Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Lunt XWA - First Experience with 100º Eyepieces

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1911
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 22 June 2015 - 10:14 PM

I recently picked up the 20mm and 9mm Lunt XWA 100º eyepieces.  Now I've never looked through a 100º eyepiece and have never really been tempted to but the recent reviews of these coupled with a very tempting price sucked me in.

 

I've had maybe four nights with these and while conditions weren't the best, I want to share my thoughts on not only these specific models but the 100º FOV itself.

 

My main eyepieces for the last several months have been Delos.  These are used in my C8.  72º is plenty wide and all the other aspects of the Delos are superb so there's really no reason to want for more.   In my scope (and I use the f/6/3 reducer/corrector) the Delos provide just about pin point sharpness from edge to edge, not withstanding an issue that I've posed about with regards to some anomaly with my eye.  

 

The first thing I found with the XWA's is that it's not easy to see the field edge.  I can but it requires some serious looking.  When I do, I find that they are almost as sharp at the edge as the Delos, and I mean so very close.   But, and this was the big "Ah ha" for me, it doesn't matter! I mean they could be poor at say 80% of the way from the center to the edge and it wouldn't matter.  With a field this big, there's no way I'm going to be directly observing anything at that distance out from center.  So all that field serves the purpose of being essentially peripheral vision.  Al Nagler has used the term spacewalk to describe his Naglers but I never got that with them.  The field edge was just too visible.  You always knew you were looking through a tube; a wide one but a tube nonetheless.  With 100º I get it.  It's very much like being out in space.

 

Now a bit about these particular eyepieces.  They're no where near as heavy as I expected.  In fact the 9mm is quite light.  The eye relief is very comfortable (not for glasses of course).  I can comfortably view through them and be able to blink with out my long eyelashes swiping across the eye lens.  I seem to be able to snap into focus quite easily with both of them.  Not sure to what this can be attributed to but it's definetly noticeable.

 

What I will be doing next (and possibly tonight) is comparing them with my Delos in other areas such as contrast and throughput.  The Delos really seem to reveal star colors and I'm anxious to see how the XWA's do in this regard.

 

Finally, I'm sure that the Ethos are superior but at the price difference (better than 2x) I'm not sure the differences are enough for me to justify the cost.   But....  you never know.  :-)


  • Procyon, russell23, JKoelman and 5 others like this

#2 rowdy388

rowdy388

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2689
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Saratoga County, NY

Posted 23 June 2015 - 11:24 AM

Good to read another report on the new Lunts.  I enjoy the ergonomics of the 5mm 110 degree version I picked up also.

I think my Lunt compares favorably to my three ES 100 eyepieces.  I don't have an Ethos to compare it to but at this price point I'm very happy with my purchase.  I need more time to evaluate performance myself.

Best Regards,  Dave Y

 

Edit: Mine is used in an f/5 and an f/6 dob with and without a Paracorr, so far with impressive results


Edited by rowdy388, 23 June 2015 - 11:29 AM.


#3 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1911
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 23 June 2015 - 11:47 AM

Dave, I've toyed around with picking up the 5mm (or actually 4.77mm I hear).   With my current scope it would likely rarely see any use but they will likely be a larger Dob in my future so it might be good to hang on to. 

 

My only issue is that the 20mm gives an exit pupil large enough (3.8mm in my setup) that my astigmatism kicks in and it's a bit noticeable.  I didn't notice it much during the first few nights out but last night I did.   Seems for my current set up my limit is 17-18mm.

 

The problem now is that I'm really starting to like the 100º FOV and would want a low power eyepiece of this type.  That leaves only one option....

 

17mm Ethos.    <sigh>


  • rowdy388 likes this

#4 JKoelman

JKoelman

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 766
  • Joined: 15 May 2011
  • Loc: Bangalore, India

Posted 23 June 2015 - 11:49 AM

I recently picked up the 20mm and 9mm Lunt XWA 100º eyepieces.


I am curious to know: what is the diameter of the eyelens in these widefield eyepieces?

Edited by JKoelman, 23 June 2015 - 11:51 AM.


#5 rowdy388

rowdy388

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2689
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Saratoga County, NY

Posted 23 June 2015 - 12:11 PM

Just took a tape measure to my 5mm (4.77) and got 27mm. These use the same large eyelens asthe Williams and similar clones I believe. Lunts have a a smaller tapered top design and
eyecap that is more ergonomic to use however. From my understanding the glass is the same.
These designs are all new and not a lot of reviews yet but they all have been promising to
date. Dave Y

#6 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1911
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 23 June 2015 - 12:12 PM

 

I recently picked up the 20mm and 9mm Lunt XWA 100º eyepieces.


