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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss_winners.thumb.jpg.9deb4a8db27e7485a7bb99d98667c94e.jpg

russ.will

Bresser Messier AR127L Exos 2 Goto

Recommended Posts

Just for pedants - Blurred focuser images:

focuser.jpg

diagonalp.jpg

Just for the ladies -Me!

muppeto.jpg

Joking aside, I'm 5' 10" (1.85m) in my stocking feet, so people can see that a long 5" frac ain't small. On the other hand, I can pick it up one handed at arms length, whereas the 300p OTA could cause you to split one if you carried it too far.

Before anybody mentions it, yes, it is true. The camera adds at least two stone....

Russell

Edited by russ.will
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see some more pics Russell, including your good self :smiley:

Those bolts holding the lens cell to the tube did intrude a bit with the older 127L, AR5 LXD75 and AR6. I just reversed mine so that the nut was on the outside of the tube and the flat screw head on the inside where it hardly affected the light path at all. That did the trick :smiley:

I've not got many detailed pics of my old scopes but I've stuck a couple below just for interest (127L on the left). You can see the improvements to the dew shield on todays model immediately !

I like the reinforced dovetail bar and the better quality visual back on the end of the drawtube on your scope too. That raised finder will help a lot as the old Bresser / Meade ones put the finder too close to the tube to be much use.

My other problem with the old finders was that the cross wires were too thin - you could hardly see them against a night sky, which did not help finding things :rolleyes2: Maybe thats been addressed too ?

Great looking scopes you have - congratulations :smiley:

post-118-0-19524600-1366237676_thumb.jpg

post-118-0-92130700-1366237685_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey! That is a short dew shield. :icon_eek:

I was wondering how much longer the Bresser one was, but those piccies seem to illustrate that it's circa 50% longer.

Yes the reinforced dovetail is a nice looking idea, but I'm not that fussed about dovetails. They're cheap and you tend to set them in the same place every time, so in a perverse way, a thumbscrew indentation is a point of reference to speed up setup. The last time I had an EQ mount, I replaced all of the dovetails with WO type wide plate dovetails and scored marks in them with a screwdriver, to make aligning them on the HEQ5 quicker.

As regards the finder cross-wires, I'll have to get back to you! Whether they're too thin or not, I don't know, because I had them turned on. At full brightness, they show red against daylight and at minimum, they're a nice crisp display without over powering the (limited) fuzzies I had the chance of looking for. Going back to my daylight comparisons against the SW finder earlier, they were definitely thicker, but I have yet to test that issue in the dark.

However, I did note that what they lack is a small, clear circle at the centre of the crosshairs. I don't get why manufacturers don't get this. Trying to judge when a star is precisely obscued by the centre of a crosshair is less convenient than trying to centre it on the middle of a small circle like you do in a SW polar scope.

Which reminds me, the polar scope reticle is illuminated really nicely. Rather than peering through the red mist of a SW polar scope, it's only the reticle markings that are illuminated. It's therefore a shame that the reticle markings are about 10% as informative as the SW ones. My goto results show that I got pretty close first time and the handset pumps out detail during star alignment, as to how far out your polar alignment night be. I'd rather I had that nice SW circle against which I could tweak the alignement visually though. As ever, in the race to be different, nobody nails perfect!

Russell

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOoo! Forgot a big one.

With the ES82 30mm in the diagonal, I practically have the counterweight off the end of the counter-balance bar. Look at the photo above. I'm going to, as a matter of urgency, have to source a much larger counter weight. The standard one just about balances the scope and 1.25" EPs, but 2" UWAs are not accomodated.

I can't help thinking that one larger weight further up the counterweight bar will result in less oscillation in the system too.

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOoo! Forgot a big one.

With the ES82 30mm in the diagonal, I practically have the counterweight off the end of the counter-balance bar. Look at the photo above. I'm going to, as a matter of urgency, have to source a much larger counter weight. The standard one just about balances the scope and 1.25" EPs, but 2" UWAs are not accomodated.

I can't help thinking that one larger weight further up the counterweight bar will result in less oscillation in the system too.

