Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_4.gif.6a323659519d12fc7cafc409440c9dbf.gif

Recommended Posts

Hi, I am pretty much new in Astronomy. Recently I have bought Meade Polaris 127mm telescope. The Barlow(2x) which Meade has provided is pretty basic. It gives pretty blurry view.

I have read few blogs and get to know that for 127mm, 2x-3x magnification is more than enough. Now I’m confused in its specs(element in it).

Wondering which one I choose, 2.5x Barlow 3 element or 2x Barlow with 2 element to get clear and crisp viewing.

Ryaen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meade Polaris 127mm seems to be Bird-Jones design and has focal length of 1000mm.

Using barlow with this scope is going to bring in very high magnifications - more than atmosphere and scope can support. Things are going to be blurry.

For the time being, just avoid using barlow lens until you get some experience of how different sky conditions impact quality of the image. Once you learn to distinguish between different conditions (good or bad atmosphere) - then you can start using barlow lens and you'll be able to tell if it is atmosphere that is causing the most damage to the view or is it barlow lens.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Philip R said:

Hi @Ryaen and welcome to SGL. :hello2:

+1 above, as per @andrew s.

To add to the confusion of which Barlow lens... 
I have a Klee 2.8x Barlow and a 1.6x Astro-Engineering 'MagniMax' that screws into the filter thread of the eyepiece.

It’s Meade Polaris 127mm aperture, 1000mm focal length of the objective, f ratio 7.9.

I have got 15mm, 20mm GSO super view, Plössl eyepieces. To avoid, buying higher magnification(6 to 10mm), I thought to go for a good Barlow lens.

The Barlow provided by Meade is basic, gives quite dark and blurry viewing even in clear calm Night sky and thus looking to upgrade it.

I even put my telescope out for acclimatisation for about 40mins to an hour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ryaen said:

It’s Meade Polaris 127mm aperture, 1000mm focal length of the objective, f ratio 7.9.

I have got 15mm, 20mm GSO super view, Plössl eyepieces. To avoid, buying higher magnification(6 to 10mm), I thought to go for a good Barlow lens.

The Barlow provided by Meade is basic, gives quite dark and blurry viewing even in clear calm Night sky and thus looking to upgrade it.

I even put my telescope out for acclimatisation for about 40mins to an hour.

In theory, you should be fine with that scope with magnifications of about x120-x150 range. That should give you good sharp image even in average seeing conditions.

With x2 barlow, you'll get x100 and x133 magnification. With x2.5 barlow you'll get x125 and x166 magnification.

This really gives you idea of what barlow you want - one that is x2.5 (but in reality is closer to x2.2), is triplet lens and is sensibly priced - look no further than:

https://www.365astronomy.com/GSO-2.5x-Achromatic-3-Element-Barlow-31.7mm-1.25.html

Given that you already have 15mm and 20mm eyepieces, x2.5 GSO barlow should not be too hard to purchase locally?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

In theory, you should be fine with that scope with magnifications of about x120-x150 range. That should give you good sharp image even in average seeing conditions.

With x2 barlow, you'll get x100 and x133 magnification. With x2.5 barlow you'll get x125 and x166 magnification.

This really gives you idea of what barlow you want - one that is x2.5 (but in reality is closer to x2.2), is triplet lens and is sensibly priced - look no further than:

https://www.365astronomy.com/GSO-2.5x-Achromatic-3-Element-Barlow-31.7mm-1.25.html

Given that you already have 15mm and 20mm eyepieces, x2.5 GSO barlow should not be too hard to purchase locally?

Much appreciated. Thanks mate.

However, my confusion is all about element present in a Barlow. 2 element or 3 element ? Does it really make a big difference in quality of viewing like getting sharp images with a decent field of view.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ryaen said:

2 element or 3 element ?

That topic is rather complicated. You don't need 3 elements, 2 is enough to get a "perfect" barlow.

Barlow is really simple optical design so you can't go wrong much in design itself - but you can in manufacturing. Much more important than number of elements is how good the product is in use.

That x2.5 GSO barlow is very good barlow and certainly very good value for the money. Much better than stock / plastic items that usually come with the scope.

There certainly are better barlows out there like Baader VIP barlow that you can "tune" to required magnification by using extensions but it costs like x3-x4 more than GSO one and difference will be minimal.

In fact - I'm more concerned with fact that you are using Bird-Jones type scope than anything else. Again similar thing with that - in itself Bird-Jones design is not a bad design - only problem is that it is often poorly executed design and advice that you'll find most often on such scope is to stay clear of them.

