1.5" vs 2" diagonal was: lx200/questar
| Subject: | 1.5" vs 2" diagonal was: lx200/questar |
| From: | Robert Preston |
| Date: | Sun Aug 20 14:34:44 1995 |
>immdeiately replaced with a 2" one.
This depends on your intended use (and your bank account size). It is by no means a general requirement or necessity or recommendation. Low power, wide field eyepieces that require the 2" diagonal are both expensive and, strictly speaking, of limited use (i.e., for wide field, lowest power views of star fields and the larger deep-sky objects). They are also useful show-off items however, if you wish to flaunt your wealth. They are good for a great cry when you drop them on concrete (how sure is your grip?). On the other hand, after seeing the views possible with ultra-wide-field eyepieces, it is difficult to go back to the lesser ones, even for the higher-power ones that do not require a 2" diagonal. This, however, is mainly an esthetic decision: remember that the human eye has a field of decent view of only about 45 - 50 degrees, so, in one sense, you cant even make good (visual) use of a Nagler-type with an 82 degree apparent field of view, which (I think, anyway, correct me if Im wrong, guys) is the main reason for going to the 2" diagonal. In another sense, though, I wouldnt trade my 8.8" Meade ultra-wide for anything (but, IT doesnt call for a 2" diagonal!), and if I could afford it, I would go for the 2" system: life is too short to not go for the most you can see with the existing technology. I just need to win the lottery now, goddammit. ;-)
