Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep28_banner.thumb.jpg.b94278254f44dd38f3f7ee896fe45525.jpg

horseheadnebula

Help to decide second and third eyepiece for 10" dobson.

Recommended Posts

I have Orion XT10 intelliscope (1200 mm focal length / 254 mm mirror / f 4,72) with two Orion Sirius plossls (10 mm and 25 mm) which came with the telescope and Televue Delos 8 mm eyepieces. I also have Lumicon UCH 1.25" filter but so far haven't found any use for it. Besides these eyepiece I only have tried Baader Aspheric but I was really surpised about it's poor image quality (astigmatism) specially considered it's price. So for my first eyepiece I wanted more quality and bought Delos. I'm wearing glasses so I would need long eye relief eyepieces. My 10 mm plossls is useless for me. I'm practically blind without glasses so I would like to use glasses all the time instead wearing them on and off with high magnification.

I would need help to decided next eyepieces. My budget is somewhere 600-700 €. Problem is that because I only have experience about mentioned eyepieces, I don't know what I actually want. Moon and Messier 13 have been my favourite targets. I never would have guessed Moon would be so nice with telescope. So perhaps another eyepiece could be with more magnification to see more details from Moon and to see topical Mars as a larger. I have read positive feedback about Baader Morpheus but I'm not sure is eyerelief too tight with 6.5 mm and is that focal length too close to 8 mm Delos. If eyerelief is not enough there would be Vixen SLV but is it's apparent field of view too tiny with non motorized dobson?

With other eyepiece I would like to enlarge my hobby to more deep sky objects. I don't even know what would be ideal focal length but I have understand it could be somewhere between 12-20 mm. If I'll buy cheaper higher magnification eyepiece (like Morpheus or SLV) I would stay on budget with Explore Scientific 92 or another Delos. Is that ES eyepiece too heavy so that can my focuser handle it? Is this right plan to concentrate more money in this focal length area?

Then I read from Televue's choosing eyepiece guide that it would be nice to have eyepiece for low-power viewing of large objects. (Generally I didn't understand guide's section how to choosing eyepiece based on field stop sizes.) This eyepiece would be about 30 mm focal length. Though I have understood from other 'help to decide eyepiece' topics that this probably is not must have focal length area. For this I have looked 30 mm APM ultra flat field but I'm not sure about eyerelief. I have also looked APM hi-fw 12.5 mm for dso but again I have read mixed reports of APM's eyerelief sufficiency for glasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need a 17.5mm Morpheus (76°) . It combines Delos quality with a larger apparent field of view and a lower price.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my own experiences at f/6 or so:

30mm APM UFF: Very good, easy to use with eyeglasses

22mm Nagler T4: Very good, a bit tight with eyeglasses but still usable

17mm ES-92: Very good, easy to use with eyeglasses, very heavy

14mm Morpheus: A bit of field curvature and astigmatism in the out 15% of the field, but nothing too distracting, easy to use with eyeglasses

14mm Pentax XL: Quite a bit of field curvature, no edge astigmatism once refocused, easy to use with eyeglasses, only found used (discontinued since 2003)

12mm ES-92: A very tiny step down from the 17mm ES-92 in terms of edge correction, ease of use, and eye relief; slightly lighter as well

9mm Morpheus: Very good, easy to use with eyeglasses, fits in well with Delos (I have the 10mm)

9mm Vixen LV: Very good, easy to use with eyeglasses, claustrophobic after using 65 to 80 degree class eyepieces

7mm Pentax XW: Very good, slight chromatic aberration in the outer 10%, easy to use with eyeglasses

5.2mm Pentax XL: Very good, no aberrations, easy to use with eyeglasses, only found used (discontinued since 2003)

3.5mm Pentax XW: Very good, no aberrations, easy to use with eyeglasses.

