Skymax 127 – first thoughts from a newbie

[PeterC65]

My thanks to @Louis D and @Zermelo. FLO have also confirmed I need the Mak to SCT adapter ring and that is now on order (15-20 days wait unfortunately).

From what I've learned, the Skymax  127 sometimes comes with a standard SCT male thread as the visual back and sometimes with a non-standard M45.5 male thread. Unsurprisingly, there is very little kit that will fit this non-standard thread so the best plan seems to be to fit the adapter (https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/lynxastro_makcas-sct_adptr.html) and then you have a standard SCT male thread instead which is much more useful. The SCT male thread measures around 50mm in diameter rather than 45mm and so this is the way to tell what type of visual back you have on your Mak.

Eventually I will have all of the kit in hand to upgrade the back end optical pathway of my Skymax 127, and then I'll post on here what improvement that makes.

In the meantime the Baader Zoom EP has arrived! It certainly looks very impressive!! I'm looking forward to trying it out next time the sky is clear, albeit with the standard Sky-Watcher diagonal.

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by PeterC65
Added more information

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

Did some testing using 2” diagonal on a 127 mak and found that while you could get a slightly wider fov with the right 2” eyepiece it wasn’t a lot more and decided it wasn’t worth bothering with. 

To each their own, but I found as stated above that using a 40mm SWA eyepiece with a 46mm field stop increased the linear TFOV from 1.1° to 1.8° and made it a lot easier to get objects centered after getting the telescope in the general vicinity with either an RDF or GLP.  Since I already had the 2" diagonal and 2" eyepiece, all it took was adding the step ring and SCT 2" visual back.  When I went to buy another one for my daughter to take on her camping trips, it arrived with everything but a max field 2" eyepiece.  I'm letting her borrow a couple of mine until she decides what she wants to buy for herself.  At f/12, most wide field eyepieces look pretty good.

The 1.8° TFOV also makes scanning rich star fields more rewarding.  It's obviously not as good as with a short refractor, but it is better.

[PeterC65]

I’ve been investigating ways to maximise the FOV of the Skymax 127 with the aim of getting a proper look at M31.

As @Louis D has mentioned, one way is to upgrade to a 2” optical pathway and then use a 40mm (or longer) EP. I’ve already upgraded the diagonal to a 32mm prism and added a 1.25” helical focuser (to allow fine focussing). I’m still waiting on more parts to put both of these in to action so for now I plan to stick with the 1.25” optical pathway.

Another option seems to be the Baader Hyperion Aspheric EP. These are available at 31mm and 36mm although both would be stopped at 30mm if I stick with 1.25”. The EP FOV is 72° and that would give me an overall FOV of 1.44° compared with 0.77° for the Baader Hyperion Zoom at 24mm. That seems like a difference worth having.

What do others think of the Baader Hyperion Aspheric EP?

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

I’ve been investigating ways to maximise the FOV of the Skymax 127 with the aim of getting a proper look at M31.

As @Louis D has mentioned, one way is to upgrade to a 2” optical pathway and then use a 40mm (or longer) EP. I’ve already upgraded the diagonal to a 32mm prism and added a 1.25” helical focuser (to allow fine focussing). I’m still waiting on more parts to put both of these in to action so for now I plan to stick with the 1.25” optical pathway.

Another option seems to be the Baader Hyperion Aspheric EP. These are available at 31mm and 36mm although both would be stopped at 30mm if I stick with 1.25”. The EP FOV is 72° and that would give me an overall FOV of 1.44° compared with 0.77° for the Baader Hyperion Zoom at 24mm. That seems like a difference worth having.

What do others think of the Baader Hyperion Aspheric EP?

Based on reports I've read, the BHAs would be decent buys if they cost around $100, not $200+.  They are improved Erfles, but not enough to justify the additional cost.  There is significant astigmatism in the outer 25% of their fields.  The 1.25" adapter on them leads to heavy vignetting even in a true 2" light path, so not recommended.  It's just too close to the field stop.

The 30mm APM UFF, which is now sold under Altair, Celestron, Meade, and a few other brands, is insanely good for the same money when you get a true 2" diagonal.

The 35mm Aero ED is a better deal than the 36mm BHA at around $100+ if you can find it in stock.  They're recently discontinued, but there might be a few still available in UK/Euro stores.  Don't back order them, they won't ever come in.

