Bresser Maksutov telescope MC 127/1900 Messier 5"

[hal9550]

https://www.bresser.com/refurbished/?manufacturer=a667c53745de46269e9bf33d5839de8b|9cc98cdf1c8a47f88a91be0eb601efaa&order=topseller&p=1

https://www.bresser.com/p/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-ota-optical-tube-4827190

 

I managed to order this tube last night - i got a very decent price on it, from Bresser directly - it seems they have a DISCOUNT section on their website, from which i assume they sell Returns that have been checked and confirmed as being perfect working order! Fully warrantied too so - 

The Tube seems to tick all of the boxes 

• under 3.5KG Weight which will suit a modest Portable GOTO mount - il be looking at something like the GTI, or GTIX - possibly the Star Discovery
• Schmidt SCT Mounting Rings on the back, on which i can place a 2" Adapter - it should be possible to use some of my 2" eyepieces - il only how much 'extra functionality' there is when the tube arrives

I guess i really just wanted to get peoples opinion?! The opportunity to get it at a substantial discount was too much to resist - and while i had looked at this tube before, i probably didnt do as much 'due diligence' as i normally do.

On the eyepiece front - i have or will soon have

• 45mm Vintage silvertop Celestron Plossl - if im correct about having limited 2" functionality, (which will depend on field stops etc), i think this 45 will probably be my Lowest power option for this scope - AFOV is low, but it will hopefully serve as my 'browsing' eyepiece
• ES82 14mm - arrived today, havent used it yet on my Schmidt
• Either ES82 8 + 11 or Morpheus 9 and 12.5 - all depends on my experience using the above!
• Omegon Redline 17mm 1.25 and 22mm 2" - my expectation is that the 22mm will function - its field stop is aprox 27mm to 28mm - so i expect it to be fully usable at the 70 degree AFOV

 

 So yes id love to know what people think? and any tips you may have - aside from the above i have a tonne of EPs including Orthos, plossls, WA and SWA eyepieces - but the above are ones which are new, or 'coming soon'!

Il be using a diagonal 2" Mirror for now with this - I intend to either mount it direct, or perhaps just 'borrow' my two inch visual back from one of my schmidts

I telephoned a local Irish Supplier yesterday afternoon, and he stated that the Skywatcher 127, which he has newly back in stock, no longer takes SCT Adapters - he stated that the connection on the Telescope is purely T2, which i found disappointing - we discussed my limited two inch aspirations for this scope, and he was fairly optimistic that i could accomplish some functionality, with shorter 2" EPS - i may still have gone ahead with the Skywatcher, but it was the Bresser's reduced price which won me over. The built in SCT connection was a big bonus too!!!

I had a good budget for this project, and iv managed to stay well within it, which gives me more options moving forward - might fit a decent filter or two into the plan now!

The purpose of this leg of my 2024 project, was to have a more portable scope - I have an 8" Schmidt, which is my large tube (i have a backup schmidt tube too, from an LX10) - and while i love these, i find it is sometimes a deterrence to set it all up - more often in the last year i have reluctantly 'passed' on opportunities to go out viewing! With this, and with whatever AZGoto mount i end up with, i hope to be able to set up more quickly, and with less effort - especially if travelling a distance from my house!

 

Sincere thanks in advance - love to hear what people think! And if i have made a HORRENDOUS MISTAKE😵 - well, i need to know that too!!

 

Clear skies from Ireland

 

[John]

Congratulations !

I believe others have owned and enjoyed the Bresser 127 mak on here so feedback will be forthcoming soon I'm sure.

I've not owned many SCT's or Mak's, or at least not for long, so my experience with them is limited.

Hope you enjoy your new, more portable, scope 🙂

[bosun21]

By the time you fit the accessories you will be around 5kg so bear that in mind. The Bresser 127 Mak is a good choice for visual planets, moon and a few of the brighter DSO's like planetary nebulae. It can also be used to image the planets and moon. It's not a good choice for astrophotography due to being f15 with a small fov. Don't forget to get a dew shield for it and depending on the severity of the dew perhaps a heated one. Good luck with your purchase.

