Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep2_banner.thumb.jpg.e37c929f88100393e885b7befec4c749.jpg

Sign in to follow this  
Stardust

APO vs Mak-Newt?

Recommended Posts

We'd all love a large APO but I've recently read that an Intes Mak-Newt gives apo like views due to the very small central obstruction, just over 13% on one model. So anyone have some experience of these?

I have seen an MN78 7" for sale but with a tube length of 1400mm it sounds a bit large. Thinking a MN68 or 76 would be better.

thanks

DAve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not used one myself but I know someone who had a 6inch F6 Mak-Newt and swore that it would out perform a 5 inch APO and give a 6 inch APO a good run for it's money. He says that he saw details within Jupiters red spot with it on very good nights. I've no reason to doubt him and it seems to tally with reviews that I have read.

They need a good mount (they tend to be Russian so rather heavy) and take longer to cool down than an APO but if those issues don't bother you then I reckon, unless you have £1,000's to spend they will give you APO-like performance at much lower cost. My friend recently sold his OTA for less than £400 :shock: - you won't get a 5inch APO for that !!.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John

that pretty much ties in with what I've read/heard. Sounds like it could be a very good option.

I was originally thinking of an ED120 but this is still 4" and a 5 or 6" MN should be a whole lot better.

I'll keep my eyes open, unless there are any other suggestions?

thanks

DAve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little well not so little detail about the comparison

of this Mak V's APO discusion.

In many of the reviews i have read it says "APO like performance"

Please understand that this would only be for visual and not for most imaging subjects.

When i say most imaging subjects Maks are good for imaging the Moon,Mars,Saturn & Jupiter

and thats about it. Anything else and an APO will wipe the floor with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jamie, this is the sort of thing I'm looking for, need to know the pros and cons.

I'm mainly visual at the moment, though I plan to have a bash with the dslr later on when I've got my observatory built, ( posh name for shed) I do like the nice crisp views of a refractor though. Plus the mak-newt changes the viewing postion rather, too long a tube and I'll need a step ladder.

thanks

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little well not so little detail about the comparison

of this Mak V's APO discusion.

In many of the reviews i have read it says "APO like performance"

Please understand that this would only be for visual and not for most imaging subjects.

When i say most imaging subjects Maks are good for imaging the Moon,Mars,Saturn & Jupiter

and thats about it. Anything else and an APO will wipe the floor with it.

Thats a good point Jamie - I have only ever done visual so my views are always biased in that direction. I forget that imaging is a vital part of the hobby for many.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

As a newcomer to astronomy I looked at the Intes range of Mak-Newts and was impressed with the reviews they obtained. Could someone explain to a newbie why these scopes are near APO performance for visual use but not apparently for imaging anything other than the moon etc as indicated by Jamie?

Malcolm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a very related topic, JCM has just spent a very large sum on a 130mm Super APO 'scope, whereas he could have got an LX200R for the same dosh. Is it an APO fetish thing, or are APOs so very much to be preferred for imaging? After reading Jamie's post I'm wondering the whys and wherefores with regard to imaging using a reflector.

Captain Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read more twaddle about apochromatic refractors than any other astro topic!! I sometimes visit a certain refractor forum just for the entertainment value. The passions raised beggar belief, differences between scopes are exagerated out of all proportion and all along there is group denial about lack of aperture. Never mind that scopes a fraction of the cost will show a load more detail, just get a butchers at those tack (it's always tack) sharp stars. And oh the contrast!! There are people who almost literally worship at the altar of TMB and astro physics.

I understand that anyone who has dropped a few grand on a five inch scope is going to be working hard to reassure themselves that they have made a good decision.

I had a good view of Saturn through a Tak Fs102 last year ( a legendary apo). The seeing was good and cassini stood out inky black (that's another bit of apo speak - see tack sharp). There was some detail on the disc and overall it was a pleasing view. And that's about it, it didn't "blow me away". I have enjoyed some great views of the moon and saturn with my ED120. The views are slightly different to my NS8 - there is more contrast with the ED120 but you can make out more detail with the NS8. Now of course Skywatchers and the like are a bit iffy in apo circles, perhaps not completely pukka! For faint fuzzies an apos best use is as a cup holder whilst you look through your £350 Skyliner dob. Open clusters are lovely through an apo and the double cluster is a bit special (although it is through any scope come to think of it).

The point is that you have to take whatever people say about their scopes with a big pinch of salt be it apo, mak, SCT or whatever. It's all very subjective and if someone says their scope blows another out of the water then they are likely to be exagerating.

Small apos are great for imaging since they are light and compact. Great for larger targets and so easy to use. They can be used with focal reducers without any problem. I got my ED120 because it was the focal length I was after, it was within the ability of my mount and I could use it with a focal reducer for a fast 600mm f/l scope. My alternatives were an 8" newt or SN and I think I would have gone for one of these if I had a bigger mount. Jamie is spot on though, a mak would be way to slow for deep sky imaging. After all, it's not aperture but speed that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read more twaddle about apochromatic refractors than any other astro topic!! I sometimes visit a certain refractor forum just for the entertainment value.

Do you visit there when its cloudy? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D :D

Oh god, I hope I'm not going to get into trouble!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god not another scope bashing thread. I can understand people wanting to justify their huge outlay, they need to! I'd personally just throw myself under a bus if i spent £5000 on a scope......any scope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...... if someone says their scope blows another out of the water then they are likely to be exagerating.

Good post MartinB !

I hate that phrase and "blows away" - totally inappropriate way of describing what are often quite subtle differences in performance IMHO.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG What did I do? :D :D

I'm in some kind of limbo here, being a 'scope atheist, but my reason for selling the OMC140 was that I don't do visual stuff.

For me there's no lasting fun in the visual stuff, and once I've seen Saturn through the 'scope, then it's done and I'm looking for the next target. The OMC didn't have enough aperture (for what I like to do, as I found out after some kind soul lent me a 4X Barlow thingy. That allowed me to try imaging Saturn at similar image scales using the 200mm Newt. and the Mak. on the same night. The Newt. was able to form an image at 4X (4000mm focal length, f/20) but the Mak. couldn't at 2X (4000mm focal length, f/28) as the image was too dim to show up. That's what did it for me, the Mak. was less versatile.

I will always remember the OMC140 for the late night view of Jupiter through the bedroom window when it came over the houses opposite, I had to wake my boy to come and have a look. That was on a photo tripod and I had a struggle to get it so that it swam into view as he was taking a look. It looked like it does in the newer books, all the swirly stuff and the moons as well. You just can't do that in an image as either the planet is burnt out or the moons are missing. The Mak. was perfect for that night.

I've very recently been tempted to get myself an SCT for planetary stuff, but I'm not convinced enough that it will be a whole lot better than my 300mm f/5.3 Newt, unless I get something huge. I know that Rog. has been struggling with his 11" SCT, and you don't get them for cheap, so I'm going to wait until I've thought about it some more as its a lot of wonga getting a different 'scope.

The ED80 is good for imaging wider field stuff, but I'm still planning ways of mosaicing a luminance image using the Newt. and using the ED80 to get a widefield binned set of RGBs to line up the luminance on and add the colour. You can't beat a fast 'scope for imaging.

BTW the ST80 that I have is also ace at widefield imaging, you just have to refocus when you change filters, but the subs only take half as long as they do with the ED80 as its so much faster in the f/ department. If you are doing Ha filtered imaging it is as good as an APO.

An interesting thread indeed this has turned into.

Captain Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK GUYS GALS Think this is where i should put my 2p worth in well Who's bashing what hmmmm To be honest i have a 7" Astro physics APO refractor f9 and i also own a 8"DE luxe Intes micro mak newt f 6 1/10th wave astro sytal mirror So i hear you all say which is the best out of the 2 Well price wise i would say go for the mak newt on the visual side that's a little more difficult the APO is 1527 focal length while the mak newt is 1200so i suppose you would say again the mak newt wins again on the imaging side correct me if i am wrong on the looking through the old eyepiece bit well both scopes perform fantastic the refractor gives images to die for through this APO on Saturn one night and i kid you not the image was like you would see in a magazine stunning there i have gone and said it the a/p was equipped with a A/p diag/ and a TMP Super mono eyepiece so to get the best out of any scope you need the best optical chain you can get no use having a great scope and a rubbish eyepiece or the other way round i think were apo's tend to shine is at the top end were perhaps other scopes tend to break down and the optics really start to shine i remember once i had the a/p out against a Orion Optics 8" newt and the newt was walking all over it on Saturn until the refractor cooled down to where it needed to be and then it started to take over the show the newt started to break down and the refractor started to perform to its best ,Anyway enough about the refractor now to start with the 8" mak newt Well what can i say about this scope unlike a lot of newts these scopes keep collimation very well the central obstruction is around 19% in the 8" the baffles run the length of the tube around 15 in all the scope is also baffled opposite the focuser so no light scatter the scope is also fan assisted so cool down time is not to bad PERFORMANCE The scope in MY HUMBLE OPINION IS EVERY BIT Has good on the Planets and i would say better on deep sky that's cos it's got the bigger aperture the planets in this scope are fantastic zero color crisp contrasty images with fine detail on the planet body itself the cassini division stands out like a sore thumb the crape ring no probs it really is a scope that performs LIKE A APO NO DOUGHT ABOUT IT , To be honest though folks the A/P Refractor is a crowd pleaser and a fantastic performer where the Mak newt don't stand out but when you look through it on the right night it is aw some I also think there is a lot of snobs in this game and people forget why we do it anyway rant over I would also like to say sorry if i have upset anyone there was no intent to do so CLEAR SKIES TO ALL TOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rant? A rant would involve saying that one is better than the other and by miles wouldn't it? So which do you prefer Tom?

Captain Chaos

( for me, it's all about preference, I like some front wheel drive sports cars for example )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for performance CC nothing in it I would love a really good night with the right condition's to see what both scopes could do side by side I think another factor is that the refractor is around 20 years old and the newt around 3 years but saying that the A/P Would give any refractor a run for it's money, I have also seen some people scuttle back off to there refractors after looking through the Mak newt with there head between there tails looking very very worried so what does that tell you AM I SITTING ON THE FENCE MATE ???????? OK I will go with the refractor cos i am a bit of a romantic for all things old. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.