I am curious to know: what is the diameter of the eyelens in these widefield eyepieces?

 

Just measured them...

20mm = 30mm

9mm = 27mm



#7 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8929
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 June 2015 - 05:22 PM

I've had the 9mm Lunt since they came out at an introductory price of $250 about the time of NEAF.   It is an outstanding eyepiece for DSO.  I haven't used it that much for lunar & planetary yet.  It does have a little bit of ghosting on the planets but I can ignore that.  I have had an 8mm Ethos in the past and I think the 9mm Lunt seems much more like the Ethos than the ES100's.  I also like the fact that it is so light - actually a bit lighter than my 28mm ES68. 

 

You can increase the effective eye relief a few mm if you remove the fold down eyecup completely.    It is glued on so if you do that you will want to carefully remove the glue with some nail polish remover.  I've tossed the eyecup aside in a box and use a 2" yellow rubber cap to cover the eyelense for storage. 

 

Spring weather has been awful for observing this year so I haven't has as much time to use it as I would like.  Hopefully the next few months will be better.  I also have a 6mm Ethos on the way so hopefully I will get a chance to make some comparisons between the two eyepieces - in terms of presentation, ghosting, and so on.

 

Dave



#8 havasman

havasman

    Cosmos

  • ****-
  • Posts: 8256
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 23 June 2015 - 08:27 PM

 I also have a 6mm Ethos on the way so hopefully I will get a chance to make some comparisons between the two eyepieces - in terms of presentation, ghosting, and so on.

 

Dave

 

Great! I, for one, will be very interested in that analysis. I'm mulling over additions the 6 to 4.5mm range.



#9 george tatsis

george tatsis

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Flushing, NY

Posted 24 June 2015 - 11:00 AM



 

 I also have a 6mm Ethos on the way so hopefully I will get a chance to make some comparisons between the two eyepieces - in terms of presentation, ghosting, and so on.

 

Dave

 

Dave,

 

Since you have both the Meade 8.8mm and the Lunt 9mm, what's the verdict?

 

George

 


Edited by george tatsis, 24 June 2015 - 11:01 AM.


#10 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8929
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 24 June 2015 - 03:22 PM

 

 

 I also have a 6mm Ethos on the way so hopefully I will get a chance to make some comparisons between the two eyepieces - in terms of presentation, ghosting, and so on.

 

Dave

 

Dave,

 

Since you have both the Meade 8.8mm and the Lunt 9mm, what's the verdict?

 

George

 

 

 

My early verdict is the 9mm Lunt for a few reasons:

 

1.  It is easier to take in the field of the 9mm Lunt.

2.  The 8.8mm Meade does have a minor bit of blackouts and this is probably related to #1.

3.  The Lunt seems cleaner to me.   How much cleaner I cannot describe at the moment because it has been hard getting clear nights to observe around here.  It is supposed to be clear tonight so I will try to better qualify this difference.

4.  The eye relief is more comfortable on the Lunt.

5.  And then you add the larger AFOV of the Lunt to all that.

6.  For Lunar observations I think the Lunt is better.  For planetary I have not really compared.

7.  The 8.8mm Meade has some EOFB.  The Lunt may have a little EOFB but what small amount it has is so close to the field stop that it is out of the comfortable field of vision anyway and is not a distraction.

 

Those are my thoughts after comparing them on a few occasions since NEAF.

 

Dave



#11 george tatsis

george tatsis

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Flushing, NY

Posted 24 June 2015 - 03:49 PM

Thanks Dave. That sounds like a winner to me !  :waytogo:

 

George


  • havasman likes this

#12 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 24 June 2015 - 06:02 PM

Finally, I'm sure that the Ethos are superior but at the price difference (better than 2x) I'm not sure the differences are enough for me to justify the cost.   But....  you never know.  :-)

 Superior how? Two years of viewing led me to believe that the 8 and 6 Delos provided ever so slightly sharper planetary views than an 8 and 6 Ethos. However, the 8 and 6 Ethos and their 100 AFOV open up better views of many deep sky objects. Ninety nine percent of my viewing is done with a 21 and 13 Ehos, and an 8 and 6 Delos. 



#13 Dave Bush

Dave Bush

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1911
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2004

Posted 24 June 2015 - 06:11 PM

 

Finally, I'm sure that the Ethos are superior but at the price difference (better than 2x) I'm not sure the differences are enough for me to justify the cost.   But....  you never know.  :-)

 Superior how? Two years of viewing led me to believe that the 8 and 6 Delos provided ever so slightly sharper planetary views than an 8 and 6 Ethos. However, the 8 and 6 Ethos and their 100 AFOV open up better views of many deep sky objects. Ninety nine percent of my viewing is done with a 21 and 13 Ehos, and an 8 and 6 Delos. 

