Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

One for Ric (Moonfish)

FLO

Recommended Posts

ric_capucho

ric_capucho

Posted
Posted

What a leading question. Hmm, well the bottom line is that this really depends on the focal length/aperture of yer telescope. We built ourselves on our 2" eyepiece range, and in a world up to our necks on decent 1.25" super-plossls, I guess it's the 2" range where the real bargains lie.

For an F/10 200mm SCT (i.e. LX200 8", C8 or whatever) or longer focal length anything but a Maksutov, I'd nominate the following:

1. 30mm 2" UW 80afov

2. 2" 2x barlow (I'm not kidding)

2. 15mm 2" UW 80afov (equal 2nd)

For any Maksutov, ETX, whatever, I'd recommend the following:

1. Meade S4000 SP 32mm

2. Meade S4000 SP 26mm

3. Meade S4000 SP 15mm

...tfov is already narrow with Maks, and those particular Meade's are the sweet spots of the range. Go beautifully with yer Maks, they do, and we'd all do better to appreciate what a catch they are. Shame we don't offer them, or something similar.

For some f/4 200mm newtonian tree stump, or sub f/6 refractor I'd recommend:

1. 32mm Superview 70afov (exit pupil precludes any 42mm and 50mm)

2. 2" 2x barlow

3. 20mm 1.25" Superview

For an f/6.4 100mm refractor (yep, my beloved Borg):

1. 30mm 2" UW 80afov (over 4deg fov, and little edge softening)

2. 2" 2x barlow (I'm not kidding)

3. 20mm 1.25" Superview ('cos such a refractor is already a wide-field mini-cannon, even with 1.25" eyepieces) - oooh, if yer can stretch for it, the 1.25" 24mm Televue Panoptic is a work of art on such a telescope.

Just so you know, we gently dissuade any client from buying the 30mm Ultrawide if their telescope is less than f/6. We have a money-back policy, so everyone's protected, but I don't think we're here to subsidise the Spanish and British post offices. Down to about f/6 we'd argue the field softening is worth it due to the massive tfov. Above f/7 there's little or no field softening. At the f/10 of an SCT yer laughing.

Hope that helps,

Ric Capucho

Moonfish Group

p.s. We're also offering our first truly decent zoom. The trouble is that Dani loves zooms, and I don't. Haven't had chance to personally try our new version yet (limited stocks, Dani's baby, hate blumming zooms anyway) but Dani reckons this one's the one to reverse my prejudices. Hmm, we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grant

Grant

Posted
Posted

Thanks for posting such a detailed answer there Ric, I'm a big fan of zoom ep's, mainly because I'm too lazy to keep changing them over and I was looking at your zoom ep last night, looks a nice piece of kit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Ric,

Sound advice I am sure :)

I can vouch for your comments on the Meade Series 4000 range though I'd also recommend their 12.4mm - works very well with my ETX105. Also share your enthusiasm for the TeleVue 24mm Panoptic - the widest FOV achievable from a 1.25" eyepiece and tack sharp across the entire FOV 8).

Not tried a Moonfish yet but I am considering a 2" 30ish mm as a finder eyepiece for an f5 Dobsonian...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinB

MartinB

Posted
Posted

Can confirm how good the 30mmUWA is with the F10 nextar 8" SCT. Also have the 2" barlow. With the F7.5 ED80 there is some distortion at the edge of the field but not too bad. One problem using the 2" barlow and 30mm UWA with the ED80 is that it isn't possible to properly balance the scope! The 30mm makes a finder scope redundant with the ED80 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ric_capucho

ric_capucho

Posted
Posted

Hi Steve,

Interesting to compare notes, as I also used to have an ETX105. The 32mm SP was fantastic on that telescope, and I loved the 15mm. Seemed to be the 'right' next magnification step from the 26mm, and also was a comfortable eyepiece to use. A real keeper, or would have been if I hadn't swapped the ETX for my (beloved) Borg refractor.

The thing is, I really really hated the 12.4mm. It wasn't comfortable to use, eye positioning was always critical. Nasty nasty nasty. But you're a happy bunny, so that just goes to show that eyepiece performance is very subjective indeed; I guess we all have different eyes.

Regards,

Ric Capucho

Moonfish Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
FLO

FLO

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Interesting to compare notes, as I also used to have an ETX105. The 32mm SP was fantastic on that telescope, and I loved the 15mm. Seemed to be the 'right' next magnification step from the 26mm, and also was a comfortable eyepiece to use. A real keeper, or would have been if I hadn't swapped the ETX for my (beloved) Borg refractor.