All of the Delos except perhaps the 17.3mm are considered very good with no edge correction or eyeglass issues.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, horseheadnebula said:

I have Orion XT10 intelliscope (1200 mm focal length / 254 mm mirror / f 4,72) with two Orion Sirius plossls (10 mm and 25 mm) which came with the telescope and Televue Delos 8 mm eyepieces. I also have Lumicon UCH 1.25" filter but so far haven't found any use for it. Besides these eyepiece I only have tried Baader Aspheric but I was really surpised about it's poor image quality (astigmatism) specially considered it's price. So for my first eyepiece I wanted more quality and bought Delos. I'm wearing glasses so I would need long eye relief eyepieces. My 10 mm plossls is useless for me. I'm practically blind without glasses so I would like to use glasses all the time instead wearing them on and off with high magnification.

I would need help to decided next eyepieces. My budget is somewhere 600-700 €. Problem is that because I only have experience about mentioned eyepieces, I don't know what I actually want. Moon and Messier 13 have been my favourite targets. I never would have guessed Moon would be so nice with telescope. So perhaps another eyepiece could be with more magnification to see more details from Moon and to see topical Mars as a larger. I have read positive feedback about Baader Morpheus but I'm not sure is eyerelief too tight with 6.5 mm and is that focal length too close to 8 mm Delos. If eyerelief is not enough there would be Vixen SLV but is it's apparent field of view too tiny with non motorized dobson?

With other eyepiece I would like to enlarge my hobby to more deep sky objects. I don't even know what would be ideal focal length but I have understand it could be somewhere between 12-20 mm. If I'll buy cheaper higher magnification eyepiece (like Morpheus or SLV) I would stay on budget with Explore Scientific 92 or another Delos. Is that ES eyepiece too heavy so that can my focuser handle it? Is this right plan to concentrate more money in this focal length area?

Then I read from Televue's choosing eyepiece guide that it would be nice to have eyepiece for low-power viewing of large objects. (Generally I didn't understand guide's section how to choosing eyepiece based on field stop sizes.) This eyepiece would be about 30 mm focal length. Though I have understood from other 'help to decide eyepiece' topics that this probably is not must have focal length area. For this I have looked 30 mm APM ultra flat field but I'm not sure about eyerelief. I have also looked APM hi-fw 12.5 mm for dso but again I have read mixed reports of APM's eyerelief sufficiency for glasses.

For that f/ratio and focal length, I'd go with 24mm, 12mm, 8mm, 6mm, 4.7mm

Those focal lengths can be +/- of course, to suit your choices.

Given the scope and the need for glasses, I'd recommend (I wear glasses and find all these fine with glasses):

Baader Morpheus 17.5mm to 9mm

Explore Scientific 92° in 17mm, 12mm

TeleVue Delite in 3mm to 18.2mm

TeleVue Delos in 3.5mm to 17.3mm

TeleVue Apollo 11

TeleVue Panoptic in 27mm to 41mm

Pentax XW in 3.5mm to 40mm

APM Ultra Flat Field in 18mm to 30mm

APM HiFW 12.5mm ( I wear glasses and find it fine for glasses--the eyecup rolls down but it can be pressed down even farther until flat on top, yielding another mm of eye relief)

Noblex/Docter 12.5mm

 

For your UHC filter, a maximum of 100x is used, and that means eyepieces of 12mm or longer.

 

As for field size, if apparent fields are identical in all your eyepieces, and you'd like each shorter focal length to reduce the field size by 50% in AREA, then each focal length should be x/1.414 where X is the next longer focal length,

i.e. 30mm, 21.2mm, 15.0mm, 10.6mm, 7.5mm, 5.3mm.  This results in a 50% smaller field by area in each shorter focal length.  The"rounded off" rule is 1.4x, or 30mm, 21.4mm, 15.3mm, 10.9mm, 7.8mm, 5.6mm

Personally, I prefer even "steps" of magnification.  On your 10", 50x/100x/150x/200x/250x.  This results in the % differences getting smaller as the magnifications increase, which is desirable when bumping up against the seeing conditions.

My earlier suggestions in focal lengths were based on that.  I also find a difference of 30x about the smallest noticeable jump and 75x a bit too much on an 8" or 10" scope.  So, a 50x jump between eyepieces.

50x is a good low power, 100x will be a "most-used" magnification, 150x will always be usable, 200x will be more affected by seeing, but usable most of the time, 250x is a reasonable high power (25x/inch).  If your seeing conditions allow higher powers, I advise getting a Barlow and magnifying some lower-power eyepieces because the ultra high powers will be useful much less of the time.