 

 

Well, I'm assuming that TeleVue likely has better polish/coatings.  Not an unreasonable assumption I believe.   I'm not comparing Ethos to Delos remember.  


  • jackofalltrades likes this

#14 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8929
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 24 June 2015 - 10:50 PM

Just got in from a couple hours of observing.  The 9mm Lunt (100x) performs just like the 6mm Ethos (150x) in terms of presentation and general characteristics.  I went back and forth between the two eyepieces on the Moon and a few brighter DSO and other than the magnification difference I did not see any performance characteristics for which the Lunt seemed to trail behind the Ethos.    This confirms my first impression of the 9mm Lunt - that being that it performs just like I remember the 8mm Ethos performing.  I did not feel the same way about the 14mm ES100. 

 

It was very natural to go back and forth between the 9mm Lunt and the 6mm Ethos.  

 

Keep in mind that this was a first impression comparison and the 150x with the Ethos was on the edge of tonight's seeing conditions.  I need to look more closely for ghosting and glare issues.  I have seen minor ghosting with the 9mm Lunt and at one point on the Moon I thought I saw some minor glare with the Ethos.

 

Anyway,  If you cannot afford an Ethos but can afford the Lunt, you will for all practical purposes be getting an Ethos if you buy one of the Lunt XWA eyepieces - at least in the case of the 9mm Lunt.  

 

As for the 8.8mm Meade UWA - very sharp on the Moon, but the field is easier to take in with the 9mm Lunt and the 6mm Ethos despite the larger AFOV.  This is purely a matter of the optical design characteristics of the 8.8mm Meade.

 

Dave


  • havasman likes this

#15 george tatsis

george tatsis

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Flushing, NY

Posted 24 June 2015 - 11:26 PM

 

 

As for the 8.8mm Meade UWA - very sharp on the Moon, but the field is easier to take in with the 9mm Lunt and the 6mm Ethos despite the larger AFOV.  This is purely a matter of the optical design characteristics of the 8.8mm Meade.

 

Dave

Dave,

 

Would you say that the AFOV of the 8.8mm could not be taken in because of inadequate eye relief or something else that you happened to notice? Mine is in the mail anyway, but it's good to know what you think of it as far as eye placement and eye relief go.

 

George


Edited by george tatsis, 26 June 2015 - 05:57 AM.


#16 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8929
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 25 June 2015 - 09:50 AM

 

 

 

As for the 8.8mm Meade UWA - very sharp on the Moon, but the field is easier to take in with the 9mm Lunt and the 6mm Ethos despite the larger AFOV.  This is purely a matter of the optical design characteristics of the 8.8mm Meade.

 

Dave

Dave,

 

Would you say that the AFOV of the 8.8mm could not be taken in because of inadequate eye relief or something else that happened to notice? Mine is in the mail anyway, but it's good to know what you think of it as far as eye placement and eye relief go.

 

George

 

 

George,

 

There are some eyepieces that I describe as "self-vignetting".  What I mean by this is based upon the exit pupil and eye relief characteristics it is not possible to see the field stop cleanly because there are significant blackouts when you bring the eye close enough that the field stop is visible.  I find the 8.8mm Meade UWA is of this sort.  I can see a nice sharp view if I have my head back at the correct spot for the exit pupil.  But at that distance the field stop cannot be seen.    Now the 5.5mm Meade UWA is not like that at all.  Neither is the 9mm Lunt XWA or the 6mm Ethos. 

 

It is possible that my sample has a misplaced field stop - and in general this effect is much more obvious when looking at the Moon.  For DSO it is less noticeable although I do still notice more issues with blackouts than with other eyepieces. The 5.5mm Meade UWA is very comfortable and finding the field stop is easy with no blackouts. 

 

Dave


  • CeleNoptic, george tatsis, Usquebae and 1 other like this

#17 george tatsis

george tatsis

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Flushing, NY

Posted 26 June 2015 - 05:58 AM

 

 

 

 

As for the 8.8mm Meade UWA - very sharp on the Moon, but the field is easier to take in with the 9mm Lunt and the 6mm Ethos despite the larger AFOV.  This is purely a matter of the optical design characteristics of the 8.8mm Meade.

 

Dave

Dave,

 

Would you say that the AFOV of the 8.8mm could not be taken in because of inadequate eye relief or something else that you happened to notice? Mine is in the mail anyway, but it's good to know what you think of it as far as eye placement and eye relief go.

