Hey there.. I have a Celestron 130EQ.. Got it for free. But im buying a Skywatcher 10” Goto Dobsonian. Im looking to get a 2” eyepiece that will work for both telescopes (I know ill need an adapter for the 130eq).. I dont want to spend much more that $125.. I want a nice wide fov and low power for searching the night sky and galaxies/nebulae. I know its not a ton to spend but id like a quality piece that doesnt have a bunch of distortion on the outside.. Please let me know what you think. Thanks a bunch
The Celestron 130EQ is a 650mm Focal length.
You do not need a 2" eyepiece to get a wide field in that scope.
A 24mm 68° eyepiece will give you 2.4°, which is a huge field of view.
The magnification of 27x is going to be a bit low for most deep sky objects except the large star clusters.
Most deep sky objects will be better seen with nearly double that magnification, with a 12-13mm eyepiece.
The SkyWatcher 10" is a different beast. It can use 2" eyepieces and you can use a good widefield as long as 30mm, like the aforementioned APM Ultra Flat Field.
Yes, there are less expensive 2" widefield eyepieces, but they will suffer from more astigmatism in the outer field due to their inability to handle the short f/ratio of the scope.
If you are looking for an eyepiece to yield star images sharp to the edge at that f/ratio, you will have a problem. Short reflectors suffer from coma, and even the most expensive eyepieces made
will not deliver star images that are points to the edge due to coma from the scope.
So the best you can do is to eliminate astigmatism in the eyepiece, and that will not be as inexpensive as your budget. The APM is a good possibility.
Now, do you really NEED an eyepiece at low power to be sharp to the edge of the field? Especially if it is being used as a "finder" eyepiece to locate the object and see the context around it,
and is then followed by a higher power eyepiece for inspection of the object. A good 10-12mm eyepiece will get a LOT more use than the low power eyepiece.
Since you have a Baader Zoom, the magnifications most useful are already covered in both scopes.
I agree with an earlier poster that a decent alternative might be a 32mm Plössl for both scopes. Coma will be less visible than in a wider field, the field of view in the 130mm will be the largest the instrument can deliver,
and the apparent field of the 32mm will be about the same as the Baader Zoom at 24mm in both scopes, but the magnification will be lower, the field will be brighter, and you stand a good chance of seeing sharp star images over nearly all of the field.
And, it can be 1.25", saving you a lot of $.