139 replies to this topic

[Playa17bk]

STARMAN1, I am humbled that you made a post on my topic, you sir are a legend on this site and I can't count how many of your posts I have read. You are truly knowledgeable beyond compare. I actually bought a Lumicon UHC Gen 3 based on your amazing nebula buying guide. It came yesterday, so I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but hoping I will tonight. I read and am going to reread what you posted a few times to make sure I take it all. Amazing info, thank you very much. Also going to check out the article you posted as well, thanks again.

[gnowellsct]

the cross shapes that you are seeing are called diffraction spikes and they come from the spider veins holding your secondary mirror. There is really no way around that.

Most people who learn their way around with a newtonian accept the diffraction spikes of the secondary spider as a fact of life and don't pay any attention to it.

If you are a refractor user and coming into the Newtonian world, or an SCT user and coming into the Newtonian world, you may find the diffraction spikes to be a royal pain in the keister.

The cure is to get a curved secondary spider. There will still be light scatter but it won't distract you. This solution is popular enough that you can usually scare up a curved secondary spider somewhere for sale. Scopestuff.com or similar places.

Rather than try to diagnose what's going on from your description I'd like to give a couple of general pointers.

The first is get to know your telescope during the day. Point it at distant trees or mountains. Make sure you are easy and comfortable with the focus process. Make sure you are easy and comfortable with the alignment of whatever finder you are using and confident that whatever is at the center of your finder will also be visible in your widest eye pieces. Commercial vendors usually hand out a 20 mm eyepiece That's not really enough you really want a 32 mm plossl And if you have a 2-in focuser you should explore 2 inch options in the 30 to 40 mm range. There's a whole bunch of budget stuff. The essential point here is to reduce the frustration of finding an object.

My second tip is that when you are messing with the collimation and you are using a telescope without tracking, use Polaris as your test star. It does not move appreciably and the frustration of working with a test star is greatly reduced if you're not constantly tapping and pulling at the telescope to keep the star in view.

My third tip is that when you are looking at Polaris in a medium high power eyepiece, let's say 15 to 20 mm, turn ever so slightly out of focus. You should see a black dot inside of some concentric circles. You want to go ever so slightly out of focus, just a tad, so that you only see two or three of those concentric circles around the black dot.

If the black dot is extremely well centered you are approaching good collimation at least as a first order approximation. To nail the full process you need to follow Vic Menard's instructions.

The Black Dot is the Shadow of your secondary mirror. If you don't see it at all that is a sign of gross miscollimation. Another sign of bad collimation is if you have Polaris in the center of the field of view and you have a hard time reaching focus. In fact you can't really reach focus at all. You don't see concentric rings when you move slightly out of focus. The star in focus looks like a comet or a twisted bow tie. you won't get any good viewing with that kind of collimation.

If your Polaris looks like a comet then you come back here and let us know. For an initial assessment of your situation you don't really need to use a laser.

Greg N

Edited by gnowellsct, 21 March 2025 - 08:20 PM.

[splashout]

Hi Playa17bk, hopefully viewing is going well for you. I have the AD12 and thought I’d share my story…

 

It’s starts last Christmas (2024). There was a planet parade around that time and that’s what got me wanting a scope. I had used a cheaper Jason scope as a kid with which I was able to see Jupiter and 4 moons. But, I had very little scope experience otherwise. So, I bought a cheap scope (Gskyer 80mm) from Amazon to show the kids Jupiter as I had seen. I quickly realized it was junk and returned it & got the Celestron StarSense Explorer 114mm dob and the tripod (essentially a necessity) that goes with it. It was definitely a big improvement visually and the StarSense app really sold me. I quickly bought (and returned) the Celestron plossl kit & decided then that regular plossl’s (esp. high-mag) are generally not worth the effort. I also bought the Celestron zoom… a much better purchase than that EP kit but still entry level, so I got a Televue 32mm and barlow to experience the best brand. I also bought some SVBony filters and wide angle eyepieces (the 68 degree red line version) - these are great if your budget is limited. The color filters aren’t that useful to me but the ND’s, VPL, UHC, OIII filters are worth having. I have about 3-4 moon filters. They are ok but prefer ND or VPL on the moon in my limited experience.

