Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Baader optical wonder solution is practically Isopropyl alcohol. Instead of £12 for a 70mL of it, buy a 1000 mL of Isopropyl alcohol for £22 (before pandemic it was only £5). They have also smaller bottles which will be cheaper of course. The Baader solution and Isopropyl alcohol don’t remove the toughest of fungi on optics, only a few of the less deep set ones can be treated with them. I have used both for cleaning eyepieces and on certain stage of cleaning several 8 to 12 inch mirrors. They both worked identical. When applied through an optical cleaning fabric, they remove ( dissolve) fatty oils and fingerprints on optical surfaces. I had cleaned a 12 inch mirror once which for some unknown reason had ice cream stain on it (cleaning followed standard operation procedure for cleaning coated aluminised mirrors).
I've just bought my first telescope, a 10 inch Dobsonian, Saxon brand (same as Skywatcher).
In daylight I've collimated it with a laser collimator. Also in delight I've centred the finderscope on a house on the horizon (probably 5 km away). The image is inverted and the left side appears on the right. I understand that's normal.
The house is also centred in the eyepiece and the view is inverted and left appears right, as with the finder scope. BUT the horizon is at about a 60 degree angle ( see pdf sketch attached). Is this normal? Or am I doing something wrong? Or is there a problem with the telescope?
Many thanks in advance
Does anyone who has one of these zoom eyepieces know if there is a t-thread hidden under the twist-up rubber eye-cups like there are on some other zooms?
I don't have a zoom in my set yet and don't want to break the bank. I just aim to use it mainly for visual e.g. being lazy with one 'no faff' eyepiece or when I'm being more dedicated, scoping out the seeing at different magnifications before changing to a dedicated eyepiece.
I'd only use it for occasional photography but would rather buy one with a T-thread.
For reference here are the different branded versions I can find:
OVL Hyperflex version: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/hyperflex-72mm-215mm-eyepiece.html
Skywatcher Hyperflex version: https://www.365astronomy.com/SkyWatcher-HyperFlex-7E-7.2-21.5mm-High-Performance-Zoom-Eyepiece.html
I had read in the previous thread that the Lunt version of this zoom is also generic but the only one I can find looks quite different and is twice as expensive and has a different field of view so not sure about that?
Thanks for any feedback (or any other recommendations for circa £100 zoom lens that might have a hidden T-thread)!!!
With the advice I'm getting here, I'm planning to start my hobby with Skywatcher Maksutov 102 telescope. There are several models with this optical design, BUT it looks like they all sold out!
Almost all... FLO still could sell a Mak on the older EQ2 mount. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-102-eq2.html
What would yo say about this combination - is it an obsolete scope, or the same as modern versions? How it this mount? I gather it can be also used as Alt-As, right?
And one more question, with this long focal length I think as a beginner I'm running into an issue of finding objects with it's FoV. What eyepieces would you recommend to add immediately to this scope? A good price/performance would be great!
For instance, should I add a 0,5 reducer or a 35-40 mm eyepiece, should I immediately replace 10mm?
I've read the great post of @The Warthog, so have an idea what focal lengths I'll need (10, 15, 25, 40). Just want to check your opinion what could be ideal price/performer.
By lee g
Hi all I’m getting back into the hobby after some time away I always seemed to spend a lot of time switching between eye pieces so this time I was thinking of having just 4 ep to choose from as opposed to 12.
I have a an 8”sct and was thinking of getting the Explore Scientific 82°
im considering the following
first do you think these particular e/p will work well with this scope and does the choice above sound sufficient.