[Pixies]

This is a good thread, if you haven't seen it yet: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/413637-maksutov-cassegrain-conundrum/#comment-4413691

[hal9550]

35 minutes ago, Pixies said:

This is a good thread, if you haven't seen it yet: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/413637-maksutov-cassegrain-conundrum/#comment-4413691

EPIC! Thanks pal! Just commented - very excited atm

[Zermelo]

The Bresser Mak gets consistently good reviews, so I'm sure it will do well for you. Another thread here.

If you already have a Synta-style optical finder to use, you may want to replace the Bresser shoe, or get an adapter: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/424848-8-bresser-dobsonian-finderscope-replacement

[hal9550]

51 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

The Bresser Mak gets consistently good reviews, so I'm sure it will do well for you. Another thread here.

If you already have a Synta-style optical finder to use, you may want to replace the Bresser shoe, or get an adapter: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/424848-8-bresser-dobsonian-finderscope-replacement

Excellent info there - really appreciate it - 

Im reading the thread and someone mentions a Meade SWA 40mm as working with no real issues -

iv been knee deep in eyepiece research for months and if memory serves - that is equiv to an ES68 40mm - which has a field stop of around 46mm-47mm (using Dons Buyers guide)

Fingers crossed but if im right about those two EPs being the same design - and even if that was the limit when it comes to field stop - im really in a VASTLY better place than i expected!!!

That brings my Q70s into line with this kit, so (again in theory) i can use a 38mm 70 degree EP with this tube -I have an Omegon 56mm too - i think its field stop is SLIGHTLY more????  Fingers really crossed!!!

Probably getting way ahead of myself but, yea! Delightful if thats the case - really that would end any further question in my mind, of having to buy any more Low Mag Long Focal Length pieces

 

 

[John]

1 hour ago, hal9550 said:

Excellent info there - really appreciate it - 

Im reading the thread and someone mentions a Meade SWA 40mm as working with no real issues -

iv been knee deep in eyepiece research for months and if memory serves - that is equiv to an ES68 40mm - which has a field stop of around 46mm-47mm (using Dons Buyers guide)

Fingers crossed but if im right about those two EPs being the same design - and even if that was the limit when it comes to field stop - im really in a VASTLY better place than i expected!!!

That brings my Q70s into line with this kit, so (again in theory) i can use a 38mm 70 degree EP with this tube -I have an Omegon 56mm too - i think its field stop is SLIGHTLY more????  Fingers really crossed!!!

Probably getting way ahead of myself but, yea! Delightful if thats the case - really that would end any further question in my mind, of having to buy any more Low Mag Long Focal Length pieces

 

 

I think the ES68 40mm is a better corrected eyepiece than the Meade SWA 40mm, assuming that the Meade is from the 4000 series. If it is one of the Meade 5000 SWA's then the optical design is the same as the ES68 I believe.

When I had SCT's and maks I went through a similar process of trying to get as wide a true field as possible but eventually decided that refractors and newts would give much wider views and do well at high powers too, although they do place higher demands on the eyepiece design if that field is to be well corrected right across.

 

 

 

Edited September 25 by John

[hal9550]

12 minutes ago, John said:

I think the ES68 40mm is a better corrected eyepiece than the Meade SWA 40mm, assuming that the Meade is from the 4000 series. If it is one of the Meade 5000 SWA's then the optical design is the same as the ES68 I believe.

When I had SCT's and maks I went through a similar process of trying to get as wide a true field as possible but eventually decided that refractors and newts would give much wider views and do well at high powers too, although they do place higher demands on the eyepiece design if that field is to be well corrected right across.

