Meade Infinity 102

[Ray of LIght]

20 hours ago, cloudsweeper said:

Celestron products are very good.  I have a long FL Omni EP which I like to use, as well as XCel LX EPs.  As for Barlows, my own preference is to build up the EP collection to get the mags I want that way.   But of course they are popular as a convenient way to extend your range of mags.

Doug.

Re-read this and you have a great point. I kind of built up my collection while trying to improve the performance of my celestron 70az. I have all plossils: 32mm, 26mm, 20mm, 15mm, 9mm and 6.4mm. I also picked up a meade 4000 8-24mm zoom. I'm not sure that is the right selection for my meade 102 but i guess i could make do with the 2x barlow that came with the scope for now. Those eyepieces consist of a mix of celestron omni and meade 4000 brands. Any opinions would be great!

[Mak the Night]

The Celestron Plossls are pretty decent IMO.

I'm pretty convinced they're mostly Guan Sheng Optical and are distributed under various brand names including Orion, Antares and TS Optics. The top row here are all from the Celestron Eyeopener Kit (left to right: 32, 2x Barlow, 17mm, 13mm, 8mm). The bottom row shows 15mm and 12mm Omni Plossls. I can't discern any real difference between the Omni and standard black coloured GSO's. I still use my 32mm Celestron with my 90mm Mak sometimes as it is lighter than my TeleVue 32mm. These eyepieces have mostly been replaced by others for me though.

These Barsta eyepieces are marketed under several brand names in the UK, It's probably the same Stateside: http://www.barsta.com/show_hdr.php?xname=MDA8V11&dname=OPFOR71&xpos=13

They are quite highly rated by many on these forums. I'm pretty sure my Omegon 2x apochromatic shorty Barlow is Barsta. I haven't used any Barsta actual eyepieces, but my Omegon Barlow is very good quality.

http://www.barsta.com/show_hdr.php?xname=MDA8V11&dname=OPFOR71&xpos=6

[cloudsweeper]

1 hour ago, Ray1103 said:

Re-read this and you have a great point. I kind of built up my collection while trying to improve the performance of my celestron 70az. I have all plossils: 32mm, 26mm, 20mm, 15mm, 9mm and 6.4mm. I also picked up a meade 4000 8-24mm zoom. I'm not sure that is the right selection for my meade 102 but i guess i could make do with the 2x barlow that came with the scope for now. Those eyepieces consist of a mix of celestron omni and meade 4000 brands. Any opinions would be great!

A good spread, although there's not much difference between the 32 and the 26mm EP.  You could maybe do with an Omni 4mm to get you a higher mag (x150).  Your EPs are good and serviceable for your needs!  (I'm assuming the Meade 102 has FL = 600mm.)

Doug.

[Ray of LIght]

Thanks! Yes fl600mm. U know a decent priced 4mm will a good eye relief? I assume the celestron omni would be a good choice from what you recommend. What do you think? Btw i love this forum and i am learning so much! Hate to ask, but what do you, and all, think about the rigel quickfinder? I am about to order one because the telrad is very big and the rigel would fit better on my meade 102 i believe. With my bad back i think the rigel would enable me to utilize it better. Thank you for everything!

[cloudsweeper]

30 minutes ago, Ray1103 said:

Thanks! Yes fl600mm. U know a decent priced 4mm will a good eye relief? I assume the celestron omni would be a good choice from what you recommend. What do you think? Btw i love this forum and i am learning so much! Hate to ask, but what do you, and all, think about the rigel quickfinder? I am about to order one because the telrad is very big and the rigel would fit better on my meade 102 i believe. With my bad back i think the rigel would enable me to utilize it better. Thank you for everything!

I think the 4mm Omni eye relief is quite small, but OK esp. if you don't use specs. Best thing to do is hunt through the sites of several suppliers to see what is available.

Yes, this forum is great. I have learned a lot in a short time.

Can't advise on the Rigel, as I use a RACI finderscope and an RDF - a good combination.  Would an RDF not suffice on the M102?

Enjoy your 'scope!

Doug.

