Eyepiece collection finally complete....

Very good advice Michael and very well put.

I always found fiddling with eyepieces a major pain and it certainly cuts deeply into your observing time. As well as that, one thing I noted (and I've seen other posts mentioning this) is that the longer you spend at the eyepiece, the more detail you will pick out. This is because the seeing will change and you will glimpse detail at the instants of good seeing and secondly, your eye becomes accustomed to the field and will become more sensitive.

Its hard to get to that if your swapping eyepieces around every two minutes...

I wish I had that advice when I started. It would have saved me money and reduced the clutter!

Cheers

Dave McD

one thing I noted (and I've seen other posts mentioning this) is that the longer you spend at the eyepiece, the more detail you will pick out. This is because the seeing will change and you will glimpse detail at the instants of good seeing and secondly, your eye becomes accustomed to the field and will become more sensitive.

Its hard to get to that if your swapping eyepieces around every two minutes...

I couldn't agree more!

Michael,

I also have the TeleVue 27mm PanOptic and share your enthusiasm for it. Yes, it is the size of a hand grenade, it is heavy and bulky but it is also very sweet!

I also have and like the TeleVue 12mm Nagler (Type II) and TeleVue 55mm Plossl. The latter is my weapon of choice when slewing the C14 and its narrow field of view (3910mm, f/11).

Strange as it may sound, one eyepiece that gets used a lot is my TeleVue 20mm Plossl.

Anthony.

That's advice that's good 'n' solid M. & A.
I haven't had much time lately to spend at the scope, let alone chase up which eyepieces are best to use.
Just dipping in and out isn't the answer. :evil:

I for one now have a better idea how to advance my (non-existant :!: ).

Enjoy M.

I wrote:

I for one now have a better idea how to advance my (non-existant ).

That should have read non-existent eyepiece collection. Sorry :oops:

Michael, if the 17mm gives you ~x100, then am I right in figuring that you'll get ~x200 and x60 from the 9mm & 27mm respectively?

I've a 8" dob, f/l 1000mm, so I'd like to get the right balance too, with the min of fuss. :idea:

Paul,
yea, you've the math right. To be more precise, the 8" LX90 focal length is 2000mm. So, my magnifications are:
27mm Panoptic: 2000/27=74x
17mm Nagler: 2000/17=117x
9mm Nagler: 2000/9 = 222x

For an 8" dob with a focal length of 1000mm, 100x would require an eyepiece of 10mm (1000/100 = 10mm)

Clear skies,