Doctor D

Glad to hear that. Would enjoy having a look at some of your reviews if you'd like to share any.

There's so much rebranding now, it's laughable.

I'm assuming it must be a specific post since the OP appears to be discussing imaging.

The other thing that comes into play is the history and reputation of the ones making the claims about Askar's visual performance. What else have they compared in order to make well rounded decisions? What are their seeing conditions like? Are they mostly imagers? What is their level of experience on interpreting aberrations such a zones, under-correction etc, acclimation, color perception, diagonal selection, observing platform. What did they see specifically when they observed stars and planets? This is why I care greatly about who writes these reviews. People love to get data, but the problem with data is end-users obviously struggle to differentiate theory from observation itself. Anyone who has an Askar can do a review. It doesn't mean they are seasoned enough to know what they should be looking for. The other side of the coin is it may be good enough for them and that's perfectly fine, in fact, that's great. The real issue though is if they are going to set a claim on real world performance, I like to hear more specific information about the observation, knowledge and experience of the observer. The internet is plagued with imagers and theorists who do nothing but read about optics and sadly there are not enough observers doing real world observing by comparing telescopes who have a long history behind them. Those are the details I look for because too many beginners are just pontificating the same stories about optics and glass again and again.

End-users always generalize about brands, no different than you generalized about Astro-Pysics being a top tier brand. Have you ever tested a bad AP, Tak, TMB or TEC? I have. The problem today is end-users want what they interpret to be facts. Facts based on what experiences of the end-users themselves? What experiences do people or end-users with those concerns have to bring to the table other than just some more images of DSO's? Most of the end-users who insist on optical authenticity of quality struggle to even understand what they are looking at and since most of them don't even observe in the first place, it's going to be even harder. So in essence, they don't know what they don't know. There's also this idea by many end-users where they seem to believe that because they see something on a computer screen, that somehow means they are seeing hard facts. Just because end-users look through an eyepiece does not mean an issue is treated with any less care or can't be confirmed, in fact, quite the contrary. Some people are just horrible observers and depend on computer screens while others are excellent observers. Observing is a skill learned over time. For example, some people choose to look through microscopes while others choose to use digital screens. For refractors, both methods can achieve excellent results while both methods can also achieve bad results depending on the aberrations they are concerned about. Yes, there most certainly are differences with refractors better intended to be used for visual while others are better suited as astrograph's. Most of the confusion with that topic stemmed from the imaging community though, not the visual community. The reason this happened is because imagers were mixing their own concerns with the visual community. Most who were starting out, didn't know any better and huge amounts of misinformation were posted by the imaging community in particular. This is why I have advocated on numerous occasions in another forum that there needs to be two separate refractor topic threads; one for imaging refractors and another for visual refractors. Yes, with the increase in aperture, they inherit greater challenges that are pretty specific.

That's not the way it works with mass production on that level. One of the most common aberrations are zones in mass production and it's clearly evident when observing with the vast majority of these refractors as well as others. Most are coming from a few factories and being marketed with various names when we consider all the brands on the market. I'll give you a simple example of the issue. Go to YouTube and punch in "askar refractors". Pretty much everything you are going to see comes from beginner to intermediate users who mainly image. Imagers are an entirely different breed compared to visual observers and since the vast majority of users who inquire about Askar are imagers, most of everything you read isn't going to address the concerns visual observers have by comparison about these scopes. There are various types of aberrations that annoy visual observers like myself who are going to be distracted by them while observing stars and planets at higher magnifications. Imagers won't see these aberrations at all the same way. As I mentioned though, Askar's are fine for most end-users and even some casual visual observing. Like I stated earlier, it's all relative, especially to ones level of experience behind an eyepiece. Regards, ---daniel

I usually do all my own evaluations with my observing group. Don't get me wrong, the Askar's are pretty good refractors, especially at such a low price point. Askar's are actually more well directed toward imaging rather than visual because the types of aberrations they exhibit during visual observations, which will not be an issue for imagers. Not sure what reviews you are referring to with 300x but happy to listen to you would like to share. Image quality is all relative and since not all views appear the same contrast at 300x, it depends on a number of factors that probably need to be discussed for better clarification, yes? Steady skies, ---daniel

The Askar's are okay but limited in their magnification due to some spherical aberration they often exhibit. This causes stars and planets to breakdown more apparently.

Thank you for the kind words to all the astronomers here in the Lounge. Steady skies! DoctorD

The Evostar 150ED doublet is a fantastic value. Some of the nicest views have come from this scope.