Jump to content

Telescope that wants to fly

Joost

Recommended Posts

Joost

Joost

Posted
Posted

Hi there,

I'm stuck: I'm looking for a telescope to take with me on a plane as carry-on luggage. This means the case or bag can't exceed 115cm (W+H+D).

The place I'm taking it to is where I would like to do some wide field astrophotography. I had my eye on the new William Optics GTF81 5-element refractor, but since FLO cancelled their order due to second thoughts about the quality of it, I'm having second thoughts as well.

Are there stargazers or astrophotographers here, that (regularly) take their telescope with them on flights as carry-on? I'm interested to hear what equipment you are taking with you and what you are using it for.

Of course if you've never taken your telescope for a flight, but have the ideal travel scope or an idea for the ideal travel scope, I'm all ears (eyes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E621Keith

E621Keith

Posted
Posted

If you are interested in travel scope for about the same price as a WO 81 GTF, you should look at the Borg 77EDII. It's weights a tiny 1.6kg and uses a compact helical focuser which actually makes it much easier to pack than the traditional focuser with focusing knobs. I swapped a GT81 for my Borg 77ed and has not regretted it.

The only drawback is its colour correction isn't as good as the triplet GT81 or even an ED80 and their own flattener isn't exactly cheap.

The 77ED cost €927 (AOKSwiss) and 7885 flattener cost £215 (SCSAstro).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DirkSteele

DirkSteele

Posted
Posted

I have just purchased a scope precisely for its carry on portability. The APM TMB 105/650 Apo refractor. Weighs in at 4.7kg including tube rings, 4" objective, and less than 19" long. So will fit in carry on with room for other fragile items. However the one downside is the price which is apprx £3,300.

For me the larger problem was tripod and mount choices as I did not want to take extra baggage do these items needed to fit in my main checked suitcase. Most astronomical tripods are too long do I went with the Gitzo series 5 6X 5532 carbon fibre tripod. Weighs 2.8kg (but rated to support 40kg) and only 62cm minimum length. Bit of a compromise but does the job well. I am a visual observer so went with an Alt Az mount, the Tele Optic Ercole. Weighs 3kg but can support 8kg without a counter weight (18kg with / 2x - one each side). So has use outside of just my travel mount.

Clear skies,

Matthew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joost

Joost

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the replies so far guys (earth titan: never heard of the acronym SWMBO before, but good one!)

I'm thinking of getting the HEQ5. My luxury is that I do not need to take the mount with me every time, It can stay with the mother of SWMBO (I mean this literally :wink2: ).

My maximum price for the telescope including flattener is around €1000,- so the Borg 77ED, Keith suggest is not an option. By the way, what made you swap your GT81?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E621Keith

E621Keith

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the replies so far guys (earth titan: never heard of the acronym SWMBO before, but good one!)

I'm thinking of getting the HEQ5. My luxury is that I do not need to take the mount with me every time, It can stay with the mother of SWMBO (I mean this literally :wink2: ).

My maximum price for the telescope including flattener is around €1000,- so the Borg 77ED, Keith suggest is not an option. By the way, what made you swap your GT81?

It was portability. I needed my Solarmax 60 to image the Venus Transit and that left very little weight allowance to carry a second general purpose scope in my hand luggage. The Borg weights less than half of the GT81 and the detachable objective is roughly the size of a mug and weights 480g. I can carry both the Borg objective and my Solarmax 60 in my hand luggage, where as the GT81 would have to go in the hold. The GT81 has good optics, but since I have a LOMO 80/480 (4.6kg!!!), there wasn't much reason to keep it.

€1000 is a bit tight for a new Borg with flattener, but you can get a used one within that budget. It's definitely worth considering if portability is high up on your list of priority. In total, my used 77ED with 0.85 reducer/flattener, a new shorten 135mm tube set and new Yuetsu drawtube ring cost me less than a new GTF81.

post-9327-0-07761500-1341781534_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uranium235

Uranium235

Posted
Posted

The only drawback is its colour correction isn't as good as the triplet GT81 or even an ED80 and their own flattener isn't exactly cheap.

Thats a disappointment, I was considering one of those Borgs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E621Keith

E621Keith

Posted
Posted

I agree, the main advantage of the Borg is it's portability, then it's its ability to use binoviewer without barlow or to use the F4 super reducer if you are into imaging.

Personally I think the Borg will be a much better scope if they put ED80's objective into it. However, the 77EDII objective was redesigned (from 77ED) to match the F4 reducer which has additional ED elements for colour correction, so CA may not be as bad if you go down that route.

Borg has recently released a new 71FL with a fluorite (crystal) objective made by Canon. The price of that is half way between the Tak FS60CB and FC76DC. It seems to be very popular with Japanese birder and there is even a waiting list for it.

This link shows the CA between the Borg77ed, ED80 and a few other scopes

http://www.astrobargains.com/Articles/Refractor%20shootout.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E621Keith

E621Keith

Posted
Posted

If it is just for wide field photography, then why not a cannon 400mm f/5.6 L lens.

Is this about the Borg/Canon 71FL (400/5.6) vs Canon 400 5.6L or just wide field photography in general?

People who uses the 71FL for terrestrial imaging tends to be Pentax or 4/3 camera users. Neither companies make any lens beyond 300mm, but Pentax Japan has a 1.7x AF converter which turns any telescope into a AF telephoto lens.

If it's about imaging in general, Canon 400/5.6L can be a good alternative if it is to be used for imaging only. Have a look at this shootout between the Canon and a Televue TV60is

http://www.samirkharusi.net/tv60_canon.html

The drawback is the telephoto cannot be used for visual observation or be used on any non Canon bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.