130mm reflector w/26mm EP - add barlow or another eyepiece?

[Otoh]

Shopping for first telescope for a present, approx £200. Many obvious choices are not in stock so I'm leaning toward BRESSER Messier NT-130S/650  - I'm happy to hopefully pay for optics rather than a sub-par mount+tripod; and I'm confident I can rustle up a dobsonian mount for it. (Still open to suggestions in the price range...)

Many telescopes seem to come with 2 eyepieces, bu this comes with just 26mm eyepiece, which I understand is quite wide angle. If I want something else for starters - for eg planets - should I supplement this with eg a 10mm eyepiece, or is a 3x barlow better?

[pregulla]

Seems like a good choice to me, if you can build a mount for it. 130mm is reasonably large for beginner. I like that it has 2" focuser, should be very nice for low power wide field views as well as higher powers for planets.

I think good option for starters would be a zoom eyepiece and 2x barlow.

[Otoh]

Many thanks for the reply, much appreciated - glad I seem to be on the right track! It's that or a 102mm Mak, but the general feeling seems to be that more aperture is better.

But it's kind of at the top end of my budget so I'm trying to keep it to maybe just one extra accessory for now. I seem to see mixed opinions on zooms - are they as good as separate lengths? And/or is a good one very expensive? Any recommendations for eg an extra £30 ish - just so there is some viewing flexibility to start with?

[Louis D]

Here's a thread about building a Dob mount for a bare Newtonian tube:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/356587-diy-sw-explorer-200p-dobsonian-convertion/

As far as eyepieces, you could add a Barlow to maintain eye relief or a short focal length Plossl to keep costs low at the expense of eye relief.  The 8mm or 5mm BST Starguider or one of the Sky-Watcher UWA Planetaries would make good choices to maintain eye relief and keep costs on the low side.

[pregulla]

The advantages of 102mm Mak would be that it's more light and compact, suitable for terrestrial observing, and because of slower focal ratio will perform better with simpler eyepieces. If small size and daytime use are high priority, than it is probably a better choice.

For 130mm newt goes larger aperture, and much wider maximum field of view , because of it's shorter focal length and 2" focuser (4.1 degress max TFOV vs 1.2 degrees for 102mm Mak). So it would be a better choice for astronomy. If the person decides to upgrade later it can be a nice complimentary scope to a larger DOB for low power views and quick grab and go.

Zooms can be as good as separate eyepieces, depends on price point both. I would say that Celestron/Svbony/Hyperflex zoom is a good alternative to plossls or stock eyepieces that come with scopes. Main drawback is narrower field of view at higher focal length end. I still prefer zoom for moon and planets.
If you can only afford one eyepiece I agree that Starguider/SW UWA can be a good choice. I would go for something like 5mm, to get that extra magnification for planets.

[Otoh]

7 hours ago, Louis D said:

Here's a thread about building a Dob mount for a bare Newtonian tube:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/356587-diy-sw-explorer-200p-dobsonian-convertion/

As far as eyepieces, you could add a Barlow to maintain eye relief or a short focal length Plossl to keep costs low at the expense of eye relief.  The 8mm or 5mm BST Starguider or one of the Sky-Watcher UWA Planetaries would make good choices to maintain eye relief and keep costs on the low side.

Many thanks for the  reply - some good ideas for a mount there, along the lines I was thinking. Notably I did previously decide on a Zhumell Z130 - which arrived with the (chipboard) mount completely broken - so I'm pretty sure I can make something better! (Last in stock apparently, hence the change of plan)

Also, being new to this, very helpful to get pointed in the right direction for eyepieces - much appreciated.

2 hours ago, pregulla said:

The advantages of 102mm Mak would be that it's more light and compact, suitable for terrestrial observing, and because of slower focal ratio will perform better with simpler eyepieces. If small size and daytime use are high priority, than it is probably a better choice.

For 130mm newt goes larger aperture, and much wider maximum field of view , because of it's shorter focal length and 2" focuser (4.1 degress max TFOV vs 1.2 degrees for 102mm Mak). So it would be a better choice for astronomy. If the person decides to upgrade later it can be a nice complimentary scope to a larger DOB for low power views and quick grab and go.

Got it. The Mak is tempting because it's a bit neater, but I think this is only for astronomy and will likely largely stay at home. Also pushing the budget a little - I see Skywatcher StarQuest 102MC for approx £200 but I'm actually wary of including a mount/tripod at that price point - recipient (my wife) is a photographer so I'm well aware of what a decent tripod/head etc costs! Hence leaning toward making a dob for starters  and then maybe upgrading somewhere along the way.

[Zermelo]

Even fixed focal length eyepieces make design trade-offs, no single configuration can maximize all the desirable attributes.
Zoom lenses have to do even more of this, to balance the set of criteria across a whole range of focal lengths. It's a marvel that they can still produce EPs that perform as well as they do, though pound for pound a fixed length EP will usually outperform a zoom at the same focal length.

I wouldn't bother with one if you can stretch only to the cheapest generic ones on the auction sites; but I have had good results from this one:
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/hyperflex-72mm-215mm-eyepiece.html

and it has been recommended by others on here that have better fixed EPs than me to compare it with. At the short end it claims a 60 degree AFOV which is respectable, though this shrinks to 40 at the wide end - but then I have a separate wide field EP.

I use mine at F/5 - if you have a slower scope, it will be more forgiving. There's no denying that a zoom with a range like this is a very useful tool, mine gets used more than any other. I also barlow it at 2x at the shorter end and it copes well, when conditions permit.

[Otoh]

5 hours ago, Zermelo said:

I wouldn't bother with one if you can stretch only to the cheapest generic ones on the auction sites; but I have had good results from this one:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/hyperflex-72mm-215mm-eyepiece.html

and it has been recommended by others on here that have better fixed EPs than me to compare it with. At the short end it claims a 60 degree AFOV which is respectable, though this shrinks to 40 at the wide end - but then I have a separate wide field EP.

Really helpful, many thanks. I'm tempted, then, to get a modest barlow (eg Bresser to go with the OTA) and then - assuming things go well! - schedule in a zoom like the hyperflex for xmas

[pregulla]

Reportedly the Hyperflex works very well with Baader Q Barlow