Posts Made By: Larry Seguin

Hi Josh,
Just a few more thoughts on your ep collection. Please don't feel pressured to buy expensive ep's right out of the gate. There have been comparisons done between expensive multi-element ep's and very simple inexpensive ones, and the inexpensive simple ep designs hold up surprisingly well. People generally spend more on eyepieces to get either a wider field of view, or longer eye relief. If those considerations aren't a problem for you, you're probably being well served by what you have now. I would fill in that hole between 20-25 mm, I think you'll find that focal length useful. You might also consider adding a barlow because with your 20 or so mm lens you'd end with a 10 mm that has more comfortable eye relief than the 9mm your currently using. A barlow would also turn your 15 mm into a 7.5 that would be way more comfortable than your 6 mm. If you ever upgrade your visual back to 2"'s, then yes-a 40 mm would be in order.
My own selections somewhat mirror yours, as my favorite ep's are a 35 mm Panoptic, a 17 Nagler, and a 10.5 Pentax. Main thought is that one more ep and a barlow would give you a very usable set that would cover most of your viewing needs, both for probably about $150, and they would do a very nice job for you, too. Good luck!

Hey Scott,
Got a great ski mountain out here in Taos, New Mexico. If yer ever in the neighborhood, stop in and take a look through the "herd"!
Larry

Darryl,
I use mine on a short tube 80, an 8" dob, and a 14" dob. Soon after I got it, I sold all my color filters. The best for planets, and adds contrast to Lunar maria/highlands, and ray systems.

I agree that the Klee is good, and so is the TV. Used them both and really liked them. I like short barlows though, when I can use them, so that gives the Klee the edge for me. Best of view I ever had of Saturn was through a Pentax 10.5 XL stacked on a Klee barlow.

The GSO plossls are indeed a fine choice for a starting ep collection. I like a wide field at low power (if it IS wide-field, why shouldn't it LOOK wide-field?) Tried the 19 Panoptic and the 24 Pan, liked them both, kept the 24. Shorter focal lengths tend to have shorter eye relief with the plossls. That's where I tried switching over to Vixen Lanthanums. Gave a nice plossl style view with much better eyerelief, and still kept it in a small plossl type package. A good zoom like Vixen's Lanthanum zoom or Televue's can offer a wide range of magnifications in one package, along with crisp views, and a really nice field of view at the lower powers. Probably three choices will do very nicely to start you off: a widefield low power that gives you an exit pupil between 7 and 5 mm; a mid range that offers an exit pupil around 2 mm; and a high power that gives an exit pupil of between 1 mm and .8 mm. A set up like that will show you lots, while you decide what you're "final" collection will consist of.

Paulo, There are any number of good semi-apos available (Orion's ED-80 comes to mind) in any number of sizes. Others are better able to comment on them. If price is an issue I can certainly recommend Orion's ST-80. You could pick one up used for about $150.00 or so, and with a 24 Pan, I get a field of over 4*

What focal length plossl were you using, Michael? I've noticed that the Klee 2.8 tends to vignette with my longer focal length eyepieces, but have not noticed this problem with the shorter focal lengths. My favorite combination with that barlow is a 10.5 Pentax XL...no problemo aqui.

John,
The O-III passes a very narrow band of the spectrum. Also referred to as a "line" filter, because of the narrowness of the band-pass. Good for planetaries, supernove remnants, and many emission nebulas. Maybe too dark for smaller apertures.
The UHC passes a wider portion of the spectrum, but still rather narrow, hence it is sometimes called a "narrow band" filter. Probably shows more emission nebulas to better effect than the O-III. A noticable difference between the two filters is that the O-III will show a darker background sky, and extinguish more stars, than the UHC. The UHC will probably work better in smaller apertures than the O-III.
"LPR" stands for Light Pollution Reduction, which both of these filters are.
I'm surprised that you would find the Skyglow too dark in a 9.25, as it passes the widest portion of the spectrum of all three filters.
If I had to choose between the three, I think I would select the UHC. I expect that it will perform more effectively on a larger number of objects.
Hope that helps!

The 12 mm Nagler T-4 is an excellent eyepiece, and would serve you very well. Also, give some consideration to the 10.5 Pentax XL,or the 10mm Pentax XW. These ep's are favored by a number of folks, some saying that they are more comfortable to use than the Nagler.

My 8" Orion gives me great views and shows me all the things you're not seeing. I think these scopes are well enough made that you should expect more. Rule out things like miscollimation, thermal currents in the tube, jet stream, seeing, etc. If still no go, talk to Orion, they're very easy to deal with in my experience.