 

 

 

Yea i have been comparing various focal lengths, and AFOVs for a while - i suppose the goal was to be future proofed in terms of eyepieces - 

The Maksutov 'Portable project' is a bonus for me - but i worried about being stranded at too high a magnification, given focal length, and aperture size - 

Im happy with my Schmidt - and 56mm Plossl being longest focal length has served me well - in truth i usually start with the Q70 38mm - which i enjoy using

The Q70s dont get a lot of love but they are fine for me - decent quality - 

But on the Maksutov side of things

• my 45mm Silver top would serve as the longest Focal length at 1.25 - albeit it Narrow AFOV at 33deg
• 22mm Omegon Redline was the initial goal, and without jinxing anything, id say it will be fine!
• If i can use my 26 Q70 - i will be delighted
• If i can use my 32 even better
• The 38mm Q70 and the 56mm Plossl - if they work properly with the Maksutov, with no Vignetting - i will literally be ecstatic - that will be the BIG win of this purchase

In terms of future proofing, whether i go Morpheus or ES82, i should be ok for any hypothetical Fast Scope purchase - The Q70s would probably perform poorly at that stage - but im not even provisionally looking at anything else for the next few years

 

 

[John]

I've had a couple of Q70's in the (distant past). They were OK at F/10 but when I moved to faster scopes, they were not good at all. At F/6.5 (my Vixen 102 ED refractor) the outer 50% of the field of view showed stars that looked like water swirling down a plug hole - an interesting visual effect but not what I wanted !

Meade used to provide a Q70 26mm with their F/5 12 inch Lightbridge dob - not a combo that will show either the scope or the eyepiece in a good light !

The Q70 26mm used to have an odd focal plane position as well I seem to recall - it needed to be virtually hanging out of the focuser of the dob to reach focus 🙄

 

Edited September 25 by John

[vineyard]

Its a nice scope - I think the same factory as used to make Meade ETX125 optics (after they moved out of the US for their optics).

I have one of these scopes although have it listed for sale as am changing my configuration.  A Meade Series 5000 18mm UWA works well in it - shows the entire Double Cluster.  A TV40mm plossl ofc does the same   The scope will surprise you pleasantly on some DSOs - it's by no means just a planetary machine.

One modification I'd highly recommend is putting in an electric micro-focuser.  A guy in Portugal has designed one (at my request for my MC127) and it works v well.  You don't need to change the visual back, and you can micro focus without having to touch the tube which is v handy for high magnification.

If you get into solar, you can put a DERF and a combo quark and it'll work for HA - I've used it like that and one of the solarchat people in Italy has taken some nice images with his little "Solartov".

[hal9550]

29 minutes ago, vineyard said:

Its a nice scope - I think the same factory as used to make Meade ETX125 optics (after they moved out of the US for their optics).

I have one of these scopes although have it listed for sale as am changing my configuration.  A Meade Series 5000 18mm UWA works well in it - shows the entire Double Cluster.  A TV40mm plossl ofc does the same   The scope will surprise you pleasantly on some DSOs - it's by no means just a planetary machine.

One modification I'd highly recommend is putting in an electric micro-focuser.  A guy in Portugal has designed one (at my request for my MC127) and it works v well.  You don't need to change the visual back, and you can micro focus without having to touch the tube which is v handy for high magnification.

If you get into solar, you can put a DERF and a combo quark and it'll work for HA - I've used it like that and one of the solarchat people in Italy has taken some nice images with his little "Solartov".

yea i will certainly look into it - il definitely by trying the 2" focuser though - it will bring more of my EPs into the fold, especially with the longer focal lengths (i hope)

 

[vineyard]

Yes you can either change the visual back to s/t like a Steeltrack focuser (SCT compatible attachment) which would allow 2" EPs as well as autofocus etc - but is more expensive and uses back focus.

Or you can just put a 2" Baader clicklock on the SCT thread visual back and use diagonals w 2" EPs - you don't need to change the focuser that way, and it doesn't eat up back focus.  Vasco's electronic focuser will still work w that (it doesn't matter what size EPs or diagonals are being used).  But Vasco's focuser is an electronic focuser, not an autofocuser, so if you want auto-focus, yes you have to change the focuser.

