John

Having compared the engineering of the Vixen SP / GP and GP-DX with the chinese clones it is obvious even to a non-engineer such as me that the Japanese made Vixen's are made to higher tolerances and quality than the clones.

14 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

Presuming mark 1 is 8.5 kg and mark 2 is around 10.5 kg for the f/9 flavour. That’s TOA-130 territory.

The tube is 1.48 kg more that’s around 0.5 kg unaccounted for. Has the mark 1 got steel cells to avoid pinching the glass in cold weather? Wondering where the extra weight is used?

Since mark 2 has the same length, need to over mount, hence you using the T-Rex.

With the dew shield retracted what is the length, guess around 100 cm’s.

And yes given the price approaching TOA-130 price with only one OK-4 element versus the TOA’s two fpl-53 elements. However does have starlight focused.

 

 

 

 

The additional .5kg may well be explained by the "cage" that the baffles are mounted on before installation into the tube with the LW II.

The objective cell looks to be exactly the same comparing mine to photos of versions bought recently. It is a very sophisticated design executed with great care. Given the cost of these objectives you would expect that I think.

The T-Rex is the first mount that I have used with my 130 F/9.2 that handles the tube length and weight really well. It has been a touch under-mounted on the Giro, Skytee II, Celestron AVX, Vixen GP-DX and HEQ5 mounts that I have used previously despite these being on a Berlebach Uni 28 tripod. The T-Rex does handle 150mm F/8 doublet refractors well I believe but I'm not sure about 150mm triplets such as the TOA and LZOS because they tend to be quite a bit heavier again. A DM6 or Rowan AZ100 would also be suitable alt-azimuth mounts I think. If I was going to go back to an equatorial I would consider a Lozmandy GM11.

With the dew shield and the binoviewer tube extension retracted the overall OTA length is 103 cm (excluding a diagonal). Mine weighs 9.4kg complete with tube rings, DT bar, 9x50 RACI finder and 2 inch diagonal installed. I think the weights quoted on the websites are for a bare tube.

2 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Have you considered trying some smartphone photography?

Single smartphone shot with my 80mm APO.

I agree with John.

I'm no imager at all but I've been happily surprised what even my basic android phone can do held over the eyepiece. I've bought a very cheap phone holder which makes this a little easier. Here are a few of my mobile phone shots which are nothing special compared to what the specialist imagers can produce but they made me happy

The scope is now on the T-Rex alt-azimuth mount which really deals with the tube length and weight so much better than the Giro II that I had when I first got the scope. So I might as well post a photo or two of the current setup

7 hours ago, Deadlake said:

Anyone know what the differences are between John's version and the Apo Refractor 130/1200 CNC LW II version? Both have the starlight feather touch focusers, I was thinking maybe the tube is different?

I've looked at the specs of the latest version of this scope and the differences that I see are:

- The tube is CNC alloy rather than Kruppax 50.

- I think the baffles in the new scopes are assembled all together as a unit and installed into the tube. On my scope the baffles are individually installed.

- The Starlight FT focuser is 3.5 inch whereas mine is 2 inch.

- The CNC LW II optical tube weighs 1.48kg more.

Having looked at a few vendor listings, I'm rather surprised at how much these are to buy new now !

13 minutes ago, KeithP22 said:

Any recommendations John 

I think the Aero ED30mm is a decent low power / wide angle eyepiece. It is a 2 inch format though.

In the 1.25" format I think the 30mm Vixen NPL is a good performer for it's cost.

If you can run to an Explore Scientific 24mm 68 degree that's better again.

The spending often starts when a nice scope arrives .......

We don't want any "weak links" in the optical chain, do we ?

I'm sure the views will be lovely

1 hour ago, Nair al Saif said:

....Please if you have any tips I will definitely read them!

I think I posted this earlier but a dew shield is a "must have" with a mak-cassegrain or an SCT.

42 minutes ago, RobertI said:

After much consideration, I have been brave and pulled the trigger .......

https://www.altairastro.com/starwave-102ed-r-fpl53-refractor-459-p.asp

We’ll see what happens next! 

Nice choice - the modern equivalent of my Vixen ED102SS F/6.5 I reckon

Sounds like the decision is made then

Another of our members has owned an AZ8 for some time now:

25 minutes ago, omo said:

Good you are sending it back, I wonder what owners of other high end scopes reckon to "never get a refractor telescope that is completely free of dust particles" ?

I've bought a William Optics Megrez 90 and more recently a Tak FC100-DL new from retailers and they were both in immaculate conditon both optically and cosmetically.

My TMB/LZOS 130 F/9.2 triplet is around a decade old and has had two owners from new. The objective of that is pretty much immaculate as well.

If I had bought the scope that @Rich1980 has been supplied with second hand I would have been pretty miffed if the condition of the objective had not been disclosed to me by the seller and taken account of in the pricing. 

I have bought used scopes with objectives that needed cleaning and then re-aligning but I knew full well what I was getting and it was priced accordingly.

3 hours ago, Sirius Starwatcher said:

Thanks John I already have the ADM clamp fitted. Would you fit the 200 on the side of the mount as shown in your photo or on the  top fitting ?. I’m trying to visualise the counter weight position if that makes sense.

I would use the side fitting. I only use the top fitting for very small / light scopes or a camera.

I used to own the same scope many years ago - the Vixen SP102M. Very fine scope !

The SP mount is similar in capacity to the Skywatcher EQ5 mount but for imaging you might need something more stable such as the Celestron AVX or Skywatcher HEQ5 mounts. Vixen retired the SP a long time back replacing it with the GP mounts and then with the current AP mount.

