Lyra 152mm f5.9 Achro

[A McEwan]

Some pictures of the setup tonight.

Ant

[John]

Very interesting report Ant and nice pics of the scope in action

I've read that these have about the level of CA that the average chinese 150mm F/8 shows but the objectives are generally better figured and corrected for SA. Does that sound about right from your experiences thus far ?

[nightfisher]

Ant, very nice, how does the skytee handle it? i have just ordered a second upgrade saddle for my skytee, i have gone for the Baader/vixen clamp as this should fit

[A McEwan]

Hi, the Skytee handles it just fine. A perfect match.

I would say the colour correction is a good bit better than the old 150mm f8 achro I had, John.

More later,

Ant

[Dude_with_the_tube]

good to hear that you are enjoying your new toy Ant

[cotterless45]

Lovely scope and report. You could do no better than try a Baader semi apo filter. Really cuts the ca,

Nick.

[A McEwan]

Lovely scope and report. You could do no better than try a Baader semi apo filter. Really cuts the ca,

Nick.

Yes, I used to use a Baader SA filter all the time with my Helios 150mm f8, as it needed it.

I'm not sure the Lyra actually needs it though, to be honest. There is some CA there but not enough that I feel the need to buy a £100 filter to remove it. I did try a Moon & Skyglow filter last night but didn't spend enough time with it to really assess its performance.

Ant

[John]

I'm glad yours is doing so well Ant. I can only conclude that these must vary a bit in their CA control as I've seen quite a variation in reports on how much CA different owners have experienced from practically none to a fair but quite reasonable amount. As a regular on CN I'm sure you have seen the same reports and Ed Ting's feedback is interesting too.

What matters though is "the scope in your hands" and it sound like yours is a good one

[A McEwan]

Yes, I read several good in-depth reviews before buying, including Ade Ashford's and Ed Tings comparison with a WO 152 achro.

You have to bear in mind that the only times I saw CA last night were when looking at bright stars, like Mizar (a glorious group split by the way) and the Peiads. The Moon naturally showed CA too. But for its primary purpose of cluster-busting and nebula hunting, it really will be a non-issue.

I have yet to do more experiemnts, but have to hand a 2" variable polariser, as well as various strengths of ND filter as well as the M&SG filter, so plenty of fun ahead for me! (not that any of these are necessary for me to continue enjoying the telescope!   )

Ant

[vlebo]

As much as I would like a large dob , for  practicality I am leaning towards your scope or a Celestron C9.25 on a sky tee 2 or similar ( Sabre mount ) as i know i will use it much more. Can these two scopes even be compared to one another ?

[nicoscy]

As much as I would like a large dob , for  practicality I am leaning towards your scope or a Celestron C9.25 on a sky tee 2 or similar ( Sabre mount ) as i know i will use it much more. Can these two scopes even be compared to one another ?

I have to add something to this:

I had the same scope but the Teleskop Service equivalent, on exactly the same mount and a slightly different tripod. It was a fantastic scope but considering the weight of the OTA, mount, tripod and counterweights, a big Dob weights much less.

Just the OTA weights with the rings about 11.3 Kilograms and my 12" dob weights 14kilos + another 12 for the dob mount. Take into consideration the weight of the refractor mount, tripod, extension and counterweight and it actually weights more and takes more time to set up than a Dob.

If you are into refractors, by all means it is a superb telescope. It is a fantastic low cost high quality telescope for refractor aficionados. However for the same weight, probably smaller storage footprint and a much lower cost you can have a large aperture instrument. Even by taking into account 30 odd minutes to cool the primary of the Dob, it is the same time required more or less for the optics of the refractor to cool.

Ant, I am in no way trying to diminish your scope. I love it and held on to mine for quite a while but in the end I wanted more aperture and ease of use. However, I must confess that nothing beats the pinpoint stars in a large well figured refractor!!!!!!!!!!

[vlebo]

Yiasou Nicos !

The Orion Optics Uk VX12" is a very portable dob with a small footprint thanks to its very practical base. I was thinking more in line with the Flextube 12" which has a large base and is not so portable . I do like the idea of a compact portable scope that , if need be , i can throw in the car and go to a nice dark site. I do prefer wide angle DSO viewing and the 152mm rerfractor does seem appealing as an all rounder.

