Sponsored By:

Subject: [M]: 1.25 vs 2" EPs?
From: J HOPPER
Reply To: mapug@shore.net
Date: bogus date

Kip,

It's worth it, if for nothing more than the 20mm Nagler. It's GREAT,
on almost any scope that can take 2" eyepieces. I'm glad I got mine.


Of course then you'll want the 35mm Panoptic or the Meade 32mm SWA.
I've looked through both and own the 32mm. Most people think the
35mm is better, but probably they never looked through the 32mm.
Hence it's a bargain used compared to the 35.

Also either the 55mm TV or 56mm Meade Plossl will give you nearly the
brightest image you can get with an f/10 scope, with an exit pupil of
5.5 or 5.6mm respectively. I own an 80mm Celestron (yes, eyepiece!)
instead, but I had an f/15 scope when I bought it to get a similar 5.
3mm exit pupil....it would give you an 8mm exit pupil, which is
larger than your pupil opens, so you'd lose light with it.

TeleVue sells a package with their excellent 2" diagonal along with
the 55mm and a 1.25" to 2" adapter for your 1.25" eyepieces, a few
bucks off getting them separately.

Regarding which brand(s) to get....hmmmm. For the 32 Meade SWA vs.
35 Panoptic and the TV 55 vs. Meade 56, you really can't go wrong,
IMHO. The 20 Nagler is a must and has no competition. When you get
to shorter eyepieces than the 20mm, you'll have to compare for
yourself, they're subject to different people liking different ones.
Todd's page has reviews on www.weatherman.com

I prefer and own Brandons myself, over the shorter Naglers or Meades.
If you wear glasses, try the Vixen Lanthanums.

Good luck, and I hope your checkbook is healthy.

John Hopper
jhopper@prodigy.com