[PeterC65]

Over the last couple of nights I’ve finally had a chance to try the Baader Hyperion Zoom eyepiece. I’ve posted my thoughts here. In summary, it’s better, but only a little bit!

From last night’s observing, with the BHZ:

Jupiter: With the BHZ set to 8mm I could make out two, maybe three bands of dark cloud across the planet.

Saturn: With the BHZ set to 8mm I could see enough shadow to tell that I was looking from underneath the rings, but couldn’t see the Cassini division.

M31 & M33: With the BHZ set to 24mm they still look like (slightly better defined) white blobs. There might have been some hint of spiral arms, but I don’t consider that ‘seeing’ them.

SAO49528: Stellarium tells me this is a bright star surrounded by bright gas clouds. It looked like there might be a glow around the star, but that could easily have been my eyes.

M13: With the BHZ set to 8mm I could see a very dim white blob. As with the galaxies above, there might have been just a hint of the annular star cluster I knew I was looking at.

NGC6992: The East Veil Nebula was high in the sky, should be bright enough (7.0), and should fit nicely into the FoV of the BHZ at 24mm, but I could see nothing.

I’ve not yet been able to upgrade the diagonal (to a Baader 32mm prism), or fit the Baader Skyglow Filter, as the MAK to SCT adapter didn’t fit! FLO have recently changed their supplier for this part and the new part has the wrong inner thread size. They are sorting it out but it will take another few weeks. And there’s me, thinking that the frustration with astronomy would be waiting for a clear night!

I’ve given a lot of thought to widening the FoV as discussed previously. To go beyond the limitations of a 1.25” barrel would be expensive and within that limitation the best I can achieve is 1.09° with a Baader Hyperion 24mm 62° eyepiece (as opposed to the 0.77° that I currently get with the BHZ at 24mm but 48°). But there seems no value in doing even this unless I can see objects that would merit a wider FoV. It may be that the Skyglow Filter will cause such objects to jump out at me! I’ve also read some good things about the Astronomik UHC Filter for observing Nebulae.

What do people think can be achieved with filters for visual observing?

[RT65CB-SWL]

A UHC and/or OIII filter certainly make the fine details of nebulae and DSO's 'jump out'.

For planetary views, I use a Neodymium or a variable polarising filter.

[Stu]

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

Over the last couple of nights I’ve finally had a chance to try the Baader Hyperion Zoom eyepiece. I’ve posted my thoughts here. In summary, it’s better, but only a little bit!

From last night’s observing, with the BHZ:

Jupiter: With the BHZ set to 8mm I could make out two, maybe three bands of dark cloud across the planet.

Saturn: With the BHZ set to 8mm I could see enough shadow to tell that I was looking from underneath the rings, but couldn’t see the Cassini division.

M31 & M33: With the BHZ set to 24mm they still look like (slightly better defined) white blobs. There might have been some hint of spiral arms, but I don’t consider that ‘seeing’ them.

SAO49528: Stellarium tells me this is a bright star surrounded by bright gas clouds. It looked like there might be a glow around the star, but that could easily have been my eyes.

M13: With the BHZ set to 8mm I could see a very dim white blob. As with the galaxies above, there might have been just a hint of the annular star cluster I knew I was looking at.

NGC6992: The East Veil Nebula was high in the sky, should be bright enough (7.0), and should fit nicely into the FoV of the BHZ at 24mm, but I could see nothing.

I’ve not yet been able to upgrade the diagonal (to a Baader 32mm prism), or fit the Baader Skyglow Filter, as the MAK to SCT adapter didn’t fit! FLO have recently changed their supplier for this part and the new part has the wrong inner thread size. They are sorting it out but it will take another few weeks. And there’s me, thinking that the frustration with astronomy would be waiting for a clear night!

I’ve given a lot of thought to widening the FoV as discussed previously. To go beyond the limitations of a 1.25” barrel would be expensive and within that limitation the best I can achieve is 1.09° with a Baader Hyperion 24mm 62° eyepiece (as opposed to the 0.77° that I currently get with the BHZ at 24mm but 48°). But there seems no value in doing even this unless I can see objects that would merit a wider FoV. It may be that the Skyglow Filter will cause such objects to jump out at me! I’ve also read some good things about the Astronomik UHC Filter for observing Nebulae.

What do people think can be achieved with filters for visual observing?

