Celestron Astromaster EQ 130

[Mogra1]

Hi,

      We  were able to set up finderscope and see the moon clearly.

However when we try to see Jupiter OR Saturn we are seeing a black dot when we try to see more details. 

It looks like a shadow on the image. A black spot with spider vanes.

i think our scope is collimated correctly as i can see the moon clearly.

Any suggestions.

Thanks

 

 

[John]

Hello,

If you see that black spot and the vanes it means that the scope is not correctly focused. It is quite a long way out in fact. When it is in focus, the spot and vanes will not be visible.

You need to adjust the focus, either inwards or outwards, until your target looks it's smallest in the eyepiece.

To get a larger image you need to use a shorter focal length eyepiece or a barlow lens.

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by John

[Mogra1]

Ok. Thank you!

[Alan64]

4 hours ago, Mogra1 said:

Hi,

      We  were able to set up finderscope and see the moon clearly.

However when we try to see Jupiter OR Saturn we are seeing a black dot when we try to see more details. 

It looks like a shadow on the image. A black spot with spider vanes.

i think our scope is collimated correctly as i can see the moon clearly.

Any suggestions.

Thanks

 

 

Hello,

The Moon is the object nearest to the Earth, and rather large.  It can appear clear, sharp somewhat, but objects that are farther away, much farther away, require the collimation to be spot on; and for sharp, pleasing images at the higher and highest powers.  Does your telescope's main mirror, at the bottom of the tube, have a centre-spot, like this...

You can shine a torch down the tube to find out.  

[RT65CB-SWL]

Hi @Mogra1 and welcome to SGL. 

Also when changing your eyepieces, you will need to refocus the ‘scope… unless they are parfocal… and start with the lowest power/biggest number until you find the one you are comfortable with.

I used to be anti-zoom e/p, but now find they are indispensable tools, as they can help you determine which fixed length to purchase next. The downside to a zoom e/p is the narrow fields of view that they give depending on the focal length dialled in. If you decide to purchase one, the Baader Hyperion 8-24mm MkIV is a good choice. Other 8-24mm zoom e/p’s are available and each have their strengths and weaknesses.

I would avoid 7-21mm. That said I own a ‘cheap’ 7-21mm, (image below), and it does for what I need if I need to travel light with a few fixed length eyepieces in a backpack or ‘scope case. I am not saying they are bad. When I ordered mine, it may have been dispatched in error by the order picker. It was to much hassle and inconvenience to send it back for a replacement 8-24mm as it came an overseas internet astro-outlet.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Philip R

[AstroMuni]

14 hours ago, Mogra1 said:

However when we try to see Jupiter OR Saturn we are seeing a black dot when we try to see more details. 

Welcome to the forum. John has identified your issue so I am sure you will be able to get that resolved quickly.

I have the same scope so I maybe able to assist with your journey into using the scope 🙂 I am assuming you are using the 10mm and 20mm erecting eyepieces that came with the scope? This site will help you understand how large you can expect to see Jupiter and Saturn using your equipment. https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/

Just to set your expectations, both Jupiter and Saturn will appear quite tiny with the 20mm. Be patient -as the more you watch the more the detail you will see. The 10mm will give a better view but it will be harder to keep it in the view. If you have the motor to track then that will help.

Good luck!

[Mogra1]

On 29/07/2021 at 18:08, Alan64 said:

Hello,

The Moon is the object nearest to the Earth, and rather large.  It can appear clear, sharp somewhat, but objects that are farther away, much farther away, require the collimation to be spot on; and for sharp, pleasing images at the higher and highest powers.  Does your telescope's main mirror, at the bottom of the tube, have a centre-spot, like this...

You can shine a torch down the tube to find out.  

Thanks. Somewhat I will take a picture and post so you can confirm

[Mogra1]

19 hours ago, AstroMuni said:

Welcome to the forum. John has identified your issue so I am sure you will be able to get that resolved quickly.

I have the same scope so I maybe able to assist with your journey into using the scope 🙂 I am assuming you are using the 10mm and 20mm erecting eyepieces that came with the scope? This site will help you understand how large you can expect to see Jupiter and Saturn using your equipment. https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/

Just to set your expectations, both Jupiter and Saturn will appear quite tiny with the 20mm. Be patient -as the more you watch the more the detail you will see. The 10mm will give a better view but it will be harder to keep it in the view. If you have the motor to track then that will help.