Russell

That's an annoyance (shipping the mount with 1 counterweight), my AR-152S/LDX75 came with two 5Kg weights - which balances out nicely at about the mid point of the CW bar (leaving some room for heavier glass and perhaps a camera/filters at some point). Though if I do try to image with this scope I will be putting it on the HEQ5.

I agree with the comments on the finder, it is optically nicer than the standard SW 8 x 50, the illuminated reticule is really nice, but to me the mounting and foot are the winning features. Though I would like to get some better centering bolts (SS with nylon tips or cups) - as the previous owner had overtightened a couple, which now have a tenuous grip!

The re-inforced dovetail looks a good feature and should wear better - whether it stiffens it up enough sufficiently to save the cost of the WO upgrade time will tell. Out of interest this is different to the dovetail on the AR-152S, which is a larger (width and height) cast section of aluminium, which is reduced at the mid point for the puck. This provides minimal room for adjustment, so balancing is achieved by sliding the OTA in the tube rings.

med_gallery_26731_2481_219806.jpg

Re the similarity of models with Meade - whilst there is a great deal of similarity and even commonality of parts, there seem to be a quite major differences in optical finish and coatings used between brands and doubtless some variation over time even with specific models. I think this would make it quite difficult to get an objective comparison Bresser and Meade versions.

Great series of pictures and a nice write up on this Russ. Somewhat worringly though in that last one you look the spit of my brother, though he's a good bit taller at 6' 4" and from memory his ears probably stick out a little more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear that my ears do stick out as much as your brother's, it's just that my fat head sticks out further too. :(

I may go the WO style dovetail in trhe future, but for purely visual use I think it may be overkill. I did this on both my WO Zenithstar 80 and my SW Explorer 200p and it did make a subtle difference, What made more difference in both cases, was taking the spare original dovetail and bolting it across the top of the tube rings. In our case, we already have the handle doing that job, so I suspect most of the possible improvement is already made.

Agreed on the point about sliding the OTA within the rings for balancing purposes. I don't like loosening the dovetail for any reason once the scope is attached, as it's too easy to think it's tight when it's not. Generally, I always leave the dovetail/rings attached to the mount and insert/remove the OTA into the craddle they form when horizontal. It saves on juggling the scope with onbe hand, whilst trying to tighten bolts with the other.

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've not got many detailed pics of my old scopes but I've stuck a couple below just for interest (127L on the left).

John. I just noticed the standard EP in your picture of the AR5. It looks very much like the Bresser EP, unsurprisingly. Can you remember what it was?

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell,

I have to say a very nice set of pictures. I can see some likenesses to the Meade finder but to fair you could say that about almost any, the coating it the same colour for sure. I have to ask this are the counterweigths enough to balance the scope, they look really small?

It is a good photo of you too, a man and his toys.

Alan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John. I just noticed the standard EP in your picture of the AR5. It looks very much like the Bresser EP, unsurprisingly. Can you remember what it was?

Russell

It was a Meade branded 26mm plossl. It came with the scope so I sold it on with it too. It was the later chinese made type of course but seemed a decent eyepiece. Better than the modified achromats that Skywatcher supply as standard and Meades own MA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russell,

I have to say a very nice set of pictures. I can see some likenesses to the Meade finder but to fair you could say that about almost any, the coating it the same colour for sure. I have to ask this are the counterweigths enough to balance the scope, they look really small?

It is a good photo of you too, a man and his toys.

Alan.

It's weird, but the coatings look more like those of the scope, which in turn is a deeper green than the photo's show.

The counterweight is definitely not enough when the 30mm is in the diagonal, which in turn means you can't really add any meaningful accessories, even with 1.25" EPs.

Could I ask someone with a SW mount to measure the diametre of their shaft?

Russell

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD using chubby fingers. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell,

Just come in, clouds! I have a shaft in front of me, its the short one from the HEQ 5 Pro and it looks like 17.5-18mm no more I would have said. I don't have any other way to check it other than a steel rule

Hope that helps.

