Equinox 80 - any reason why not?

[gnomus]

I've decided to get a shorter focal length scope for imaging.  It's between the Skywatcher ED80 and the Equinox 80.  When you add up all the 'bits', there's only £60-70 between the two (the reducer flattener for the ED80 is quite a bit more expensive than the flattener for the Equinox).  I'm leaning towards the Equinox.  Is there any reason for me to reconsider?  Are there any specific issues I need to know in relation to the scope?  I see that the ED80 appears to be the more popular scope, and I wonder why folks tend to plump for than one over the Equinox (which is a little faster and is reported to have a better focusser).

I would appreciate some comments before pulling the trigger.

[DaveS]

A couple of alternatives to think about.

This package (With F/R) at a bit under your budget

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/william-optics/william-optics-zenithstar-zs71-ed-2013.html

And this at a bit over

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/william-optics/william-optics-star-71-f49-5-element-refractor.html

Depends if you trust WO build / QC 

[Pig]

I have an Equinox 80 but have not used it imaging so I cant help you on that score, the glass is the same in both scopes I believe.

Reasons why others may have chosen the ED are, the weight difference (the Equinox is quite heavy for a shorty) the Equinox does not come with a diagonal thus more of an initial cash layout.

The  reasons I opted for the Equinox were the build quality (hence the extra weight) and the many reviews I read favoured it.

Most importantly the performance of the scope is excellent delivering pinpoint stars and excellent detail,  it also is a wonderful looking scope

[gnomus]

I have an Equinox 80 but have not used it imaging so I cant help you on that score, the glass is the same in both scopes I believe.

Reasons why others may have chosen the ED are, the weight difference (the Equinox is quite heavy for a shorty) the Equinox does not come with a diagonal thus more of an initial cash layout.

The  reasons I opted for the Equinox were the build quality (hence the extra weight) and the many reviews I read favoured it.

Most importantly the performance of the scope is excellent delivering pinpoint stars and excellent detail,  it also is a wonderful looking scope

Thanks for the reply. I have diagonals and eyepieces for my other scope. Admittedly they are only 1.25", but the Equinox comes with an 2"-1.25" adapter, right?

As to weight, I don't see any problem. I have a CGEM. That should be sufficient, correct?

Please keep the comments coming.

[Pig]

Yes to both of your questions regarding 1.25" adapter and weight, the Equinox isn't heavy its just heavier than the ED

They are truly great scopes.

[VikN46]

I use the Equinox 80 for imaging (although I still class myself as very much a beginner) and I chose it over the ED80 mainly for the build quality. I don't regret my choice at all however this is my first refractor so I don't have much to compare it too. I also only have an EQ5 pro mount and find it handles the weight of the scope along with the finder guider and camera as well as either the DSLR or CCD with filter wheel and flattener attached fine. I can get 15min subs no problem.

The only thing that is a little awkward is the focusing tube does have a tendency to slip however with adjustment to the tension I seem to have it pretty much sorted.

I also just use the 1.25'' diagonal from my ST80 with my eyepieces (for alignment star purposes) then just remove the 1.25 adapter leaving the 2'' and pop the camera and flattener in and go from there.

HTH

[davefrance]

Use my Equinox ED80 for imaging (day (terrestrial) and night (astro) no problems, very pleased with it. Not really suitable for imaging planets or other very small angular dimensions, image is to small to get much detail even with 2x barlow. Have not tried with CCD.

I understand that the Equinox is a bit more solidly built than the cheaper Skywatcher but as has been said you do not get a diagonal. Not sure but I think the Skywatcher may have a less expensive single speed focuser rather than the double on the Equinox. I attach a DSLR via 2" adaptor. You may get some vignetting if you try and attach via 1.25"

[gnomus]

Thanks again. Can I double check that the Equinox does come with a bracket fitted onto which I can attach a finderscope? Some of the photos I've seen of the scope don't seem to show a bracket. I'm thinking, for now, of just getting an inexpensive Skywatcher Finder (possibly a right-angled one).

Do people use Telrads with these? I have a Telrad and could get another mounting plate.

[VikN46]

Yes mine came with bracket to attach a finder.

[Zakalwe]

For imaging you won't need a diagonal, but I would recommend some rings. The standard "shoe" isn't really suitable for a scope of this class. I really don't know why SW ship the Equinox with a poxy shoe and not some rings TBH.

The Williams Optics CNC rings fit perfectly

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/tube-rings/william-optics-90mm-cnc-tube-rings.html

The focuser is much better on the Equinox and is fixed to the OTA with a threaded collar rather than the pretty poor method on the ED80.

You can also reduce the Equinox if you use a focal reducer. I used to use a TRF2008 which worked well and brought the scope to f5. There will be a bit of blue bloat on bright stars at that level as f5 is probably pushing a doublet to the limits.

I had both scopes and the Equinox is in a different league from the ED80. The OTA is much better built. Having said that, the ED80 produces some great results. I'd prefer the Equinox though, especially if the prices are close. It's just a far better built 'scope.

[davefrance]

Thanks again. Can I double check that the Equinox does come with a bracket fitted onto which I can attach a finderscope? Some of the photos I've seen of the scope don't seem to show a bracket. I'm thinking, for now, of just getting an inexpensive Skywatcher Finder (possibly a right-angled one).

Do people use Telrads with these? I have a Telrad and could get another mounting plate.

I believe older Equinox's did not have a finder bracket but newer one's do have a small dovetail bracket.

Have not found the mounting dovetail shoe a problem, slides quickly into my HEQ5 with ease and clamps firmly enough. I have made a stop at the rear end of the mount dovetail to stop the telescope crashing to the floor if the side bolts fail to grip it.

[Zakalwe]

Have not found the mounting dovetail shoe a problem, slides quickly into my HEQ5 with ease and clamps firmly enough. I have made a stop at the rear end of the mount dovetail to stop the telescope crashing to the floor if the side bolts fail to grip it.

I struggled to balance it once a focus reducer, filter wheel and camera was hung off the back of it.  Plus I like to have everything as rigidly mounted as possible (removes another variable), so I used the WO rings and a Losmandy dovetail. Probably overkill, but with imaging nights in such short supply I don't like leaving much to chance if at all possible.

[ollypenrice]

My concern would be pushing the F ratio of a doublet beyond what it naturally wants to give. The optics of the ED80 are slightly conservative and this is no bad thing. They are not trying to get too clever with the F ratio. The control of blue in the standard ED80 is remarkable. This is its genius.

We really need some back to back comparisons on the Equinox and ED80 but anecdotally I've felt that the Equinox was a bit prone to blue bloat, as are many of the budget refractors which set their sights on Takahashi F ratios. (WO, Borg...) In narrowband this isn't a problem in the least. In natural colour, beware.

Olly

[lensman57]

Thanks again. Can I double check that the Equinox does come with a bracket fitted onto which I can attach a finderscope? Some of the photos I've seen of the scope don't seem to show a bracket. I'm thinking, for now, of just getting an inexpensive Skywatcher Finder (possibly a right-angled one).

Do people use Telrads with these? I have a Telrad and could get another mounting plate.

The newer ones come with a finder shoe, however you have to be aware that with the imaging camera and guide scope mounted you may not be able to achieve balance with the stock mounting base and rings and dovetail maybe  necessary.

A.G

[davefrance]

I struggled to balance it once a focus reducer, filter wheel and camera was hung off the back of it.  Plus I like to have everything as rigidly mounted as possible (removes another variable), so I used the WO rings and a Losmandy dovetail. Probably overkill, but with imaging nights in such short supply I don't like leaving much to chance if at all possible.

Fair comment. I am still new to this game and only have limited bits and pieces to attach so I don't think I need belt and braces just yet.

[brettg40]

Im following this thread very closely as I'm going through a similar choice

[brettg40]

Seems to me that the equinox is always the better choice out of the 2

[Uranium235]

My concern would be pushing the F ratio of a doublet beyond what it naturally wants to give. The optics of the ED80 are slightly conservative and this is no bad thing. They are not trying to get too clever with the F ratio. The control of blue in the standard ED80 is remarkable. This is its genius.

We really need some back to back comparisons on the Equinox and ED80 but anecdotally I've felt that the Equinox was a bit prone to blue bloat, as are many of the budget refractors which set their sights on Takahashi F ratios. (WO, Borg...) In narrowband this isn't a problem in the least. In natural colour, beware.

Olly

Almost took the words out of my mouth Olly!

But in addition, the difference between the Equinox and the 80ED is that with the Equinox, you are stuck with a push-fit connection with no dedicated reducer - and getting a 3rd party FF/FR to work properly can be a bit of a lottery. The 80ED however, you get a rock solid threaded connection for the dedicated reducer.

The 80ED is a bit workman-like, but style isnt everything

[Zakalwe]

Almost took the words out of my mouth Olly!

But in addition, the difference between the Equinox and the 80ED is that with the Equinox, you are stuck with a push-fit connection with no dedicated reducer - and getting a 3rd party FF/FR to work properly can be a bit of a lottery. The 80ED however, you get a rock solid threaded connection for the dedicated reducer.