[Mak the Night]

I think an RACI is pretty essential. I have a 6x30 and a 9x50 Orion. I am disabled and if I am sitting and observing they are essential. The 6x30 has a 7° FOV which is approximately 14 Full Moons I believe.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Orion-07212-Right-Angle-Correct-Image-Finder/dp/B0000XMVE0/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459888139&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=orion+6x30+raci

 

[Ray of LIght]

Thanks Mak! I have a few disabilities myself which is why the scope i chose is about the limit I can handle. I was looking at the raci finders but i also felt that the height of the Rigel finder would help me to sight thtough it more comfortably than the rdf my scope came with. I believe the price bit of an obstacle. If I find the Rigel doesnt cut it then will be re-visiting the raci finders. The Rigel was also a bit more affordable for me right now. Been spending money like a drunken sailor ?! 

[Ray of LIght]

Thanks Mak! I have a few disabilities myself which is why the scope i chose is about the limit I can handle. I was looking at the raci finders but i also felt that the height of the Rigel finder would help me to sight thtough it more comfortably than the rdf my scope came with. I believe the price bit of an obstacle. If I find the Rigel doesnt cut it then will be re-visiting the raci finders. The Rigel was also a bit more affordable for me right now. Been spending money like a drunken sailor ?! 

[Mak the Night]

30 minutes ago, Ray1103 said:

Thanks Mak! I have a few disabilities myself which is why the scope i chose is about the limit I can handle. I was looking at the raci finders but i also felt that the height of the Rigel finder would help me to sight thtough it more comfortably than the rdf my scope came with. I believe the price bit of an obstacle. If I find the Rigel doesnt cut it then will be re-visiting the raci finders. The Rigel was also a bit more affordable for me right now. Been spending money like a drunken sailor ?! 

Yeah, it's easy to get carried away and spend a lot of spondoolies on gear lol. I get carried away sometimes! I have a 130mm Newtonian with a metre long OTA. As I'm partially paralysed on the right side of my body it can take some time to set up. I can stand and I can sit, it's anything in-between that's difficult. Last summer I set the 130mm up often pointing west on an EQ2 mount to observe Venus and Jupiter setting. Later I would watch Saturn rising. The EQ mount when set west held the OTA at almost shoulder height for me to squint along the tube rifle-style to aim it. I acquired a couple of TS Optics RDAC's (one for my Mak).

They're pretty good but the LED can often be a bit bright even on a low setting and green. I believe they are a modified form of NATO gunsight. Orion make one similar. They are well made but I think a Rigel or a Telrad are probably more effective as they were designed with astronomers in mind, rather than paratroops or something. I find my 102mm Mak easier to control (also EQ2 mount), especially when I'm sitting, as I can easily reach both slo mo controls and view while I'm seated. Hence the RACI. The smaller RACI I use on a tabletop Dob mounted 90mm Mak. I'm getting a much bigger 235mm SCT in about three weeks, which will have a GOTO. I can't wait lol!

[Ray of LIght]

Man, thought i was bad, i got some nice stuff thrre alright! Btw, that rdf u have is almost exactly the same as the TruGlo sight i have on my .17 magnum handgun so you are right they were made for handguns and rifles, hence the red green dots. Mine also has both you can use according to light conditions. I will let you know how the Rigel works out, its due friday! Take care and keep up the advice when you can. It seems i have to stop buying and then asking later. Ready, shoot, aim. Lol ?

[Mak the Night]

I considered a Rigel once, FLO stock them: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/rigel-quikfinder-compact-reflex-sight.html

I'm not sure if the foot fits standard Synta shoes or not though. I've been planning on a GOTO for a long time now. It really would solve a lot of problems that I have with my disability. I'm guessing it will still take me between forty-five minutes and an hour to set up and get organised, but it will really maximise viewing time if the computer finds stuff for me. After all, astronomy is about looking at stuff, right?

[Ray of LIght]

I agree Mak, i feel a go to would be a great second scope for me once i have mastered finding object by hand/eye. Thats if my wife doesnt strangle me! Im glad u have the new scope coming. You deserve it, after all you are an experienced observer and if the go to will make life easier that is a great thing. As far as me, i would still like a couple of more items (uhc/lpr filter, decent barlow, 4mm eyepiece to name a couple). Oh, the Rigel is attached with strong double sided tape. I had one on a celestron sky prodigy 130 that i couldnt lug around. I think i will mount it right in front of the existing rdf and probably remove that one for now. Thanks for everything and talk soon. Thanks to all, great forum! I love the advice/feedback!

[Mak the Night]

You could always get a GOTO mount for the scope you've got. I want to upgrade to a bigger aperture so I've decided on a Celestron NexStar. I have a Baader UHC-S filter and Baader Neodymium filter. I will probably consider a Lumicon UHC when I get my head around a bigger scope. I think that with any reflector at least a 150mm aperture is needed to effectivily utilise a UHC. You'll never regret buying a TeleVue Barlow, regardless of the price, they really are that good. As I have limited range and dexterity in my right arm & hand (I have learned to type entirely with my left hand) anything with sticky tape near optics looks a bit dodgy lol. You might find this Baader PDF interesting. Their UHC-S is designed for smaller apertures. I think it is a bit of a hybrid ultra high contrast with a city light suppression filter.

 

Baader_filter_overview.pdf

[Ray of LIght]

Obviously you get what you pay for. I have checked out the televue barlow, looks great, and expensive! I will check out the uhc-s, sounds interesting. Celestron makes a uhc/lpr filter that i think would work with my 102. It is $54 US, not too bad. Got pretty good reviews on Amazon, for what its worth. Some of the reviewers seem to know what they are talking about. Thanks, i will check out the pdf you sent and look around for a price. I think the celestron filter might be what my budget will allow, if its as decent as advertised. Any advice, if u have heard f it? Oh, the Rigel footprint is very small and there is not much two sided tape required.  U can also put a screw in the mount but i am not drilling holes in my new telescope ?! When i had it on my sky prodigy it help very well. Of course i sold it with the telescope ?  

[Mak the Night]

From my experience TeleVue EP prices are pretty consistent, however, many GSO and Barsta eyepiece/Barlows can vary in price depending on who is marketing them. I've seen GSO and Barsta achromatic & apochromatic Barlows under different brand names varying by some £20 ($28?). I once saw a Celestron Omni (GSO) 2x Barlow for over £50! It isn't normally half that. The Celestron and Baader UHC filters may be identical, it's a possibility they are actually manufactured at the same factory, I think they're very similarly priced. I had to use a 40mm 'Ice Cream Cone' eyepiece to get a 3.1mm exit pupil to effectively utilise the Baader UHC-S with my 102mm Mak.

It gave me a 32.5x magnification and this Stellarium screenshot (above) isn't a bad approximation as to what M42 looked like with the Baader UHC-S filter in the diagonal nosepiece. It's the lowest magnification I can get with the 102mm Mak. I'm just surprised I couldn't see the secondary (Maksutov spot) lol.

The 'Ice Cream Cone':

 

 

[Ray of LIght]

Mak, all I can say is WOW !!! I cant wai until the skies clear. That ice cream cone is a beautiful eyepiece. Now i want to order the filter! Good thing next week is my birthday, good excuse to buy myself stuff ?!

[Mak the Night]

Yes, I think the Baader UHC-S did reveal more of the nebula cloud, albeit with a blue tinge. I even stacked it with the Neodymium at one time as an experiment. M42 is starting to set early in the west for me now, especially with the advent of British Summer Time (daylight saving time) and the last relatively decent glance I had of it was a few nights ago with my 90mm Mak and a 32mm EP giving 31x.

It's difficult to get low power magnifications on a 102mm Mak with a decent enough exit pupil to really use a UHC filter. You shouldn't have this problem with your 102mm refractor. I can use a Baader Neodymium filter with a 32mm though.

I can get around 41x with a binoviewer with these Baader 32mm BCO's and my 102mm Mak. M42 looks pretty good even without the UHC. The Ice Cream Cone has about a 27mm field stop but only a 43° FOV and a whopping 28mm eye relief, hence the extra eyeguard extender. The Baader BCO’s aren’t as bad for FOV (50°) and eye relief (21mm) and I don’t need to use the supplied eyeguard extenders. The Baader 32mm also has a 26mm field stop. I've had M42 up to 130x but it is very much what the conditions allow. Anything between around 40x and 70x is good though usually.

