SCOPES: CPC1100; AT66ED; EdgeHD 8";SVR90T RAPTOR
MOUNTS: CGEM; Vixen GP2; iOptron Sky Tracker; Celestron AVX
CAMERAS: Canon 60D;Lodestar
EYEPIECES:TV N31T5;Delos14;Delos8;Pan27; PL20;PL25;PL32;TMB9
The Lord sits enthroned above the circle of the earth...He stretched out the heavens like a canopy.
Just be aware that when you use a 2" diagonal in a C8 behind the 6.3 focal reducer, it will have the effect of turning your telescope into a much smaller telescope.
Uncle Rod Uncle Rod's Astroblog: http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/
Orange Tube C8, Tasco 7te-5, 4" Criterion Dynascope, Jason/Towa 313
Nikon Action Extreme & Pentax WPii Binoculars
At my club, everything one could want up to 18"
Quote:We've been down this road before.
Quote:Thanks again for the input Rod,so with all the repeatedness put aside. Lets say i want to use a 2" diagonal and was starting fresh with no eps,and wanted two eps for the time being, a low power and mid/high power,what would be the suggestion,i realize eps are a complete other area of discussion but am looking to see what is prefered for this particular setup if i can only have two eps,i wont ask any more questions,i will get what is suggested and just observe.
Quote:After reading this I might sell my focal reducer after it comes in the mail, unless someone can come up with a reason to keep it for a c8. I allready have the 56mm meade super plossl!
Quote:...Celestron designed the scope with the focal refucer in mind.
Cactus Patch Observatory / 14" LX200
"The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom, and the unknown. Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the one is to lose sight of the three."
Quote:Try it before you sell it. It's probably fair to say that using both a focal reducer and a two-inch diagonal puts each at cross purposes, but there are folks who leave focal reducers on always, and Celestron designed the scope with the focal refucer in mind. Although Meade's new LX600 breaks the trend, it was thought that SCTs natively faster than f/10 had harmfully large obstructions. I just bought a focal reducer and would like to hear what you think of yours.
Quote:Fair question. The early focal reducers were 0.50, not 0.63. I'll have to research my source, but it's true. The thought upon design was that the central obstruction became too large below f/10, so for wider fields or faster exposures, the f/10 native optical tube would be modified with a focal refucer. I'll try to find and post the source.
Quote:With my Orange C8 Pacific -73 (deforked, on my CG-5 with vixen rail) and f/6.3 reducer I do not reach focus with my 2" WO diagonal. Instead I bought a 1.25" WO diagonal and with that I have no problems. Very happy with it! The f/6.3 is permanetly mounted on my C8. When I want high mag. I use my 2.4X Intes barlow, rather than threading the f/6.3 off. Simple and convinient at least in my opinion./Magnus 57N.
Friends call me Duane. Compustar C14, Leo Henzl's Custom C8, 6" Refractor Adv. GT mount, 6" F5 Omni XLT Newt., LXD-75 F4 Imaging SN8, Meade 8" F6 Newtonian, EX Dynamax DX6, RV-6 ETX-90 Astro, Meade 2045 4" SCT, B&L 4000 Vixen/Celestron 80mm F11 JC Penny 60mm AZ/ALT Refractor Binos 25x100
Quote:I'd like to see someone build a corrector into a 2" Diagonal barrel, Inserted inside not screwed on sticking out.
Quote:Quote:I'd like to see someone build a corrector into a 2" Diagonal barrel, Inserted inside not screwed on sticking out.That strikes me as a truly great idea. Would the right design allow a standard SCT with an inexpensive accessory to pretty well mimic the performance of the fancy new EdgeHDs and LXs? Optically, anyway. I know there is a lot about their focusers and mounts contributing to their overall performance.
Quote: This still does not prove or disprove that the focal reducer was intended to be part of the C8 kit from the beginning
There may be some confusion and some of it may be mine.
At one point, you could buy a "Rich Field Adapter" for SCTs and this was indeed f/5.
It was in essence a special 1.25" diagonal with a reducer built right in.
Horrible to use in my opinion. I used to own one maybe 25 years ago. And that would in iteself explain why it is no longer sold. Really terrible. Loaded with astigmatism as I recall, though to be fair, it could have been the eyepeices made at the time were just not working well with the f/5 light cone.
But the coma from the scope and the astigmatism where so severe that I used it once and threw it in my junk drawer.
So, maybe this is what the f/5 was in reference to...
Quote:Celestron marketing positioned the Celestron focal reducer as a better alternative to an Native f/6.3 SCT, which was made by Meade for a while. The Meade f/6.3 SCT had a 40% obstruction, and Celetron's position was that it was better to use the reducer and keep the smaller CO than go to the Meade f/6.3 with the bigger obstruction.
Quote:There were numerous reducers at f/5 available, including from Lumicon, Orion, etc., etc. The non-correcting reducer was around since the beginning and even Celestron produced a couple of different iterations.