I have never tried 2" EPs nor do I own any.
So I was curious if others here have.
My other question is does the
With regards to my Orion 127 Mak I also have been using the 6.3notFritzArgelander wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:56 am Whether the FR/C can be used successfully depends on the details. I've done so with happy results and with unhappy results. If you use too long a fl EP you might see the central obstruction.
I regularly used 2" eyepieces with and without the Astro Physics reducer on my Edge 9.25 when I had it. It worked just fine either way. I really enjoyed my 2" Panoptic EPs, Tak LE 50mm and others (various Gary Russell offerings) without.
My Intes MK66 takes 2" eyepieces and has been a great instrument overall but reducers give it fits! I have 2 Intes reducers and they're fine for imaging but visually unacceptable.
The Orion 127 Mak has a 1.25" visual back, doesn't it? I'm not sure if 2" eyepieces will be workable at all in it. Not only do you have to fight the central obstruction but there is the baffle diameter to consider. You might well NOT have enough open optical path to support a 2" eyepiece. What reducer are you using?
One solution that I love for getting wider field views out of a Mak is the GSO 1.25" 0.5x focal reducer. It screws into eyepieces like a filter and is cheap enough that you can buy several and avoid switching in the dark. I've dispensed with a finder scope for my VMC110L at f10 since I can get about a 3 degree TFOV with 25mm eyepiece.
I've also used 2" eyepieces with the VMC200L but haven't tried reducers with them yet.
But although the optical elements (primary, secondary, and meniscus) MIGHT be identical the different size visual backs implies differences in the baffling scheme. So... not the same scopes, I fear, is quite likely. If you have in mind modifying the visual back of your Orion to accept 2" EPs you need to check the baffling first.Ylem wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:21 amWith regards to my Orion 127 Mak I also have been using the 6.3notFritzArgelander wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:56 am Whether the FR/C can be used successfully depends on the details. I've done so with happy results and with unhappy results. If you use too long a fl EP you might see the central obstruction.
I regularly used 2" eyepieces with and without the Astro Physics reducer on my Edge 9.25 when I had it. It worked just fine either way. I really enjoyed my 2" Panoptic EPs, Tak LE 50mm and others (various Gary Russell offerings) without.
My Intes MK66 takes 2" eyepieces and has been a great instrument overall but reducers give it fits! I have 2 Intes reducers and they're fine for imaging but visually unacceptable.
The Orion 127 Mak has a 1.25" visual back, doesn't it? I'm not sure if 2" eyepieces will be workable at all in it. Not only do you have to fight the central obstruction but there is the baffle diameter to consider. You might well NOT have enough open optical path to support a 2" eyepiece. What reducer are you using?
One solution that I love for getting wider field views out of a Mak is the GSO 1.25" 0.5x focal reducer. It screws into eyepieces like a filter and is cheap enough that you can buy several and avoid switching in the dark. I've dispensed with a finder scope for my VMC110L at f10 since I can get about a 3 degree TFOV with 25mm eyepiece.
I've also used 2" eyepieces with the VMC200L but haven't tried reducers with them yet.FR with good results.
But you bring up a good point, The Orion is set up for 1.25 EPs, but the Skywatcher comes set up for 2" EPs. Same scope, 27mm port.
That's a head scratcher LOL
Well, since the baffling likely has to be different what you’ve heard and read about “identical scopes” is likely false. Only true in marketing tense.
I'm not satisfied with how I structured the logic of this post so I am coming back to it for another go around.notFritzArgelander wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:41 pmWell, since the baffling likely has to be different what you’ve heard and read about “identical scopes” is likely false. Only true in marketing tense.
Marketing tense is a verb form in which the sentence is true only until the customer buys one and looks at it carefully. Even if the optical elements are identical, the visual backs are different. If the baffling ISN’T different to accommodate that, then one of them will have inferior stray light control.
Well.... that is enough information to solve the trilemma!Ylem wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:28 am Bones!!
Get Spock off the bridge! LOL
I see what you are trying to say though.
These Maks have been sold with the 1.25 visual backs for years.
Then just recently SW decided to put a 2" VB on it. Reports say there is a lot of vignetting.
And if you have fat fingers, it's hard to focus because the "hand grenade" is in the way.
The whole thing is odd to me.
Without doing a ray tracing.... my gut tells me that it might vignette slightly. It won't be nearly as bad as for the 127 optimized for a 1.25" (31.75 mm). My MK66 and VMC200L are both designed for a 2" back.
Without reducer I can use 2" EPs with max field stop in my 8"
You need to be a member in order to post a reply
Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute