who else here owns a intes mk-66 ?

[jordan20]

as some of you here may know I will be getting a intes mk-66 shortly . so who else here owns one because I have been told they are pretty hard to come by?. I have read many reviews on it.but just how good are the views with it ?

[beamish]

Read this & I can guarantee it'll put a smug smile on your face !!

INTES MK66 - Review

[nicnac]

MK67 looks more "my cuppa tea"

http://www.brayimaging.co.uk/Astro/TechSpecs/telescopes/Intes.html#MK67

[barkis]

I'm sure Tony (Whippy), used to own a MN66, so you will get a good insight into their pedigree from him.

He will no doubt see this thread, but he won't mind you sending him a PM if not.

Ron.

[Whippy]

MK67 looks more "my cuppa tea"

Bray Imaging - Intes Telescopes

The 67 is the same scope optically as the 66 but there's a crayford on the back of the 67 and a moving mirror focusing arrangement on the 66. IIRC, GazOC had a 67 and he didn't rate the crayford at all.

Tony..

[GazOC]

Yep, I had a MK67 and the focuser was awful, not poor, awful. It really affected the use of the scope, maybe there are focuser upgrade options these days but when I had mine they were limited and very expensive.

I swapped mine for a 14" Dob and bought a SW 180mm Mak instead.

[Ags]

My local scope shop is trying to sell me the m67 in preference to the skymax 150. The m66 review was very encouraging - these 150mm-class maks are clearly very capable.

[jordan20]

i have read the earlier review linked and i did have a smug grin after and i think im getting a stupidly good scope for £250

[step_hen]

How much??

Nice!

[jordan20]

just a quick question what would be the longest focal length eyepiece i could use with it ?

[Ags]

At F12, you can use any EP focal length. But I'm not sure if you can use 2" EPs to full effect - Maks often vignette wider fields.

[nicnac]

Yep, I had a MK67 and the focuser was awful, not poor, awful. It really affected the use of the scope, maybe there are focuser upgrade options these days but when I had mine they were limited and very expensive.

I swapped mine for a 14" Dob and bought a SW 180mm Mak instead.

[removed word]! the focuser is what swayed me over the primary mirror shift (really not to keen on that type of focusing)

[beamish]

But it takes SCT fittings so just put a crayford on the back of a 66

I hardly ever need to touch the focuser on my 715, just use the Crayford

"i have read the earlier review linked and i did have a smug grin after and i think im getting a stupidly good scope for £250 "

XLNT price !! More reason to be even smugger !!

Ha ha ha - bet you love it !

[nicnac]

hhmm, food for thought

[John]

I have an Intes MN61 - that's a maksutov-newtonian design rather than a maksutov-cassegrain like the MK66. It's a simply superb scope, probably the best that I've owned in my 30 years in the hobby.

I bought mine from Whippy (Tony) - thanks Tony !.

I've always been curious about the mak-newt design but it was the noted reviewer Ed Ting's choice to include it in his top 3 scopes he has used that influenced me to make Tony an offer for his. I'm so glad I did

[Carbon Brush]

I have an MK67, but not had a chance yet to really try it seriously due to other commitments. First time out with a good sky it gave text book in/out of focus diffraction patterns. The focusser seems OK but as I haven't pushed it to the limits of heavy eyepieces or a camera, it is early days.

But if it works half as well as my MN78, I will be well pleased.

[AndyH]

I had a lovely Intes MK72(7" F10) with the crayford. The one on mine was good. Held heavy 2" eyepieces(U.O. 32 MK80 andTal 24mm UWA) with no problems. Perhaps they improved it.

Andy.

[GazOC]

[removed word]! the focuser is what swayed me over the primary mirror shift (really not to keen on that type of focusing)

Mine was only one model and it was S/H when I got it so I wouldn't condemn them on my "evidence" but I wasn't impressed even just for visual use on the model I had. It may have been faulty, I did take it apart without actually stripping it right down but I couldn't improve it any.

My Intes Mak/Newt has a better focuser so maybe it was just a one off or a fault caused by a previous owner.....??

[AndyH]

just a quick question what would be the longest focal length eyepiece i could use with it ?

What I'd do is, look inside the baffle tube and measure it's inside diameter. I'm not sure, but there may be one or more baffles inside it, there certainly is one in my Tal 200K. Honestly can't remember what the MK72 was like.

Try to match that size with the field stop of a 2" eyepiece. So say your size is 35mm, try to find an eyepiece with a similar sized field stop and you should be able to use it to it's full field.

You can use eyepieces with a bigger field stop than your baffle, but as said previously, you'll not be able to get full use of it's fov, but it's still bound to be much wider than any 1.25" eyepiece can achieve.

Andy.

[Ags]

The review earlier in this thread states that the central obstruction of the M66 is 35%. Out of curiosity I looked up the CO of the SkyMax 150 and it is only 28% according to SaN magazine.

That's quite a difference but I understand the quality of the optical surfaces is more important and the Intes would probably win that one.

With such a small CO it's easy to see why the skymax is reported to show strong vignetting.

[beamish]

Forgive me but why would a smaller central obstruction, central obstruction per se, have any effect upon vignetting? Surely that would be down to the size of the fitting at the back-end of the scope??

A smaller CO should aid in improving contrast.

[Ags]

Glad to hear that small COs may not cause vignetting - its just something I read on the forum once upon a time.

It doesn't really matter because the same SaN review states the hole in the back of the skymax is 28mm... :-(

[John]

The review earlier in this thread states that the central obstruction of the M66 is 35%. Out of curiosity I looked up the CO of the SkyMax 150 and it is only 28% according to SaN magazine.

That's quite a difference but I understand the quality of the optical surfaces is more important and the Intes would probably win that one.

With such a small CO it's easy to see why the skymax is reported to show strong vignetting.

The Intes mak-newtonian has a 19% (by diameter) central obstruction. Some of the F/8 mak-newts get down to 15%

There was a thread on here recently that seemed to conclude that the size of the CO had less effect on contrast and resolution than generally thought though.

[step_hen]

yep my MN68 has the 15% CO. I compared it side by side with a TEC 140 and a C8 on Saturn. The C8 had a larger image scale but didnt come close to the two smaller scopes. Needless to say i was happy with my scope compared to the other two! Incidently the view in my old SW 150PL came suprisingly close to both the TEC and the Mak-Newt, yet took me nearly four months to sell- great scope for the cost. Intes and Intes Micro scopes are fantastic and £250 is a steal

Stephen

Stephen

[Ags]

According to this article any CO under 25% by diameter is good enough, with effects getting significant over 35%:

Effects of central obstruction in telescopes (note it is split over several web pages)

The article makes the point that quality of optics is much more important than CO, and on particularly poor optics a large CO can even improve the view!