[nicoscy]

Yiasou Nicos !

The Orion Optics Uk VX12" is a very portable dob with a small footprint thanks to its very practical base. I was thinking more in line with the Flextube 12" which has a large base and is not so portable . I do like the idea of a compact portable scope that , if need be , i can throw in the car and go to a nice dark site. I do prefer wide angle DSO viewing and the 152mm rerfractor does seem appealing as an all rounder.

The OO 12" VX has a 2 degrees TFOV without the paracorr and 1.75 degrees TFOV with a Nagler 31. That's plenty wide but of course, no scope can do everything!

The 152 will keep you busy for quite a while and it is a scope for life if you don't get aperture fever.

About portability for the 12", here's a couple of photos of it in my CRV:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g83bl543i4xdk8y/IMG_7692.JPG?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jngxxkuselrgf72/IMG_7693.JPG?dl=0

But the Flextube is both bigger and substantially heavier.

[A McEwan]

Still lovin' it!

[vlebo]

They are now in stock at Altair Astro  http://www.altairastro.com/product.php?productid=16699&cat=270&page=1 

Attached to one of their Sabre mounts or a SkyTee 2 makes for a tempting combo.

I think i've narrowewd it down to one of those or a Celestron C9.25 on Sabre mount or a Flextube 12" or 14" ( more narrowing down required !!!!! )

[Astro_Baby]

I have often considered one of these as an alternative to my 200 reflector.  Faint fuzzies are always faint fuzzies but I have always wondered whether this kind of compact frac might be a better alternative for me as a mobile astronomer instead of the relatively bulky 200.

How do you think it would fare against an 8" reflector - I am thinking DSOs only.  I already have the Skymax 180 for planetary work.

[A McEwan]

Mel, I think as far as transporting is concerned, they will be pretty similar. It is a bulky OTA and takes some care to mount. What mount are you thinking? HEQ-5? Or an alt-az mount? My Skytee II on Berlebach Uni-18 takes it very well.

The eyepiece position will be a lot more user friendly than an EQ-mounted Newt though (I have tried them and simply couldn't do it again, unless it was a small OTA).

Visually I'd say the views would be comparable for DSO's, but slightly "richer". The refractor view is different, as I'm sure you know already (Unitron collector...) and for me that's the deal-maker. I love refractor views. I can do Newts, but I prefer fracs.

Going by your articles, I don't think you'd be disappointed, but ultimately it's a matter of taste and that's really up to how YOU like the views.

If you need any more specifics about the OTA, feel free to ask or PM me.

Ant

[Astro_Baby]

Ant,

My only real concern is overall view quality and definition/contrast.  Most faint fuzzies even in an 8" refeflect remain quite small and (relatively speaking) unimpressive.  My Mak cant cope with widefield objects like the double cluster so my criteria would be 'does the Lyra compare favourable with an 8" newt on DSOs generally' specifically does the scope present the right brightness, contrast, apparent size etc.

Its hard off of text - I suppose I will have to try and get to a star party where someone has one and take a look.  I would mount it on the HEQ5.

It does look a beast so I would have to check one out I guess.

Unitron Mention them not They are hideous telescopes to use which is why my Unitrons only get taken out to oooh and ahh over the beauty of the build and lots of ickle things in a wooden case In truth the Unitrons are horrors to actually use - in their day they may have been the mutts nuts, but then so was the Velocette Venom - if you had to ride one today you'd soon be complaining about the oil leaking out of everywhere, the duff brakes, having to rebuild it every time it goes anywhere and the exhaust pipe setting fire to things (your shoes for instance ).  The Unitrons are the same........I cant fault their customer service though - 40 years after stopping production I call them up and ask for a spare and someone in Unitron locates the parts in an old spares bin and sends them on for just the postage cost.  Impressive stuff.

On the Lyra 152 - I must get a look through one of these pronto I think - thanks for the review Ant and heads up.  Its certainly given me something to think about.

[jam1e1]

Mel welcome to have a look though the 150 frac when next out (it's not a Lyra) but will give you an idea how this compares to 8" newt

[Astro_Baby]

Ta jamie...if it ever clears

[Peter Drew]

Never had a Unitron but had a Venom for some years. Plenty to fault but didn't they sound good! 

