Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

skymax 127 eyepieces


nightfisher

Recommended Posts

Having decided on the Skymax 127 as my main scope (good decision) i may need to slightly reshuffle my EP case, the high power stuff is well catered for along with mid power to a fair degree, but the main area for change might be the low power, i have a Revelation 32mm plossl but i wonder if i can better that for low power (with out spending  huge amount) of course we are talking 1.25 barrel, i know i cant get the magnification any lower than the 32, but would a wider field ep give any real advantage in a narrow field scope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Jules, you can lower the mag with a 40mm eyepiece but it's the field of view that won't increase. The main advantage of this would be  larger exit pupil, in fact there is a very similar thread running somewhere which I will dig out as it might be interesting.

Is it possible to use 2" eyepieces with the scope? Not sure what size the baffle tube is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stu said:

Jules, you can lower the mag with a 40mm eyepiece but it's the field of view that won't increase. The main advantage of this would be  larger exit pupil, in fact there is a very similar thread running somewhere which I will dig out as it might be interesting.

Is it possible to use 2" eyepieces with the scope? Not sure what size the baffle tube is?

I think the 127 can be adapted to take 2" but i dont see me doing this as i no longer have a 2" star diagonal, hence sticking with 1.25, TBH i like the 32mm Revelation but wondering if i can better it like trading for a Televue 32mm plossl....eek i never though i would even condsider getting a Televue :icon_eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one that springs to my mind Jules is the ES 24mm/68 degree. The fov will be the same but the higher magnification should give increased contrast. in terms of a higher quality 32mm, perhaps see if anyone has  a TV plossl they want to part with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your scope was something like an F/6 or faster then the good edge correction of the TV plossl might be beneficial but at F/11.25 the Revelation 32mm is going to be doing well. They are pretty good plossls. 

A 24mm 68 degree eyepiece also won't show more sky but the wide field aspect of the apparent field is nice to view IMHO so that might be worth considering ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW the aperture is restricted to 26.4mm (don't quote me on this but it isn't far off) or so on the visual back so you may experience vignetting in 2" ep's over a certain afov and focal length. There is argued to being some gain for using 2" diagonals though. This is put down to the larger mirror not suffering edge drop off like a 1.25" would. I'd like to bet you'd be hard pushed to notice any advantage though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John said:

If your scope was something like an F/6 or faster then the good edge correction of the TV plossl might be beneficial but at F/11.25 the Revelation 32mm is going to be doing well. They are pretty good plossls. 

A 24mm 68 degree eyepiece also won't show more sky but the wide field aspect of the apparent field is nice to view IMHO so that might be worth considering ?

 

Thanks John, i just looked at the Baader classic 32mm plossl, same field of view, do you think it would be an improvement in the mak, i have the BCO 18mm and its a very good EP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

Thanks John, i just looked at the Baader classic 32mm plossl, same field of view, do you think it would be an improvement in the mak, i have the BCO 18mm and its a very good EP

Hi Jules,

I compared the Baader Classic 32mm Plossl to the Vixen NPL 30mm a while back. The AFoV of the Baader 32mm is a little less than many other 32mm's I felt. Here is my report:

I currently have a Vixen NPL 30mm as part of my lightweight EP set and I was using it last night, as it happens, in my F/5.3 dob. It's a pretty good performer :smiley:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I carried out some tests a while ago and found using a 2" diagonal and a 2" eyepiece did give a noticeably wider FOV than a 1.25".  You might think that the 2" eyepiece couldn't show a wider FOV because of the limited aperature but it does. There was a technical discussion on CN ages ago explaining it which involved the angle of the light path etc. It's not a huge increase but it's definately there.

Try it yourself and you may be surprised.

          John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, John said:

A 24mm 68 degree eyepiece also won't show more sky but the wide field aspect of the apparent field is nice to view IMHO so that might be worth considering ?

