1.25" vs 2"

[CHRISZ]

Hey people,

as im new to all this just wanted to get a few opinions on 1.25" eyepieces vs 2".

I have an 11" celestron scope with 1.25" ep and never used a 2"

Is there a noticable difference in viewing quality do to size?
Is bigger better?
Or should i not bother and stick with 1.25"

all opinions appreciated.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/images/misc/progress.gif

[Ian Robinson]

Vignetting with 1.25" , less with 2"

If you are into imaging , bigger is better too .

[coldspace]

Generally I would stick with the 1.25 pieces for higher power viewing with your C11. Say 25mm and under, and if you want a low power wide field go up to a 2 inch piece. I use a 13 mm Nagler with my 12 inch 200R on planets ,small galaxies or planetaries as you get a nice 8o degree view and good power. For lower power viewing of larger objects such as Eta or orion nebs or moon you can't beat the 35mm Panoptic 2 inch with these long focal length scopes. So stick with you 1.25 pieces and invest with 1 or 2 at most 35mm or higher 2 inch eyepieces to get wide field low power views and stick with the 1.25 pieces say 26mm or less for higher powers.

Matt.

[MarkN]

G'day Chris,

Field of View gets down to the Field Stop of the EP. The 1.25" format is limited by barrel size to 27 mm. regardless of focal length. I have a 40 mm TV plossl and can't get all of NGC3532 in the FOV with an 8" LX90.

As Matt notes, a 35 mm Panoptic (38.7 mm field stop) will yield superior views of large nebulae in your long focal length C11. At the most recent price of $389 it's fantastic value!

Mark.