Birthdays are always a good time to buy stuff for yourself lol.

[Ray of LIght]

My thought exactly! I need to get a decent 32mm. I have a no name plossl branded Gosky from Amazon that i would like to replace with at least a celestron omni (34.95 US). The rest of my kit is above and are at least decent. That and the celestron uhc/lpr would make me happy? . 

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, Ray1103 said:

My thought exactly! I need to get a decent 32mm. I have a no name plossl branded Gosky from Amazon that i would like to replace with at least a celestron omni (34.95 US). The rest of my kit is above and are at least decent. That and the celestron uhc/lpr would make me happy? . 

I have a TeleVue 32mm Plossl which is one of my favourite eyepieces, it has a large eye lens and is ergonomically virtually perfect. It's a bit heavy for my tabletop 90mm though, even though I can get away with a 19mm Panoptic in it. I don't use a 32mm much on the 90mm as it only gives me 31x, but I have a Celestron 32mm Plossl which is almost identical to the Omni 32mm.

As my Orion diagonal, which is light enough to use on the 90mm, doesn't have a brass compression ring, the Celestron 32mm sits in it quite nicely. I'm pretty sure the Celestron is GSO in origin. It's quite a nice eyepiece and seems to have a bigger field stop than the Baaders. I'd argue it gave a 50° FOV though and seems more like 48° to me. Either way, it's pretty decent, but not quite like the TeleVue. If I were you I'd soldier on with the Gosky until you can get the TeleVue. The Gosky possibly came from the same factory as the Celestron/GSO.

http://www.amazon.com/Gosky-Telescope-Plossl-Eyepiece-4-Element/dp/B01CXZ9DWU/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1459982016&sr=1-2&keywords=gosky+32mm+plossl

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p151_Super-Ploessl---32mm-Brennweite---1-25----FMC.html

http://www.gs-telescope.com/content.asp?id=145

They all look pretty similar to me.

I don't think the Omni are that much better than a lot of the generic produced Plossls, GSO or otherwise. The finish is shinier on the Omni EP's, and they are perfectly decent, but I'd wager they were only the same as many rebadged GSO products. There is no difference with the two Celestron Barlows pictured above, apart from the fact that one of them is an Omni. The same with the others. I can't really tell any difference between the 12mm and 15mm Omni and the 13mm and 17mm bog-standard Celestrons. Well, apart from the slight differences in focal length. If the Gosky isn't terrible to use, the odds are there is no real difference between it and any other 32mm GSO Plossl.

[Ray of LIght]

The only difference i can see is that my Gosky 32mm plossl says fully coated and my other meade and celestron eyepieces say mult coated. Whats your take? Of course i havent used it with my meade 102 yet so it may be perfectly serviceable. Getting ready to rain right now ?  

[Mak the Night]

It's a possibility the coatings are slightly better on some of the brand named GSO EP's. Apparently, some TS Optics and Orion Ultra Wide angle eyepieces, which were almost certainly Barsta, had slightly better coatings than their Sky-Watcher equivalents.

http://www.barsta.com/show_hdr.php?xname=MDA8V11&dname=OPFOR71&xpos=11

It's probably just marketing though, my 32mm Celestron Plossl was from this kit: http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/visual-accessories/eyepieces/125in-eyepiece-and-filter-kit

and it claims the kit EP's are 'fully multi-coated', so is that double better than only multi-coated and/or fully coated? lol

Furthermore, the 32 Omni Plossl blurb claims a multi-layer coating group, which could mean multi-coated, fully coated, fully multi-coated or anything really. I suspect it's just marketing spiel. http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/visual-accessories/eyepieces/omni-series-125-in-32mm

These Carl Zeiss 8x30 wide angle binoculars are pre WWII and have no coating whatsoever. They're the finest binoculars I've ever looked through.