I wonder if in such a slow scope the 32mm might be better as it would have a larger exit pupil? In faster scopes such as yours John it obviously it is a no brainer but maks are funny beasts ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have certainly had trouble "losing" a small exit pupil - particularly
in eyepieces that have LARGE eye lenses (and MAKs). Sometimes I
have to move away from the eyepiece ... "Reset" and start over! :p

I have a mid-sized Maxbright 35mm diagonal and I use a Baader
31mm Aspheric (Hey, remember those?) in my MAK150 anyway. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Stu said:

I wonder if in such a slow scope the 32mm might be better as it would have a larger exit pupil? In faster scopes such as yours John it obviously it is a no brainer but maks are funny beasts ;) 

Thats true Stu. I've briefly owned a couple of maks but not for long enough to become familliar with their ways :smiley:

@Jules: The Meade 4000 SWA's came in a range of focal lengths and in the 1.25" and 2" fittings. The 24.5mm 1.25" would be the same as a 32mm plossl in terms of true field. I owned a couple ages back and they were good in slow scopes but had disappointing edge correction in faster scopes considering their cost (back then).

In all honesty I've never been a big fan of Meade's eyepiece ranges apart from the 3000 series plossls which, when made in Japan, were very good for their price IMHO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a Maxvision 24mm 68 a while back. That performed really well in my refractors and none to shabibily in my dob as well. I then moved to an ES 24 / 68 (a bit more cash) and didn't really notice much performance difference although the ergonomics and finish were a bit nicer. I then moved to the 24mm Panoptic because of it's cute mushroom shape and green engraving :rolleyes2:

Seriously though, the Maxvision was pretty good for less than £50 :smiley:

As Stu pointed out though, in the mak-cass 30something mm might make more sense. One of the old Celestron 35mm Ultima's would be rather nice, if you could find one :smiley:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure the Maxvision was just JOC blowing out old Meade SWA stock and the ES68 is the same eyepiece in an updated more TV like body. I had 24mm Meade SWA and ES68 and optically they seemed identical switching back and forth from one to the other. 

I sold the ES68 and kept the SWA for the twist up eye cup but I expect that I'll be selling the SWA soon now that I've bought a 28mm Nirvana. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moonshane said:

Hi Jules 

I have a 32mm  BCP  if you wanted to borrow it you'd be welcome to. If you like it then it could be a wedding prezzie  ?

Shane that is very kind of you however after reading the helpful comments so far i get the feeling the BCP would not be an improvement over the Revelation as this claims to have 52 degree field over the estimated 47 for the BCP.

I may well stick with the Revelation as it does perform well, i am just looking to see if there is a nice ep that would offer a noticable improvement over this ep, and of course i dont really need to try and get widefield on this set up as i now have the AR90s, i might be better of spending on a Revelation 1.25 dialectric as i am using a Circle T prism diagonal, this is probably okay for the Mak but i dont think its ideal for the AR90 at F5.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I bought my "last" telescope - a 150mm SkyWatcher Maksutov - I had done my homework first. I wanted something that would give me high-contrast, comparable to an APO refractor, to use for our Solar-System objects and compact DSO's - like globular clusters and ring nebulae. Knowing this was the domain of the telescope, I pulled the proverbial trigger.

For eyepieces to "prime-the-pump" on this compact little monster, I went for those that didn't exceed 70° and many less-wide as well. Orthoscopics and Plössls were very good. My intention was, and is, to use this scope for the things it's already known to be the best tool for.

My only suggestion to a Maksutov owner is to do likewise. This as my experience shows these great little telescopes work extremely well for what they do excel at. Just don't try to use them for that which is outside the parameter's of a narrow-field and high-contrast viewing. That's my friendly advice for anyone wanting a Maksutov. An aside: The 127mm is the most widely chosen model of these - and for very good reason whenever portability enters the equation. So - Congratulations! You have a wonderful scope there!

Enjoy!

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, johninderby said:

Best results I had were with a 30mm 68 degree 2" eyepiece. 

          John

Out of curiosity John, with a 2" adapter, 2" Diagonal and the heavier 2" EP, do you manage to get the 127Mak balanced OK? Given the relatively short length of the Mak and the correspondingly short dovetail I imagine this to push the limits of the scope to balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.