A few questions and comments which may help, and apologies if they have already been covered. I’ve tried to read the whole thread but may have missed bits!

First off, what are your skies like? This makes by far the most difference to what you are likely to see. M31 may overall be a relatively bright object, but its brightness is concentrated in the core and the outer parts (that get it to the 3 degrees or so) are quite faint and easily lost to view in light polluted skies. To see it at its widest you need a widefield refractor, dark skies and well adapted eyes. This will then also show you the two satellite galaxies M32 and M110.

Second point would be about cooling. Are you leaving the scope to cool before observing with it? This can take 45 mins or longer depending on the temperature difference between where it was stored and outside. This makes a big difference to high powered planetary views.

Thirdly, what time are you observing the planets? Earlier in the evening they are low down in the sky, and so you are looking through hundreds of miles of turbulent atmosphere. The detail often gets lost at these times. Currently Jupiter is at its best at around 11.45 when it transits the meridian ie is due south and is at its highest. I observed the other night at 8.15pm on and off until around 11pm through a top notch 5” refractor and at 8.15pm the views were very poor even though the scope was cooled. They gradually got better, and once above 20 degrees were quite good. So, observing when the planets are at their highest can make a big difference to the detail seen.

Your scope should resolve stars around the edge of globular so like M13. Make sure that your focus is spot on. You can also use averted vision and that will help the stars to be visible. I find that looking straight at the object then flicking you view to one side can really make them pop.

The Veil is an example of something that might seem bright from the quoted magnitude, but that brightness is spread across a wide area so is very faint. Alot depends on your skies of course, but if dark enough then using say a 32mm or even a 40mm Plossl to keep the exit pupil large and with an OIII filter you should be able to see each part. Without a filter it is a tough object unless your skies are excellent. Your scope is not ideal for this kind of target, so I would concentrate on targets like globular clusters, smaller open clusters, planetary nebulae and even galaxies outside M31 because most of them are relatively small.

In terms of using 2” eyepieces, I have done this on an Orion Optics 140mm Mak and it does give an increased field of view with little noticeable vignetting just as Louis said, but ultimately I think it probably makes most sense to concentrate on what the scope is good at, and then add a shorter focal length refractor or meet at some point in the future.

I hope my crazed ramblings are of some use.

Stu

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

I’ve not yet been able to upgrade the diagonal (to a Baader 32mm prism), or fit the Baader Skyglow Filter, as the MAK to SCT adapter didn’t fit! FLO have recently changed their supplier for this part and the new part has the wrong inner thread size. They are sorting it out but it will take another few weeks. And there’s me, thinking that the frustration with astronomy would be waiting for a clear night!

😱

3 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

But there seems no value in doing even this unless I can see objects that would merit a wider FoV.

Rich winter star fields like those found in Orion and Perseus as well as the Pleiades benefit from a wider FoV.  There also some along the summer Milky Way to be enjoyed, but they don't pop as well for me because of our continual summer haze due to humidity, forest fire smoke, and Saharan dust.  That, and the lack of regular, strong fronts to clear the air.  Our summer air stagnates for weeks at a time due to a stationary high pressure dome right over Texas.

[PeterC65]

Thank @Stu, your comments are very helpful.

13 hours ago, Stu said:

First off, what are your skies like?

I live in a semi-rural location, the countryside of the Forest of Dean, which I think is Bortle 4. We're on the side of a hill, so the view is the south west half of the sky and directly above. The north east half is obscured by the house. Looking south west, there are a few houses in view, several hundred metres away, but no towns or villages. There is light haze in places on the horizon from towns over the other side of the River Severn (10-20 miles away). The closest light source is a single street light 100m from the house and 30” below horizontal. So I'm thinking this is quite a good location other than looking north east.

13 hours ago, Stu said:

Are you leaving the scope to cool before observing with it?

I'm aware of the need to do this but haven't been doing so, but the last couple of nights I've been observing for a couple of hours so I guess the scope will have acclimatised during that time. What effect does not not having the scope acclimatised have? It won't be acclimatised when I carry out the star alignment but perhaps this doesn't matter.

13 hours ago, Stu said:

... what time are you observing the planets?

I observed Jupiter a few times, including when it was at its highest. I tried to select objects that were relatively high in the sky, including some that were directly overhead.

Someone posted camera images of Jupiter in a Facebook astronomy group, taken with the same scope as mine and on the same night. I commented how much more detail could be seen in the camera images and he mentioned that this was the case even with the live unprocessed camera image. He said that bright objects like Jupiter can cause glare which prevents you from seeing details with the naked eye. He can wind down the brightness on his camera to compensate for this. It made me wonder whether a filter that reduced brightness a little might be useful for observing the larger planets (and the Moon)? Maybe the Skyglow filter will help.

14 hours ago, Stu said:

Your scope should resolve stars around the edge of globular so like M13. Make sure that your focus is spot on.

M13 seems like a good target for me to learn. I'm using Stellarium to locate objects (to control the mount) and to check what I'm supposed to be seeing, both through the finderscope and through the main scope, but the bright laptop screen then blinds me for a while. I did try to look at M13 for 10 minutes or so and that helped. I think perhaps the right thing to do is select a few objects to observe before each session, use Stellarium to draw what they should look like on paper so that I have a reference, then during the session, concentrate on observing just those few objects without going anywhere near a strong light source. How do other people arrange their observing sessions?

The focuser on the Skymax 127 is very sensitive I find, particularly when trying to focus on planets. With fainter, 'fluffy' objects I'm finding it even harder to focus on them and have taken to focussing instead on a nearby star. Is this the right thing to do? Part of the upgrade I'm planning (still waiting on a part) is to fit a helical focuser between the diagonal and the eyepiece which I hope will give me finer focus control.

14 hours ago, Stu said:

... using say a 32mm or even a 40mm Plossl to keep the exit pupil large ...

I'm aware of what the exit pupil is and how it relates to the size of the eye pupil but I'm not clear about why bigger is better and under what circumstances that is the case. From researching wider FoV eyepieces it seems that lower magnification gives a bigger exit pupil, so is there an advantage in lowering the magnification just to get a bigger exit pupil rather than a wider FoV (because the FoV is limited anyway by a 1.25" barrel size)?

From what everyone is saying I should be able to see much more than I am currently so I just need to persevere and learn from the experience of others. Thanks again to everyone who has helped so far!

 

[Zermelo]

16 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I've been observing for a couple of hours so I guess the scope will have acclimatised during that time

yes, it will, but I've had sessions with my 127 when the first few observations have been badly affected

16 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

What effect does not not having the scope acclimatised have?

Similar to "bad seeing" - the images will be unsteady and you won't be able to use much magnification

18 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

It won't be acclimatised when I carry out the star alignment but perhaps this doesn't matter.

Yes, you can align before it's fully cooled

19 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

whether a filter that reduced brightness a little might be useful for observing the larger planets (and the Moon)?

Yes, the brighter planets can sometimes benefit from a filter that knocks out some of the light, and also the details on planets are often quite subtle (low contrast) - a filter can also help with that aspect too. Neodymium filters are popular, but a regular moon filter may also be effective - the variable polarizing type allows you to fine tune the brightness.

23 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

the bright laptop screen then blinds me for a while

People usually put a red filter over the screen and crank down the brightness as far as possible, otherwise it will ruin your dark adaptation. It won't matter with the moon or a bright planet, but on other objects it will be important.

 

25 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I think perhaps the right thing to do is select a few objects to observe before each session, use Stellarium to draw what they should look like on paper so that I have a reference, then during the session, concentrate on observing just those few objects without going anywhere near a strong light source.

Certainly that will be preferable to a bright screen.

27 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

have taken to focussing instead on a nearby star

Yes. Find one that's not too bright, and you should be able to focus it to a point.

29 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

The focuser on the Skymax 127 is very sensitive

It can be. Some people have fitted peanut butter lids to give a larger diameter focuser, or attached clothes pegs.  Adding the helical focuser will be better.

33 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I'm not clear about why bigger is better and under what circumstances that is the case.

Higher magnification results in a smaller exit pupil and makes the background sky appear darker. That effect can be important to the effectiveness of any filter that you might be using. There's a discussion here.

 

[Tiny Clanger]

A few thoughts, based on using my 127 , which I bought specifically to add higher magnification to complement my existing 150 heritage dob (750mm focal length) and to use for the Moon & planets.

