Posts Made By: Jack Wickham

Hello,

I'm relatively new to the hobby (less than a year) and am still learning to see, etc. The planets and the moon are my main targets.

The following eyepieces are used with an Orion ED80 and an Orion XT10.

XT10 ED80
30x 15x 40mm Plossl
48x 24x 25mm Plossl
86x 43x 14mm TV Radian
120x 60x 10mm TV Radian
170x 85x 7mm TV Nagler
240x 120x 5mm X-cel
324x 162x 3.7 ED-2

My criteria for the above were developed using Ultima and Plossl EPs and a barlow:
1) High quality, minimum distortion EPs for most frequently used XT10 magnifications (85x, 120x, 170x).
2) Maximize eye relief.
3) Avoid barlow.
4) Minimize cost.

All but the plossls were purchased via Astromart classifieds.

Any suggestions (e.g. gaps to fill, additional purchases,etc.) or comments?

Thank you for your time.

Jack

P.S. You can't hurt my feelings, so fire away if I'm out in left field. I'll check for replies once a day.

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for all the great input.

Remember, I'm a newbie.

1) There's a 24mm panoptic in my future. You're logic makes perfect sense for low magnification in a 1.25" EP.

I use the 40mm to find the Sun in the ED80 (can't use my finders!). The 24mm Pan has nearly the same TFOV (2.72 vs 2.86) so away goes the 40mm. The 25mm plossl provides 1.08 TFOV in the XT10 which I was using for star hopping. I bet I can learn to use the 24mm even though it's 1.36*.

2) I find using a barlow to be a pain (previously owned the Ultima, the views were fine, but...). Maybe improved views via barlowed TVs vs the 5mm and 3.5mm Xcel/ED Epic will make it worth the effort and the pain will go away. I'll borrow some barlows and make a decision.

3) Speaking of the X-cel/Epic, I don't see a great deal of difference between them and the TVs for near edge coma, flat field, etc. when using the ED80 (I think it is f7.5).

*Does that make sense or is it my inexperience?

4) I'm still a little confused about choosing an EP based upon true FOV vs. magnification vs. a combination of both.

*Does the following 'justify' the 120x Radian or is my inexperience showing?

On *some* nights the 120x gives a much clearer view of Jupitor than 170x. The 170x seems to wash out. Backing down to the 86x is clearer yet, but the larger planet at 120x seems to be a better compromise.

5) It sounds like Orthos may add detail to the views of planets and the moon. I have heard that small differences in magnification around 100x often increase detail while not sacrificing contrast (the most prominent person I've heard say this is Ed Ting). Of course, I don't know what a small difference is.

*Based upon these two ideas, would adding a 100x Ortho be justified?

*Or would a different magnification for an Ortho make sense based upon the following (50x (24mm Pan), 86x, 120x, 170x, 240x, 340x).

Thanks again for all the great input.

Jack