Astronomica ED127 refractor

[geoff_k]

A friend of mine has just purchased one of these as a 'grab and go' scope. He has a larger Newtonian but this did not readily lend itself to easy transportation to elsewhere.

As I have a fairly established set up, he brought it round last night and stuck it on my HEQ5 Synscan.

The scope looks quite hefty, but after re-balancing, my system handled it without any problem. It appears well-made and the tube is painted white. It has a universal mounting rail and a fairly long retractable dewshield. As with all refractors, you do find yourself ending up in some unusual positions although the fully rotatable Crayford helps. The focuser was a little tight, but focusing was reasonably smooth.

We looked at and imaged the Moon and Saturn. Unfortunately, clouds were about, so any deep-sky imaging was out of the question due to time contraints. We hope to try some at a more opportune time in the future as my friend owns a DSLR as well as a long-exposure ATIK webcam and is a fairly accomplished photographer as well as a very experienced user of Photoshop.

Did have a quick peek at M3 and Mizar/Alcor at the endof the session and the view was pleasing in both instances. However, not enough time was available to be definitive about the ED127 performance in this area.

I wil post some images elsewhere on here but Saturn was viewed using a 5mm LER giving a magnification of about 190. Cassini, some surface banding and a number of moons were visible. Although the scope is F7.5, there was no obvious sign of chromatic aberration ... although ...

Saturn was imaged using a Toucam, IR filter and various Barlows. With the 4x Imagemate there was significant CA, but this reduced once we went down to a 3 x Barlow and used a combination of a Neodynium and Fringe Killer filters. The image on screen had that certain quality you seem to get with refractors. Couldn't quite achieve good focus with a 2x Barlow for some reason.

I thought the resultant image was very good considering that we are talking about a 5 inch aperture scope and the fact that seeing was not as good as it was about a week ago. I suspect this was a factor in respect of the use of the 4 x Imagemate.

The Moon looked fine at different magnifications again with no obvious CA. Currently, the position of the Moon for me is over the town of Yeovil as it were which does have an impact on the quality of any image. Once the Moon moves in a week or so, I reckon it will be possible to achieve a pretty good image.

My overall impressions were quite favourable. Although I wouldn't necessarily suggest this scope as a 'main' instrument it seems on first light to perform adequately on most objects. If there is a criticism, then this sort of scope is neither fish nor fowl. A longer focal length would be better for planets and the reverse for widefield/deep-sky. It will do both reasonably well, but clearly not as well as more specialist telescopes.

On the other hand, the price is very competitive (I won't say what my friend paid, because that is obviously private) but details can be found here http://astronomica.co.uk/EDTriplets.php

When you consider that the price of an equivalent TMB or WO scope is nearly three times as much, you have to have the skies to take advantage. It could be a moot point as to whether the performance will be three times better given the sort of seeing we sometimes enjoy in this fair land. Funds permitting, I would still plump for something like the WO FLT132, but meanwhile you could do a lot worse.

My friend has found that he has already used this more than his larger scope and the old adage about the best scope being the one you use is definitely true in this case.

Finally, I have no affiliation with Astronomica, and yes, it is the famous non-existent Meade refractor re-badged. If you are looking for something that reasonably price, portable and easy to set up, this scope will fit the bill. Don't expect premium APO performance, but good value for the money.

[GazOC]

Geoff, did you get a chance to look at the lens cell? There were rumours (and only rumours I hasten to add) that one of the reasons Meade dropped the scope because if it lost collimation it was extremely hard to re-align the elements.

[geoff_k]

Gaz

Unfortunately not, as my friend brought it straight into the garden where I had set up. Clouds were about and we decided to crack on and do some testing and imaging. I have heard something of that nature as well as problems with the focusing mechanism, but I don't remember where from. Such is the way of the Interweb.

Ian Morison at Jodrell Bank gave a fairly positive review of the ED80 version, and think there is a review of the 127 (somewhere) which was also quite complimentary.

My friend is happy with it but for me, I think I would want to go for C8 or C9.25 in the SCT range. They combine portability with aperture and the focal length may be a little long for deep-sky imaging, but you can do some using a focal reducer. I used to have a Skywatcher ED80 which unfortunately didn't get enough use and I didn't really like the limited aperture which for me didn't really cut it as a grab and go scope for visual use. I know people get great results with it as an imaging unit, and it certainly punches above its weight.

I guess I am just a bitch for aperture. On the other hand, if anyone has an Equinox ED120 I wouldn't mind doing a 'shoot out' with the Astronomica scope

[AndyH]

Nice. Good to hear about these interesting scopes. Not much info out there. The more reviews the better.

Cheers,

Andy.

[Ajohn]

I have the earlier 5ins F9 meade ed apo and for visual use it easily surpasses a C8 maybe even the 10 and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this one does too. To be honest I haven't bothered geting my 10ins sc out since I had it. That huge central obstruction is to blame. It washes out everything and the of axis aberrations are a lot lower on a well designed refractor. Your friend probably needs an apo barlow that has been designed for an apo refractor and a compressor but the need for latter may turn out to depend on the size of ccd he is using.

