is discontinuing most of their accessories. 

[Mak the Night]

That's a pretty long f/l. A 10mm will give you over 300x. Get a nice 20 or 25mm Plossl or orthoscopic i doubt you'll need a Barlow much. I can see what you mean by using a reducer though. You may actually need one for low power views. 

[John]

6 hours ago, sidis5 said:

It's a 12" with a FL of 3048.  I'm using the 14mm 100degree now and it definitely has more viewable area than the 26mm.  Well, if anything I'll still have a barlow for something I suppose. I guess I'll just try and find one of those celeston barlows. It seems like meade is discontinuing most of their accessories. 

The 26mm plossl will be showing you a true field of .44 of a degree and the 14mm 100 degree eyepiece will be showing you .46 of a degree. So a small difference in the amount of sky you can see but a big difference in magnification and apparent field of view.

The widest true field you will be able to get with a scope of 3048mm focal length is around .9 of a degree (twice as much sky as the above eyepieces show) which would be using something like a 41mm Tele Vue Panoptic eyepiece (a 2" eyepiece of course).

Personally I'd not be considering using a barlow lens with a scope that already has a 3 metre focal length - I'd get a decent 10mm eyepiece as Mak suggests above.

 

 

 

 

[sidis5]

Ok, good deal. That's what I'm going to do then.  Thanks for the help guys. Definitely helpful considering the cost of some of these eyepieces!