Alan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alan. The Exos 2 is 20mm, so I won't risk it.

I was weighing (ha ha) up my options, because when I looked into it, counterweights seemed extraordinarily expensive considering what they are. However, Amazon had a 4.5kg Bresser one for £37, which even including a bit of hurry up postage, came in under £45.

SW 5kg weights are £30 from FLO (hence the question), but a Celestron one is a scarcely believeable £62! £94 for a 10kg one. That's a lot for a lump of cast iron and a screw....

Russell

PS. Are you going to be over here during the International Astronomy Show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alan. The Exos 2 is 20mm, so I won't risk it.

I was weighing (ha ha) up my options, because when I looked into it, counterweights seemed extraordinarily expensive considering what they are. However, Amazon had a 4.5kg Bresser one for £37, which even including a bit of hurry up postage, came in under £45.

SW 5kg weights are £30 from FLO (hence the question), but a Celestron one is a scarcely believeable £62! £94 for a 10kg one. That's a lot for a lump of cast iron and a screw....

Russell

PS. Are you going to be over here during the International Astronomy Show?

Russ,

Not perhaps ideal, but it might be a cheaper alternative to get a counter weight extension bar - though this is rather annoying and perhaps worth a letter to Bresser, where it may fall on deaf ears but has got to be worth the stamp/time. Alternatively you could get a SW/Celestron weight and drill it out if needed, but it does seem a shame to ruin the elegant looks of this sleek scope with odd weights on the bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went with an additional counterweight. It adds more weight to the payload, but I can't help thinking that less weight on a longer bar would take longer to settle down in terms of vibration after touching the focuser, etc.

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will check the hole size today in the weights something make me think there is a plastic liner inside each weight, removed it may be OK.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell,

The smallest hole in the weight is as far a I can tell a fraction over 20mm, this would be with the plastic inner sleeve removed. I would say it was 20.5mm. The plastic sleeve is easy to remove and the same hole on the other side is 23mm, so it could be drilled out. Do you know anyone with a SW mount to try it out, it may well work but I feel it could have a tendency to rub the chrome surface and then could lead to rust.

I think I would be inclined to go for the real thing even though the price seems a bit steep. I couldn't believe what Losmandy want for their counterweights, they must be a better class of cast iron.

Alan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they forge theirs in the heart of a better class of star.

Shortly after you posted earlier, I remembered the plastc sleeve in the SW weights and decided the faffing around wasn't worth the saving in money, especially without guaranteed success! Plus, I'm a bit asbergers, so the thought of two different counterweights make me come out in a cold sweat, so I'd have to buy two! I'd missed seeing the Bresser weight on Amazon earlier, because I normally ignore paid-for banner ad's, but either way, I bought one and it should be here in time for the predicted clear night on Saturday.

I've just jinxed that, haven't I?

Cheers for your help. :)

Russell

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they forge theirs in the heart of a better class of star.

That'd be the only justification for the price - out of interest what is the current price of iron metorite per kg?

Thankfully there's no additional postage/delivery on top of the price!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that they call it a semi-apo. Even the review the seller linked to, makes it clear it's nothing of the sort. The sort of differences between the Antares and the AR5 described in the review, are almost the opposite of what you would expect if it were. He found the Meade less colourful for starters, so that's not right and the other differences could be ascribed to lens figure or collimation.

That second hand Antares does look a little expensive, assuming I'm not corrected on all of the above!

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it expensive as well Russell, especially since the Bresser can be had for a little over £300 new....

http://www.astroshop.de/bresser-teleskop-ac-127-1200-messier-ota/p,13233

I'm saving for another project at the minute but would be seriously tempted by the above sometime in the future. Am I correct in saying the EXOS 2 would be the equivalent of the Skywatcher EQ5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Antares is pretty much the same as the TS Elite 127:

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p680_ELITE-127-Refractor-Telescope---127-1200mm---2--focuser.html

As I've never paid more than £200 for any of my achros, even the 150mm F/8's I find prices like the one listed on UK Astro Buy & Sell somewhat ridiculous. I didn't pay much more than that for my ED120 !.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.