The FR on the ED80 only brings it to the same speed as the Equinox is natively. The Equinox has a dedicated field flattener, which is a very reasonable £79, which works extremley well. Certainly good enough to give a flat field on a DSLR sensor.

If you wanted to reduce the Equinox further, then the TV TRF-2008 works very well. There's a whole pile of much cheaper reducers on both Teleskop Express and Altair Astro, but I haven't tried any of those.

Your point about the push-fit is a good one though....I wish ALL focusers came with a threaded connection.

[gnomus]

My concern would be pushing the F ratio of a doublet beyond what it naturally wants to give. The optics of the ED80 are slightly conservative and this is no bad thing. They are not trying to get too clever with the F ratio. The control of blue in the standard ED80 is remarkable. This is its genius.

We really need some back to back comparisons on the Equinox and ED80 but anecdotally I've felt that the Equinox was a bit prone to blue bloat, as are many of the budget refractors which set their sights on Takahashi F ratios. (WO, Borg...) In narrowband this isn't a problem in the least. In natural colour, beware.

Olly

Thanks for all the feedback from everybody. I am really caught between two stools on this one. I have to say that posts such as this - from someone who clearly knows his stuff - is making me reconsider the ED80. There has to be a reason for its popularity.

[MattJenko]

I went for the ED80 because of the package (case/diagonal/rings) as I was starting from scratch. I felt that the slightly cheaper, more forgiving ED80 would be more my intro into imaging than the Equinox. I have seen many more great results form the ED80 on sites like Astrobin and here than the Equinox, so felt there was a safety in numbers and that the community of users of the ED80 was much larger for questions and support.

[Macavity]

Heheh... I share your (various) chagrins. For me, with my 1/2" Watec Video chip,

500mm is just too long a focal length for (also envisaged) solar / lunar imaging. 

It just clips the FULL 1/2 degree disc. The common f=420mm is about right.

But It seems that Skywatcher have come up with a fine scope for general use

in the Equinox. At f/6 it might even be kind enough for my beloved Hyperions!

Video Astronomy prefers faster f-numbers and the f/7.5 of the standard ED80

is getting a bit slow... BOTH a a bit HEAVY to piggyback on my HEQ5 setup.

I get the impression there are two markets here. The upmarket portable scope,

with a bit of "blue bloat" (tolerable for visual use) and more serious "imaging"

scopes. The latter: genuine achromats, triplets and "better" 2-element ED's?

Though it seems, even the better mid-budget scopes can vary. 

I thought I'd finally RID myself of the "chromatic conundrum". lol 

[Uranium235]

The FR on the ED80 only brings it to the same speed as the Equinox is natively. The Equinox has a dedicated field flattener, which is a very reasonable £79, which works extremley well. Certainly good enough to give a flat field on a DSLR sensor.

If you wanted to reduce the Equinox further, then the TV TRF-2008 works very well. There's a whole pile of much cheaper reducers on both Teleskop Express and Altair Astro, but I haven't tried any of those.

Your point about the push-fit is a good one though....I wish ALL focusers came with a threaded connection.

Ah yes, I forgot to mentinon the flattener. But thats just a flattener, so youre still @ f6.

The  TV reducer might work (and has for some), but again you are into the realms of guesswork in regard to the spacing. Let just say thay you wont be off to a flying start with the Televue (and its expensive), I had one but never managed to get on with it. In the end I lost my rag with wasting clear sky trying to get the spacing right, and so ended up selling it. Its the guesswork that im trying to cut out, so I personally found it easier to stick with the tried and trusted.

Someone did mention the new Star 71 earlier in the thread as a good alternative - the FL is a bit short, but its fast and its (very) flat without the aid of an additional corrector. Definitely one for consideration, but it will leave you a bit short of FL during galaxy season (if its going to be your only scope).

Its probably possible to engineer a threaded solution for the equinox focuser, but if its a new scope I doubt if the lad would want to take a bench drill to it (yet!)

[Macavity]

The only other issue I have with many of these scopes is that they are essentially

"black boxes". In the case of the Equinox, "Steinway" black, re. fingermarks. lol

(No bad thing, but I do vaguely worry about the "silvered plastic" and stuff...)

I have upgraded and "grandly unified" (lol) my focussers to the *TS Monorail*.

It seems possible to add/replace (remote) motor focusing to some scopes, but...

I sense some of the Altair Astro offerings have greater versitility in these areas?