Take care with any bad press the early meade had a fair amount of it. As a number of people are fully aware that it was a very good scope I'm fairly sure that the commercial apo mafia where having a go at it as it was under 1/2 the cost of the competition. It could also be that the 6ins version was stretching the technology used too far - that was the one that was usually reviewed. The other obvious comment in this area is that a triplet is bound to be more difficult to set up than a doublet for very obvious reasons who ever makes it. Full contact oiled triplets being a bit of an exception. They can be set up by moving the central element around.

John

[geoff_k]

It was an APO Barlow I was using which gave the focus problems. We just needed more time and you never have enough for these things. We had already got some images in the can, so left it for now. Didn't really get enough time on deep-sky stuff, but that will be attended to some time in the future hopefully.

I would say that given the ease of use, setup. no collimation, short cool-down time, portability and the price - it has to be a winner. There is always 'scope snobbery' and as we are all potential lottery winners in the next draw we will be getting the best that money can buy any day now.

However, back on Planet Earth, the only obvious competitor in this price range is the Equinox 120 (Tell me if I'm wrong) and having not seen through one, I can't attest to how good it is. So for now, the Astronomica gets my vote.

[Ajohn]

Despite the F9 meade I have also gone for a megrez 110 to try something even more compact. I've had zilch use out of it so far. I've missed 2 brief hour long periods where it would have been worth setting up. Going on it's terrestrial performance at silly magnifications it will be good. Only problem is F6. On the meade I can get good results with ebay ed eyepieces, those that seben sells but others do them as well now. Fortunately I have a short focus nagler zoom. At F6 the megrez needs it. The difference sticks out like a sore thumb. The megrez seems to work well with a tele vue big barlow and 5x power mate but I really need stars to test that out. Other cheap eyepieces that give good results are the vixen lanthium zoom and the moonfish groups wide angle lens. Oddly the the moonfish was a pain on the meade as it kidney beaned even with the eye only slightly off centre. Must be something to do with the optics as the exit pupil should be ok. It's ok on the megrez. On price I imported a special offer that wo did over Xmas that for some reason nobody offered in the uk. I did get a US dealer to check it out for me though - got charged for that too. The scope came with a free wo eyepiece, one of their priciest ones that seems to be excellent. Also got a free case, rings and diagonal.

Putting it all together I think F8 or even F9 apo's are an excellent idea. I wasn't knocking the C8 either. The fork mounted version comes on an excellent mount too. Selling them on german equ's is a bit bizarre to say the least. The C8 can be taken out and just used not so the 10ins scopes. They take a while to settle down. The contrast is just a lot better on a refractor. Trouble with telescopes is that there isn't such a thing as a scope that hasn't got a drawback. APO's size and cost, Newtons size or very short F ratios, C8 etc contrast. Mac's pass I did buy one once but I sent it back and the dealer stopped selling them. Achromats, that purple halo on bright objects but I think they get a lot of bad press. If you don't go for a fast F numbers and maybe not the largest in the range you are likely to get a very good scope.

On what to buy as an alternative to this one you may be surprised how cheap older longer F number apo's are on the 2nd hand market. They do come up from time to time but often don't sell. eg A 6ins meade on a mount that would cost £1ks. In this instance the go to didn't work. Oddly the mount is the one astro physics sell with different software and lapped worms. It's an obvious hole in the market too - more profit in dearer scopes so I'm not sure that there is much hope in that direction.

John

[GazOC]

I've heard that Meade Europe have changed their mind about this scope and will now be selling it very shortly.

[beamish]

Perhaps due to overcoming short comings in the past and improved QC ?

[mike bacanin]

Regarding the comment that the meade 5 inch ED surpassed a c8, it must have been a poor c8, because my recently owned c8, which i replaced with a c9.25, showed more planetary detail than the TMB 130 i owned . I have been a planetary observer for 40 years.

having owned some very fine refractors and other scopes including 3 c8's and a tak mewlon 210, i would say the contrast is superb in a fine refractor, but actual detail resolved is not as good as a larger aperture of good quality, just appears more contrasty. The best views i ever had of jupiter were with a 1985 SPC8,detail was incredible on one occasion, with muliple loops, festoons easily visible and also seen by a fellow enthusiast.

use a zeiss ortho or AP SPL in a perfectly collimated good C8 and you'll rethink your impressions.of course a poor C8 will not perform well,and then a good 5 inch apo will win out.

btw,my comments are not in anyway a criticism of the subject refractor of this post.

mike

[Whippy]

Perhaps due to overcoming short comings in the past and improved QC ?

I believe that's pretty much the strength of it Karlo, yes. It'll be interesting what sort of price they will be up for as 4-5" APO refractors are almost as numerous as the 80mm ones these days so if they've got a good triplet at a competitive price, this could be a winner.

Tony...

[GazOC]

The Meades are ~1300 euros.

[FLO]

.... the contrast is superb in a fine refractor, but actual detail resolved is not as good as a larger aperture of good quality, just appears more contrasty.

