From 2 inch to 1.25

[Carl Au]

Have any of you abandoned 2 inch eyepieces and moved entirely back to 1.25 numbers? 
 

Discuss…

[F15Rules]

No!😂

I'm afraid I like the low power UWA 82degree fields too much..

But 1.25" for high power planetary and doubles all the way..

I don't like fiddling between 1.25" and 2" fittings though, so my most used non 2" EPs have 2" sleeves fitted👍.

Dave

Edited November 12, 2022 by F15Rules
Typo

[JeremyS]

No. I’ve fallen in love with 2-inch EP especially the Ethos

But I still use 1.25-inch EPs exclusively with my smaller refractors. Especially for travel as they are so compact (notably the Tak LE series)

[Mr Spock]

Technically I have only one, the 42mm LVW. But, all the other LVWs are 1.25" and 2". I tend to use them 2" as The 1.25" barrel has the dreaded undercuts and can get stuck in compression ring adaptors.

[Stu]

Yes and No is my answer!!

For grab and go use, I have a set of 1.25” eyepieces which get most use, with a 24mm Panoptic being the widest fov/longest focal length. I then have a set of BGOs, a Nagler zoom and a Leica Zoom (which can be 1.25” or 2”).

For longer session or ones with larger scopes, I have a larger set of eyepieces, although still a mix of 1.25” and 2”. They include a 31mm and 22mm Nagler, plus a mix of Morpheus and XWs. The wide field views in the 2” eyepieces are really beneficial for some of the larger nebulae, galaxies and open clusters, so I wouldn’t want to be without them.

They are quite chunky though, hence the smaller set for grab and go, and keeping the larger eyepieces for the larger scopes and/or longer sessions.

[wookie1965]

I have only one 2" a 28mm LET otherwise they are all 1.25mm I have self centering adapters in The Tal and the 10" the Celestron 4" only has a 1.25mm Diagonal so wont take 2" anyway.

[Don Pensack]

3 hours ago, Carl Au said:

Have any of you abandoned 2 inch eyepieces and moved entirely back to 1.25 numbers? 
 

Discuss…

Close.  I prefer to have Morpheus size fields and wider, so my 30mm and 22mm eyepieces are 2", and the 17.5mm has a permanent 2" adapter attached, but from 14mm down to 3.7mm, I use all the eyepieces as 1.25" except the Apollo 11, which does not work as a 1.25" in the Paracorr.

 

If an eyepiece is usable as 2" and 1.25", why use it as a 1.25"?

Couple reasons:

--many dual size eyepieces focus farther in as 1.25" eyepieces (e.g. Morpheus), so the focuser has less leverage out at the end of the eyepiece to cause sag.  Some are lighter as 1.25" and heavier as 2".

--I can leave the adapter in the Paracorr and merely switch eyepieces (applies to my 14mm, 12.5mm, 9mm, 8mm, 7mm, 6.5mm, 6mm, 4.7mm, 4.5mm, and 3.7mm)

--used as 1.25", all the eyepieces use Paracorr settings clustered together (A-D), which is very useful, and on the closer-to-focuser end of the tunable top's adjustment range, also yielding less sag.

--most eyepieces sit closer to the focuser, making the focuser knobs almost ideally placed.

 

So 4 of 14 eyepieces are 2" and 10 are 1.25", or 71% 1.25".  With an upcoming scope (2023), one of each size will leave, so it will be 3 to 9, or 75% 1.25".  I'll never get rid of 2" entirely though.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Don Pensack

[badhex]

No 😂

[Don Pensack]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

No. I’ve fallen in love with 2-inch EP especially the Ethos

But I still use 1.25-inch EPs exclusively with my smaller refractors. Especially for travel as they are so compact (notably the Tak LE series)

Though all the Ethos can be used as 1.25" except the 17mm and 21mm.

[cajen2]

All mine (mostly Morpheus and Pentax XWs) are 1.25" except my StellaLyra 80° 20mm 2" (very fine EP, by the way). I'm hoping to get an APM UFF/Celestron Ultima Edge 30mil 2" in my Xmas stocking.....😉

[badhex]

10 hours ago, badhex said:

No 😂

A more serious answer: actually there's quite a lot of overlap here which might seem a bit silly, but essentially the Paragon 35mm clone was purchased as a travel/convenient alternative to the Pan 41mm because the sheer bulk and weight of the Pan is pretty ludicrous at 1kg. I would have bought the 40mm but at the time I could not get it anywhere and it seemed to be discontinued by everyone who had previously stocked it. I then randomly discovered them on sale again from Lacerta sometime in the last year, so I picked one up while I could. 

My main use case here is for sweeping and searching, star hopping, and for admiring star fields or other large objects. 

I few weeks ago I was in a much darker site than usual, and was able to view the whole veil in all its glory, which would nto have been possible with a 1.25" EP. 

[Carl Au]

I have heard of a couple of folks very recently who, I assume decided it’s more trouble swapping over between formats than its worth, thought I must have been missing something, a new trend even?