Sometimes for these bright targets , a dark  adapted eye is actually a bad thing : shine a white light torch , look at the laptop screen or nip in the kitchen for a coffee, look at Jupiter etc again , bingo, you see more detail ! Exactly the opposite of what you want for DSOs, obviously , but if you are concentrating on just a gas giant or the Moon for a session it works. Filters can do a similar job, ND (neutral density) or polarisers which come in pairs and rotate with respect to each other to offer a range of neutral densities. Cheap coloured filters (FLO have a range of decent ones for about £10 each , whole sets of dubious quality ones can be had from the far east via amaz etc for £15 or even less , to try the concept for yourself ) can tease out details too, but opinions on their usefulness vary.I've found them useful . Lots of folk rate the Baader Neodi .... neodymn ... neo something filter, I've never tried it . Can't even spell it !

FLO have a pretty good overview of how filters might help, and what factors may affect planetary observations here : https://www.firstlightoptics.com/flo-guides-colour-filters-to-improve-lunar-and-planetary-visual-observing.html

Focus on the 127 mak is not easy to get right, to help with the tiny increments needed I use the clothes peg on the focus knob solution which works really well for me, a fingertip on the end of the peg gives precise control and doesn't cause anything like as much vibration as normal focussing. Other people make larger focuser controls from jar lids .

Exit pupil , if you've not yet read it this may help : https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/251506-a-guide-for-choosing-a-sensible-eyepiece-collection-using-the-exit-pupil/

and this https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-equipment/a-pupil-primer/

 

Trying to make the 127 mak into a widefield 'scope seems to me to be an expensive route to a less than satisfactory solution, for less than the cost of adaptors ,  2" diagonals etc you can get an entire wide field 'scope like a 102 frac or a 130 or 150 newt . How about this for £150 ?

 

or this for £210

 

Heather

 

[Tiny Clanger]

Typical, as I slowly type , and search out bookmarks I knew I had carefully filed somewhere , Zermelo covers much of what I was saying 🙂

Another thing :  you don't need to be dazzled by Stellarium , there's a red 'night vision' option you get to by using the eye shaped icon on the tool bar  at the bottom. If for some reason your device insists on leaving you with a bright menu or something , you could try one of these :

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/misc/starsharp-red-filter-for-laptop-screens.html

 

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

He said that bright objects like Jupiter can cause glare which prevents you from seeing details with the naked eye. He can wind down the brightness on his camera to compensate for this. It made me wonder whether a filter that reduced brightness a little might be useful for observing the larger planets (and the Moon)? Maybe the Skyglow filter will help.

I would try an 80a filter to knock down the brightness a bit and bring out red features better.  It generally makes the GRS pop if in view.

Once I switched to binoviewing planets and the full moon, this whole issue went away because both eyes are seeing the same intensity.  It's also way more comfortable for extended viewing to pick out find details.  Filters don't really help with BVing in my experience.

[Stu]

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

So I'm thinking this is quite a good location other than looking north east.

Yes, it does sound like you have a decent site for observing from. A lot of good stuff is visible in the south so that would be my preference direction to have best view of. I’ve just moved from Bortle 7 to Bortle 4 skies and it makes a huge difference. I can actually see the Milky Way from home now which is great. You should get some very decent views from there.

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

What effect does not not having the scope acclimatised have? It won't be acclimatised when I carry out the star alignment but perhaps this doesn't matter

For alignment it makes no difference, so you can do that as soon as you can see alignment stars. When the scope is cooling, you get convection currents rising from the mirror and you will see the effects on a defocused star very clearly. Often you see this more in the top half of the star image as the heat rises in the upper part of the tube. Once cooled, these reduce right down and you are left with the effects of the seeing conditions.

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

I commented how much more detail could be seen in the camera images and he mentioned that this was the case even with the live unprocessed camera image. He said that bright objects like Jupiter can cause glare which prevents you from seeing details with the naked eye. He can wind down the brightness on his camera to compensate for this. It made me wonder whether a filter that reduced brightness a little might be useful for observing the larger planets (and the Moon)? Maybe the Skyglow filter will help.

My personal experience has always been that careful observation shows me more than a single frame taken with a camera, but that is generally a smartphone image, not an Astro camera. I frequently use scopes between 100mm and 200mm for planetary observing. Upping the magnification is one way of cutting the brightness back if seeing allows. Observing the other night with a 130mm scope, albeit a very nice refractor, there was plenty of detail and colour visible at x150 ish. The Baader Neodymium Moon and Skyglow filter is well worth a try to reduce brightness if you still find it an issue. I've found that at exit pupils above around 1mm the filter helps, below that I found more detail without the filter. I found it works well on the Moon, Jupiter and Mars, but less convinced on Saturn. As an example though, last opposition of Mars, I found that below x250 ish on my 8" f8 the filter helped improve contrast, but above that I saw more detail without (up to x360)

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

I think perhaps the right thing to do is select a few objects to observe before each session, use Stellarium to draw what they should look like on paper so that I have a reference, then during the session, concentrate on observing just those few objects without going anywhere near a strong light source. How do other people arrange their observing sessions?

