Posts Made By: Larry Seguin

Mauricio--You didn't say if your barlow absolutely HAD TO BE 3X. If that number is not critical for you, you might consider the Powermate 2.5X. I've been using a Powermate for a little while now and I'm very happy with the results in my scopes. Nice point for the Powermates: they don't increase the eye relief of the eyepiece you're using, so blackouts don't become a problem. This becomes a consideration when you're pumping up the power on low power eyepieces that already have substantial eye relief.
Larry Seguin

Vincent--I don't have any experience with the XW line, but in answer to your second question: a qualified yes. Qualified because I only have experience with the 14, 10.5, and 7MM eyepieces in the XL line, but yes they DO appear to be parfocal. Usually some small readjustment would be necessary, but for the most part the image was right on as you switched between one and the other.
Larry Seguin

Hey Vincent--If you're still looking, a Pentax 14 XL just came up for sale on Astromart. Check out ad #242681.
Larry

Vincent I'm so glad you got your 14 XL! I know you're gonna enjoy it, I can't wait to get MINE out tonight, as the skies are clearing after a cold front wandered through three days ago. Best of skies to you,
Larry

Hey David--Congratulations on your new scope, a friend of mine recently bought one of those and is promising to drop by and set it up. Can't wait to see the view through an LX-200! You're asking concerning a planetary eyepiece for this scope. I've looked through a lot of planetary eyepieces and in my OPINION nothing can compare to a good orthoscopic for this kind of viewing. When I look at the planets I'm primarily interested in on axis sharpness, contrast, and light throughput. I'll sacrifice eye relief and field of view for the best possible view of planetary detail. Those things said, my favorites are the Zeiss orthos, the TMB super monos, the Pentax orthos, and the University Optics HD orthoscopics, roughly in that order. I thnk your scopes focal length is about 2540mm, and something in the 9-10mm range would give you about 254-282X. This magnification usually gives me a very good view, in most seeing. You'll need to decide which eyepiece charactersitics are important for you, but there's my 2c worth. Have a blast, man!
Larry Seguin

Hi Charles! Being a total eyepiece geek, now you're talking my lingo! If you're simply looking for widest field of view, it's gonna be hard to beat a Nagler. My favorite low power is a 22 Panoptic ("poor man's Nagler")-sharp to edge, and beautiful wide field to boot! My favorite mid power currently is a 14 Pentax XL-good edge sharpness again with a great field. My favorite planetery is whatever gets me to just shy of 300X. My skies support that range most of the time. I currently favor any of the premium orthos (Pentax, Zeiss, etc.), but check out the new TMB Monocentrics-great sharpness with BEAUTIFUL contrast!
Larry Seguin

A plastic frisbee to cover an 8" Starfinder (Meade cover=$50, frisbee=$3!
Larry Seguin

Thanks for some great thoughts on this topic, guys. I really appreciate all your input. I had never heard before the remarks by Roland Christensen about optics not being assembled in clean enough environments )so just how DO they assemble them, hmmm?), and the idea that Radians may not perform that well under less than dark skies is intriguing--makes me want to get another one just to try that out!Concerning eyepiece satisfaction, I'm beginning to suspect that there must be some equation involving your particular eyes/scope/skies that, when combined with your particular preferences in viewing criteria, results in all the differing preferences in eyepieces. So--back to the drawing board, the search for the perfect eyepiece goes on!
Larry

Hey Mark--The El Valle Astronomers will be holding a public star party in Kit Carson Park, in Taos New Mexico, on April 24th. Personally, I'm ALWAYS ready to set up if someone comes to town and wants to try New Mexico skies!
Larry Seguin

One more thought for consideration: although mankind has tried to combine chemicals in many different ways, we have been unable to create life. God's word tells us that we were created "for His good pleasure". I find it fascinating and exciting that I was made to bring pleasure and delight to God. Contrary to what some may say, God is not hard to please, He simply delights in His children.
Larry,