 

I learned around this time that the beautiful space pictures you see are heavily processed and stacked and not obtainable when viewing through an eyepiece - “essentially they are fake” I thought. But they still are cool and I would be interested in a SeeStar one day. I’m not too interested in a super complex astrophotography setup, plus it’s pretty expensive and I’ve spent enough this year.

 

Of course, I still wanted better views. I considered the Celes. StarSense 150mm so I could use the same tripod, but they were out of stock and the Celestron StarSense 8” dob was calling my name (and, of course, everyone says get an 8” dob). On this scope I installed a 3 way finder mount with a 30mm SVBony right angle finder & put the stock red dot next to it. This finder helps me dial in the target after aligning with the red dot finder (or the Starsense app). I also upgraded the stock focuser with a “Lacerta Dual Speed 1:10 Microfocus Upgrade Kit for Skywatcher Crayford” which installed on the stock focuser just fine. Around this time, I bought a TV Delos 10mm to see what a premium wide angle EP is about as I had never looked through one. It was totally worth it, and reaffirmed to me that regular plossl’s aren’t worth it. I also bought some 2” SVBony EP’s (26 & 34mm). They are decent but after looking through an Astro-tech UWA 28mm more recently, I would recommend that series over the SVB 2” EP’s if you have the money. The AT UWA’s aren’t as cheap as SVB’s but also not nearly as expensive as TV and they 90-95% as good. It’s money well spent in my book. The AT XWA’s at 100 degrees are even better (I hear) but more expensive.

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda, enter the AD12. I’ve had it for 2 months or so. It’s a beast. I added the wheels and performance upgrade kit and some additional flocking to the top edge and on the focuser side as I have a lot of light pollution from streetlights and neighbors. When I received the AD12, the spider veins were bent where they attach to the secondary holder (and possibly installed upside down but I am not sure and don’t have a before picture) and some focuser screws were loose. At this point, I have pretty much completely disassembled and reassembled this scope which was a little scary but I learned a lot. (Warning to anyone removing a primary: be ready for the weight and secure your tube so it doesn’t come crashing down on the front end).

 

Here are all the upgrades/changes I’ve made to the AD12.
- fixed bent spider veins
- added 3-way finder scope mount with the following in order from focuser:
    1. stock right-angle finder scope
    2. StarSense Dock (3D printed part + dock taken from a StarSense Explorer LT 80AZ purchased on sale)
    3. cheap red dot finder
- added a rubber mat under the stock finder mount for grip. It was slipping around on the smooth metal of the OTA.
- added wheels (Apertura Roll Easy Kit)

- added bumper pad where OTA can touch the base/rocker
- flocked upper and lower tube and around focuser (see pics - I used alcohol to clean the area and it took some paint off… I have flocked over this since pic was taken)
- replaced primary springs
- replaced secondary screws
- removed the white collimation knobs (recommended by someone on CN)
- added cardboard panel under primary cell and around fan to block light leaks
- added milk-jug washer to secondary holder (to prevent metal shavings coming off when collimating)
- moved the OTA to the highest (or lowest depending on perspective) bearing position to compensate for the new gear on the front-end. I think you could start at this position even with stock accessories. I’m not sure why they don’t give you more room to account for the extra weight on the front and waste so much on the back/primary side. I have 2 Orion weights (1 and 3 lbs) I use for balance but these create their own issues if you aren’t careful and counterweights don’t really help when vertical. This is a problem when viewing as the OTA wants to go vertical. I crank down the bearings but it still slips sometimes.

 

I thought about blacking out the sides of the secondary but didn’t - i did add a Sharpie dot on each side of secondary to help with alignment tho, centered relative to the secondary mirror plane.

I have also purchased a few more nice EP’s (Astro-tech UWA 28mm, Ethos 13 (very nice!) & Delos 6mm) and a Paracor 2. I figure scopes are temporary but EP’s are permanent.  They make a significant difference in viewing on any scope. May as well get the best EP’s you can and try to buy once.

 

I recently ordered the William Optics binoviewer and 2 of the new SV245 8-16 mm zoom EP’s but don’t have any of this yet. I know I will have back-focus issues so I’ve been researching (via CN & ChatGPT) how I can use it with the least amount of barlow mag. I ordered the cheap but highly rated Aperture/GSO 2” 2x barlow and hoping to use the cell to get me where I need to be. I also have some 1.25” extensions I will try with the WO 1.6x barlow/OCS included with the BV. If neither works, a low profile focuser or Seibert Optics OCA may be in my future.

