mikeDnight

I have the F7.4 which I use with the 1.25" Tak prism, and there is no visible CA, lateral or otherwise from the prism. Wide angle eyepieces introduce lateral colour in any telescope, refractor or reflector, but the prism introduces none and is pure and a joy to use in the F7.4.

The FC76DCU plus the 1.7 Q is fast approaching the cost of an FC100DC, which at F7.4 would give you both wide fields and very high power views. You don't need the Q for visual, though they are nice, as the scope will power up until you run out of exit pupil without it. The limiting factors being the seeing and the aperture, but for lunar, solar and planetary you wouldn't be disappointed.

To be honest, I have no recollection of CA in the ST102 on the night I observed Mars. I'd be pretty confident it was present, but I was focused on the view of Syrtis Major which was much more memorable. CA in an F5 achromat is just the nature of the beast so I'd have expected it anyway. I think what the experience proved, is that some of the Star Travels have reasonably well figured lenses. My friend Philip eventually sold the little Star Travel to my younger son Daniel, and we used it to observe the transit of Venus later that year. A couple of years later Daniel sold the little Star Travel back to Phil, who was willing to pay over the odds to get that particular scope back. Daniel was 11 years old in the attached pic, and was a better businessman at that age than I've ever been! Transit of Venus June 8th 2004.

I'd buy that in a heartbeat if I could afford it John, and I'd invite you to the inaugural first light on Vega. If everyone clubs together to buy it, I'd be happy to build an observatory for it in my garden, with free viewing to all who contribute to the initial purchase.

Here's just one example of where the achromat would fit into today's world, and there are many: Starlight Nights is one of the finest, most inspirational books I've ever read. It's a great fireside read and a real motivational force, written by and telling the story of one of the world's greatest armature astronomers. Buy it! Read it! Lust it! Live it!!

It's so easy to echo the low opinions, based on the often inexperienced or prejudiced views of others. But it takes a measure of courage to go against the flow and point out the reality. Youve got to be commended! I've always found the ST refractors impressive, and only seen one poor one out of twelve. The poor one, a 6" F5, was replaced by the vendor and all was well. In 2004, a friend who'd bough a ST102 brought it to me to see what I thought. I'd used several prior to that date, so knew what to expect. I aimed the little Star Travel at a rapidly shrinking Mars, fit a 3X Televue barlow, and saw a perfect view of Syrtis Major on a 5.5 arc second disc. The ST150's are superb RFT's, but I was impressed at the magnification they could take, considering their presumed limitations. I found that 200X was reasonable, and I never used a fringe killer on any of them, as to me they performed better without.

A 100mm F7 ED might be all the scope you'll need. They make great all round scopes that are easy to use and easy to mount, and the don't take up much room in the home. I've always been happy with smallish refractors and have thought that if i ever need to use a big scope, I'll take a look through someonelses. I've now been loaned a 10" F6.3 Dob, but so far I much prefer using my 100mm refractor.

I love long focal length refractors but my aging back doesn't. They can give superb definition and contrast, and can be as sharp as any ED if the lens is well figured. The biggest drawbacks would be the need for a hefty mount and the large observing arc the focuser will need, and housing it. Short achro's have severe limitations as lunar and planetary scopes, but they make stunning rft's. The finest view of the Double Cluster I've ever had was through a SW 150 Star Travel. Rather than viewing the ST's as poor scopes, I consider them to be excellent, specialist rich field/comet seeker/deep sky refractors. I know I'm odd, but I'd rather have a 6" F5 ish achromat than a 10" reflector any day. But when it comes to the moon and planets, I'd much prefer the comfort of the shorter apo/ED.

Hi Robby, Two months on and I couldn't be happier. The tracking is spot on, enabling me to finally sketch hands free at high power. I can also go and have a brew and come out again half an hour later and the object is still exactly where I left it in the eyepiece. At the relatively low cost for the SW drives, I doubt I'd buy the Vixen drives even if they were available. ☺

I'm a big fan of the Nirvana, but if not breaking the bank is an issue, then a good barlow will allow high power and maintain good eye relief. I'm a big fan of B arlows too!

The AZ5 is not the most vibration free mount going and is certainly less sturdy than the AZ4. However, the weak spot on most mounts is the mount head/tripod interface. Most cheap tripods are woefully inadequate for high power observing, but one way you could get the best out of the mount is to sink a steel post into concrete so you'll have a permanent pier. Otherwise, a solid tripod or a more solid mount head would probably be the way to go.