 

George

 

 

George,

 

There are some eyepieces that I describe as "self-vignetting".  What I mean by this is based upon the exit pupil and eye relief characteristics it is not possible to see the field stop cleanly because there are significant blackouts when you bring the eye close enough that the field stop is visible.  I find the 8.8mm Meade UWA is of this sort.  I can see a nice sharp view if I have my head back at the correct spot for the exit pupil.  But at that distance the field stop cannot be seen.    Now the 5.5mm Meade UWA is not like that at all.  Neither is the 9mm Lunt XWA or the 6mm Ethos. 

 

It is possible that my sample has a misplaced field stop - and in general this effect is much more obvious when looking at the Moon.  For DSO it is less noticeable although I do still notice more issues with blackouts than with other eyepieces. The 5.5mm Meade UWA is very comfortable and finding the field stop is easy with no blackouts. 

 

Dave

 

Thanks Dave!

 

George



#18 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus, a.k.a. Scanning4Comets

  • *****
  • Posts: 17938
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 26 June 2015 - 09:24 AM

 

 

 

 

As for the 8.8mm Meade UWA - very sharp on the Moon, but the field is easier to take in with the 9mm Lunt and the 6mm Ethos despite the larger AFOV.  This is purely a matter of the optical design characteristics of the 8.8mm Meade.

 

Dave

Dave,

 

Would you say that the AFOV of the 8.8mm could not be taken in because of inadequate eye relief or something else that happened to notice? Mine is in the mail anyway, but it's good to know what you think of it as far as eye placement and eye relief go.

 

George

 

 

George,

 

There are some eyepieces that I describe as "self-vignetting".  What I mean by this is based upon the exit pupil and eye relief characteristics it is not possible to see the field stop cleanly because there are significant blackouts when you bring the eye close enough that the field stop is visible.  I find the 8.8mm Meade UWA is of this sort.  I can see a nice sharp view if I have my head back at the correct spot for the exit pupil.  But at that distance the field stop cannot be seen.    Now the 5.5mm Meade UWA is not like that at all.  Neither is the 9mm Lunt XWA or the 6mm Ethos. 

 

It is possible that my sample has a misplaced field stop - and in general this effect is much more obvious when looking at the Moon.  For DSO it is less noticeable although I do still notice more issues with blackouts than with other eyepieces. The 5.5mm Meade UWA is very comfortable and finding the field stop is easy with no blackouts. 

 

Dave

 

 

Dave & George,

 

The 8.8mm is a diff beast than the 5.5mm. I asked someone at an astro store to see how the FS was in the 8.8mm and the 14mm Meade Series 5000 WP UWA and he said that they were both hard to see the FS and said that the 5.5mm was the easiest of the three to take in the views. 

 

I wonder why Meade made them all different in that regard?


  • CeleNoptic likes this

#19 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8929
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 26 June 2015 - 09:52 AM

 

 

 

 

 

As for the 8.8mm Meade UWA - very sharp on the Moon, but the field is easier to take in with the 9mm Lunt and the 6mm Ethos despite the larger AFOV.  This is purely a matter of the optical design characteristics of the 8.8mm Meade.

 

Dave

Dave,

 

Would you say that the AFOV of the 8.8mm could not be taken in because of inadequate eye relief or something else that happened to notice? Mine is in the mail anyway, but it's good to know what you think of it as far as eye placement and eye relief go.

 

George

 

 

George,

 

There are some eyepieces that I describe as "self-vignetting".  What I mean by this is based upon the exit pupil and eye relief characteristics it is not possible to see the field stop cleanly because there are significant blackouts when you bring the eye close enough that the field stop is visible.  I find the 8.8mm Meade UWA is of this sort.  I can see a nice sharp view if I have my head back at the correct spot for the exit pupil.  But at that distance the field stop cannot be seen.    Now the 5.5mm Meade UWA is not like that at all.  Neither is the 9mm Lunt XWA or the 6mm Ethos. 

 

It is possible that my sample has a misplaced field stop - and in general this effect is much more obvious when looking at the Moon.  For DSO it is less noticeable although I do still notice more issues with blackouts than with other eyepieces. The 5.5mm Meade UWA is very comfortable and finding the field stop is easy with no blackouts. 

 

Dave

 

 

Dave & George,

 

The 8.8mm is a diff beast than the 5.5mm. I asked someone at an astro store to see how the FS was in the 8.8mm and the 14mm Meade Series 5000 WP UWA and he said that they were both hard to see the FS and said that the 5.5mm was the easiest of the three to take in the views. 