Enjoy the scope.

[hal9550]

Review of my new Bresser 5” Maksutov

Used it for a few hours last night, and was thus far very impressed. I ended up going for the Skywatcher Star Discovery, which works well as a portable mount – overall i am impressed.

The Big Question:

What is the Longest Focal Length Eyepiece that can be used with this scope?

I kinda expected this to be a question - lol

So i attached my SCT 2” Visual Adapter, and it connected to the scope perfectly – however, by my reckoning, there is an obstruction inside the scope, in the form of a hollow tube. I am assuming this is the limiting factor when it comes to field stop – if i am wrong, please correct me, i will provide a picture ASAP

My 22mm 2” seemed to work without vignette… But i suspect this is the limit? Again, if someone owns this scope, they could certainly advise me on this.

In my arsenal, currently, the longest focal lengths i have are

• 40mm Celestron Plossl
• 45mm Vintage Celestron SIlvertop Plossl
• 56mm 2” Omegon Plossl

Im finding i would certainly have use for something longer than 40/45 in this scope. I tried the 40 and the 45, and they both work fine. I would love to get hold of something longer, especially as the eye relief on the 45 is peculiar – every time i went back to it, i had to train my mind to respect the very long eye-relief - its glorious when you hit the spot, but again, given the 127/1900 its still quite high mag

I did NOT try the 56 (like the fool that i am), given my assumptions above, but do please advise what you think, RE it working or not – and assuming it doesn’t (as i have done, again, im a fool)  - what would be the longest alternative i could acquire? For this purpose, i don’t care about AFOV, so narrow is OK

Iv been trawling Dons Eyepiece buyer guide, and found a 42mm from Saxon Australia, and a few others that seem to have a good field stop that may be compatible –

If there is a vintage one i can hunt out, then do let me know!

Thanks in advance – its a wonderful scope, i really enjoyed using it for the first time.

[Peter Drew]

You are correct in your assumption that the eyepiece end of the central tube will create its own field stop and will vignet the field of any eyepiece that has a greater field stop.  You still benefit from the lower magnification though.    🙂

[hal9550]

Just uploading a picture of the obstruction there - 

In the picture, you can see my 2" SCT Visual back, and within it, the obstruction - by my reckoning, this has NO effect on the 22mm Redline - 

Dons Eyepiece guide, tells me this is listed as 28.4mm - or in reality, its aprox 26.9mm

I guess il just try a few 2" ones and try to gage where vignett-ing becomes an issue

 

[Louis D]

The clear aperture of the rear baffle tube is around 27mm, about the same as the field stop diameter of a 32mm Plossl.  However, as long as the eyepiece is well back from the rear baffle by way of a 2" diagonal, you will get gradual light falloff in the form of vignetting instead of a hard field cutoff.  You can try this by putting the eyepiece directly in the 2" visual back and see the more aggressive vignetting/cut-off yourself.  Until you flock the rear baffle tube, you will get elliptical star reflections off the inside of it as you pan bright stars past the edge of the 27mm limit.  I can't see these reflections on extended objects like the moon or during daytime observations.

I recently picked up a used ES (JOC) version of this tube for $175 used to compare to my 127mm Synta Mak.  So far, they perform just about identically despite the Synta having an actual aperture closer to 118mm.  The JOC's longer focal length is noticeable, though.  I rather like the JOC's knurled, metal focuser knob.  The rubber grip on my Synta focuser knob split and fell off, leaving just a smooth metal shaft.  That seems rather cheap by way of comparison to the JOC metal knob.

When choosing between them to take one on vacation for use as a spotting scope, I ended up going with the Synta because its dovetail bar has 5 tripod threaded holes allowing for better balancing on my Manfrotto 501 fluid head.  The ES/Bresser bar has none whatsoever, so the choice was simple.  The Synta made for an excellent APO spotting scope.  I was regularly using 100x to 150x in the evenings once the atmosphere settled down.  I'm sure the ES/Bresser would work just as well if it had a way to attach it to a photo tripod head.  I suppose I could swap out the bar for one with threaded holes or buy a tripod thread to dovetail adapter clamp.