Well said! People often mistake contrast for resolution. When you increase the contrast setting on your TV, you aren't creating more detail, just giving the impression of more detail. Similarly, when you adjust the sharpness setting you are increasing acutance (edge contrast) which again gives only the impression of more detail. A good APO refractor has contrast and acutance in spades!

Assuming the optics are well made, maximum resolution is determined by aperture. Its an optical physics thing. Can't get around it, no matter how much you spend.

I have this conversation often with people who have an 8 or 10-inch Newtonian and are wondering how much of a difference they will see through a 4 or 5-inch APO refractor. In a nutshell, you will see more through the Newtonian but the views through the APO will be more 'pleasing'.

I guess the solution is to have both

[John]

I have this conversation often with people who have an 8 or 10-inch Newtonian and are wondering how much of a difference they will see through a 4 or 5-inch APO refractor. In a nutshell, you will see more through the Newtonian but the views through the APO will be more 'pleasing'.

I guess the solution is to have both

I've got a Skyliner 203mm F/6 dobsonian and a Vixen Ed102SS Apo and I compare the views between the two quite often. While I love the views though the APO, it's ease of use and portability, the dobsonian will always show more resolution and detail.

When properly collimated and cooled the views of Saturn this year have been outstanding with the dobsonian

John

[GazOC]

Theres one up for sale on Buy Sell now...

[mike bacanin]

Steve, i reckon you're right in saying have both!

I actually wouldn't mind a nice 4 inch apo again as a second scope, but i know if that happened there would be big trouble at home!!

but seriously, my previous tak FS102 gave incredibly sharp images, very very pleasing, but just did not reveal the level of detail i wanted to see.

money permitting, i would not want less than a 6 inch refractor, to do serious planetary viewing.

i certainly would not spend the £3500 i shelled out for the brand new TMB 130 again! i really thought it would be the ultimate,

but it truthfully left me wanting.and the huge resale loss really upset me.

but of course there are many much less expensive scopes of 8 inch plus that will deliver superb planetary detail, and on the right night will really show their worth!

mike

[MartinB]

Very interesting review Geoff. A 5" triplet in this price range is quite something if it delivers to it's potential. Of course, just slapping 3 lens elements together doesn't necessarily make a great scope but your initial impressions are very promising.

BTW in poor seeing I see more through my ED120 than my 300mm Skyliner dob. When resolution is seeing dependent that extra contrast makes observing tiny lunar details or Cassini significantly easier. I've found it takes pretty good seeing before aperture starts to pay dividends when viewing the moon and bright planets.

[geoff_k]

The price on Astro Buy and Sell seems inviting (if I had any money).

I agree with MartinB that aperture is fine if and when we get the seeing to support it. When I can, I certainly want to get something like the ED127 or ED120 if for nothing else to be able to set up quickly and take advantage of those brief clear spells we often get. Sadly, there aren't that many evenings when it stays clear all the way through.

Another thing about aperture is that we are not going to be at the best time for planets for a year or two so having a big light bucket may not make much difference at the moment.

[Ajohn]

Interesting comments. What I found with the C8 and others is that ok in theory I can use higher mag than the meade ed but in practice I can see less and have to drop the mag down again. End result is that the image scale is not that different. I'm talking planets when I say that. With nebulae and visual use the same sort of effect holds but not as bad but the refractor gives more pleasing views. Imagining nebulae is an entirely different matter big light buckets and big ccd's have there good points but it can be difficult/impossible to get maximum resolution out of the scope. Limiting magnitude still holds and that's where the gain is.

On the comment that an 8ins sct must show more than a 5ins refractor there are reasons why that needn't be the case. Others may have read earlier astronomy books that talk about an amateurs 4ins refractor and 6in reflector pointing out that these will have similar levels of performance. I have and one particular book that I've found to be accurate over the years reckons that an 8ins reflector is a much better bet as it will be better. There is fact behind these statements. All scopes with central obstructions will produce distorted diffraction patterns. These take light out of the central spot that sets the resolution in the 1st place. I'm always very cautious about what I read in books and even more so on the web but having seen the difference with my own eyes I have to go along with the statement. Most sources recommend a maximum central obstruction of 20% by diameter. The effects on contrast get worse as that goes up. Think about magnitudes and the way the eye works and it's easy to see why that can effect apparent resolution. Most smaller commercial compound scopes (all as far as I'm aware even macs) have central obstructions of over 30%. The ones I've measured are usually about 33% or more as the size of the scope goes up basically because the focuser size has gone up too. The same is likely to be true of newtons. I don't know I haven't measured any recently.

Was it a bad C8? Well going on other scopes I've owned no. I still wish I hadn't sold it. The 10ins is much more difficult to move around. That's all down to the fact that all scopes are a matter of compromise of one sort or the other. Optically or physically. Am I saying don't buy an sct no. They have their advantages. I also hope to play around with obstruction size against a star at some point as I still have my doubts. The meade ed has fundamental optical design advantages over an sct. That may well explain the difference.

.

John