 

 

Edited by Don Pensack
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much of your detailed and helpful answers :) I think I got field stop size now. Field stop size is like diameter of CCD but now we have circle and that 1.414 is actually square root of two. Don's advice about focal lengths and magnifications was very useful, I'm going to follow that.

I looked eyepieces you all suggested. For 12 mm Explore scientific 92 seems very tempting but I'm concerned about it's weight. Does anyone know is my telescope able to handle it? If not, I guess APM 12.5 Hifw would be my choice.

Don's mentioned 24 mm seems to be tricky. It appears that there isn't actually any 24 mm eyepiece with enough eyerelief. Closest I believe is Televue 22 mm nagler type 4. I think I have to look second-hand market for these. Generally what would you ask from seller? Perhaps some pics to see that there is know any scratches in glass.

Too bad Morpheus eye relief is tight in 6.5 mm. I have to look something more expensive here unless Vixen SLV is solution. How important big field of view is with high magnification with non-tracking telescope? I can image it might be important if/when target moves quickly though eyepiece. I checked that there is actually eyepiece for 4.7 mm focal length: Ethos :D (second-hand) For this tiny exit pupil I would not need glasses or Dioptrx (cyl 1.0 & 1.5), hmm. But not sure would it be practical to wearing glasses on-off. Pentax xw or Delos would be more realistic, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 22mm Nagler T4 will give you 1.5 degrees of sky at 55x mag and would be lovely no doubt.

If you can’t find or afford one you could consider going the other way from the recommended 24mm to the APM UFF 30mm which will give you 1.8 degrees of sky at 40x mag for £180 new. But the exit pupil will be 6.4mm which might be a bit large depending on your age. And it is then a bigger step to the ES92/12 or the APM HI-FI 12.5 both at 0.9 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 12.5mm Morpheus is supposed to be quite nice and comparatively light.

The 22mm Omegon Redline SW (Astro Tech AF70) is a close runner-up to the 22mm NT4.  Once the eye cup is screwed off, it's easier to take in its 70 degree AFOV than the NT4's 82 degrees since it also has a 30mm eye lens.  It only starts to get astigmatic in the outer 10% of the field, but it's mild.  I prefer it over my 24mm APM UFF if I have a 2" focuser available.  I had to do a bunch of A-B comparisons with the NT4 before I made the decision to retire the AT AF70 to my B-team case.

3 hours ago, horseheadnebula said:

Too bad Morpheus eye relief is tight in 6.5 mm. I have to look something more expensive here unless Vixen SLV is solution. How important big field of view is with high magnification with non-tracking telescope?

Even if you only see 70 degrees with eyeglasses, it's still way more than the 45 degrees of the SLV.  Vixen claims 50 degrees, but all the LV and NLV predecessors from 7mm on down were all 45 degrees, and several reliable folks have confirmed that the SLVs are no different.  Wide field is a huge boon for non-tracking scopes at high powers.

Another good but relatively affordable option is the recently discontinued 6.5mm Meade HD-60.  It has a measured 64 degree AFOV and 15mm of usable eye relief.  I've found it to be a very respectable performer with no major issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There was second hand Explore Scientific 92 12 mm in 'For sale' channel. Seller thought that focuser can easily support 1-2 kg and should not be any problem. Instead telescope balancing might be issue. So I made scientific test and placed 1 kg bottle of milk near the focuser. For me it seemed that there wasn't any balancing problem and brake holds so I dared to buy that.

On 06/10/2020 at 03:44, globular said:

The 22mm Nagler T4 will give you 1.5 degrees of sky at 55x mag and would be lovely no doubt.

If you can’t find or afford one you could consider going the other way from the recommended 24mm to the APM UFF 30mm which will give you 1.8 degrees of sky at 40x mag for £180 new. But the exit pupil will be 6.4mm which might be a bit large depending on your age. And it is then a bigger step to the ES92/12 or the APM HI-FI 12.5 both at 0.9 degrees.

I'm 39 years old. According to Tele Vue's guide (https://televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=54&Tab=_Choose) my eye pupil size would be 6 mm. Does this means that I would see shadow of secondary mirror (or some other problem)? If not, 30 mm APM could be good temporary solution until I could get Nagler T4 22 mm.

On 06/10/2020 at 05:57, Louis D said:

The 12.5mm Morpheus is supposed to be quite nice and comparatively light.

The 22mm Omegon Redline SW (Astro Tech AF70) is a close runner-up to the 22mm NT4.  Once the eye cup is screwed off, it's easier to take in its 70 degree AFOV than the NT4's 82 degrees since it also has a 30mm eye lens.  It only starts to get astigmatic in the outer 10% of the field, but it's mild.  I prefer it over my 24mm APM UFF if I have a 2" focuser available.  I had to do a bunch of A-B comparisons with the NT4 before I made the decision to retire the AT AF70 to my B-team case.

Even if you only see 70 degrees with eyeglasses, it's still way more than the 45 degrees of the SLV.  Vixen claims 50 degrees, but all the LV and NLV predecessors from 7mm on down were all 45 degrees, and several reliable folks have confirmed that the SLVs are no different.  Wide field is a huge boon for non-tracking scopes at high powers.

Another good but relatively affordable option is the recently discontinued 6.5mm Meade HD-60.  It has a measured 64 degree AFOV and 15mm of usable eye relief.  I've found it to be a very respectable performer with no major issues.

Do you mean that eye cup should be screwed off from 22 mm Omegan Redline to have enough eye relief for glasses? I think I would hesitate to do that because I would be scare to get scratches on my eye glasses. Otherwise this sounds good specially considering it wouldn't so expensive. Do you happen to know field stop diameter so I could calculate true field of view?

Meade HD-60 seems to be out of stock everywhere.

Thanks, I'll take your advice about wide field. At least I can drop Vixen SLV off the consideration list.

Hmm, you would think I would lose only 6 degrees with eyeglasses with Morpheus 6.5 mm? Then this could be good choise. Is magnification too close to my 8 mm Delos? 150 x versus 185 x?

I was also considering Pentax xw 5 mm but now it seems to be out of stock in Firstlightoptics and elsewhere it costs about 90 € more.

Edited by horseheadnebula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/10/2020 at 03:57, Louis D said:

he 22mm Omegon Redline SW (Astro Tech AF70) is a close runner-up to the 22mm NT4.  Once the eye cup is screwed off, it's easier to take in its 70 degree AFOV than the NT4's 82 degrees since it also has a 30mm eye lens.  It only starts to get astigmatic in the outer 10% of the field, but it's mild.  I prefer it over my 24mm APM UFF if I have a 2" focuser available.  I had to do a bunch of A-B comparisons with the NT4 before I made the decision to retire the AT AF70 to my B-team case.

 

I bought the 22mm/70 deg Omegon as a result of Louis recommending it on another topic.  I too found it very close to the 22mm Nagler in sharpness at f/5,  plus I'm another who finds the 82 deg FOV of the Nagler hard to take in.  In fact, with the shape of my eye sockets some of us find it hard to see the edge of the FOV in most wide angle eyepieces with glasses on - even the long eye relief ones.  The same applies with a Dioptrx astigmatism corrector.  So personally, for such eyepieces I'm not worried about the performance at the extreme edge of the FOV as I can't see it!  

The Omegon is an absolute steal  - I paid just £116 with postage.  The 22mm Omegon Redline, the identical TS 22mm, and the 22mm Nagler all take a Dioptrx, as I believe the 24mm APM UFF does.  Note though that Louis advised me that some of the other Redline clones such as the Celestron and Olivon have a twist up eyeguard and don't accept a Dioptrx, unless perhaps you glued one on.

Having just got into night vision I don't currently do much conventional DSO viewing.  If that continues I might sell off my 20 to 22mm eyepieces.  The exception would be the 22mm LVW as it's the hard to replace, plus it's a 1 1/4 inch eyepiece that I can use with my new Maxbright II binoviewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horseheadnebula said:

Does this means that I would see shadow of secondary mirror (or some other problem)?

