Hyperion eyepiece 17mm is like many inches

Dobsonian 8 '' or 10 ''

Hello Günther,

Quote from * removed * GMS:

In all honesty, nothing has been invalidated here.
For the same axis and edge sharpness over the full AP band, you shell out significantly more at f / 5.

Click in this field to view it in full size.

I don't see it that way anymore. Eyepieces for f / 5 are available for around 100 € / piece.

I had to let myself be called Betonkopf when I argued against the pill tube representatives for years in a frenzy of opening the 8 "f / 6, [...]

Click in this field to view it in full size.

We're not talking about that here, so don't make a crusade out of it, it doesn't help anyone, least of all the TO.

(we see this on the observation fields if we want to see it) the majority of the 8 "f / 6 owners entering the car actually see no less than the beginners with the faster 10-inch models.

Click in this field to view it in full size.

That is probably true, I have already confirmed the same thing, that's why I see the statement 'in the 10 "you can see a lot more' rather critically, the beginner, who mainly enjoys the M's and bright NGC's, won't even get the more in the can see direct comparison, apart from that, I once rumored that most of the tubes in the field are used only about 80% adjusted.

I know how to put the brakes on costs at f / 5. Simply leave out the very large AP, i.e. the 30-35 eyepiece and instead use the inexpensive multiple clone with a 24 mm focal length.

Click in this field to view it in full size.

And that's all of a sudden wrong? In all honesty, I myself have the 16 very often and prefer the 24 rather than the 30 for various reasons, not least because I know from the start that with the 30 I would only have one more unnecessary change in the oku. The 30s has completely different tasks.

What do we do when there is someone who also observes planets with Plössl and Co? No problem at f / 6, but only with Barlow at f / 5.

Click in this field to view it in full size.

What are 'we' doing there? I can't quite figure out what you're actually getting at. If it now comes down to the fact that the 10er is completely unsuitable for planets, then I will give a clear no to this, based on purely practical experience.

The bag of tricks is always used and an 8-inch device is followed by a 12-inch device and a 10-inch device is followed by a 16-inch device. I can't find the stone in which this is carved.

Click in this field to view it in full size.

This stone does not exist, but there are quite a few people I know next to me who have also taken this 6 "step. One even just recently, whom you also know well. What does that mean, is that right or wrong?

Let me say that it is extremely useful to keep the 8-inch device as a fast-paced and compact (planetary) device and then jump to 14 "+ X. A 10-inch device is borderline in every respect.

Click in this field to view it in full size.

Mean? So, as I watch the market, the 16 "mark will be the next rising domain. You will still manage to break the thing so that it falls below the 1000 € mark like the 12" full tube once did.

But, wow, I have now, how many months it will be, completely kept out of these discussions and also avoided all the astronomy forums, because it always comes down to these fizzy detailed arguments. Furthermore, we both talked much more relaxed about these topics, so I don't really know what's going on with you. Mhh, I think I'll pull myself out of here again. I dumped my experiences with 10 "f / 5 and eyepieces, I made them myself, I don't have more to add.