Seriously though that is about the only difference as far as I know. There is no difference to the amount of light making it to your eye (as I thought there would be) or anything else. The larger FOV (Field of View) Ep's tend to be 2" because they need the larger body to accommodate the lenses used in their design. Someone please correct me if any of this is wrong
You could have used a 1.25" ep with a larger eye lens.
That's a little deceptive.
A vixen LVW or Pentax XW would offer a fairer comparison.
Send me one and it will be my pleasure
That's all I have to work with, so you mean that the LVW and XW have a significantly bigger eye lense? Now you got ME interested, can someone post a big pic of one of those next to a plossl??
I use mainly 1.25" with a few 2" e/p's. For short focal lengths there is really no advantage to 2" barrels. 2" eyepieces are usually long focal length (low magnification) and wide angle.
Someone has to stick up for them poor defenceless 1.25s.
So here's another picture.
Top row, all 2": 27mm Pano, 30mm Superview, 17mm T4
Bottom row, all 1.25": 26mm Meade 5000 PL, 13mm Stratus, 10mm XW
The real diff is that the true FOV of a 1.25" vs 2" is limited by barrel size to approx 1600 vs 2000 degrees divided by the focal length of the scope in mm. e.g. 10" Dob with FL = 1250mm: Max possible true FOV of 1.25" EP is 1600/1250 = 1.3 degrees, of 2" is 2000/1250 = 1.6 degrees.
Your in Sydney, there are a few Astro Clubs there, go to a meeting and ask them to let you look through various eyepieces, I am sure they will be more than happy. Best way for a beginner to learn, they will also no doubt, have a number of different telescopes as well.
TeZZa, Why don't you go along to Kulnura this weekend. The guys there will make you feel more than welcome and I'm sure they'll let you try out a few eyepieces.
