53 replies to this topic

[snakehelah]

Mass produced 12” Dobs are typically F5. There are expensive custom 12” Dobs that can be less than F5, whatever you want really. But if you are ordering one of those, you probably aren’t concerned about the price of eyepieces.

Btw - not technically an eyepiece question but I'm getting used to the inverted view of the finder scope, while it's fine, im wondering if a red dot would be better. Obviously it would offer no magnification, but at the same time, would not need to scoot up into the finder scope to look through it, might be less strain on the neck? Seems there are some OK variants like the omegon one that aren't too pricey: https://www.astrosho...-finder/p,47014

[SeattleScott]

I would avoid the bargain basement ones. The adjustments don’t tend to work well so you often get a finder that you can’t optimally align without some shimming.

The best is really a Telrad or Rigel Quikfinder, because then you have the best of both worlds. The red dot to get you in the right zip code, and the magnifying finder to zero in.

[grace]

If the issue is the position (since you hint at the neck) you might consider a finder with a diagonal like a RACI. I have a telrad+RACI and I find both essential for effective star-hopping in my polluted skies.

[Jay_Reynolds_Freeman]

There is an issue with red-dot finders that affects some of us but is not often mentioned: If you are nearsighted and like to take your glasses off when viewing through the main telescope, it can be a pain to keep putting them back on every time you want to use the red-dot finder to look at the sky.

[snakehelah]

I received the Baader zoom + barlow. As a treat I added a few other eyepieces just to test the waters with wide FOV. I like getting more premium products whenever I can but the Televue prices seemed bonkers and a lot of them were not  available in EU or long wait times. I noticed some Explore Scientific ones had some good deals I could take advantage of and from reviews they seemed like close to premium quality without breaking the bank as much.

Also, I actually reconsidered from the 30mm 70degree in favor of more FOV 28mm 2" 82degree tecnosky but I am still waiting for it to arrive. I don't mind shorter eye relief as usually as I like to get my eye in there without glasses, my astigmatism isn't super bad and in general and I didn't notice any big difference in the plossls with our without glasses.

The extras I got were:
ES 14mm 100 degree + ES 11mm 82 degree.

Seems the skies will be clear tonight so I'll do some test driving. Will report back later with my thoughts on the viewing experience.

Initial thoughts on the build quality and unboxing of these 3 eyepieces:
 

Baader zoom Mark IV + barlow - I don't particularly like the feel of the eyecup, the default one feels like cheap plastic and turns which allows you to pull it out more - not sure why you would use this as it would reduce the FOV? 

The material of the eyecups seems very different from the rest of the eyepiece, worse quality than the rest of the components?

The clicks for zoom are nice though. The overall build quality seems fine except for the eyecup, you can replace it with two other eyecups, but it doesn't feel nice using either eyecup tbh. Also, the bottom protector cap seems to be flimsy and not very tight, easy for it to fall off? For an eyepiece of this price point it's a bit weird, but okay.

The barlow is purely a 1,25" one so unfortunately I won't be able to use it in 2" eyepieces. But looks to be of great build quality, not even comparable to the cheap plastic 2x barlow that I got with the used dob. I'll see how it holds up with the 1.25" eyepieces I have and of course on the Baader Zoom.

ES 100 14mm and 82 11mm - these seem to be definitely on a higher level build quality than the Baader Zoom even without having looked through them. These feel premium out of the box, although the baggies that come with them, I assume to keep them dust free, are definitely not premium, the plastic cap on the end of the tightening rope to close the bag just busted off, almost making me drop the eyepiece when I was putting it in the bag.

The 14mm is a literal hand grenade, but the 8" dob doesn't seem to be having any issues handling it in the 2" adapter, I was worried it might be too much but it seems just at the limit. Anything heavier would definitely introduce problems.

The 11mm, same great build quality as the 14mm but normal sized.

Will post more impressions and comparisons after tonights session

[Starman1]

Hello,

 

I've been naked-eye viewing stars and planets for a long time... decided to go ahead and get a used 8" dob - it came with default plossl 25mm, 10mm and additional 6.3mm and some 2x plastic barlow.

I love the 25mm! But the others are not really fun to use at all due to their small pupil, I don't want to be squinting all the time and I wear glasses as well so it makes it difficult to use them.

 

I've spent some time reading on the forums, reddit, etc. about all the available eyepieces and what their use case is for various objects, etc.

 

Still, I am curious what various dob 8" owners have and use on the daily, or what they recommend - I noticed I do have a 2" adapter with the scope - are there any pros or cons of using 1.25 vs 2" eyepieces? What if I were to want to get a larger aperture dob in some years? Are there some overlaps between eyepieces that work for different apertures?
 

So far, I've narrowed down these options:
Baader Hyperion Universal Mark IV zoom eyepiece + zoom Barlow lens set

This seems widely recommended as the best starter kit you can get for your money with the biggest benefit being convenience. I was seriously considering this one, just because not switching eyepieces seems like a very convenient thing. But ultimately a lot of people recommend just having 1-2 solid pieces such as a 10mm + a 25-30 mm wide FOV one and that for similar money (minus the barlow).

I noticed one user - astro.catshill in his blogpost explains that there also needs to be a 35mm 2" extension that you use if you want to go for this combo. I assume the below extension would work?

Omegon 2“ Extension tube, 35mm optical path - I've heard that if you want to use 2" scopes on the Classic 200P 8" Dob, you might need some additional extension to accomodate the focus (on top of the 2" adapter) - is this true? 

Other eyepieces:

Omegon Oberon 32mm 2'' - haven't been able to find any reviews on this online that would give any sort of definitive review. Only some vague posts about it being a copy of another eyepiece and that the 82 fov is actually 70, though the weight of this piece seems overkill...

 

Omegon Redline SW 32mm 2" cheaper alternative to the above.

Omegon SWA 32mm, 2” eyepiece - similar as above...?

 

Baader Hyperion 31mm, aspheric - hyperion line from baader seems to get mixed feedback.

Baader Hyperion 13 mm - consensus is morpheus is a better investment, but I doubt I will care much for the more premium lineup considering im moving from the default scopes. 

What I also saw was recommended from Chinese options as insanely good for the price (how do these compare to the ones above?):
Angeleyes 70° FMC 14mm 1.25''
Sky Rover 2 inch 70 degree UF 30mm

Though you can add more eyepieces to make a more complete set, I recommend 5 eyepieces that yield 50/100/150/200/and 250x

That would be 24mm, 12mm, 8mm, 6mm, 4.7-4.8mm.

 

The eyepieces you mention don't all function well in an f/6 scope.

Oberon--same as Celestron Luminos.  OK at f/6

Redline 32mm--lots of lateral astigmatism at f/6

Omegon SWA--same as William Optics SWAN, and has lots of lateral astigmatism at f/6

Hyperion 31mm--same edge of field problems

Hyperion 13mm--the worst in the line, with edge of field brightening.

Angeleyes 14mm--a step up in quality.

Sky Rover 2" 30mm Ultra flat field--the best of the entire group you mention.  The Tecnosky is the exact same eyepiece.  This eyepiece is sold under 8 different labels.

 

I'd look at (to keep prices low)

Sky Rover 24mm Ultra Flat field for a lower power (or EU brand that is the same eyepiece with a different label)

The Baader Zoom only fills in for a couple more focal lengths.

If you like the idea of zooms, Svbony makes a decent 3-8mm zoom that would fill in for any/all high powers for planets, Moon, and double stars.

[snakehelah]

Though you can add more eyepieces to make a more complete set, I recommend 5 eyepieces that yield 50/100/150/200/and 250x

That would be 24mm, 12mm, 8mm, 6mm, 4.7-4.8mm.

 

The eyepieces you mention don't all function well in an f/6 scope.

Oberon--same as Celestron Luminos.  OK at f/6

Redline 32mm--lots of lateral astigmatism at f/6

Omegon SWA--same as William Optics SWAN, and has lots of lateral astigmatism at f/6

Hyperion 31mm--same edge of field problems

Hyperion 13mm--the worst in the line, with edge of field brightening.

Angeleyes 14mm--a step up in quality.

Sky Rover 2" 30mm Ultra flat field--the best of the entire group you mention.  The Tecnosky is the exact same eyepiece.  This eyepiece is sold under 8 different labels.

 

I'd look at (to keep prices low)

Sky Rover 24mm Ultra Flat field for a lower power (or EU brand that is the same eyepiece with a different label)

The Baader Zoom only fills in for a couple more focal lengths.

If you like the idea of zooms, Svbony makes a decent 3-8mm zoom that would fill in for any/all high powers for planets, Moon, and double stars.

Thanks for checking in here - I already got eyepieces which would be:
 

Baader zoom + barlow for higher power

ES 100 degree 2" 14mm and ES 82 degree 11mm 1,25" for medium power

Tecnosky (skyrover/astrotech etc.) 28mm 2" 82 degree for low power

Edited by snakehelah, 02 April 2025 - 10:19 AM.

[Olimad]

Another option is the Houdini coma-corrected eyepiece line.

 

The first focal length to be released will be the 20mm, priced at 339 €.

 

Designed by a Belgian company and manufactured by KUO (which also produces the well-known APM UFF 30mm or the Skywatcher Nirvana, we talked above), this eyepiece is coma-corrected and should offer good edge correction.

 

The 20mm has a 30mm field stop, resulting in a true field of view (TFoV) of 1.435° in your scope (30/1200 × 57.296) with 60x magnification for an Exit Pupil of 4,23mm, but coma-corrected—compared to 1.76° for the APM UFF 30mm giving a magnification of 40x and an Exit Pupil of 6,35mm, which is not coma-corrected.

 

A 12mm version will also be available soon.

 

There is no user feedback yet on this eyepiece, but KUO is known for producing high-quality eyepieces, so it seems like a safe bet.

 

It might be worth waiting a bit before making a decision on purchasing any eyepiece.

 

For more information, visit:
https://www.houdinitelescopes.com/

 

And check this thread too:

https://www.cloudyni...ming-a-reality/

[snakehelah]

Another option is the Houdini coma-corrected eyepiece line.

 

The first focal length to be released will be the 20mm, priced at 339 €.

 

Designed by a Belgian company and manufactured by KUO (which also produces the well-known APM UFF 30mm or the Skywatcher Nirvana, we talked above), this eyepiece is coma-corrected and should offer good edge correction.

 

The 20mm has a 30mm field stop, resulting in a true field of view (TFoV) of 1.435° in your scope (30/1200 × 57.296) with 60x magnification for an Exit Pupil of 4,23mm, but coma-corrected—compared to 1.76° for the APM UFF 30mm giving a magnification of 40x and an Exit Pupil of 6,35mm, which is not coma-corrected.

 

A 12mm version will also be available soon.

 

There is no user feedback yet on this eyepiece, but KUO is known for producing high-quality eyepieces, so it seems like a safe bet.

 

It might be worth waiting a bit before making a decision on purchasing any eyepiece.

 

For more information, visit:
https://www.houdinitelescopes.com/

 

And check this thread too:

https://www.cloudyni...ming-a-reality/

Thanks for showing this. Seems promising, I'll admit I might have rushed a bit with the eyepieces but as I understand you can always sell them and get back most of your cost if you keep them in mint condition. I'll definitely keep these in mind if I ever upgrade to a faster dob.

Edited by snakehelah, 02 April 2025 - 11:35 AM.

[snakehelah]

Update on the new eyepieces I have tested tonight (sadly, visibility or seeing wasn't that good, lots of flickering stars tonight):

Probably the most impressive of the bunch - the Explore Scientific 14mm 100°. This is one heavy eyepiece, I knew the 100 degree eyepieces are huge, but this was daunting to use.

The moon fits whole in this eyepiece despite it being 14mm. Maybe my eye is untrained but I haven't noticed the described coma effect on stars that much, maybe on the very edges but you have to really turn your head to actually look for it there to see it. Probably using a f4.5/f5 would be worse. Otherwise, excellent sharp, crisp image all around.

The "spaceship window" effect - I understand what people meant when going over some constellations. You bury your eye in this thing and all you will see is space, the outside world does not creep up on your peripheral vision at all. 

Downsides - very heavy for an 8" dob, any smaller scopes and this probably wouldn't be usable. It really pushes down on the focuser sometimes and you have to be careful not to push your eye in too much or it will ruin the focus. Also, using this with glasses is not really an option, but I don't mind since I usually don't really use them with the scope anyway.

Explore Scientific 11mm 82° - similar to the 14mm, but looks more like an actual eyepiece than a grenade. Same good build quality, same crisp views, just higher power and smaller but very good FOV. Will need to use it more, barlowing it on Jupiter was pretty nice.

 

Baader Hyperion Zoom mark IV + Barlow combo - I'll admit, I'm quite torn on this one. On one hand, it's very convenient to be able to zoom through the image. You essentially have many eyepieces in one. But it feels like this also means there are too many compromises.

FOV is not great except on the 8mm mode. Using it without the Barlow feels strange, because 8mm feels similarish to 10mm, and the other ranges I feel like I cover with the other ES eyepieces.

The biggest strength is the zoom, and being able to adjust it to find the best mag level on a planet is great. I might have been using it wrong, but I really felt on the max zooms with the barlow I was literally seeing my own eyelashes in the eyepiece...? I wanted to get closer to the eyepiece to get the max FOV but I kept getting kidney bean/eyelashes effect in the view. Not being so close solved this but then it felt like there wasn't much FOV anymore, maybe I got spoiled from using the large FOV ES pieces.

I'll have to use this one more, definitely. From looking at Jupiter for an hour, I think it's great for planetary views, but removing the Barlow is cumbersome and feels like it defeats the purpose of having a zoom eyepiece in the first place, i.e not having to switch eyepieces. What is more, you can only use the barlow on 1.25 " eyepieces. It feels like I wanted more from what the bundle cost as this was the most expensive from the bunch.

Edited by snakehelah, 02 April 2025 - 05:38 PM.

[BDS316]

He also prefers a 13 Type 1 Nagler to a 13 Type 6 Nagler. Ed is not what I would call a discriminating connoisseur of eyepieces. Nothing against a 27 Panoptic, but it wouldn’t be my choice for a low power eyepiece at F6.

The 27mm Pan would provide 44x with an actual field of 1.5 degrees and an exit pupil of 4.5 mm.  Pretty good for my usual sky conditions north of Boston.

 

As the past president of a medium sized astronomy club I've had the opportunity to try dozens of low power eyepieces in my 8 inch f/6 Dob over they years and I've had the best results with the 27 pan, the 30mm APM UFF and my 32mm Televue Plossl.

 

What would your choice be if not the 27 pan?

Edited by BDS316, 03 April 2025 - 08:58 AM.

[snakehelah]

The 27mm Pan would provide 44x with an actual field of 1.5 degrees and an exit pupil of 4.5 mm.  Pretty good for my usual sky conditions north of Boston.

 

As the past president of a medium sized astronomy club I've had the opportunity to try dozens of low power eyepieces in my 8 inch f/6 Dob over they years and I've had the best results with the 27 pan, the 30mm APM UFF and my 32mm Televue Plossl.

 

What would your choice be if not the 27 pan?

What do you think of the 28mm 82degree APM vs the 30mm 70ish degree?

Actually, are these the same as tecnosky/astrotech? There's so many rebrands it's hard to keep up.

[snakehelah]

Eyepiece update #3:

Received the 28mm 2" tecnosky 82° today, but skies are not looking good today so observation is probably delayed for when it gets better.

I've been out yesterday more with the eyepieces and what can I say, I don't really have anything bad to say about the ES ones. I guess maybe if I used them in faster scopes it would be a different story? But either way, these always feel good to use and throughout the last nights I probably used them the most.

 

The Baader IV zoom on the other hand, I am having a hard time liking for some reason. Sure it's useful due to being multi purpose with the zoom and all, but I find it frustrating to use and I'm not sure why.

Something about swapping eyepieces just feels better, and that kind of surprised me as I initially thought I want the least amount of swapping. Also, I might be wrong or the conditions just changed quickly between testing the eyepieces but i just didn't find it as sharp as the ES ones - even on planets?

To use it for the maximum zooms, it has to be barlowed, so I'm either using it barlowed to get close on planets (which works great, sure but it feels like the only use case) but I feel I don't use it that much otherwise.

 

Zooming in still requires to refocus, same as when swapping an eyepiece, and the barlow is kind of weird and unfortunately not usable on 2" eyepieces. I'm kind of considering returning the bundle and instead just getting a higher power eyepiece with decent FOV.

Edited by snakehelah, 04 April 2025 - 10:58 AM.

[jrmacl]

Eyepiece update #3:

Received the 28mm 2" tecnosky 82° today, but skies are not looking good today so observation is probably delayed for when it gets better.

I've been out yesterday more with the eyepieces and what can I say, I don't really have anything bad to say about the ES ones. I guess maybe if I used them in faster scopes it would be a different story? But either way, these always feel good to use and throughout the last nights I probably used them the most.

 

The Baader IV zoom on the other hand, I am having a hard time liking for some reason. Sure it's useful due to being multi purpose with the zoom and all, but I find it frustrating to use and I'm not sure why.

Something about swapping eyepieces just feels better, and that kind of surprised me as I initially thought I want the least amount of swapping. Also, I might be wrong or the conditions just changed quickly between testing the eyepieces but i just didn't find it as sharp as the ES ones - even on planets?

To use it for the maximum zooms, it has to be barlowed, so I'm either using it barlowed to get close on planets (which works great, sure but it feels like the only use case) but I feel I don't use it that much otherwise.

 

Zooming in still requires to refocus, same as when swapping an eyepiece, and the barlow is kind of weird and unfortunately not usable on 2" eyepieces. I'm kind of considering returning the bundle and instead just getting a higher power eyepiece with decent FOV.

can I ask what you paid for the zoom? It's kinda why I always recommend getting the sv135 for only $40-$50 and seeing if zooms are for you before spending the big bucks, same with Barlows- just get a $15 one to try first

[snakehelah]

can I ask what you paid for the zoom? It's kinda why I always recommend getting the sv135 for only $40-$50 and seeing if zooms are for you before spending the big bucks, same with Barlows- just get a $15 one to try first

It was a decent amount, is all I will say, like almost the price of 2x good eyepieces.

I did try a cheap barlow before and It was fine with the plossls.

Anyway, I'll test it some more and i'll decide if I keep it, but so far it's mixed feelings

Edited by snakehelah, 04 April 2025 - 12:47 PM.

[snakehelah]

Update;

I was not convinced with the baader zoom + barlow combo so I returned it.

Compared to my ES pieces it just wasn't up to par except for high power needs and for that I think I'm better off just getting a dedicated eyepiece. I don't particularly like using a barlow as well... anyone else feel that way?

On that note, anyone have any suggestions for a high power one with decent fov?

I'm thinking to stay on the brands I already have - either a tecnosky or ES one, 6.7mm maybe? 

I generally don't find something high power used that much except for planets. And even then it's rare due to poor seeing. But I do love to look at Jupiter a lot.

ES 6.7mm 82 degrees seems to be a no brainer, but I heard their high power pieces aren't as good as the lower power ones?

Maybe tecnosky 7mm 82? 

Any other suggestions?

Edited by snakehelah, 08 April 2025 - 04:59 PM.

[Jay_Reynolds_Freeman]

I don't particularly like using a barlow as well... anyone else feel that way?

Barlows add air/glass interfaces, which may reduce contrast because of scattered and multiply-reflected light.

 

Not all Barlows work well with all eyepieces, or at fast focal ratios. "Try before you buy" is good advice.

 

 

Clear sky.

[snakehelah]

for a good planetary piece would you guys recommend a 4.7mm or a 6.7mm? 

[Jay_Reynolds_Freeman]

for a good planetary piece would you guys recommend a 4.7mm or a 6.7mm? 

Both, depending on which planet you are looking at and how good the seeing is. I believe you already have a 6 mm: If it works for you, then the next reasonable step up could be the 4.7 mm or even something with a bit shorter focal length. If you don't like your 6 mm, then a 6.7 mm would probably get used more often as the next eyepiece, than a 4.7 mm, but that does depend on how good your seeing is and on what you are observing.

 

Clear sky ...

[snakehelah]

Both, depending on which planet you are looking at and how good the seeing is. I believe you already have a 6 mm: If it works for you, then the next reasonable step up could be the 4.7 mm or even something with a bit shorter focal length. If you don't like your 6 mm, then a 6.7 mm would probably get used more often as the next eyepiece, than a 4.7 mm, but that does depend on how good your seeing is and on what you are observing.

 

Clear sky ...

Mostly Jupiter, Saturn when it will become available. I tried Mars and never had good enough seeing to be able to make out any detail it's so small of a planet.

The 6.3mm plossl is OK but the 10mm definitely has better clarity. The 10mm was part of the dob package and the 6.3mm was just something the previous owner of the dob bought, seems to be the cheapest of cheap of plossls.

Edit: 

Opted for the 4.7mm ES 82.
 

Edited by snakehelah, 10 April 2025 - 06:38 AM.

[snakehelah]

Final update:

the new ES 4.7mm is great for Jupiter or planets in general - awesome!

So far I tried a Baader and Tecnosky eyepiece other than the Explore Scientific brand, and honestly, Best quality seems to be coming from ES. 

 

The Tecnosky is fine build wise but I dislike the default rubber caps that come with it, and it doesn't come with it's own nice cloth bag like the ES ones do. The eyecup on the piece also feels bad compared to ES pieces for some reason.

The only complaint about ES I really have is the eye relief. It's super weird if I'm being honest. I don't really want to use glasses with eyepieces so I take them off, but then going too close gets you all sorts of unwanted effects like the kidney bean or seeing your eyelashes, etc.

The sweetspot for those is definitely something you have to get used to. I find the eyecup being out does a good job of letting you know the optimal distance. Honestly, I prefer to really get in the eyepiece to eliminate any background in my view, but I'll have to makeshift some shroud for observing as just cramming your eye in the eyepiece isn't the best tactic.

All in all, thanks everyone for the suggestions, I ended up not enjoying the Baader zoom and returning it and Explore Scientific seems to be a great choice for "premium" but not Televue break your bank type of eyepiece brand.

 

ES definitely feels premium enough at least to me... I'm sure the Televue ones are up and above ES, but in some cases I find that means also going double in price and I already felt I went way overboard with spending on eyepieces. Here's the end result I stayed with:

Tecnosky 28mm 82° 2"
ES 14mm 100° 2"

ES 11mm 82° 1.25"
ES 4.7mm 82° 1.25" 

These four are what I consider "enough" for me for observing most stuff. If I was really skimping I could perhaps omit the 14mm, but I really wanted to try a 100 degree piece and I do enjoy it quite a bit because of the huge FOV.

If I really had to nitpick, instead of the 14mm, Maybe a 20mm would fill the gap nicely? But I'm not sure what objects I would use that on that I couldn't use the 14mm or 28mm on. 

Either way, I also hope these will serve me well in case I ever decide to also get a bigger Dob like a 12" or 14" or 16" even. 

Edited by snakehelah, 16 April 2025 - 04:40 AM.

[Starman1]

Final update:

the new ES 4.7mm is great for Jupiter or planets in general - awesome!

So far I tried a Baader and Tecnosky eyepiece other than the Explore Scientific brand, and honestly, Best quality seems to be coming from ES.

The Tecnosky is fine build wise but I dislike the default rubber caps that come with it, and it doesn't come with it's own nice cloth bag like the ES ones do. The eyecup on the piece also feels bad compared to ES pieces for some reason.

The only complaint about ES I really have is the eye relief. It's super weird if I'm being honest. I don't really want to use glasses with eyepieces so I take them off, but then going too close gets you all sorts of unwanted effects like the kidney bean or seeing your eyelashes, etc.

The sweetspot for those is definitely something you have to get used to. I find the eyecup being out does a good job of letting you know the optimal distance. Honestly, I prefer to really get in the eyepiece to eliminate any background in my view, but I'll have to makeshift some shroud for observing as just cramming your eye in the eyepiece isn't the best tactic.

All in all, thanks everyone for the suggestions, I ended up not enjoying the Baader zoom and returning it and Explore Scientific seems to be a great choice for "premium" but not Televue break your bank type of eyepiece brand.

ES definitely feels premium enough at least to me... I'm sure the Televue ones are up and above ES, but in some cases I find that means also going double in price and I already felt I went way overboard with spending on eyepieces. Here's the end result I stayed with:

Tecnosky 28mm 82° 2"
ES 14mm 100° 2"
ES 11mm 82° 1.25"
ES 4.7mm 82° 1.25"

These four are what I consider "enough" for me for observing most stuff. If I was really skimping I could perhaps omit the 14mm, but I really wanted to try a 100 degree piece and I do enjoy it quite a bit because of the huge FOV.

If I really had to nitpick, instead of the 14mm, Maybe a 20mm would fill the gap nicely? But I'm not sure what objects I would use that on that I couldn't use the 14mm or 28mm on.

Either way, I also hope these will serve me well in case I ever decide to also get a bigger Dob like a 12" or 14" or 16" even.

You could use something between 4.7mm and 11mm.
That is a huge gap.

[snakehelah]

You could use something between 4.7mm and 11mm.
That is a huge gap.

I have the 25mm 10mm and 6.3mm plossls that came with the dob, but I don't use them that much.

What would be the FL to cover in between that then?

[Starman1]

I have the 25mm 10mm and 6.3mm plossls that came with the dob, but I don't use them that much.

What would be the FL to cover in between that then?

Maybe 8mm+/-.

[jrmacl]

Maybe 8mm+/-.

and just when you thought you were out, they pull you back in