 

So, I’m on my 4th scope (5 if you count the Celestron 80mm I bought for the StarSense dock!) in 6 months, lol. I can be a little obsessive in case that isn’t obvious. It’s been an expensive but entertaining journey. I’m a little afraid to add it all up.

 

I plan to keep the 114 for solar viewing and the 8” dob for traveling. The 12” will probably stay at home. I will not be replacing the AD 12 anytime soon. Maybe a collapsible 16” dob or a nice refractor in the very distant future. Before that, I will add some more TV or Astro-tech 100 degree EP’s around 8 & 21 mm and maybe a 110 4.7mm cuz… 110! But, I will definitely slowing down on the purchases for now before I break the bank.

 

I do have one question for you.. did you remove the primary mirror from the cell and did you have 9 round double-sided stickers underneath? If so, what did you do with these when you reassembled?

In my case, each of the 3 triangles under the mirror had 3 of these (see pics). 2 still had the wax paper on them but 1 of the 3 was also stuck to the mirror. I just tried my best to put it back in the way I found it but it’s nearly impossible to line up the stickers as they were originally lined up. I just guessed and hoped for the best you could say. It does seem I have to screw in one of the primary collimation screws… not sure if this is why.

 

Cheers and clear skies!

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Edited by splashout, 19 June 2025 - 07:22 PM.

[Playa17bk]

Hi splashout, you made an amazing post with a lot of details. Looks like the astronomy bug got you too, LOL. The main point I gathered from your post is that EPs make a hige difference. I will admit that my EPs are all in the inexpensive range and I haven't been able to bring myself to pay the higher prices of the TVs, Astro Tech, etc, but based on yoir post and experience I may just have to bite the bullet and get one to see if it makes a difference for me. I removed the primary when I flocked my tube, but I did not remove the mirror from the cell, so I don't know if my AD12 has those stickers you asked about. I am very interested in the way you described the addition of cardboard under the cell and fan, that is something I have not done and may do this weekend. Great post! Keep it coming, we all learn from what others have done, that's the beauty of CN.

[tommylee340]

If you're going to jump into the higher quality EP realm you should definitely consider the Houdini 20mm.

 

https://www.houdinitelescopes.com/

https://agenaastro.c...telescopes.html

 

It is a great EP for fast reflectors and has coma correction built in so you don't have to purchase a separate corrector for wide field EPs that you would have to futz around with. This isn't a big deal for long in the tooth CN observers and there are plenty of threads on how to do use a CC correctly, but being relatively new to the hobby it seems like the Houdini would save you time and money. Also, the Houdini 12mm EP is scheduled for release in July along with a full line of additional focal lengths over the next few months. I plan on purchasing most of them for my fast reflectors as they become available.

On another note, if the "cross shaped glow" on brighter planets still bothers you, consider the poor man's solution I employ by using a cardboard down stop. I cut a circle out of thick cardboard the same size as the tube of my scope using a string compass and then an offset 5" hole placed 1.25"(?) from the edge. I place the stop over the tube opening so the 5" hole isn't obstructed by the spider vanes. Voila, no CSG! Using the stop turns my f/4.5 scope into f/11.8. Works great for observing the moon and bright planets like Jupiter. Over the years I've had the occasional experienced observer scoff at my jury-rigged set up, but hey, it works for me and that's all that counts.

[Tony Flanders]

Hi splashout, you made an amazing post with a lot of details. Looks like the astronomy bug got you too, LOL. The main point I gathered from your post is that EPs make a huge difference.

Here's a dissenting point of view on that subject. I have a pretty nice set of eyepieces, which I was in fact using just last night. (The eyepieces in question are the Pentax XL line, in 5.2, 7, 10.5, and 14 mm, plus the 30-mm UFF). It was a fine night, but if I had been using my $100 Celestron 8-24 zoom plus a cheap Barlow and a 32-mm Plossl, the experience would have been virtually identical, at much lower cost.

As far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one eyepiece, you've seen them all. The only thing that really matters to me is having the appropriate focal lengths, though I do like decent eye relief as well. Oh yes, I've seen the occasional dog that has really awful optical quality, but these days those are rare indeed -- unlike back in the bad old days.

I prefer eyepieces with a 68-degree apparent field of view to ones with a 50-degree apparent field of view, but only by a slim margin. And fortunately for my pocketbook, I actively dislike fields of view bigger than 70 degrees.

[Starman1]

Here's a dissenting point of view on that subject. I have a pretty nice set of eyepieces, which I was in fact using just last night. (The eyepieces in question are the Pentax XL line, in 5.2, 7, 10.5, and 14 mm, plus the 30-mm UFF). It was a fine night, but if I had been using my $100 Celestron 8-24 zoom plus a cheap Barlow and a 32-mm Plossl, the experience would have been virtually identical, at much lower cost.

As far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one eyepiece, you've seen them all. The only thing that really matters to me is having the appropriate focal lengths, though I do like decent eye relief as well. Oh yes, I've seen the occasional dog that has really awful optical quality, but these days those are rare indeed -- unlike back in the bad old days.

I prefer eyepieces with a 68-degree apparent field of view to ones with a 50-degree apparent field of view, but only by a slim margin. And fortunately for my pocketbook, I actively dislike fields of view bigger than 70 degrees.

You'd be a great observing buddy.  You'd never borrow my eyepieces as I actively dislike fields of view smaller than 75°

Your point is valid, though.  We obsess about the minutiae but sometimes forget the experience can be rewarding regardless of eyepiece used.

[dnrmilspec]

Love me some wide field eyepieces.  I have to admit though that for higher magnifications, binoviewers have been a Godsend for me since I have decided to give birth to a few floaters.  

 

I like the wider fields with my Dob and alt/az mounts because of the greater drift time.  When I am not using tracking the wider fields slow stuff down a bit.

 

I have two observations about my higher end eyepieces.  The Televue and Pentax products are consistently quite good.  So is the Explore Scientific 100 degree I have had for a short time.  

 

That said.

 

The difference between an expensive 82 degree eyepiece and a moderately priced one is often pretty subtle.  You can spend a whole lot of money trying to coax out a very subtle improvement from the scope/eyepiece.  As much as I love my 31 Nagler I would be hard pressed to recommend it to someone who is mindful of budget.  I frequently combine it with an Astro Physics diagonal and use it on scopes that cost less than the eyepiece and diagonal.  

 

When doing star parties I frequently demonstrate the different fields of view to people who are considering eyepiece purchases.  Plossl, Panoptic, Nagler.  Many even quite experienced observers have never tried them in quite that way.  

[Meterman]

If Southeastern New Mexico isn't too far away DM me. I have a 12" Dob and may be able to give you a hand. 

[Jon Isaacs]

Here's a dissenting point of view on that subject. I have a pretty nice set of eyepieces, which I was in fact using just last night. (The eyepieces in question are the Pentax XL line, in 5.2, 7, 10.5, and 14 mm, plus the 30-mm UFF). It was a fine night, but if I had been using my $100 Celestron 8-24 zoom plus a cheap Barlow and a 32-mm Plossl, the experience would have been virtually identical, at much lower cost.

As far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one eyepiece, you've seen them all. The only thing that really matters to me is having the appropriate focal lengths, though I do like decent eye relief as well. Oh yes, I've seen the occasional dog that has really awful optical quality, but these days those are rare indeed -- unlike back in the bad old days.

I prefer eyepieces with a 68-degree apparent field of view to ones with a 50-degree apparent field of view, but only by a slim margin. And fortunately for my pocketbook, I actively dislike fields of view bigger than 70 degrees.

 

I have eyepieces with AFOVs ranging from about 40 degrees to 110 degrees. To say that if you've seen one eyepiece, you have seen them all, that is just hyperbole.  

 

There are so many factors that go into the view an eyepiece provides.  You mention eye relief, the field of view, the off-axis correction, aberrations of multiple types, their performance in faster focal ratios, transmission, contrast.. 

 

I have to think that if a beginner from this forum came to visit and we setup a 4 inch F/7 refractor and I showed them the Veil Nebula  inch in a 25mm Kellner with a 40 degree AFoV and then swapped that eyepiece for a 25 mm Paradigm with a 60 degree field of view, they would find the difference dramatic.  And if I swapped that for a 28mm with an 84 degree AFoV, they would be reluctant to say:

 

"I've seen three eyepieces, as far as I'm concerned, I have seen them all."

 

Personally, I am OK with 60 degree Astro-Tech Paradigms but perfect wider fields.  Wider AFoVs allow the use of greater magnifications for many objects and longer transit times for manually tracked scopes. 

 

Jon

[Bearcub]

I'm a bit disappointed in what I am seeing.

 

My dob is just like yours. Its mediocre, while at first time ever me watching sky made me realise it was amazing, my eyes adapted extremely fast and now it performance subpar..

 

Planets are in and out of focus even after adjusting the focuser.

 

Clear sign of air turbulence inside telescope tube or high up in sky It can be overcome with different telescope, like insulated sct, maksutovs, or refractors. maksutov-newtonians are closed tube so there should be no air turbulence in such telescopes either i assume.

 

Everything seems to have a cross shaped glow.

 

The signature negative thing about dob, its called spider vanes.Newtonians, dobs, are worst with this..

 

If I do see nebulas they are faint and have absolutely no color.

 

Im no expert but at least orion nebula should show color even in worst type of sky. Bad weather conditions dont affect nebulas too much. If you use some sort of light pollution filter it might even reduce the colors. Dont expect to see colors on "lesser" nebulas who are much fainter than the major ones. If dob does anything it should do great for nebulas.

 

Can never see a double star at all.

 

There is no such thing where you open stellarium and click on a double star and it tells - "you can see it". I think all astronomy programs are absolutely fake when it comes to double stars. There is a list of double stars that can be seen properly, because there has to be certain distance between them, and brightness and the astronomy programs dont take into account the amateurs Live viewing. So it is okay to not see double stars, chances are those double stars you try to view are not suitable for amateurs.

 

[Tony Flanders]

I have eyepieces with AFOVs ranging from about 40 degrees to 110 degrees. To say that if you've seen one eyepiece, you have seen them all, that is just hyperbole.

Of course it is! All statements of the form "If you've seen one X, you've seen them all" are hyperbole.
 

I have to think that if a beginner from this forum came to visit and we setup a 4 inch F/7 refractor and I showed them the Veil Nebula  inch in a 25mm Kellner with a 40 degree AFoV and then swapped that eyepiece for a 25 mm Paradigm with a 60 degree field of view, they would find the difference dramatic.  And if I swapped that for a 28mm with an 84 degree AFoV, they would be reluctant to say:
 
"I've seen three eyepieces, as far as I'm concerned, I have seen them all."

I agree -- with the proviso that I've never seen a Kellner with a 40-degree AFOV. Fifty degrees is pretty much the norm. Kellners are altogether respectable eyepieces; their biggest difference from Plossls is that the outer part of the field of view is less sharp, especially at focal lengths of f/6 and faster.

 

For whatever reason, most beginners value wide apparent fields of view much more than I do. As far as I'm concerned, while I would likely enjoy the view through the Paradigm most, I would find all three essentially interchangeable at some fundamental level. As I said, I would be 100% content if I had to spend the whole rest of my life using just a Celestron 8-24 zoom, a decent 2X or 2.5X Barlow, and two carefully selected low-power eyepieces, one with 1.25-inch barrel and one with 2-inch barrel.

 

That four-eyepiece set wouldn't be absolutely optimal for all my scopes in all situations, but it would do just fine, thank you.

[Sketcher]

I prefer eyepieces with a 68-degree apparent field of view to ones with a 50-degree apparent field of view, but only by a slim margin. And fortunately for my pocketbook, I actively dislike fields of view bigger than 70 degrees.

In this case, we share the same preference.  In my 50+ years of telescope usage I've never purchased an eyepiece with an Apparent Field of View (AFOV) greater than 70-degrees.  In the mid 90s I acquired two (82-degree AFOV) TeleVue Naglers through a trade.  Those eyepieces ended up very rarely used.  Mostly I learned from that experience that I "actively dislike fields of view bigger than 70 degrees."

 

My reasons?  In no particular order:

 

 1) My eye-brain system can't make as effective use of AFOVs greater than 70-degrees.  This is a discovery I made back in my nights of visual comet-hunting.  Sweeping with a wider FOV resulted in an inability to distinguish comet candidates from other celestial objects -- particularly close groupings of 2 or more faint stars near the field edge.

 

2) I've developed a like for easily visible field stops.  Such field stops makes it easy to specify my true fields of view, easy to compare my fields of view with charts, easy to navigate via shifting 1-degree or so in this or that direction.  I know the true fields of view of all my telescope -- eyepiece combinations and occasionally find that information to be useful.

 

3)  Personally, I've never felt there were any advantages (for me) to having wider (than 70-degrees) AFOVs.  I tend to use smaller (shorter focal-length) telescopes than many -- having wider true field of view capabilities than many of those instruments that others have chosen to use.

 

4)  Price.  It makes no sense to me to pay more for a feature (wider AFOVs) that for me, has more disadvantages than advantages.

 

5) When I use my telescopes (and binoculars) I concentrate on the observation of particular celestial objects and/or their features.  I do often also value a "proper framing" of a few selected objects, but that's easily achievable with narrower AFOVs when using my instruments.  I place no value in "porthole" experiences and greater immersion in the heavens -- such effects do nothing to enhance that which I value in my observations.  I go out to observe, not to experience.

 

6) Eyepieces with wider AFOVs tend to be heavier than other eyepieces that are otherwise equivalent.  I tend to have less issues with balancing when changing eyepieces than some of those who have developed a preference for wider AFOVs.

 

7)  With my telescope choices I don't need wider AFOVs in order to make manual tracking more manageable.

 

8)  It wasn't all that long ago that any eyepiece with a wider AFOV than 65-degrees was a very rare bird.  My ways tend to be (mostly) older ways.  Newer "stuff" (wider AFOVs for example) isn't always better than the older stuff -- particularly for my ways.  I care less about acquiring the latest technologies than many.

 

9)  When I find something that works for me, I tend to stick with it.  70-degree and narrower AFOVs work for me.

 

10)  All other things being equal, wider AFOVs result in shorter (less comfortable) eye-relief.

Edited by Sketcher, 03 July 2025 - 11:29 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

Of course it is! All statements of the form "If you've seen one X, you've seen them all" are hyperbole.
 

I agree -- with the proviso that I've never seen a Kellner with a 40-degree AFOV. Fifty degrees is pretty much the norm. Kellners are altogether respectable eyepieces; their biggest difference from Plossls is that the outer part of the field of view is less sharp, especially at focal lengths of f/6 and faster.

 

For whatever reason, most beginners value wide apparent fields of view much more than I do. As far as I'm concerned, while I would likely enjoy the view through the Paradigm most, I would find all three essentially interchangeable at some fundamental level. As I said, I would be 100% content if I had to spend the whole rest of my life using just a Celestron 8-24 zoom, a decent 2X or 2.5X Barlow, and two carefully selected low-power eyepieces, one with 1.25-inch barrel and one with 2-inch barrel.

 

That four-eyepiece set wouldn't be absolutely optimal for all my scopes in all situations, but it would do just fine, thank you.

 

For what it's worth:

 

I have an old Meade 25mm MA, brass barrel etc.  It has an 18mm field stop which calculates out to 41 degrees.

 

I am happy to use the Paradigms. But I prefer wider field eyepieces. I do like wide fields of view, scanning the Milky Way, larger objects at higher magnifications.  I can take in the entire field of an 82 degree eyepiece without difficulty.  A 100 degree eyepiece, taking in the entire field is possible but it's more about the wider, seeming unrestricted field of view.  

 

If one has a scope that is optimized for wide field views, it's good to have eyepieces that complement such a telescope. Very often, it is not about a single object, it's about fields of stars and nebulosity, the wider, the better. And I enjoy viewing multiple galaxies in the same field of view.  In my larger scopes, my standard "finder eyepieces" provide about 300x, that's 0.20 degrees, a 100 degree eyepiece provides 0.33 degrees, that lets me view at higher magnifications with sufficient TFOV as well as view more widely separated galaxy's.

 

Jon

[Tony Flanders]

I can take in the entire field of an 82 degree eyepiece without difficulty.

Interesting. I can't really take in a full 50-degree apparent field of view. I think I see the central 30-40 degrees as a single gestalt, but the outer part is there mostly for context, and to help me glue together the fields of view as I pan the telescope.

I can build a mental picture of the full 50-degree field of view by scanning over it, but it takes time. I can also build a mental picture of a 100-degree field of view scanning over it while using a 50-degree eyepiece, though that obviously takes a lot longer. It's probably marginally easier for me to do this if that entire 100-degree field of view is technically visible without moving the telescope. But in terms of visual comfort, I'd rather move the scope than squint off at absurd angles.

However, this discussion has strayed far from the original subject, so it's perhaps best to leave it there, or resume it in the Eyepieces forum.