It is possible to fit a Skywatcher EQ5 dual drive system to the SP mount but some DIY modifications are needed:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/362825-drive-for-early-vixen-super-polaris-mount/?p=4674995

Optically, you won't find much to beat the Vixen unless you move to something with an objective using and ED or Fluorite glass element. Vixen achromatic objectives are very good even by today's standards.

It should be OK with the 200mm F/5 with appropriate counter weighting on the other side of the mount. Don't use the stock Skytee II dovetail clamps with such an optical tube though.

This refractor is longer and heavier than the 200P F/5 and my Skytee II coped with it quite well. Note an ADM clamp is used:

If you go for the mak, make sure you get a dew shield as well. Mak-cassegrains are "dew magnets" due to the large glass corrector right at the front of the tube and without dew prevention gear such as a dew shield, an observing session can be quickly frustrated.

David's point about the 6 inch dobsonian is very pertinent but I suspect you have ruled out a newtonian long ago.

The only downside with the 8-24 zoom, as with the majority of zooms, is that the field of view at the 24mm end is rather narrow - around 44 degrees. It widens to 60+ degrees at the 8mm end though. More minor issues are that the field stop that defines the edge of the field can be fuzzy at certain points in the zoom range and that the eyepiece is not entirely par-focal throughout it's range so it needs a focus adjustment after changing the focal length.

The limited field of view at 24mm means that I've found that you really need to complement the zoom with a longer focal length fixed focal length eyepiece for low power / wide views - something like a 30/32mm plossl or 24mm wide field.

The ability to adjust the magnification almost instantly is very useful though.

If you use a decent barlow practically all your observing needs can be served with these 3 items: low power eyepiece + zoom + barlow.

29 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

Not necessarily in respect of an ED standard of telescope as these are capable of good performance at both low and high magnifications, this is largely what you pay for.

Planetary observation calls for enough aperture and sufficient optical quality to stand high magnifications, a 120ED conforms to this.       🙂 

Just to add to this (which I very much agree with) my ED120 (ED doublet not the Esprit triplet) is one scope which I have never needed to collimate. My example is one of the early ones so around 15 years old.

3 hours ago, RickEm said:

Don, what didn’t you like about the 21mm Ethos?  It’s one of my favorites.

Mine too

All scope designs can need collimation at some point in their lives IMHO.

Mak-cassegrains, SCT's and refractors much less so than newtonians and but I've owned them all and quite a few of them did need some collimation adjustment to get a good star test. Once in collimation Mak's, SCT's and refractors tend to hold their collimation well and are pretty robust.

I've had to make some collimation adjustments to a Celestron 90mm mak-cassegrain that I picked up a few weeks ago as a travel scope. Not difficult but it was needed.

1 hour ago, Whirlwind said:

I would assume that what has happened here is that this has been taken out of the case and looked at / displayed etc.  That the stock supply of the telescope is in short supply would suggest this is the last of a stock that hasn't been sent out because of the slight defect.  To an extent by 'jumping the queue' there is some sacrifice on quality compared to waiting but getting a 'perfect' clone.  To some extent this applies to all things, sometimes getting something 'now' requires some 'sacrifice' which in this case is a dusty lens.  

You are of course entitled to a full refund if you don't want the telescope (and to some extent even more so if you bought online).  Nevertheless the dust is unlikely to impact the view but if it affects your enjoyment of the item then you may as well return it, but ultimately have to decide whether you want the telescope today and live with the dust or happy to wait for new batches to arrive with better QC (or haven't been previously handled). 

If that was the case, surely the vendor should have:

a) explained the issue and asked the buyer if they were happy to accept it or whether they would prefer to wait until a perfect sample was available

b) discounted the price as it was an open box / ex display item.

As far as I know, the vendor did neither.

30 minutes ago, Adam J said:

No never remove the lens cell as you say, it would loose colimation and you would be in for a world of hurt. You dont need to do that with the Esprit to give the rear lens surface a blow though. The esprit tube is very very short and so all you have to do is remove the focuser from the back which comes off very easy due to the excerlent way SW chose to implement the rotation mechanisum on the esprit series also goes back just as easy. All you do is rotate the silver collar by hand no tools required.

He can always ask their permission, if they want a happy customer and to avoid lots of pain and having a open Esprit to get shot of  for no reason they will say yes. Or he could return it and they could do it on his behalf, but no one should have to remove or indeed touch the lens cell.

But both the Esprit 100s I have had (the first one had a actual optical issue and was exchanged), had some dust on the inside of the cell, hence I dont like his chances of getting one that is 100% clean if it is exchanged. My theory is that they are assembling clean lenses with tubes that are not handelled / stored with as much care and so during shipping material falls off the inside of the tube onto the lens.

Adam

Oh for goodness sake ! - the scope has been supplied in poor condition when it was supposed to be brand new. Just because you put up with a dusty objective does not mean that others should.

We, the customers, don't have to put up with that and are protected by the regulations.

To the OP: Insist on a refund or a replacement. Any decent supplier would make that happen for you without cost and at minimal inconvenience to yourself.

1 hour ago, Adam J said:

If its on the lens rear surface then it can be fixed or you can blow it off youself. 

If it really is between the elements then its not something that can be done without disasemblin the lens cell and that required a optical lest bench. It would take many months for you to get it back in that case.

Adam

To find out though, the objective and cell will need to be removed from the scope.

This will give the perfect excuse for the vendor to refuse to give a refund or replacement on the grounds that the customer has disassembled the scope.

The vendor is already trying to be slippery about replacement / refund without giving them more ammunition.

I've merged the two threads that @Connor brad has started into this one. There may be some duplication though.

Optical Vision Limited (OVL) is the importer for Skywatcher gear but usually you would go back to your retailer as the 1st recourse.