Should I swap my 3 mid-power EP's for a zoom ?

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Indeed. And, as a zoom requires fewer eyepiece changes...? Would this not be even better for the Giro-WR? I must be missing something, I'm sure.

I'm sure whichever way works for you will be just fine Mike.

[iPeace]

13 minutes ago, Stu said:

I'm sure whichever way works for you will be just fine Mike.

Certainly. Not trying to make a point, just trying to understand yours, purely, and perhaps reap the benefits.

Is it the difference in weight between the zoom and the eyepieces on either side of its focal range?

[Stu]

29 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Certainly. Not trying to make a point, just trying to understand yours, purely, and perhaps reap the benefits.

Is it the difference in weight between the zoom and the eyepieces on either side of its focal range?

The OPs question was about replacing his mid range with a zoom. If the zoom weighs significantly more than a Nag zoom and the low power ep then you still end up rebalancing so nothing gained.

I use a 24mm Panoptic which works ok alongside Orthos and the Nag zoom although is obviously a bit heavier. It's all a compromise but overall I tend to find one low power, one mid range and then a zoom at high power works best, I don't tend to find the need for a zoom as a mid range.

[iPeace]

17 minutes ago, Stu said:

The OPs question was about replacing his mid range with a zoom. If the zoom weighs significantly more than a Nag zoom and the low power ep then you still end up rebalancing so nothing gained.

I use a 24mm Panoptic which works ok alongside Orthos and the Nag zoom although is obviously a bit heavier. It's all a compromise but overall I tend to find one low power, one mid range and then a zoom at high power works best, I don't tend to find the need for a zoom as a mid range.

Right, got it.

With a full range of focal lengths, I found myself faffing about between the mid-range ones and never really settling on one. So my inclination was to cover the entire mid-range with a zoom and not have to choose. A far wiser course is to carefully select your mid-range eyepiece and not need a zoom for that.

Maybe I'll pass the sky tourism stage in due course.

[John]

Is the Losmandy AZ mount more or less sensitive to balance than the Ercole was ?

Edit: I've just realised that this is off topic from the OP's original question - please ignore or delete. Sorry about that

[iPeace]

13 minutes ago, John said:

Is the Losmandy AZ mount more or less sensitive to balance than the Ercole was ?

I would say less, because you can adjust the friction more finely - the surface of friction being larger. Having said that, it's so easy to switch between Ercole mode and slow-mo mode that I tend to be in the latter when on target anyway...

Oops, also off topic, apologies.

[cloudsweeper]

I reckon a decent set of fixed-focus EPs beats a zoom for normal observing, but that's not to say a zoom doesn't have its uses.  If I have a very quick session, or perhaps go to a site away from home and don't fancy taking lots of gear, the zoom is very handy!

I have a zoom as an extra, not  to replace some EPs.

Doug.

[spaceboy]

CONS ZOOM : Due to ER changing through the focal lengths often requiring repositioning of eye position which may sound simple but when you just sat for 20mins at one position then find yourself hovering in another it's actually requires more concentration to achieve than you may think. The FOV becoming more limited in the focal end you'd want it most wide IE 24mm can be a pain. Often larger and heavier than single focal length eyepieces. Optical performance will not always be on a par with fixed focal length eyepieces due to the extra glass in zooms.

PROS ZOOM : One eyepiece for the night means you can get on with observing with no need to constantly swap out eyepieces to match seeing conditions. While they can be larger and heavier overall once your scope is balanced there is not much need to rebalance between the zoom focal lengths which again amounts to more time observing and less time faffing. You can just carry one eyepiece instead of needing to carry a box full which may mean a quicker set up time and more time observing. With both a zoom and a case full of eyepieces you can if you have dual setups observe with two scopes at the same 8-24 mm focal lengths if so required.

 

I understand your wanting to make a more economical collection of eyepieces both space and cost wise but I wouldn't replace a set of fixed focal length eyepieces with a zoom but rather get a zoom to complement them. Zooms are handy if you have a couple setups or want to quickly get out observing. They are great for going on holiday and for showing family and friends the night sky. They are not that bad given all the bits and pieces inside them but fixed focal length eyepieces of similar optical quality will always have the slight edge regards overall views.

 

[iPeace]

26 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

Due to ER changing through the focal lengths often requiring repositioning of eye position which may sound simple but when you just sat for 20mins at one position then find yourself hovering in another it's actually requires more concentration to achieve than you may think.

Excellent point. I have found the twist-up eyecup makes this easier for me. I just raise or lower it a bit and lightly rest the side of the old schnoz up against it.

[iPeace]

8 hours ago, jabeoo1 said:

I am always looking to reduce the gear down and spend less time fiddling and more time actually looking

From the 15mm, 11mm & 8mm Plossls --------> A single 8-24mm Zoom

This will be used in my 4" Frac.  Would this me wise?  

Would the Pentax XL out perform the Baader Mk IV ?

OR 

Is there an option to use 1 fixed length EP & barlow to cover the mid range gap ?

Low Power = 22mm LVW (x33)

Mid: 8mm, 11mm & 15mm Plossls (x92, x67 & x49)

High: 3-6 Nagler Zoom (x123 --> x246)

James,

The only real answer is: try it. If you are so inclined. Only you can determine whether the zooming can outweigh the rest. I believe it can, but the compromise is real and yours to make.