Good luck!

Yes I am using the 20mm and 10 mm eyepiece. Tried both but hoping for more details and there seems to be a light distortion.

Thanks!

[Mogra1]

23 hours ago, Philip R said:

Hi @Mogra1 and welcome to SGL. 

Also when changing your eyepieces, you will need to refocus the ‘scope… unless they are parfocal… and start with the lowest power/biggest number until you find the one you are comfortable with.

I used to be anti-zoom e/p, but now find they are indispensable tools, as they can help you determine which fixed length to purchase next. The downside to a zoom e/p is the narrow fields of view that they give depending on the focal length dialled in. If you decide to purchase one, the Baader Hyperion 8-24mm MkIV is a good choice. Other 8-24mm zoom e/p’s are available and each have their strengths and weaknesses.

I would avoid 7-21mm. That said I own a ‘cheap’ 7-21mm, (image below), and it does for what I need if I need to travel light with a few fixed length eyepieces in a backpack or ‘scope case.

Thanks i will look into this!

[AstroNebulee]

On 29/07/2021 at 23:08, Alan64 said:

Hello,

The Moon is the object nearest to the Earth, and rather large.  It can appear clear, sharp somewhat, but objects that are farther away, much farther away, require the collimation to be spot on; and for sharp, pleasing images at the higher and highest powers.  Does your telescope's main mirror, at the bottom of the tube, have a centre-spot, like this...

You can shine a torch down the tube to find out.  

I used to own that same scope and no it doesn't have the donut ring on the primary,  so I fitted one in the end using a template and centre spot, then achieve very good collimation. 

[Mogra1]

Which barlow and eyepiece should we buy for getiing good images?

 

 

[Alan64]

5 hours ago, AstroNebulee said:

I used to own that same scope and no it doesn't have the donut ring on the primary,  so I fitted one in the end using a template and centre spot, then achieve very good collimation. 

If a centre-spot is absent, that's generally indicative that the primary-mirror is spherical rather than parabolic.  I have three that arrived like that, however one was parabolic.  But all 130mm instruments, at f/5, must have a parabolic primary-mirror to perform at their best.  It is to be expected, rather than hoped for, absolutely.

In the past, and perhaps still, Synta has been chucking spherical primaries into their Celestron "AstroMaster" 130mm f/5 Newtonians...

https://www.celestron.com/blogs/knowledgebase/does-my-astromaster-130-have-a-spherical-or-parabolic-mirror-what-is-the-difference

...that in 2011.  

On the other hand, a 130mm f/7 has a spherical, yet diffraction-limited(1/4 wave being the minimum, but that one is at 1/5 or so), and therefore performs quite well.

[ONIKKINEN]

23 hours ago, Alan64 said:

If a centre-spot is absent, that's generally indicative that the primary-mirror is spherical rather than parabolic.  I have three that arrived like that, however one was parabolic.  But all 130mm instruments, at f/5, must have a parabolic primary-mirror to perform at their best.  It is to be expected, rather than hoped for, absolutely.

In the past, and perhaps still, Synta has been chucking spherical primaries into their Celestron "AstroMaster" 130mm f/5 Newtonians...

https://www.celestron.com/blogs/knowledgebase/does-my-astromaster-130-have-a-spherical-or-parabolic-mirror-what-is-the-difference

...that in 2011.  

On the other hand, a 130mm f/7 has a spherical, yet diffraction-limited(1/4 wave being the minimum, but that one is at 1/5 or so), and therefore performs quite well.

My first scope was an Astromaster 130 and it was not center spotted. Spherical aberration and astigmatism all over the place. Not much better than a typical bathroom shaving mirror.

Some people report a not so bad experience and actually image with the thing, which i find difficult to believe. The only way i could imagine this happening if they have several different types of mirrors that get fitted to the scope. Maybe some of them have the better mirrors like the ones found in the 130p series of dobs/newts by skywatcher? (also a synta brand).

Mine was also not 130mm, but 122mm. Tells you a lot about how much Celestron cares about the product...

Edited August 1, 2021 by ONIKKINEN
typo

[Alan64]

On 31/07/2021 at 13:48, Mogra1 said:

Which barlow and eyepiece should we buy for getiing good images?