My ETX105 is currently up for sale (for no good reason other than I fancy a change) in the members buy/sell section but no takers so far... Odd, its about as good as a 4" Mak can be and easily the 'pick' of the ETX family (IMHO). No doubt I shall re-discover it later this year and be pleased that it hasn't gone.

Interesting that you chose Borg; it isn't a name we hear much of; which of the 4" models did you choose?

The thing is, I really really hated the 12.4mm. It wasn't comfortable to use, eye positioning was always critical. Nasty nasty nasty. But you're a happy bunny, so that just goes to show that eyepiece performance is very subjective indeed; I guess we all have different eyes.

I guess we do.

I find the 12.4mm on an ETX105 (120x) clear/sharp and it frames nicely most of the objects bright enough to survive my back-garden light-pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ric_capucho

ric_capucho

Posted
Posted

Hi Steve,

I bought the Borg 100ED f/6.4 (which has now been face-lifted to the 101ED). The body is made of aluminium, so weighs in at about 3kg *with* ring tube, 2" diagonal, finder, fat 30mm 2" eyepiece, etc etc. Lovely bit of kit.

I simply got sick of messing around with the ETX controller. One evening when the batteries had run out, I wanted to show the wife's mother Saturn, which was 'just there'; bright, easy to spot, no goto required. There! It's just there! I had to keep loosening and retightening the clutches to keep Saturn in the FOV. ETX owners the world over will commiserate with me when they think what I went through that evening. Then I had a long thunk, and decided that I pretty much knew where most of the easy wins for a 4" aperture were to be found, and could figure out the rest as and when I needed to. So, I swapped the ETX for the Borg on an alt-az and found... erm, star-hopping was harder than it looked. Buggah. So I practiced for a few nights using Turn Left at Orion, plus another book called the Monthly Star Guide. And lo and behold, I learned to fund stuff oop in t'sky without goto.

Never looked back since.

Ric

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ambermile

Ambermile

Posted
Posted

Well, whilst on the subject, another for Ric. That 15mm EVO II going to be any good for the 22" Dob? It's f/4.8, so maybe not. Waddya think? I need something about 15mm, 2". Also want about 7mm but currently looking at a Pentax XL.

Arthur

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ambermile

Ambermile

Posted
Posted

Well, whilst on the subject, another for Ric. That 15mm EVO II going to be any good for the 22" Dob? It's f/4.8, so maybe not. Waddya think? I need something about 15mm, 2". Also want about 7mm but currently looking at a Pentax XL.

Arthur

Guess not then?

Arthur :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ric_capucho

ric_capucho

Posted
Posted

Hi Arthur,

Sorry for not seeing your query earlier. Well, we cannot recommend the 30mm or 15mm 2" Ultrawides for telescopes of less than f/6 due to the softening of the edge of field becoming unacceptable.

Designing an afov of 80degrees is really pushing things, and I'm afraid something has to give, and that's coma. Coma is seen as a softening around the edge of the field of view. Both eyepieces work wonderfully at f/10 upwards, and we've never had any objections down to f/7. It's in the f/6 to f/6.5 range that the discussions start, though all but the very most discerning are prepared to put up with a certain amount of coma. However, below f/6 we think the softening becomes intrusive. Rather than subsidise the postal services with the shippings and returns for sub f/6 experiments, we decided early on to steer away people with short focal length telescopes away to something else.

Perhaps a lower afov 1.25" 15mm eyepiece? Or something like a 2" 32mm GSO (available from a variety of vendors including ourselves) would perform much better at f/4.8, so combine this with a decent 2" barlow and you've got 32mm and a 16mm equivalent.

Anyway, let us know what you decide to do, 'cos we're always interested. Lordy, I could talk about eyepieces all day! :-)

Regards,

Ric Capucho

Moonfish Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ambermile

Ambermile

Posted
Posted

Hi Ric

Thanks for the answer - thing is I already have WO 40mm and 25mm 2" Swan EP's, as well as a 2" Meade Superwide 32mm... the focuser is 2" so that's why I was looking at the 15mm. A natural progression as it were, I guess even Pentax XL14 is 1.25" though :)

Arthur

Link to comment
Share on other sites
russ

russ

Posted
Posted

hmmm a Powermate 2" 2 or 4x.......they are superb!!!! Retain the brightness and sharpness of the original eyepiece. No vignetting. Or if the budget doesn't allow, how about a Moonfish 2" 2x ED :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.