[hal9550]

4 hours ago, Louis D said:

The clear aperture of the rear baffle tube is around 27mm, about the same as the field stop diameter of a 32mm Plossl.  However, as long as the eyepiece is well back from the rear baffle by way of a 2" diagonal, you will get gradual light falloff in the form of vignetting instead of a hard field cutoff.  You can try this by putting the eyepiece directly in the 2" visual back and see the more aggressive vignetting/cut-off yourself.  Until you flock the rear baffle tube, you will get elliptical star reflections off the inside of it as you pan bright stars past the edge of the 27mm limit.  I can't see these reflections on extended objects like the moon or during daytime observations.

I recently picked up a used ES (JOC) version of this tube for $175 used to compare to my 127mm Synta Mak.  So far, they perform just about identically despite the Synta having an actual aperture closer to 118mm.  The JOC's longer focal length is noticeable, though.  I rather like the JOC's knurled, metal focuser knob.  The rubber grip on my Synta focuser knob split and fell off, leaving just a smooth metal shaft.  That seems rather cheap by way of comparison to the JOC metal knob.

When choosing between them to take one on vacation for use as a spotting scope, I ended up going with the Synta because its dovetail bar has 5 tripod threaded holes allowing for better balancing on my Manfrotto 501 fluid head.  The ES/Bresser bar has none whatsoever, so the choice was simple.  The Synta made for an excellent APO spotting scope.  I was regularly using 100x to 150x in the evenings once the atmosphere settled down.  I'm sure the ES/Bresser would work just as well if it had a way to attach it to a photo tripod head.  I suppose I could swap out the bar for one with threaded holes or buy a tripod thread to dovetail adapter clamp.

ok 

Im assuming my existing 1.25" 40mm and 45mm plossls are compatible (compatible may be the wrong word - fully functional without any vignette)

its difficult for me to fully follow this, im not experienced enough - but from what you are saying, i wont get a full functionality with any eyepiece that has a field stop which is beyond 27mm - so its probable that only 1.25" and the odd 2" which has a compatible field stop will work without vignette

Leaving aside the 45mm silvertop - which is vintage - and odd

I have a 40mm Celestron Omni Plossl - which is stated as having 27.9mm Field stop - im taking this from Dons Eyepiece guide 2024 - its narrow AFOV doesnt bother me

apologies if im not being clear!

[Louis D]

Any 1.25" barreled eyepiece is not going to show any vignetting with a 127 Mak.  The field stop size is limited to about 27.5mm by the inside diameter of the 1.25" barrel.  Longer focal length eyepieces like your 45mm silvertop will simply show the same true field of view (TFOV) at a lower power and smaller apparent field of view (AFOV), appearing more tunnel-like.

Here's my real-world comparison image showing actual light falloff in a 127 Synta Mak.  The 24mm UFF has about a 27.5mm field stop diameter while the 40mm SWA has about a 46mm field stop diameter.  There is even illumination across the FOV of the 24mm, but about 35% light falloff in the 40mm, center to edge.  Notice that the TFOV is nearly twice as wide in the 40mm, which is really handy when finding and centering objects for higher power viewing.  Also note that the field stop is nice and sharp in the 40mm.  There is no hard field cutoff due to the eyepiece being too close to that 27mm rear baffle tube.

[hal9550]

2 hours ago, Louis D said:

Any 1.25" barreled eyepiece is not going to show any vignetting with a 127 Mak.  The field stop size is limited to about 27.5mm by the inside diameter of the 1.25" barrel.  Longer focal length eyepieces like your 45mm silvertop will simply show the same true field of view (TFOV) at a lower power and smaller apparent field of view (AFOV), appearing more tunnel-like.

Here's my real-world comparison image showing actual light falloff in a 127 Synta Mak.  The 24mm UFF has about a 27.5mm field stop diameter while the 40mm SWA has about a 46mm field stop diameter.  There is even illumination across the FOV of the 24mm, but about 35% light falloff in the 40mm, center to edge.  Notice that the TFOV is nearly twice as wide in the 40mm, which is really handy when finding and centering objects for higher power viewing.  Also note that the field stop is nice and sharp in the 40mm.  There is no hard field cutoff due to the eyepiece being too close to that 27mm rear baffle tube.

its a decent demonstration, certainly - 

I am genuinely confused - I dont have a reputation to ruin, so il just keep asking questions!!!!! 

In Amateurish style iv always thought of eyepiece in terms of magnification. Obviously Shorter Focal lengths create more magnification, and longer, create less.

What im looking for, given the perhaps foolish way i look at things, is less magnification. To see more within the field, regardless of the AFOV. Regardless of how wide the field appears, that it may encompass more of the viewing target. This is TFOV i suppose! It hasnt helped that in much of my reading, i possibly havent seen AFOV and TFOV distinguished correctly at times, 

I am increasing my arsenal of Wa, SWA, and UWA eyepieces, but this is a separate project.

For me, taking the above images into consideration. I can see exactly what you mean RE Light Fall off - 100%, its subtle but i register it. My obvious amateur way of looking at the above, would be to use a 40mm Plossl 1.25"  - so i could see the same area (in this case on the ruler)  - in a narrower view - with no light fall off

 Again, if im wrong - i hold my hands up - but following that train of thought - my assumption is my 45mm could show ever so slightly more, but in a very narrow view - id see slightly more of the ruler, in this case!

And i suppose my first question, would be is there anywhere to go, in a 1.25" package, beyond that vintage 45?

The other question relates entirely field stops, but is connected to the above

And on field stops i am again confused. Iv seen between 27mm and 28mm cited, on various forums, as the 'cut off' for internal diameter of a 1.25" Eyepiece barrel. I think i am correct on this

But i have seen it cited elsewhere, on the eyepiece guide etc - that certain 1.25" eyepieces have a larger field stop  - the 68 degree Explore Scientific for example, has been mentioned as having 28.5mm

The other thing is that, before buying this scope - I researched that, using the 2" SCT adapter, would enable me to use 2" EPs. But their functionality would limited depending on the  field stop of the EP - and the diameter of the internal component i pictured above - but i cannot find out the actual diameter of this! If i could do that, i would have a very good idea of what eyepieces would work, with no light fall off - 

Sorry, i probably sound daft - and i really appreciate everyone's help!

[Louis D]

The field stop determines the TFOV regardless of the eyepiece focal length.  If you flip over your 40mm and 45mm Plossls, you'll see that both have roughly the same diameter field stop (the sharp edged ring up inside the insertion barrel).  It will be about 27.5mm in diameter.  If you flip over a 40mm SWA, you would see a 46mm diameter field stop ring.  An eyepiece can't magnify any part of the image plane lying outside of the field stop.  It is simply blocked by the field stop ring.

So, what happens when the same TFOV is shown at different magnifications?  The AFOV will vary.  At higher magnification, the AFOV will be larger. At lower magnification, the AFOV will be smaller.

At higher magnification, the sky background glow will be less, increasing contrast for many objects, making them easier to see.  However, the exit pupil will be smaller, decreasing the brightness of extended objects like nebula.  This mostly comes into play when using narrow band nebula filters.  They work better at larger exit pupils.

At lower magnification, the sky background glow will be more, decreasing contrast for many objects, making them more difficult to see.  As a result, the exit pupil will be larger, increasing the brightness of extended objects like nebula.  Narrow band filters will work better because they block the sky glow while passing the brighter nebula light.

Edited yesterday at 01:52 by Louis D

[hal9550]

9 hours ago, Louis D said:

The field stop determines the TFOV regardless of the eyepiece focal length.  If you flip over your 40mm and 45mm Plossls, you'll see that both have roughly the same diameter field stop (the sharp edged ring up inside the insertion barrel).  It will be about 27.5mm in diameter.  If you flip over a 40mm SWA, you would see a 46mm diameter field stop ring.  An eyepiece can't magnify any part of the image plane lying outside of the field stop.  It is simply blocked by the field stop ring.