You can begin with a 2x-barlow, as they're more commonplace.  A 3x-barlow is useful, too, but you'll want the collimation spot-on when using that one, and for the highest powers.  A telescope has to work harder as you go up in power, therefore a precise, or nigh enough, collimation becomes paramount.

It would be reasonable to expect 150x or so in the beginning.  Your telescope has a focal-length of 650mm.  That's what you use to determine your selection of eyepieces...

650mm ÷ 150x = a 4.3mm eyepiece, but let's round that off to 4mm(163x).  You can see the planets quite well at that power, particularly Jupiter and Saturn.  Then, again, in that the Moon is so very near to the Earth, you can use considerably higher powers to observe its details, up to 250x, and beyond perhaps.

You can combine a 9mm(72x) eyepiece with a 2x-barlow for a simulated 4.5mm(144x); then, a 12mm(54x) eyepiece, for a simulated 6mm(108x).  

This is my 12mm eyepiece inserted into a 3x-barlow, and for a simulated 4mm...

I have the benefit of a larger eye-lens through which to observe, whilst retaining the greater eye-relief of the 12mm by itself.

I also have this 4mm eyepiece...

Note how it appears quite similar to the eyepiece-and-barlow combination above.  That 4mm eyepiece contains a built-in barlow, and for a single, tighter unit.

To help in finding objects in the night sky, to aid the finder in same, a 32mm Plossl is suggested.  The 32mm would provide the lowest power and the widest view of the night sky; for hunting and spotting, then to increase the power for a closer look.  It may also be used to observe the largest objects in the night sky: the galaxy in Andromeda, and the Pleiades, in winter.  In summer, the star-studded fields of the Milky Way unfold.

Going from a 32mm to shorter, I prefer a 20mm over a 25mm; then, a 12mm or 16mm.  I think that a 12mm is more versatile, as you can reach the higher powers when combining it with a 2x or 3x barlow, more easily.

If we knew where you're located here on Earth, we could help you to find online listings of these items, and go from there.

[Alan64]

24 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

My first scope was an Astromaster 130 and it was not center spotted. Spherical aberration and astigmatism all over the place. Not much better than a typical bathroom shaving mirror.

Some people report a not so bad experience and actually image with the thing, which i find difficult to believe. The only way i could imagine this happening if they have several different types of mirrors that get fitted to the scope. Maybe some of them have the better mirrors like the ones found in the 130p series of dobs/newts by skywatcher? (also a synta brand).

Mine was also not 130mm, but 122mm. Tells you a lot about how much Celestron cares about the product...

I may just imagine two stacks, of spherical and parabolic mirrors, on a table, there at the factory.  An assistant is told to go and fetch a mirror from one of the two piles.

However, the assistant is blindfolded.

If the primary-mirror is without a centre-spot, then I would strongly suggest that one be placed...

https://garyseronik.com/centre-dotting-your-scopes-primary-mirror/

Use a white, plastic reinforcement, instead of a paper one, and for durability.

[Mogra]

21 hours ago, Alan64 said:

I may just imagine two stacks, of spherical and parabolic mirrors, on a table, there at the factory.  An assistant is told to go and fetch a mirror from one of the two piles.

However, the assistant is blindfolded.

If the primary-mirror is without a centre-spot, then I would strongly suggest that one be placed...

https://garyseronik.com/centre-dotting-your-scopes-primary-mirror/

Use a white, plastic reinforcement, instead of a paper one, and for durability.

 

21 hours ago, Alan64 said:

You can begin with a 2x-barlow, as they're more commonplace.  A 3x-barlow is useful, too, but you'll want the collimation spot-on when using that one, and for the highest powers.  A telescope has to work harder as you go up in power, therefore a precise, or nigh enough, collimation becomes paramount.

It would be reasonable to expect 150x or so in the beginning.  Your telescope has a focal-length of 650mm.  That's what you use to determine your selection of eyepieces...

650mm ÷ 150x = a 4.3mm eyepiece, but let's round that off to 4mm(163x).  You can see the planets quite well at that power, particularly Jupiter and Saturn.  Then, again, in that the Moon is so very near to the Earth, you can use considerably higher powers to observe its details, up to 250x, and beyond perhaps.

You can combine a 9mm(72x) eyepiece with a 2x-barlow for a simulated 4.5mm(144x); then, a 12mm(54x) eyepiece, for a simulated 6mm(108x).  