[jabeoo1]

2 hours ago, John said:

Is the Losmandy AZ mount more or less sensitive to balance than the Ercole was ?

Edit: I've just realised that this is off topic from the OP's original question - please ignore or delete. Sorry about that

Don't worry John, its a major part of the topic....Balance between EP's with Alt-Az generally.  Threads like this should evolve   

[YKSE]

I'd think it kind of depending whats's you observation preferences with your4" Tak.

If it's mainly large (around 1° open cluster, like double cluster),  10mm Ethos or even 8mm Ethos should be a good one EP solution.

If the EP is intend to other faint fuzzies, planetary and white light solar, a zoom would be my choice, as my observation are mostly faint galaxies in dark site, Leica zoom could sit in the C8 focuser most of the time. A good zoom is very handy for short planetary sessions when there's gap among clouds. AFOV of zoom in high mag end is most often noticeable larger than a plossl.

My experience with AZ mount is very limited, mostly 120ED on AZ4 for Sirius, the most challenging part for me is not the EP weight diffenence, it's the moment a heavy EP (my heaviest is 525gram) leaves the focuser, 120ED will take a dive no matter how hard I tightened the clutch. a 300 gram EP will not have this effect.

[jabeoo1]

Thanks for engaging with the thread everyone.  Its certainly given food for thought. 

I am airing on the side of a single fixed focal length EP to try and compromise on all 3.  I feel a Zoom is not the right choice for me, the unique high power of the 3-6mm TV is offering something completely different and is the exception to my feelings. 

The 22mm LVW is going nowhere, it weighs 350g and offers a lovely large sharp FOV @ x 34.  

The Nagler Zoom is a mere 150g giving everything in the high end. 

The other night I managed to balance both these EP's with the Altair Sabre II with no issues, so something below 400g should be fine.  I love the idea of an 8mm ethos but its 430g and may tip the balance, the 10mm Ethos is even heavier & cost is spiralling at that point 

The 10mm Pentax XW may be the correct choice here at 390g, other choices could be the 11mm Delite or 11mm Nagler (both around 200g).

The Pentax 10mm a good compromise between the 8mm & 11mm in magnification, which is essential for me for viewing Jupiter, and at the same time it offers a TFOV similar to my adored 15mm TV Plossl but instead of x49 its cranking it up to x74.  I have also read that the XW are very sharp performers. 

 

 

[jabeoo1]

5 minutes ago, YKSE said:

............it's the moment a heavy EP (my heaviest is 525gram) leaves the focuser, 120ED will take a dive no matter how hard I tightened the clutch. a 300 gram EP will not have this effect.

This is a concern for me, if I am having a few drinks whilst viewing (the EP tray holds a beer well) it can mean I forget to tighten the clutch before lifting the EP out.  

[iPeace]

Just now, jabeoo1 said:

This is a concern for me, if I am having a few drinks whilst viewing (the EP tray holds a beer well) it can mean I forget to tighten the clutch before lifting the EP out.  

You'll learn fast, no worries.

[jabeoo1]

7 minutes ago, iPeace said:

You'll learn fast, no worries.

Your right.......... Imagine myself collecting up from the floor fragments of the primary lens, and looking at a dented dew shield 

Haha

[iPeace]

5 minutes ago, jabeoo1 said:

Your right.......... Imagine myself collecting up from the floor fragments of the primary lens, and looking at a dented dew shield 

Haha

It won't come to that, I guarantee you will drop the beer before you let that happen.

Locking the altitude clutch becomes an automatic thing. Like so many other things we learn to do in order to avert disaster, beer or no beer.

[DRT]

I solve the problem of switching between Ethos EPs and lighter 1.25" EPs by using a TV Equalizer, which weighs 340 grams...

[spaceboy]

8 hours ago, DRT said:

I solve the problem of switching between Ethos EPs and lighter 1.25" EPs by using a TV Equalizer, which weighs 340 grams...

 

Also good for those who have large refractors as it allows you to get a little more height on the focuser. One of these and a block of lead inside the OTA really helped me spend less of the night on my knees when using my EVO150. I wish TV had threaded them for filters

[Stu]

9 hours ago, DRT said:

I solve the problem of switching between Ethos EPs and lighter 1.25" EPs by using a TV Equalizer, which weighs 340 grams...

Made from 24 carat gold by the looks of it!

[DRT]

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

Made from 24 carat gold by the looks of it!

That is certainly reflected in the price  

[John]

I had one of those TV Equalizers for a while but found that I didn't use it

I guess I've just got used to tweaking the clutch or adding / subtracting a counterweight which seemed less hassle than adding the Equaliser.

 

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, John said:

 

I guess I've just got used to tweaking the clutch or adding / subtracting a counterweight which seemed less hassle than adding the Equaliser.

 

I guess if you keep an equalizer on each of your lightweight eyepieces then it becomes easier..... but very expensive!

[DRT]

3 minutes ago, Stu said:

I guess if you keep an equalizer on each of your lightweight eyepieces then it becomes easier..... but very expensive!

You should know better than to start giving me ideas like that, Stu

 

[jabeoo1]

I am grabbing a 10mm Pentax XW

So the line up is:

22mm LVW

10mm XW

Nagler Zoom 3-6mm

Minimal and all quality

Although once I look through the 10mm XW the 20mm XW may be tempting, but it will have to have a very big impact on my viewing to replace the excellent LVW!