In my experience, secondary shadow is only an issue during daytime (solar) observations because your eye's pupil is so constricted that it approaches the size of the secondary shadow.  For instance, if you are using an eyepiece that provides a 6mm exit pupil, and you have a 35% by diameter secondary obstruction, the secondary shadow is 0.35*6mm=2.2mm.  Guess what, your eye's pupil constricts down to around 2mm during the daytime.  As a result, all you see in the center of the field is the shadow.  You literally have to move your eye off center and try to look "around" the secondary shadow to see anything at all.

The two problems with large exit pupils are that they lead to bright background skies and potential loss of usable aperture if your iris doesn't dilate enough to take in the entire exit pupil.  On the other hand, they're often the cheapest way to get the maximum field of view possible when choosing a "finder" eyepiece to help with centering objects in higher power eyepieces.

1 hour ago, horseheadnebula said:

Do you mean that eye cup should be screwed off from 22 mm Omegan Redline to have enough eye relief for glasses? I think I would hesitate to do that because I would be scare to get scratches on my eye glasses.

The eye cup is super rigid and won't fold down.   Since it's a 43mm thread, you could substitute a Morpheus eye cup if you're worried about scratching your eyeglasses.  I've done it myself just to prove it works fine.

I use many eyepieces without eye guards of any sort and haven't scratched my glasses yet.  If there's enough eye relief, you just hover above the eyepiece never touching it.  The one time I scratched an eyeglass lens was years ago with a 27mm Panoptic .  It had too little eye relief, yet I was determined to see the entire field of view, so I jammed my eyeglass lens into the top of the eyepiece, scratching it on the exposed eye lens retaining ring.  I was furious Tele Vue designed it that way.  It claims to have 19mm of eye relief when in reality it has only 14mm of usable eye relief with a sharp metal edge around the eye lens.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hmm, you would think I would lose only 6 degrees with eyeglasses with Morpheus 6.5 mm? Then this could be good choise. Is magnification too close to my 8 mm Delos? 150 x versus 185 x?

Based on my Meade HD-60 6.5mm (which is a little tight on eye relief), I'd say only 10% of the field at most would be a bit difficult to see.  And yes, they'd be quite close in magnification.  5mm would be a much better step if you could find an older 5.2mm XL or an XW.

 

2 hours ago, horseheadnebula said:

Do you happen to know field stop diameter so I could calculate true field of view?

I've measured the 22mm AF70/Redline/Omegon/Ultima LX/etc. field stop to be 28.4mm, or just slightly larger than that possible in a 1.25" barrel.  It weighs 16.8 ounces and has exactly a 70 degree AFOV.  However, due to slight distortion, it has a 74 degree effective AFOV.  I'm guessing this is because magnification decreases slightly near the field stop, allowing more field to be squeezed in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for helpful answers! :) Based on your recommendations I will buy Omegon Redline SW 22 mm and Morpheus eyecup for that. Nagler Nagler T4 22 mm certainly would have been super but if you say Redline is almost as good but costs 1/4 of Nagler it was difficult to justify buying Nagler.

High power side is still bit unclear. Now Firstlightoptics seems to have one Pentax xw 5 mm in stock so I was thinking to buy that. Though I have understood that sky needs to be calm (good seeing etc) to able use 240 x power. Couple stupid question but is this also true for very bright objects like Moon and Mars for which I would buy 5 mm eyepiece? I'm bit concern that would I actually have many good enough nights to oberve. Also if magnification rise, do I need some Moon filter or does brightness only depends on mirror size (I would think it only depend on main mirror)?

How would you fill the gap between my 8 mm Delos and Pentax 5mm (150 x and 240 x)? Is that Morpheus 6.5 mm (185 x) dump idea? Or better to save money and buy 6 mm Delos later?

Another possibility is buy Explore Scientific 2 x tele-extender and get 6 mm from ExSc 92 12 mm which I already ordered but haven't got yet.

Is there some accessory you would recommend? I was thinking for example some Baader Clicklock but not sure which one I would need.