This is my 12mm eyepiece inserted into a 3x-barlow, and for a simulated 4mm...

I have the benefit of a larger eye-lens through which to observe, whilst retaining the greater eye-relief of the 12mm by itself.

I also have this 4mm eyepiece...

Note how it appears quite similar to the eyepiece-and-barlow combination above.  That 4mm eyepiece contains a built-in barlow, and for a single, tighter unit.

To help in finding objects in the night sky, to aid the finder in same, a 32mm Plossl is suggested.  The 32mm would provide the lowest power and the widest view of the night sky; for hunting and spotting, then to increase the power for a closer look.  It may also be used to observe the largest objects in the night sky: the galaxy in Andromeda, and the Pleiades, in winter.  In summer, the star-studded fields of the Milky Way unfold.

Going from a 32mm to shorter, I prefer a 20mm over a 25mm; then, a 12mm or 16mm.  I think that a 12mm is more versatile, as you can reach the higher powers when combining it with a 2x or 3x barlow, more easily.

If we knew where you're located here on Earth, we could help you to find online listings of these items, and go from there.

is this a good kit to buy

https://www.celestron.com/products/eyepiece-and-filter-kit-125in

[Padraic M]

54 minutes ago, Mogra said:

is this a good kit to buy

https://www.celestron.com/products/eyepiece-and-filter-kit-125in

All I can say is that my first scope was the 130EQ, and I upgraded to this kit. It really is a massive improvement over the eyepieces that come with the scope and I still use the kit, so it is well worth buying.

However, for the price, you could get one or two better quality eyepieces and possibly a barlow to give a good selection of magnifications, and that might be a better way to go. Others may be able to give good advice on what brands and focal lengths would be worth considering.

[Alan64]

2 hours ago, Mogra said:

is this a good kit to buy

https://www.celestron.com/products/eyepiece-and-filter-kit-125in

Only if you have no other choice.  Like if you're in the middle of a desert, with no car, no internet, and the local trading-post carries only that.  Otherwise, it's best to avoid eyepiece/accessory kits.  

You really only need a 32mm Plossl, for your lowest power.  Then, choose a 12mm, and a 2x-barlow.  With just those three, two eyepieces and a barlow, you will have these magnifications at your disposal...

32mm(20x, and binocular-like)

16mm(41x)

12mm(54)

6mm(108x)

I have the same 20mm that came with your kit.  It's an Amici, erect-image eyepiece...

It's primarily for use during the day; birds in trees, ships at sea, that sort of thing.  It can be used at night, but unsuitable in the end.  It came with my Celestron "PowerSeeker" 127mm f/8(f/4 or thereabouts natively) "Bird Jones"...

Eyepieces are the whole other half of a telescope kit.  You can't use one without the other, imaging notwithstanding.  Else, separately, they'd be useless, bricks.  It is for that reason to choose your eyepieces carefully, slowly, one or two at a time, and tailored to your telescope, yourself, and the objects you'd like to see.

Incidentally, ALL brands of 1.25" eyepieces and accessories will work with your Celestron telescope.  There's no need to acquire only those branded "Celestron".  

Edited August 3, 2021 by Alan64

[Padraic M]

11 hours ago, Alan64 said:

Only if you have no other choice.  Like if you're in the middle of a desert, with no car, no internet, and the local trading-post carries only that.  Otherwise, it's best to avoid eyepiece/accessory kits.  

You really only need a 32mm Plossl, for your lowest power.  Then, choose a 12mm, and a 2x-barlow.  With just those three, two eyepieces and a barlow, you will have these magnifications at your disposal...

32mm(20x, and binocular-like)

16mm(41x)

12mm(54)

6mm(108x)

Good advice, if possibly a little bit harsh on the Celestron kit! 🙂 🙂  Definitely, the eyepieces that come with the 130EQ are almost unusable and an upgrade of some sort is a must.

The trade-off consideration is possibly that the 130EQ is a scope of a 'certain' quality level, so buying expensive eyepieces is not warranted unless OP intends to upgrade to a better quality scope in the future. I see that you have pictures of those TMB 'planetary' eyepieces earlier in the post, which seem to have a good reputation at a very good price on ebay. 