Does your Gosky 32mm Plossl look like this Solomark 32mm?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Solomark-12-5mm-1-25inch-Telescope-Eyepiece/dp/B0185YXFYK/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1460002376&sr=8-4&keywords=Solomark%204mm%206mm%208mm%2012.5mm%2020mm%2032mm%201.25inch%20Plossl%20Telescope%20Eyepiece%20-%20Blue%20film%20Fully%20coated%20-%20Threaded%20for%20Standard%201.25inch%20Astronomy%20Filters%20(32mm)&tag=stargloung-21

It could be a rebadged Barsta: http://www.barsta.com/show_hdr.php?xname=MDA8V11&dname=OPFOR71&xpos=1

 

[Ray of LIght]

Wow Mak, it is exactly the same. So you think this might do ok until I can save up for the TeleVue 32mm? I have a Meade 26mm super plossl also so Im not sure if it might not be a good idea to go with your advice and eventually go with the TeleVue. And yes, the coatings designations are a little confusing but to my beginners mind the multi or fully multi coated glass must be better. Unless that is what they want you to think as your binoculars prove. Will price some TeleVues and let you know. Im learning a lot Mak so thanks again!

[Mak the Night]

Yes, I think it will be fine, I doubt the Omni 32mm would be a real improvement, if any. I quite like my Celestron/GSO 32mm but the TeleVue 32mm is definitely worth the money IMO. When I'm using low power EP's it often spends more time in the diagonal than my 24mm Panoptic. It is easier to use than the 40mm TV Plossl, with its large eye lens and 27mm field stop. I think modern coatings are probably important, but much of what you read in distributor's specifications is speculative and meaningless really as they usually aren't even the actual manufacturers. If the Gosky/Solomark is actually Barsta, and there's a good chance it is, it's certainly as good and well finished as any GSO made product.

http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=51&Tab=EP_EPL-32.0

The TV 32mm Plossl may seem expensive, but they are Japanese made, and should last a lifetime as the build quality is superb.

[Ray of LIght]

Quick  question Mak, my Meade 102 is pretty fast, i think they call it, it is fl 600mm and f 5.9. Will that affect the performance of either the TV or celestron omni 32mm plossls? I have been reading a lot and as we know a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing ?. Since my main interest is deep sky objects i am concerned about this a little. Btw, my Rigel Quickfinder came today so when it finally stops raining I have a lot to do and check out ?!

[Mak the Night]

33 minutes ago, Ray1103 said:

Quick  question Mak, my Meade 102 is pretty fast, i think they call it, it is fl 600mm and f 5.9. Will that affect the performance of either the TV or celestron omni 32mm plossls? I have been reading a lot and as we know a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing ?. Since my main interest is deep sky objects i am concerned about this a little. Btw, my Rigel Quickfinder came today so when it finally stops raining I have a lot to do and check out ?!

The focal ratio can be calculated by dividing the focal length by the aperture size. This gives you the f-number. As a rule, refractors are generally faster than catadioptrics. Most SCT's are around f/10 with Mak's being slower still.

Basically, the lower the f/number the faster the scope will be. The light cone entering the scope will be wider and shallower making the FOV larger and collecting more light. This is generally better for observing deep sky objects and 'faint fuzzies'. The downside is that you have to work harder to gain good high planetary magnifications (150x plus) and fast scopes aren't very forgiving on less expensive eyepieces. You'll only be getting around 19x with a 32mm EP so it shouldn't matter that much. The TV 32mm is a very nice Plossl though, it's actually my favourite TV Plossl.

I have the opposite problem to you with my 102mm Mak. The lowest magnification I can get is with the 40mm Ice Cream Cone (32.5x) to give an exit pupil of 3.1mm. I can just about get away using a UHC filter with that exit pupil. You can calculate the exit pupil by dividing the EP f/l by the f-number. A 32mm EP will give you a 5.4mm exit pupil. To effectively use a UHC filter an exit pupil of 3mm or above is preferable. Your scope would pretty much reach 3mm with a 20mm eyepiece.

I can pretty easily achieve 208x for an 0.5mm exit pupil (the apparent limit for the human eye) with my 102mm Mak. Hence why Mak's are often used for lunar/planetary observing where high magnifications are required.

So, try the scope out when the weather clears before splashing out on anything yet!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_pupil