At the moment my shopping basket contains:

Omegon Redline SW 22 mm

Omegon observation chair

Rigel finder

Baader Morpheus foldable eyecup

Pentax xw 5 mm

Premium cheshire collimating eyepiece

These already exceed my original budget but there seems to be many important things to buy so it not so serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting the ES-92 into a tele-extender would work, but it creates a very long lever arm.  However, it won't matter to the Dob because it can't twist on it's axis.

The Morpheus 6.5mm should be fine between 5mm and 8mm.

Luna does fine at high power even with unsteady skies due to the large features and high contrast.  Maybe some tiny, low contrast details won't show.  The planets really do need steady skies for high powers.  Planetary nebula less so.  Globular clusters will mostly resolve at high powers in unsteady skies, but the individual stars will blink in and out quite a bit.  However, you still need steady skies to resolve their cores well.

The moon will naturally dim to acceptable levels at high powers.  Brightness is dependent on exit pupil which is a function of f-ratio (scope focal length/aperture) and eyepiece focal length (EFL/FR).  So, you are partially correct, increasing aperture while keeping all other variables constant does indeed increase brightness (EFL*A/SFL).  If you increase aperture while also increasing focal length of the scope at the same rate, brightness will remain the same, but magnification will increase along with resolution.

You'll probably want to get a coma corrector to allow your ES-92 to shine to the edge.  If your budget is tight, the Revelation/GSO CC works well with the addition of a 25mm spacer ring between the optics section and the eyepiece holder.  I find it corrects well over 95% of the coma at f/6.  For the price of an eyepiece, it is well worthwhile.  I just recommend removing it for high power work because it adds a bit of spherical aberration.  That, and replace the pot metal screws with M4 cap head steel or brass screws from the hardware store.  I had one of the original screws shear off completely.

Somewhere down the road, you should spring for a set of entry-level binoviewers and a pair of 60 degree eyepieces around 16mm along with a good quality 2x Barlow to reach focus to view the moon and planets.  Brightness becomes a non-issue because both eyes see the same level of illumination (half that of mono-viewing), and two eyes allow your brain to work as intended to pick out fine detail and subtract out eye fluid floaters.  Mars was showing loads of detail at closest approach in my binoviewers while mono-viewing was a bit disappointing due to the brightness and lack of apparent detail.  I can even view the face of the full moon with binoviewers and see loads of details that are completely blown out mono-viewing.

There's no rush to buy everything at once.  Metering out your purchases over time can help keep your interest in astronomy alive after the initial thrill fades in a year or two.  For example, you'll probably want to add a small ED scope for wide field, low power views.  However, it will need a mount, so that's best left as a purchase far down the road once your wallet has recovered.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Louis! I really like your writing style, very informative! I should buy you a beer :D

You are right, I should slow down and enjoy my purchases.

I actually have had this telescope several years already. My initial enthusiasm for observing faded few years ago because I only had two usable eyepieces, I was missing some necessary accessories and I didn't have money to invest into hobby. Maybe I should have mentioned this in beginning of this thread but my writings were already quite long and I was afraid that nobody would read long texts these days.

But because of Covid and topical Mars, I got spark into observing again. I learned something from my initial experience few years ago. That's why I included observing chair into shopping list. Many observing nights had been cut short just because of bad ergonomy. Another thing was that I didn't found objects from sky, eventhough I know stars and constellations visible to the eyes quite good but it was another story to find deep sky objects with telescope. That's why I included Rigel finder into shopping basket.

Intelliscope acually have star catalog and push-to system. But somehow I felt it was terrible inaccurate and display of controller just freezes to unreadable in below zero conditions so I just gave up using it. Today I read from Cloudy night forum that two star allignment need to do very accurately and crosshair eyepiece with high magnification is recommended. I realized that this most likely have been my problem for inaccuracy and I would like to give another chance for object locator.

Don Pensack mentioned that you don't need illuminated crosshair. Just "defocus the alignment star until it's a donut shape. The bright disc will display the crosshairs easily...Easy and cheaper than an illuminated eyepiece...Plus, it's focusable, so I can make the crosshairs sharp for my eye...Cost only about $ 40."

I have tried to search hours this kind of cheap crosshair eyepiece Don mentioned but didn't found one. Does anyone know?

Share this post


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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.