So, what happens when the same TFOV is shown at different magnifications?  The AFOV will vary.  At higher magnification, the AFOV will be larger. At lower magnification, the AFOV will be smaller.

At higher magnification, the sky background glow will be less, increasing contrast for many objects, making them easier to see.  However, the exit pupil will be smaller, decreasing the brightness of extended objects like nebula.  This mostly comes into play when using narrow band nebula filters.  They work better at larger exit pupils.

At lower magnification, the sky background glow will be more, decreasing contrast for many objects, making them more difficult to see.  As a result, the exit pupil will be larger, increasing the brightness of extended objects like nebula.  Narrow band filters will work better because they block the sky glow while passing the brighter nebula light.

Ok thats helpful thanks

I only ask because i used the 45 to begin with, and despite its narrow view, and odd eye relief, it worked the charm - and i was able to replace it with others as i wanted to get close ups of objects - but it seems the standard 40 plossl would have been fine

I was up for a while last night, and using a piece of card, and trial and error, i measured the internal diameter, of that plastic component, it is seemingly 28.1mm

i really appreciate your help Louis - i made a chart of useful eyepiece calculations

Where i got completely confused, was the interaction between AFOV and TFOV, and focal lengths - Amateur mistake i suppose, but it seems my 45 doesnt ACTUALLY SHOW more of the sky at all - the 40 is sufficient for that purpose

For sanity sake, i will simply ask, did i miss anything? That would give slightly more TFOV? AKA, See more of the sky!?? 

Its difficult for me not to regret buying the scope - One of the main draws was the hope that i would have some compatibility with 2" eyepieces, but it seems very unlikely now

Im gonna do a daytime test, see what the light fall out is on the Q70s - but thats that, unless im missing something

[Louis D]

A 2" 56mm Plossl is going to have about a 46mm diameter field stop, not 50mm as shown in your table.  It's a limitation of the inside diameter of a 2" insertion barrel.

If you were using an SCT instead of a Mak, you could use a 0.63x focal reducer/corrector to increase the TFOV of 1.25" eyepieces.  You could try one on a Mak, but there might be edge issues.

[hal9550]

14 minutes ago, Louis D said:

A 2" 56mm Plossl is going to have about a 46mm diameter field stop, not 50mm as shown in your table.  It's a limitation of the inside diameter of a 2" insertion barrel.

If you were using an SCT instead of a Mak, you could use a 0.63x focal reducer/corrector to increase the TFOV of 1.25" eyepieces.  You could try one on a Mak, but there might be edge issues.

yes i had considered but was warned off RE that exact issue - im gonna do a daytime test of the Q70 26 and 32 - just to see where it lands RE Light fall off - 

 

Other than that - im pleased with the scope - but i do find myself gravitating toward buying another  - perhaps something like a lightweight Refractor - perhaps F5 or 6 - something under 1000 focal length - something for wider fields i guess - and light weight so i can use the Star Discovery mount - which is EXCELLENT

I do actually have an 8" SCT which i use regularly, but less these days given the weight, the mount - and an injury i suffered which makes it a bit hard to set up - its why i have the Q70s, and the 56 to begin with, and where i mistakenly thought i could do the same with the Mak

[John]

2 hours ago, hal9550 said:

- but i do find myself gravitating toward buying another  - perhaps something like a lightweight Refractor - perhaps F5 or 6 - something under 1000 focal length - something for wider fields i guess -

After messing around with 2 inch eyepieces and diagonals when I had SCT's I came to the same conclusion !

You can get a 5" F/5 newt optical tube for as little as £50-£70 or an 102mm F/5 refractor for around £100 on the used market. You have the possibility of 3-4 degree true fields with such scopes 🙂