Certainly spending time on objects really helps you to pull more detail out. At higher powers, you catch the moments of beat seeing and your mind builds up a picture over time of what you are seeing. I've had times when doing outreach and people spend 5 seconds at the eyepiece and say 'thats nice, thank you' and walk away. You just know that they have not given themselves the chance to see any detail.

Experience really helps too. Over time you will be able to see more from the same kit just by learning how to observe and what to expect. I was on the receiving end of this a few years back, observing the Crescent nebula through a 16" scope with a much more experienced deep sky observer (Swampthing). I could see the basic outline of the Crescent, but he was seeing detail within it. Same view, different experience.

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

From researching wider FoV eyepieces it seems that lower magnification gives a bigger exit pupil, so is there an advantage in lowering the magnification just to get a bigger exit pupil rather than a wider FoV (because the FoV is limited anyway by a 1.25" barrel size)?

For filtered views yes, this is very much the case. One issue with the Maks is their long focal ratio. Exit pupil is defined as eyepiece focal length divided by scope focal ratio. In say, a Heritage 130p which is f5, a 32mm Plossl gives a 6.4mm exit pupil. In your scope it gives an exit pupil of 2.7mm. Moving to a 40mm gives you no more field of view but does increase this to 3.4mm. Narrowband filters such as UHC or OIII do benefit from exit pupils above around 4mm, so in your scope the views may be a little darker.

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

so I just need to persevere and learn from the experience of others

Yes, absolutely. I’m sure that as your experience builds, you will see more and more through the scope. With planets, seeing conditions are everything in terms of the detail you see. The more times you observe, the more chance you will catch a night, or even just a short period of excellent seeing when the views will be fabulous.

[PeterC65]

Thanks to everyone who has replied with these really useful comments and links. There's plenty here for me to try next time the sky is clear!

It seems that within the limits imposed by the human eye (0.5mm to 7mm), a bigger exit pupil means a brighter image which can compensate for the darkening caused by a narrow band filter. If I get the Astronomik UHC Filter then, I'm thinking I should also get a 40mm eyepiece, for the bigger exit pupil rather than for any increase in FoV.

I've not had the opportunity to observe the Moon much since the scope arrived and when I did it was very bright. Winding up the magnification on the Moon (and on Jupiter - when the Barlow arrives) sounds like it may reduce the glare and bring out more detail, but @Zermelo suggestion of a Moon filter and @Louis D suggestion of an #80A filter for Jupiter sound like they're worth a try.

I can feel another FLO order coming on!

[Tiny Clanger]

Some Moon filters have a green tinge which I find rather unpleasant , if I was buying again, I'd go for a suitable ND filter which shouldn't introduce any unnatural colour, or the pair of polarisers option (al long as you are using a mirror diagonal, not a prism, someone had mystery problems with a pair of polarisers on here quite recently, turned out they were using a prism).

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, PeterC65 said:

@Louis D suggestion of an #80A filter for Jupiter sound like they're worth a try.

You might also want to try an 82A as well for higher powers when the image gets dimmer.  It has 73% transmission versus 29% for the 80A.  The 82A won't significantly knock down brightness, though.

[Louis D]

29 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Some Moon filters have a green tinge which I find rather unpleasant , if I was buying again, I'd go for a suitable ND filter which shouldn't introduce any unnatural colour, or the pair of polarisers option (al long as you are using a mirror diagonal, not a prism, someone had mystery problems with a pair of polarisers on here quite recently, turned out they were using a prism).

Yes, reflections off of glass are polarized.  This can be used to the viewer's advantage when using a Herschel wedge for solar viewing.  A single polarizer on the end of the eyepiece can provide a good amount of variable dimming just by rotating the eyepiece.  With my wedge, I have a variable polarizer that I set to fairly dim for unpolarized light and then rotate the eyepiece with the filter attached to adjust the dimming even further.