[Dober (Steve)]

Firstly thanks for all for their comments.

Astro744,

very detailed explanation of the relationship between the primary and secondary mirrors and there application in terms of viewing various objects. So much to consider. Thank you for the links also.

I have abandoned the idea of changing primary mirror due to previous comments received and given the implications for other existing components and tube length, a bit to much trouble for me at present given my lack of experience at his time. It sounds like for that mirror I might as well build a scope from the ground up, something for another day. Your comments will go in my file for future reference. Thanks for making the effort and taking the time to respond.


Carlton,

thanks for your inquiry also. I have to say I haven't conducted any objective tests and for the most part I'm Ok with my scope and think it works well but I am slowly making adjustment in an effort to get the best out of it. The mirror I was thinking about was a Zambuto and your article speaks highly of them.

The link you provided sort of backed up my thoughts and the reason I asked about secondary mirrors and their effect on a premium primary. I surmised that the potential of a top of the line primary may be diminished by a lessor secondary or for that matter a budget eyepiece and maybe the viewers own eyeball. That's with all things being equal in terms of seeing, colimation etc.

The link also touched on an advantage of a premium mirror that also rang true for me and that is they provide better contrast, something that a lot of people talk about with eyepieces and scope improvements. I have that basic understanding and last year flocked my entire scope, blackened screw heads and focuser tube to help with contrast.

After Carlton's inquiry I thought I would explain how my original question came about.

I toyed with getting a bigger scope than read somewhere that with premium optics one may get a view compared to a scope with a bit more aperture due to the quality of a primary given they provided better contrast. I had a thought (misguided maybe) that say a 12" - 14" would cost x$ but present other issues around transport, coma etc. It maybe a stretch to think an 8" with good glass would get the view of a - 12"- 14" but might be good enough of an improvement to justify the cost and still have ease of transport.

After all a 21 Ethos costs $1,349, 31 Nagler $1,050 which from what I understand many have invested in. Both of those by themselves cost more than my 8" Go-To. I don't have either of those but I have purchased other less expensive Tele Vues in hope getting the best out of my scope and viewing experience. It all helps and investing in good glass I think will pay off.

The way I am looking at it is with the $'s you can always get a better scope but while I am starting out I don't mind making some adjustments or strategic purchases on transferable accessories or fit out to get a better or deeper view.

Steve