Which adapter(s) for Skywatcher Skymax 127 to use 2" diagonal

[Tot]

Hi

Getting confused by the huge array of adapters I might need to be able to use my 2" push in diagonal and 2" eyepieces with a recently acquired secondhand Skymax-127. Do I first of all need a Mak to Sct adapter and then also an Sct to 2" adapter? Any help appreciated. 

[Tot]

Do I need, firstly, this https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/lynxastro_makcas-sct_adptr.html

And then also one of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/astro-essentials-2-visual-back-eyepiece-holder-for-sct-telescopes.html ? 

[Ruud]

I don't know, but is the baffle tube in the mak wide enough for 2" eyepieces to work without vignetting?

[Tot]

16 minutes ago, Ruud said:

I don't know, but is the baffle tube in the mak wide enough for 2" eyepieces to work without vignetting?

I'm going on this info found online:  "The compatible Maksutov-Cassegrains have a baffle tube diameter of approx. 30 mm. In theory, one might doubt that a 2" eyepiece makes sense here. But we can say: it does!

If using eyepieces with larger field stops, the image does not become dark at once but slowly from the perimeter to the edge. The human brain can compensate brightness differences up to approx. 15%.

As long as an illumination of 85% is acceptable, the usable field stop diameter rises to 40 mm and you significantly gain field of view."

 

[RT65CB-SWL]

20 minutes ago, Tot said:

Do I need, firstly, this https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/lynxastro_makcas-sct_adptr.html

And then also one of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/astro-essentials-2-visual-back-eyepiece-holder-for-sct-telescopes.html ? 

Yes!

 

4 minutes ago, Ruud said:

I don't know, but is the baffle tube in the mak wide enough for 2" eyepieces to work without vignetting?

Below is some photos of my 're-modded' Meade ETX105...

I have not seen any vignetting when I use my 2" SCT star diagonal as shown in the last photo.

[Tot]

16 minutes ago, Philip R said:

Yes!

Thanks for the info! 

[johninderby]

I have tested the 127 mak with 2” eyepieces and found vigneting wasn’t noticeable if you used up to a 32mm 2” eyepiece. And yes with the right 2” eyepiece you can get a wider fov. Not a lot wider but noticeably more.  

[Tot]

2 minutes ago, johninderby said:

I have tested the 127 mak with 2” eyepieces and found vigneting wasn’t noticeable if you used up to a 32mm 2” eyepiece. And yes with the right 2” eyepiece you can get a wider fov. Not a lot wider but noticeably more.  

Thanks. 

[John]

4 minutes ago, johninderby said:

I have tested the 127 mak with 2” eyepieces and found vigneting wasn’t noticeable if you used up to a 32mm 2” eyepiece. And yes with the right 2” eyepiece you can get a wider fov. Not a lot wider but noticeably more.  

What is the maximum eyepiece field stop that is optimum do you think John ?

Would that be a 32mm SWA with 68/70 degrees or could you go as far as a 31mm 82 degree eyepiece with virtually the maximum field stop for the 2 inch barrel size ?

[johninderby]

Think it was a 32mm 70 degree eyepiece I used. There must be vignetting but it just wasn’t noticeable.

If you look at some light path diagrams of a mak you will soon realise why it is that you can see a wider fov despite a small baffle tube.