2 inch diagonal, should I shouldn't I?

[John]

28 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

If you wear eyeglasses whilst observing, then I would think that the wider fields-of-view of the oculars under consideration should help with that.

Mostly, it's long eye relief that helps the glasses wearer. 

[Alan64]

2 minutes ago, John said:

Mostly, it's long eye relief that helps the glasses wearer. 

Indeed it does...

 

[Alan64]

15 hours ago, John said:

My personal experience would lead me to try get a faster newt to run alongside the SCT for when I want wider fields of view. The SCT is a good scope but it's not a wide field one.

Not practical for all, I agree, so whatever route you choose, I hope it works out

 

I've got just the thing; rather, FLO does instead...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p-ds-ota.html

It would complement the 150mm Schmidt admirably with its 650mm focal-length and 2" two-speed focusser.  It weighs even less than the Schmidt; just swap them out at leisure upon the SE mount; one mount, two telescopes.  Such a union would make for an eminently compact and versatile observatory.

However, would the SE mount accommodate it?

[Richard Hather]

This mite be something I will consider because once I have the EP collection I want and the price is decent even brand new.

It is true I'm a fan of wide field views only because of my love of open clusters ?

Richard

[Alan64]

In that case, you and have the wrong telescopes, perhaps.  Perhaps we should trade: my 150mm f/5 Newtonian for your 150mm f/10 Schmidt.  Deal?  The reason I say that is because I prefer the moderate-to-high powers...

That one can realise a power as low as 19x, and with a field-of-view to match.  This wee 100mm f/4 even moreso...

Just look at what it can do, and at 13x...

Actually, I am planning to get a 127mm Maksutov this year.

Cheers,

[Richard Hather]

The only problem I can see is if the Newt would be compatible with my mount, I'm sure there would be issues with contact with the base?

I think I will make all the purchases I have on my list and then rethink what to do about a possible change of telescope to suit my needs.

cheers

Richard

[Alan64]

25 minutes ago, Richard Hather said:

This mite be something I will consider because once I have the EP collection I want and the price is decent even brand new.

It is true I'm a fan of wide field views only because of my love of open clusters ?

Richard

Now that I think about it, whilst the optical-tube of the 130mm f/5 Newtonian is longer that the Schmidt(600mm vs. 340mm), the Newtonian can be slid forward via its tube-rings, and thereby to clear the mount-base of the SE, especially when viewing at or near the zenith.

[25585]

On 23/04/2017 at 17:18, Starpaw said:

There's a handy page on the Televue site with information about field stops for individual eyepieces:

http://www.televue.com/mobile/TV5_page.asp?id=214

Very useful. My 35mm Panop and 55 Ploss should be OK with 42mm LVW, which may be the best.

[25585]

On 24/04/2017 at 09:25, John said:

Mostly, it's long eye relief that helps the glasses wearer. 

Wider FOV is a boon for unguided, undriven scopes. Even equatorial mounts need that as Polaris targeting is never 100% and leaving a manual EM then catching up can require a wider FOV for re-centering. AA mounts practicality for catch-up if manual, means back to square one without a goto of some sort.

Long eye relief is also good for un-bespectacled viewers when looking between atlas, RDF, finder scope and main scope!

 

[RT65CB-SWL]

Slightly over the top (see photo) but I use this 2" SCT star diagonal with my 're-modded' ETX105 & C6.

I have a 'cheap' 1.25" star diagonal and the 2" gives better views on fainter objects. I also have two TeleVue 1.25" star diagonals. One came with my TeleVue Ranger, the other I purchased secondhand. They are excellent performers with my C6. I have yet to try them with the ETX since the 're-mod'.

The 2" star diagonal is a definite keeper. Should I decide to attach a camera to either my ETX or C6 I have the added security that it will not flex under the weight or without the risk of it slipping and damaging whatever is attached to it.