[Astro_Baby]

LOL - If I had ever gotten mine running I could have commented - Mine was bought as a bitsa in an age when I had about half a dozen assorted bikes in various states of 'restoration' - I use the term loosely.

One afternoon a friend bought a friend round who had a fully restored Venom, full fairings, gold pin striping etc - very, very beautiful to look at but what an embuggerment of a machine - it kind of killed the restoration of mine because (1) I could never imagine getting mine to look that good and (2) even if I did I wasnt sure (actually I was) that I could ever be bothered to keep rebuilding it

The Unitron is the same - its looks the bomb, loads of street cred but both of mine are a horror to use and believe me one night with one of these 'beauties' in the field would be enough to make you give up astro entirely.

[John]

....The Unitron is the same - its looks the bomb, loads of street cred but both of mine are a horror to use and believe me one night with one of these 'beauties' in the field would be enough to make you give up astro entirely.

Thats interesting feedback. The Unitron scopes seem to be treated with such reverence on the CN forum you would think their optics were simply amazing. Or is it the ergonomics that cause the issues in use ?

[Astro_Baby]

Well its hard to assess the lens because the overall experience is such a horror.  Now I should state I am talking about the 114 models not the super duper very large scopes Unitron made.

Heres just a sample list of horrors;

1/ Wobbly Mount - I have the Alt Az and its a curse, I also had (brielfy) the EQ mount and it was as wobbly as any old style mount.

2/ The finder - ludicrously small and the fittings are made our of rice cakes, the least bit of overtension when attaching it to the scope and crack - bobs your uncle (and also bob better have a steady hand with the araldite to glue it back together).

3/ The real killer and the one that slowly, but surely, drives you insane.  The focuser has a very small amount of travel and the EPs are like the least closes to parfocal you could ever imagine.  Some come to focus 15' away (well it seems that way when you use them). So what you have to do is manually pull the focus tube out of the scope to where you think the EP might come to focus, then you put the EP in, lock the extension to its position and now you can use the focuser to achieve fine focus - why lock the extension tube ?  If you dont its all too easy to push it back in.  Because the focusing distances between EPs are so far apart you can spend a pleasant half hour trying to find focus.  Doubtless if you have endless time to while away learning where each EP comes to focus then your probably alright on this score. Believe me you have no idea how difficult the simple task of changing an EP can be until you have tried this in a dark field with a scope which may well have drifted off target while you mess about.

4/Hooray you found an object and its crystal clear - well as clear as any .965 Huygens EP will produce through a tiny scope. So you have a perfectly formed planet and you can see it just the way you would in 1960 ie through a dreadful tiny  EP and a tiny scope that doesn't like to focus and wobbles. Do astronomy the way granpa did it.

Optically the lenses look beautiful and in their fitted boxes with all the accessories they can look wonderful but practically - nah - a TAL100 with some TAL supplied EPs will run wings round my Unitrons.  Doubtless some optics wiz will come back and tell me how the Unitron lenses were made by Vixen at one time and represent the best of the lens makers art but a telescope is more than a lens - its a complete system of parts and while in their day these scopes were a beauty in a world of modern scopes where you can buy stuff like APOs, monster Maks, giant newts on GoTo mounts  etc all at relatively low prices these scopes are like a steam engine - beautiful but time has just passed them by.

Would I buy more Unitron kit ?- Yes I would because I happen to like nicely made retro telescopes in fitted wooden boxes, the same reason I used to own a selection of violet wands from bygone days when they were the height of quack medicine. I wouldn't expect a violet wand to have any therapeutic value beyond the weird though and I'd not expect to have to use my Unitrons in the filed except as a laugh and for a bit of retro.  I did consider having one of the  modified into a solar scope but the costs were too high and it was too much like hard work.

In their day Unitrons cost a mint and were beautiful - the beauty remains but I would never use them seriously in the field for the same reasons I wouldnt drive to Scotland in a 1950s car or play music on a wind up gramophone or use an 086 PC

[A McEwan]

No, seriously Mel - don't hold back. Say what you really mean...!!

Ant