I'd agree with your selection of eyepiece powers. What I think is counter-intuitive for a beginner, is that the 32mm Plossl eyepiece is ESSENTIAL and definitely the one most often used.

Two eyepieces, a 2x barlow and a neutral-density filter for looking at the moon, of better quality than the Celestron kit, probably won't cost much less than the kit. Looking at European suppliers, the TS-Optics 32mm Plossl can be had for €30, or the Baader for €61.

Of course, you can spend thousands on two eyepieces, barlow and filter but that's a whole other conversation. 

[mikemarotta]

On 29/07/2021 at 12:51, Mogra1 said:

Hi,      We  were able to set up finderscope and see the moon clearly. ... However, ... Any suggestions. Thanks

 

My first adult telescope in November 2014 was a Celestron EQ 130. It took a lot of getting used to. I posted criticisms of the design and construction. It arrived not perfectly collimated and after a few years, it was just unsatisfactory. I bought a collimation eyepiece and was not successful. I donated the telescope and its original everything and the collimator to the Goodwill. My worst experience was trying to put one of the Celestron fillters in the 20mm eyepiece. The two they send you are not meant for their own kit. The eyepiece came apart I held a handful of small lenses. Fortunately, I was not the first person in the world that happened to and I found a website for putting it back together.

All of that being as it may -- and there's more sad stories untold -- that telescope taught me a lot about observing. I learned a lot preparing to view when I went out. (Taking flying lessons in the 1990s, I learned that pilots spend as much or more time planning the flight as flying the route. That's good advice for astronomy, also.) I saw things that I never saw before, of course. The Trapezium in the Orion Nebula is a perfect example. Now that I know it was not the sharpest image possible, it makes no difference because the image was what it was and I identified what I was looking at. Jupiter, Saturn, Mars... I tracked the moons of Jupiter... Saw the phases of Venus, and eventually even the Andromeda Galaxy.  It's all out there waiting for you. See below, but at some level, your telescope will cut through the city sky and you will see very many stars in the telescope that are not visible naked eye.

So, make the most of the telescope and ignore the nay-sayers. Galileo changed our view of the universe with much less of an instrument. When you are ready for your second telescope, you will get a lot more from it because of what you learned from the EQ 130.

On the plus side: Celestron customer service is great.  

Also on the plus side, the Celestron Lens & Filter kit.  I agree with the comments above that you have most of what you need in the 10mm and 20mm and with a 2X Barlow and a 40mm (I would go with 32 mm) you will have most of what you will use actively from 40mm (16.5X) down to 5mm (10+2X) for 130X.  That being as it may, you will also need some kind of "Moon filter" also called ND=neutral density or you will hurt yourself on the Moon, seriously: it's that bright when fuller. Different people have different opinions of the other filters. I have used them all and really am not active with them, but it can help to block this or that when you want to see Saturn, Jupiter, or the Moon somewhat differently for details.  The reason that I bought the kit in the first place is that at club star parties I saw other people with other kinds of telescopes with the same kit. It seems to be acceptable to many. 

I did buy another telescope (several) and I did buy other oculars ("eyepieces") paying as much for them altogether as I did for the EQ-130. But I still use the Celestron kit and I seldom use the others. You will find the comment above that there is no sense in buying a great eyepiece for a mediocre telescope. The EQ-130 will not be improved with a 250 UKP 82-degree waterproof ocular. I still use the Celestron EPs every time I go out with my midrange and beginner refractors. 

Why? Because lenses and mirrors and tripods and mounts and eyepieces are totally irrelevant against the seeing conditions of your sky. I live in the city. Right now, Saturn is at opposition and Jupiter is closing. Unless I travel to a dark sky site, my view will be whatever it is as much with the National Geographic 70 mm "department store" telescope as it would be with the Apochromatic Extremely Low Dispersion Triple Lens 115 mm refractor and an 82-degree 7mm ocular. That's life. Think of Galileo.

One recommendation:

One of the first things I read online was from a guy who turned the wrong knob and his telescope slipped from the mount and hit the deck with the sound of shattered glass. As you can see, the control knobs are the same for the two axes and the mount. You want them to feel different in the dark.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by mikemarotta

[AstroMuni]

32 minutes ago, mikemarotta said:

So, make the most of the telescope and ignore the nay-sayers. Galileo changed our view of the universe with much less of an instrument. When you are ready for your second telescope, you will get a lot more from it because of what you learned from the EQ 130.