 I usually own one, currently a ES 28 mm, which I am extremely pleased with I have to say. 
 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Carl Au

[Nik271]

I think you will get different anwers depending on the scopes people use. Big dobs and big refractors tend to come with long focal length so 2 inch EPs are really necessary for widefield. If on the other hand you use 500mm FL refractor then you can already fit M31 even in a 1.25in 32mm Plossl.

Personally I prefer lightweight set-ups. A 2 inch diagonal plus a 2 inch EP are an extra kilo of weight, not ideal with my grab and go tripod, AZ5 and  100mm F7 refractor. So I use my  2 inch  32mm Panaview EP  only when I have no other choice , like viewing M31 or Veil or the NAN. For all the rest I find the 24mm Hyperion is already wide enough.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Nik271

[badhex]

6 minutes ago, Carl Au said:

I have heard of a couple of folks very recently who, I assume decided it’s more trouble swapping over between formats than its worth, thought I must have been missing something, a new trend even?

 I usually own one, currently a ES 28 mm, which I am extremely pleased with I have to say. 

I can certainly see the case for buying a number of 2" adapters for each 1.25" you will use in a session, to limit the amount of fiddling about with adapters - I know some people do that. 

[Carl Au]

Just now, badhex said:

I can certainly see the case for buying a number of 2" adapters for each 1.25" you will use in a session, to limit the amount of fiddling about with adapters - I know some people do that. 

Interesting 

[Carl Au]

1 hour ago, Nik271 said:

I think you will get different anwers depending on the scopes people use. Big dobs and big refractors tend to come with long focal length so 2 inch EPs are really necessary for widefield. If on the other hand you use 500mm FL refractor then you can already fit M31 even in a 1.25in 32mm Plossl.

Personally I prefer lightweight set-ups. A 2 inch diagonal plus a 2 inch EP are an extra kilo of weight, not ideal with my grab and go tripod, AZ5 and  100mm F7 refractor. So I use my  2 inch  32mm Panaview EP  only when I have no other choice , like viewing M31 or Veil or the NAN. For all the rest I find the 24mm Hyperion is already wide enough.

That’s a good point, I could probably get away with using a 25 mm 68 degree and get away with it… but I am not going to, my kit is complete 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Carl Au

[Guest]

I am close to a 50/50 split on 1.25 inch and 2 inch.  I use the 1.25s for planetary and the 2 inch for deep sky.  If i need more power with the 2 inch stuff a 2x barlow handles the job. I have a hard time loosing the light that 2 inch gives me over what 1.25 inch gives. 

[Louis D]

I love the big fields of view in my various 2" eyepieces for sweeping star fields.  I love 1.25" eyepieces for close-up views of smaller objects.  Each has their place, and I wouldn't be without either.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Louis D

[Spile]

I fitted the 2” adapter to my zoom for convenience. My other eyepiece is a 2” wide angle so it saves me having to use a converter.

[Carl Au]

18 hours ago, Spile said:

I fitted the 2” adapter to my zoom for convenience. My other eyepiece is a 2” wide angle so it saves me having to use a converter.

Yeah I did the same thing for a while, good work around 

[Paz]

I use 1.25" eyepieces most of the time but having 2" options is still good to have. I'll use 2" quite often with the VX14 but much less often with my smaller scopes.

[rwilkey]

I prefer the 1.25"s as they are easier to transport and are much lighter, but the views in my Nagler 31T5 and my ExSc 30mm are stunning and I cannot argue with these two beasts, but generally speaking I like the ergonomics and versatility of the smaller eyepiece.

Edited November 16, 2022 by rwilkey
typo

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

On 13/11/2022 at 09:46, Carl Au said:

I have heard of a couple of folks very recently who, I assume decided it’s more trouble swapping over between formats than its worth, thought I must have been missing something, a new trend even?

 I usually own one, currently a ES 28 mm, which I am extremely pleased with I have to say. 
 

 

 

I have owned a couple of nice 2" 30mm eps but decided to keep things a little simpler and a bit lighter so now exclusively use a 1.25" diagonal and eps. I don't feel I've lost anything by doing so. As I spend most of my observing time in an urban environment, that slight extra fov over a 1.25" 24mm 65° eyepiece doesn't really make a significant difference to the observing experience using a 4" refractor.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

I have owned a couple of nice 2" 30mm eps but decided to keep things a little simpler and a bit lighter so now exclusively use a 1.25" diagonal and eps. I don't feel I've lost anything by doing so. As I spend most of my observing time in an urban environment, that slight extra fov over a 1.25" 24mm 65° eyepiece doesn't really make a significant difference to the observing experience using a 4" refractor.

I think it’s very true to say that the longer focal length eyepieces are less useful under urban skies because the larger exit pupils result in quite washed out views. Under a dark sky they can be fantastic though, giving an appreciable increase in fov over a a 1.25” which does have benefits for objects like the Veil. Most other objects will fit within the fov of a 1.25”, M42 for example.

These show the difference between 24mm Panoptic and 31mm Nag in an FC100DC

[Stu]

2 hours ago, rwilkey said:

but the views in my Nagler 31T5 and my ExSc 30mm are stunning

Out of interest, what makes you hold onto both as they are very similar focal lengths?