Televue v BST: My findings on an SCT

[kirkster501]

Got the TV Ep's in my sig. I also acquired some BST's (5,12,17,25mm) as part of a job lot purchase I made from a chap who lost interest in astronomy from whom I acquired my ED80 and HEQ5.

I fully understand that the slowness of an SCT (a F10 CPC1100 in my case) does not really stretch EP's at all. And that is my finding when doing direct comparisons between my expensive TV Naglers and Panoptics and the BST's that are 10% of the price on the moon and on Jupiter. I swapped between the BST's and TV's numerous times and I am hard pressed to tell the difference in field quality and brightness etc. Sure, the TV's *are* better but not 10x better....

The BSTs are not disgraced by their TV company at all. I was going to sellthe BST's but I may now hang onto them. My advice, with my admittedly limited expereince, is that the BST's are plenty good enough with a SCT.

I am still glad to have the TV's and they will be very useful with my high end refractor I am going to buy next year at some time.

Thought I would share this with anyone going through this and wondering what to buy. I'd say still get the TV if you have the money sicne they are better. But the BST's are a brilliant alternative in the SCT scopes.

Steve

[Moonshane]

funnily enough I posted this earlier

[kirkster501]

funnily enough I posted this earlier http://stargazerslou...p-vs-expensive/

LOL, and to complete the coincidence I just mentioned on your thread the same thing mate!

Goes to show that two individuals are both saying a similar thing; that the BST's are corkers in SCT's. I can hardly tell any difference at all on my CPC 1100 between them - particularly the 25 and 17mm and their TV counterparts.

[Moonshane]

I owned all the BSTs once and they really are superb value for money. like you I won't be selling my TVs and BGOs but in a slow scope at least the cheaper options are no slouches even though there are still some minor differences.

[Mark in Macc]

I just compared a borrowed 12.5 mm BGO with a 12 mm BST tonight in my C 9.25 SCT. After a good 30 min observing the moon under reasonable seeing conditions, I couldn't separate them. The BST was easier to use though. In slow scopes, the BSTs are excellent.

[alan potts]

For me you are not comparing apples with apples. I do not doubt for one moment that the BSTs are good at F10 but they only have a 60 degree FOV, small by way of comparision. I my books you should only assess like for like when you are talking about field sharpness, it is much more difficult opticly to get an 82 degree field sharp at all F/R's down to F4.

Alan.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Interesting report! My rule of thumb is to go for cheaper stuff until I find the limitations annoy me. I used to have some very good Plossls (Vixen made) and some Vixen LVs with my SCT, and generally liked them a lot (used them for 14-15 years). They can show you all sorts of wonders of the universe at a very good quality for a very affordable price. Years later I got a TMB Paragon. The extra FOV was amazing. I think that that is the main lure of the big name EPs. Cheaper ones can be excellent in their reduced FOV. The optical quality of the TMB was clearly superior to that of a 36mm Vixen Plossl in terms of control of internal reflections, but that had more to do with improvements in coatings, and blackening of lens edges (not common 17 years ago) than with optical design. I have never looked through a BST, but I do not doubt modern "cheap" EPs are a lot better than vintage Vixen Plossls.

After the TMB I went all-out for ultra and super wide premium EPs (in part because I also have a faster scope). A lot of people say an SCT does not need this, and this is largely true. However, I do see some differences, albeit subtle, apart from the extra FOV. Having said that, I would not advise people to rush in and buy Naglers and the like for an SCT. Just get some decent EPs and enjoy them. Only buy the premium ones when you find your current set are limiting you.