When they first came out back in the late 90's, I bought the Helios 6" F8 while three of my friends bought the Helios 6" F5. All four scopes were simply superb as visual deep sky instruments. I bought the F8 version so as to get better colour correction, but in all honesty, the difference between the F8 and F5 was negligible. The F8 was perhaps just a tad better on the Moon and planets but both would play happily at 250X. One evening at my local astro club, one friend brought along his 6" F5, and although there were a great many large reflectors, Schmidt Cassegrains and a Maksutov Newtonian on the field, nothing could compare with the 6" F5 achromat when it came to beautiful star fields and open clusters. Even globulars and galaxies were quite spectacular in the 6". The bridging arm of M51, linking the main galaxy with the satalite galaxy was detectable, as was the spiral structure of M51 itself. All the Messier objects Infact were a pure joy in the 6", so if fuzzies and comets are where your main interests lie, then I doubt you'll be disappointed by a 6" F5 doublet. I'm going to shut up now, as I'm talking myself into buying one!

I've used many 6" F5/F6 refractors but all have been doublets not quads like the Bresser. The fact that its a quad worries me a little, especially at the low price. Collimation would be more difficult if things went wrong, and if ever used for solar, it would meed a front aperture solar filter or there may be potential damage to the rear elements. As a specialist rich field refractor, a 6" short focus frac is a hard act to follow. Stars are pinpoint and dsos appear bright, high contrast and with high definition. Scopes are very personal things, but for me there's no other scope design that gives rich field views like a 6" short focal length refractor. The two brands that have proved their worth as large aperture RFT's over the years are the SW 150 F5 Star Travel and the 152 F5.9 Star Wave. I'd prefer either over an 8" or even a 10" anything else, other than a larger aperture frac!

I met Jon (parallaxer) at Kettering earlier this year, where he bought his scope. The scope looked delicious, and he said he'd post his views on its performance but as yet he hasn't made any comment as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you should send him a pm to find out how he feels about it?

I bought a Starbeam for my NP101 and loved it! It's very well made, but what I liked most about it was the flip mirror. I could stand at quite a comfortable distance from the mirror and see the red dot set against a star field, enabling me to accurately align the scope with very little effort. I'm even tempted to get one for my 100mm Tak. I eventually sold the scope along with finder to my friend Roger Vine, who produces some excellent scope reviews. You may be able to find a review of the Starbeam!

I've owned one 80ED, one 100ED and three 120ED's. Im purely a visual observer but can tell you with hand on heart the good and the bad about them. First the bad: they are not Takahashi! Next the good, and the best compliment I can pay them: they are very Takahashi like in visual performance. Essentially free of CA, they deliver razor sharp star images and high contrast, high definition views of both lunar and planetary, as well as deep sky objects within their light grasp.

I feel for you Neil! I'm not sure you'll ever reach the end, but you might find your personal comfort zone. In my case I spent years acquiring Naglers & Ethos, Takahashi LE's & Hi LE's, TMB super monocentrics & TMB Planetaries, and of course the superlative Pentax XW's. I was in a happy place! Then some smarty pants introduced me to the benefits of bino viewing and how simple eyepieces easily match and often outperform these more complex and vastly more expensive eyepiece designs. I've now found a new happy place using pseudo Masuyama's such as old Celestron ultima's. I still use wide field eyepieces but they are now the less expensive Morpheus, and high end high power Vixen HR's.

Somebody ought to buy one!

Truly beautiful!

While messing around looking at the Moon last week, I thought I'd take a quick pic using my iPhone just for the fun of it. The night was milky with thin cloud or haze and the seeing just a bit wobbly. I'd wiped my iPhone camera lens on my sleeve, as it tends to gather dust and grease, then hand held the camera over the 25mm Parks Gold eyepiece in my binoviewer. I made three attempts and this was the best of three. Not as sharp as the eyepiece view, but I suppose I'd need to at least clean my camera lens properly for that, or even invest in a dedicated astro camera? £££

Great tinkering Paul. Feel free to continue taking liberties! I'm going to have to get the grit out, coz this could quickly become a slippery slope!!

Thanks to everyone for their encouragement. I may invest in one of those phone holder thingy's just for the fun of it! Thanks for reminding me about Stu's phone image thread Dave, I might try and find it. You never know, I might win a coconut!

Ok, it will probably make seasoned imagers squirm, but I was only playing around. The sky was milky with light cloud and I'd wiped my Apple iPhone camera lens on my sleeve to make sure I got a reasonable result. Then hand holding the phone to the eyepiece of my 100mm F7.4 refractor, I clicked this view. It shows how rubbish I am as I can't even remember the time and date! It was last week sometime, so is that scientific enough?

Truly a fantastic scope, but it does look suspiciously like fungal growth. It's probably been capped while dewed and left for some time, perhaps outside in an observatory. A good reason to keep refractors in the home!

In my experience, I've never seen any SCT give a true star image. Stars always look like pingpong balls or balls of cotton wool and not true Airy disc's in the SCT's I've used, Maksutov's on the other hand provide sharp star images when they're thermally stable. Often, you'll read claims that the Maksutov is "refractor-like". I've never seen the same claim for Schmidt's! Other than the relatively narrow field of view, I think Mak's are good on virtually every sort of target, lunar, planetary, binary stars and deep sky. They do need a dew shield though! You might find a 150mm F5 - F6 rich field refractor would be a nice addition to your growing arsenal!!