Posts Made By: Jeff Bennett

First post. I am currently using a Meade 36mm QX as a finder eyepiece on a 10inch F/6 dob. It's OK, but definitely soft in the outer part of the field.

Any feedback on whether a 32 TV Widefield would be significantly better, or do I need to ante up for a 35 Panoptic?
Thanks,

Jeff Bennett

I am looking for an 80mm refractor for quick looks when I don't want to drag out the 10 inch Dob. I also am looking for airline carry-on capability.

Any feedback on this scope and mount combo? I gather some of the Synta 80 EDs have had quality issues with collimation and the focuser. Is the Vixen any better in this regard?

The other scope I am thinking about is the Stellarvue 80D (the new, airline transportable version of the 80/9D) on the SV M1GG mount and tripod combo.

Any thoughts on how these two would compare? Thanks,

Jeff Bennett

Hi,
I am currently using a 27 Panoptic, and am thinking of trying a Pentax 30 XW. Anyone have any feedback on how these compare?

I currently use XWs from 5mm to 14mm and like them a lot for both optical quality and ergonomics (good eye relief, nice eyecup). On the other hand, I couldn't deal with the field curvature in the 20XW, which is why I have used Panoptics in the longer focal lengths.

Scopes are a 10 inch F6 dob (AstroSky) and an 80mm F7 refractor (Stellarvue NHNG).

Thanks,

Jeff Bennett

Tony,
I went through the same decision nine months ago, with an XT-8 that I wanted to upgrade more for quality than for the big jump in aperature.

I ended up with a 10 inch, F/6 AstroSky truss dob with Discovery optics. Both optically and mechanically it has been a big improvement (and I thought the XT-8 was pretty decent). I have been very happy with it.

While the price has gone up, it's not much more than a 10 inch PDHQ, and it's much easier to transport. I think AstroSky is offering a 10% discount now for AM members this month.

Jeff Bennett

Charles,
I have a 36 Meade QX that I am using in a 10 inch, F/6 dob. It works very well as a finder eyepiece, giving over 1.65 degrees TFOV. It does show some sofness in the outer part of the field, though most of the softness appears to be field curvature that you can refocus for, rather than astigmatism. There is some of the latter, but it's not bad at all.

I don't usually use my glasses when I observe, but it seems like you can with the 36 QX with the eyecup rolled down. Eye relief is very adequate without glasses, using the eyecup, and I have not had any trouble with blackout. Based on the above, I would guess eye relief to be about 15mm.

I just had a chance to compare the 36 QX to a 32 Meade Superwide (the just discontinued 4000 version). I was thinking that I might improve on the QX without spending too much more money (e.g., on a 35 Panoptic). Obviously this isn't a perfect comparison given the different focal lengths. But my conclusion was that I will be keeping the QX until I can pick up the Panoptic. The 32 SWA seemed to give a flatter field but more astigmatism than the QX. The QX seemed at least as good or a little better on contrast, which is surprising given the longer focal length.

Hope that helps.

Jeff Bennett

I have used a number of the Antares Elite plossls, and still have the 20, 15 and 10mm versions. I found them to be very good on both planets and DSOs, similar in performance to a couple of Antares orthos but with a wider FOV. The 10mm in particular was significantly better than the 10mm Sirius Plossl that I first used at that focal length.

More recently I have shifted to Pentax XLs and Nagler T6s in the shorter focal lengths. While the Elite Plossls don't give as wide a view or, in the short focal lengths as comfortable a view (compared to the 20mm eye relief of an XL), in terms of sharpness and contrast they hold up pretty well.

Jeff Bennett

I have used the Antares Elites in 25, 20 15 and 10mm versions, and found them all to be very good.

Recently I did a side-by-side comparison of the 20, 15 and 10 Elite against the counterpart TV plossls. To me, sharpness was comparable (and excellent) for both. I felt that the TVs had slightly better contrast, seemingly from a little less scatter (e.g., on planets, the sky was blacker on the TVs). I would characterize the difference as fairly subtle though. I would also say that the Elites in the 15 and 10mm versions were more comfortable to view through, either because of greater eye relief or perhaps because the physical design of the Elites (without any eyecup) made it easier to see all the way to the field stop.

I use the 2 inch BlackCat from Catseye (Jim Fly), and have found it to be excellent for collimating my 10 inch AstroSky. It is best used with the triangle center mark (also from Catseye). The triangle is centered in the donut ring that you see in the BlackCat to get the primary perfectly aligned.

Catseye also offers 2 inch autocollimators and sight tubes.

Jeff Bennett

John,
I own the F4.55 version of the 11 inch ELT and have been very happy with it. The Zambuto mirror is superb, as you have undoubtedly heard or seen. I do think the scope could use a fan to deal with getting the mirror to the ambient air temperature and get rid of the boundary layer that can affect the qualuty of the view.

Mechanically, the scope is nice, with smooth motions but a bit of friction that allows a fairly wide variety of eyepieces to be used without any balance issues. It is balanced for a Parracor, and I have used everything from a 26 Nagler to a Nagler Zoom without having any balance problems. I have also found that the four pole structure holds collimation well as you move up and down in altitude, despite some reports of collimation shift due to the lack of a true truss structure. I kind of wish the mirror box and rocker base used nicer joinery (e.g., like a Telekit), but the scope has held up well with no sign of anything loosening or otherwise needing attention.

For me, the scope has offered outstanding optical quality in a very transportable package that is about as much scope as I want to deal with in terms of size and weight. The relatively short focal length allows for seated viewing throughout the altitude range.

I typically keep the scope assembled at home, and carry it out to my observing deck (up a hill) in two pieces, the ground board and rocker box first followed by the complete mirror box/pole/UTA assembly. For travel, I take out the poles to allow a fairly compact package that fits easily in the back seat of any car. The four-pole structure with the Moonlight connectors on both ends makes for very quick assembly.

Hope that helps.

Jeff Bennett

Bill,
I am not sure about a word limit, but I have never run up against one in my ads. Once you have entered text into your ad, the next screen will let you add photos. I usually click on "Browse" and then just go to "My Pictures" and then to whatever folder I have put them in. Click on the image, and the path will be entered in the browse box. Then click on "Upload." There is a size limit for each photo, I believe it is 500KB.

Hope that helps.

Jeff Bennett