Sound advice.

I went through a similar experience. I still have the 130EQ OTA and it works beautifully for imaging (see link in my signature for examples). In my experience the mount is one of the weak points and needs to be stabilised for easier viewing. And like everyone has said already, the stock lenses are not of much value.

[Mogra]

Thanks all for your great insights.  And yes the mount knob and axis knobs are the same and being so close, you can easily turn the wrong knob.

I saw the pics AstroMuni. Good ones and gives me hope 🙂

"as much or more time planning the flight " --true for many things in life.

Thanks all !

Edited August 3, 2021 by Mogra

[Mogra1]

On 01/08/2021 at 18:53, Alan64 said:

You can begin with a 2x-barlow, as they're more commonplace.  A 3x-barlow is useful, too, but you'll want the collimation spot-on when using that one, and for the highest powers.  A telescope has to work harder as you go up in power, therefore a precise, or nigh enough, collimation becomes paramount.

It would be reasonable to expect 150x or so in the beginning.  Your telescope has a focal-length of 650mm.  That's what you use to determine your selection of eyepieces...

650mm ÷ 150x = a 4.3mm eyepiece, but let's round that off to 4mm(163x).  You can see the planets quite well at that power, particularly Jupiter and Saturn.  Then, again, in that the Moon is so very near to the Earth, you can use considerably higher powers to observe its details, up to 250x, and beyond perhaps.

You can combine a 9mm(72x) eyepiece with a 2x-barlow for a simulated 4.5mm(144x); then, a 12mm(54x) eyepiece, for a simulated 6mm(108x).  

This is my 12mm eyepiece inserted into a 3x-barlow, and for a simulated 4mm...

I have the benefit of a larger eye-lens through which to observe, whilst retaining the greater eye-relief of the 12mm by itself.

I also have this 4mm eyepiece...

Note how it appears quite similar to the eyepiece-and-barlow combination above.  That 4mm eyepiece contains a built-in barlow, and for a single, tighter unit.

To help in finding objects in the night sky, to aid the finder in same, a 32mm Plossl is suggested.  The 32mm would provide the lowest power and the widest view of the night sky; for hunting and spotting, then to increase the power for a closer look.  It may also be used to observe the largest objects in the night sky: the galaxy in Andromeda, and the Pleiades, in winter.  In summer, the star-studded fields of the Milky Way unfold.

Going from a 32mm to shorter, I prefer a 20mm over a 25mm; then, a 12mm or 16mm.  I think that a 12mm is more versatile, as you can reach the higher powers when combining it with a 2x or 3x barlow, more easily.

If we knew where you're located here on Earth, we could help you to find online listings of these items, and go from there.

As suggested bought a 2x barlow and a 32mm plossol eyepiece.

Saturn was clear but we did not get as clear a picture of Jupiter.

How good are the views supposed to be. We saw jupiter and moon but no Red dot or even the lines.

Which other eyepiece should we buy?

Thanks!

 

[AstroNebulee]

41 minutes ago, Mogra1 said:

How good are the views supposed to be. We saw jupiter and moon but no Red dot or even the lines.

The great red spot may not have been in view that night. If you had a good view of Saturn it suggests the equipment is performing quite well as Saturn is dimmer and further away dispite just passed opposition. Jupiter is approaching opposition in a week or so time so hopefully you'll get better views of Jupiter. A free app such as stellarium will show you which nights the GRS is in view. Maybe try a slightly more powerful eyepiece 20mm if you have one with the x2 Barlow, this will be the equivalent to a 10mm ep and may bring the equitorial bands into view but don't expect high quality. By using averted vision on Jupiter may help you. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by AstroNebulee

[Alan64]

On 13/08/2021 at 11:39, Mogra1 said:

As suggested bought a 2x barlow and a 32mm plossol eyepiece.

Saturn was clear but we did not get as clear a picture of Jupiter.

How good are the views supposed to be. We saw jupiter and moon but no Red dot or even the lines.

Which other eyepiece should we buy?

Thanks!

 

I've been tarrying about, elsewhere, I'm afraid; my apologies.

I'd suggest a 9mm and a 12mm to go with the barlow...

https://tejraj.com/gso-plossl-eyepieces.html

Edited September 5, 2021 by Alan64