 

I wonder why Meade made them all different in that regard?

 

 

The original pre-WP Meade 5000 UWA line had 1.25" FL of 4.7mm, 6.7mm, 8.8mm, 14mm, and 18mm.  My speculation is that when the ditched the 4.7mm and 6.7mm FL for the 5.5mm they also had the design tweaked (and improved).  I find the presentation of the 5.5mm to be different from the 8.8mm.  The 5.5mm is easy to see the field stop and the field seems visually "flatter" without the fishbowl effect of the 8.8mm.  Probably as a matter of money investment they saw no reason to have the 8.8mm and 14mm FL also re-designed so the original lense specs are put in the new WP versions for those FL.  That is my guess on this.

 

Dave


  • Scanning4Comets and CeleNoptic like this

#20 rowdy388

rowdy388

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2689
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Saratoga County, NY

Posted 26 June 2015 - 02:48 PM

Had my 5 XWA out a couple more times this week after the moon set and even though the 362
magnification was about 100x over the conditions, it reinforces my opinion that this is one heckofa piece of glass. I enjoyed it more than the views from the Meade UWA 5.5 which I
also have. Yes, that 5.5 Meade is mighty fine also.
Dave Y
  • Scanning4Comets and havasman like this

#21 George N

George N

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Joined: 19 May 2006
  • Loc: Binghamton & Indian Lake NY

Posted 08 July 2015 - 11:02 PM

I’ve used my Lunt 9mm (picked up at NEAF – should have gotten the 20mm too) a few times with my 127mm APO for solar/lunar/planetary and found it excellent.

 

Last month I had it in my Obsession 20 for much of two nights. I used only two eyepieces both nights the Lunt 9mm and an Ethos 17mm. On one night we had superb seeing and the 9mm in the 20-inch provided one of the best views of Saturn I’ve had in 30+ years – a rock steady view with plenty of color and detail! The 9mm 100 degree also proved easy to use in my un-driven Dob for deep sky observing.

 

To check if I was really seeing the field edge when looking at the center, I placed a rather bright star just on the edge. Twisting my head, I could clearly see it – again right on the edge of the field (9mm 100 in 20-inch F/5). Looking right at the center of the field, I could still see that star out on the edge of the field.


  • CeleNoptic and russell23 like this

#22 Scanning4Comets

Scanning4Comets

    Markus, a.k.a. Scanning4Comets

  • *****
  • Posts: 17938
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2004

Posted 08 May 2016 - 04:41 PM

The first thing I found with the XWA's is that it's not easy to see the field edge.  I can but it requires some serious looking.  When I do, I find that they are almost as sharp at the edge as the Delos, and I mean so very close.  

 

 

I tried the 20mm WO XWA last Friday in my scope with and without a coma corrector. Without the CC, it was nowhere NEAR the sharpness of the 17.3mm Delos. The 20mm XWA was excellent with the CC. Without a CC, my 14mm Delos is excellent for overall sharpness. The 17.3mm Delos is even better for sharpness than the 20mm WO XWA without a CC. 

 

Just my two cents worth, including applicable CN txes. :penny: :penny: :lol:


Edited by Scanning4Comets, 08 May 2016 - 04:41 PM.


#23 skyjim

skyjim

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Miller Place, NY

Posted 10 May 2016 - 08:04 AM

I have owned both the Meade UWA 5K 8.8, the none WP and the WP version, eye placement can be tricky with just this FL and found I do use the roll up eye guard, once you have it adjust to your eye its seems fine, no more blackouts seen but if you have the eye guard all the way down  you do notice blackouts. It's very similar to the Nagler 9 I used to own but much better as far as no kidney bean effect which the 9 did have. I would like to try one of the Lunt 9 mm, does sound like a very affordable way to enter the 100 degree EP market.

Jim



#24 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8929
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 10 May 2016 - 12:11 PM

I have owned both the Meade UWA 5K 8.8, the none WP and the WP version, eye placement can be tricky with just this FL and found I do use the roll up eye guard, once you have it adjust to your eye its seems fine, no more blackouts seen but if you have the eye guard all the way down  you do notice blackouts. It's very similar to the Nagler 9 I used to own but much better as far as no kidney bean effect which the 9 did have. I would like to try one of the Lunt 9 mm, does sound like a very affordable way to enter the 100 degree EP market.

Jim

 

Was the 9mm Nagler you had the T6?

 

Dave



#25 skyjim

skyjim

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Miller Place, NY

Posted 10 May 2016 - 02:25 PM

Yes it was a T6.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics