Re: 1.25" or 2" focuser???
From: Kirk Brown (kbpayh_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/25/04
- Next message: David Knisely: "Re: Ranking light pollution"
- Previous message: matt: "Re: What is a shape of secondary in Schmidt-Cassegrain Celestron 9 1/4?"
- In reply to: bob: "1.25" or 2" focuser???"
- Next in thread: Del Johnson: "Re: 1.25" or 2" focuser???"
- Reply: Del Johnson: "Re: 1.25" or 2" focuser???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Jun 2004 21:40:23 -0700
Just make sure your secondary is large enough to make the 2" worth it.
My 6" f/8 has a smallish secondary, and while the views on-axis with
my 2" eyepiece are great, off-axis they drop to zero quickly.
bob <bob@bob.com> wrote in message news:<81c56b7df2694ae0375a5870a9beadef@news.teranews.com>...
> Trying to decide between a 1.25" focuser or a 2" for my 8" f/6 dob. Price
> is a concern, but hopefully, someday I'll be able to afford a Nagler or 2.
> Right now, all I have are 1.25" plossls.
>
> Don't most Naglers work in a 1.25" or a 2" focuser? Is there any downside
> to putting one in a 1.25" focuser, instead of a 2" one, or is the
> performance the same?
>
> thanks
- Next message: David Knisely: "Re: Ranking light pollution"
- Previous message: matt: "Re: What is a shape of secondary in Schmidt-Cassegrain Celestron 9 1/4?"
- In reply to: bob: "1.25" or 2" focuser???"
- Next in thread: Del Johnson: "Re: 1.25" or 2" focuser???"
- Reply: Del Johnson: "Re: 1.25" or 2" focuser???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]