Not saying that your particular model is poor - I've neither seen Meade model nor read review of it so far. It could be rather decent, but there is a chance that scope simply provides blurred image at higher magnifications (having cheap plastic stock barlow won't help either).

Knowing this, I don't think you should go overboard with expensive barlows - as it might not result in improvements that you are after.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Don't most people report the GSO 2.5x to be closer to 2.2x?

So I've heard:

3 hours ago, vlaiv said:

This really gives you idea of what barlow you want - one that is x2.5 (but in reality is closer to x2.2), is triplet lens and is sensibly priced - look no further than:

https://www.365astronomy.com/GSO-2.5x-Achromatic-3-Element-Barlow-31.7mm-1.25.html

Mind you, I've have had that barlow and did not do measurements of how much magnification it gave. Also - my sample was not as good :D. Cemented pair was not properly cemented together - there was something like 1/4 of mm of decenter and that produced chromatic dispersion at very high power.

I used it as ADC one time because it countered atmospheric dispersion perfectly :D

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vlaiv said:

That topic is rather complicated. You don't need 3 elements, 2 is enough to get a "perfect" barlow.

Barlow is really simple optical design so you can't go wrong much in design itself - but you can in manufacturing. Much more important than number of elements is how good the product is in use.

That x2.5 GSO barlow is very good barlow and certainly very good value for the money. Much better than stock / plastic items that usually come with the scope.

There certainly are better barlows out there like Baader VIP barlow that you can "tune" to required magnification by using extensions but it costs like x3-x4 more than GSO one and difference will be minimal.

In fact - I'm more concerned with fact that you are using Bird-Jones type scope than anything else. Again similar thing with that - in itself Bird-Jones design is not a bad design - only problem is that it is often poorly executed design and advice that you'll find most often on such scope is to stay clear of them.

Not saying that your particular model is poor - I've neither seen Meade model nor read review of it so far. It could be rather decent, but there is a chance that scope simply provides blurred image at higher magnifications (having cheap plastic stock barlow won't help either).

Knowing this, I don't think you should go overboard with expensive barlows - as it might not result in improvements that you are after.

Hey that’s a quite an information for me being a noob. Thanks a lot.

I will stick to GSO 2.5x Barlow lens as of now.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vlaiv said:

So I've heard:

6 hours ago, vlaiv said:

This really gives you idea of what barlow you want - one that is x2.5 (but in reality is closer to x2.2)

Totally missed that. 🤣  It's just one of those days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To yield a short barlow means the curves on the lenses must be deep.

This makes the barlow harder to make (read: more expensive to manufacture).

If a 3rd lens is added, the barlow can be shortened without the deep curves on the lenses that would be required of a 2-element barlow.

That is the reason why some short focal length barlows have 3 lenses.  A 2 element can be free of false color, so 3 elements are not necessary for that.

4 element barlows are typically telecentric, and have a positive lens following the negative lens.  This is done to allow the barlow to have the same magnification

at various distances from the lens, whereas a regular barlow's magnification increases with distance from the lens.

I haven't really figured out the why of a 5 element barlow (there are some), but perhaps the configuration merely added a positive lens to a 3-element barlow to make it telecentric.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Quetzalcoatl72
      I have a C5 sct a ED80 and a RCT 8" f/8, I also use a canon 600da and a asi120 as a guide scope and I wish to photograph as many objects in the sky as my setup would allow. I've been doing 10-20 3min subs on each object and the weather has been kind enough recently so I have a fair bit now but I'm running out of the bigger ones. The obvious method is just cropping in processing but that would give less detail, a good example of the perfect size is crescent nebula. A bad example is basically anything that takes up less than 10% of the picture like the box galaxy cluster, eskimo nebula, fetus, snowball, cat's eye etc. I tried a 2x barlow on my rct but I need so many extension tubes that it would cause many problems, maybe a dedicated CCD camera will have a shorter fov?
    • By thepainpastor
      Greetings All!
      Very Short Explanation: I'm disabled (43) and desperately trying to find ways to still bond/spend time with my youngest son (13).
       
      My son expressed an interest, about two months ago, in Astronomy after watching a few YouTube videos on the subject (specifically, the moon and our neighboring planets). He asked if one day we could get a telescope. I was somewhat surprised when, over the course of the following days/weeks, he didn't forget about his request or shift his attention to other, "more 13 year old pressing matters." In fact, he became increasingly MORE excited, despite our lack of progress on the subject (except for many hours of questions and research regarding all things space).
      So, I decided that somehow, someway, I would discover the means in which to make this dream of his a reality.  However, due to our financial situation, I wasn't sure it would ever happen. Well, lo and behold, I stumbled across a Vivitar 76700 Reflecting Telescope, while killing time before a drs appt, at the local Goodwill, for only $14.99. I immediately withdrew my "Emergency $20" from my wallet, and I purchased it! 
      When I finally arrived home, I began the process of putting it together. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that it lacked everything which is placed in the "lens hole/slot" on the top, back of the telescope (just a hole, no lens, barrel, or anything originally included to fill said hole.
      !!!EDIT/CORRECTION!!!: It DOES have the piece which screws onto the side of the telescope that has "adjustor knobs" below it for, I'm assuming, extending/retracting the lens(?). There is just nothing INSIDE this piece except a hole/space. Sorry! 
      This is our youngest son (13), who is a "loner." He is very quiet/shy/lacks self-confidence, and suffers from mental/learning disabilities, but truly is "sharp as a tack" in many, many ways. So, when we discover something, anything, educationally speaking, that peaks his interest, we try our hardest to encourage him! 
      Now, I don't really have any/much money to spend on getting this telescope in complete working order (I am NOT asking or soliciting for ANYTHING!!) , but I refuse to pass up this chance to bond with him, encourage this budding passion for Astronomy, and help get him OFF that blasted PlayBoxCube more frequently, and into something more beneficial for his young, developing mind!
      Now to my question(s)...
      What further (inexpensive) equipment would suffice in completing his new-to-us telescope, and increase his allure to the wonders awaiting his discovery in the heavens above? Quality vs Price? Trade-offs? On-topic/slightly off-specific-topic advice?
      Links, articles, groups, periodicals, videos...ANY suggestions gratefully welcomed!
      Thank you, in advance, for indulging my attempted-to-be-brief background/relevant personal info, and for taking the time to help this guy be a (better) dad again. I feel blessed to have found this particular site/group.
      Live Long & Prosper,
      -Larry 
       
       
    • By Rchurt
      Hello,
       
      I recently purchased my first telescope and camera, and now I want to make sure I have the correct Barlow or reducer to couple them together to achieve Nyquist sampling on the camera (or slight over-sampling). In case it’s important, I’m interested in planetary imaging—in theory that shouldn’t matter for this sampling question, but maybe there are other considerations to take into account.
       
      I used this calculator (https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability) and plugged in my info:
      Telescope: Celestron 8 SE
      Camera: ZWO ASI462MC
      Seeing: experimented with this one, but would like to get optics that allow for poor or very poor
      Binning: prefer 1x1 to preserve spatial resolution, but could consider higher if SNR is a problem
       
      I’ve seen on several forum posts that people often use a 2x Barlow to couple the two. However, according to this calculator, that will always lead to over-sampling. If anything, it says I should use no intermediate optics or even a reducer.
       
      So my questions are:
       
      Binning: Will I be able to see anything with 1x1 binning, or should I expect to need to bin to collect enough light?
       
      Is there some other consideration that’s more important here than achieving correct sampling? It seems like most others are over-sampling, and perhaps there’s a good reason for this. If so, is there another formula that would let me determine the appropriate optics to buy?
       
      Thanks in advance for any help!
    • By Corpze
      Hi, i have made a video where i show a coople of eyepieces that i use and like, and also show how a barlow works, compared to the "Powermate" from Televue. And how is the FOV affected when changing the magnification with different eyepieces?

      Feel free to comment and give me feedback - I hope you like the video!
      /Daniel
       
       
    • By Zermelo
      I picked up a Celestron Omni last year quite cheaply and had originally been using that with stock eyepieces, which was fine.
      Since then I've bought a couple of BST Starguiders and a Hyperflex zoom, and I'm now wondering if I'd notice any difference with a better barlow (this is now being used on an F/5 150mm Newtonian). Otherwise, the pennies can be directed elsewhere.
      I'd not considered it before as the next rung up seemed to be around the £90-£100 mark, which seemed out of line with the rest of the spend. But I've seen some positive reviews of 3-element models in the region of £35-£40.
      In particular, I've read good things about the Revelation/GSO Astro 2.5x (though apparently closer to 2.2x) and the Baader Classic Q 2.25x.
      - does anyone have experience with both of these, and have a preference?
      - would I notice any significant difference with either, compared with the Omni?
      - I read somewhere that the Baader in particular required focussing the tube into the OTA to an extent that caused some image degradation. Obviously I'd want to avoid this if true, so is this a feature of the Baader, or of both, or of all (shorter?) barlows? (to be honest, I'd not thought to see whether this was happening with the Omni, I'll try to remember to check, if this weather ever breaks).
      Thanks in advance.
×
×
  • 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.