Stellarvue 130 VS. 10-12" lightbridge....

[amgray04]

So I am up in arms about this scope purchase. I currently use a 127 Mak-Cassegrain and have realized that the slow f/11.8 it offers is not giving me the visuals that I am looking for. I have borrowed a friends 102mm Stellarvue to try out refractors and was VERY impressed by the quality of the optics. (sidenote: for all purposes, $ is not the limiting factor in this decision, even if it is a heavy drop in the bucket  ). Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to use a Dob, even though I am seething at the opportunity to do so. I'm not necessarily suffering from aperture fever, but there are just some things my MAK does not detail as best I know the objects can be shown. I have done lots of perusing this site, but I wanted to try and get more opinions. Simply enough: for quality DSO's, nebs, etc. would this forum recommend a 130 Stellarvue or a 10-12" Meade light bridge? Before any says '130mm?? 10-12"??? Not suffering from ap. fever? I am only going with the heavy hitters because I do not want to upgrade again for quite sometime. These things aren't cheap hahaha.

Stellarvue 130mm f/7

Meade 10-12" f/5

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

A decent quality 10-12" Dob will hit ANY 130mm for six when it comes to DSO observing. DSO observing requires aperture, aperture and more aperture. The 130 Stellarvue would be a step up from a 127 Mak for planetary observing (quite a modest step, given the small CO of the Mak), but differences would be marginal in the DSO front except in terms of width of field. In terms of aperture there is very little in it. I have looked through a TEC 140. Superb scope, but even my 8" SCT is a better DSO hunter, with roughly double the photons captured. A 12" Dob catches 2.25x more than the 8" scope, so 4.5 times more light than the 140mm.

[ronin]

The 2 scopes are almost polar opposites.

The Newtonian will gather a lot of light, the 10" will gather 3.6x more, so if it is DSO viewing really it has to be the Lightbridge.

Lots will depend on your skies, Cambridge is bad, bits of Cambridgeshire can be dark.

Detail will be better through the 130, refractors tend to deliver this.

The Lightbridge will need a coma corrector, to improve the image.

If you intend any form of imaging then the 130 with an equitorial, the lightbridge is not really suited to imaging.

To an extent the Lightbridge is a little specialised - big visual scope, the 130 is more general - will image, will do visual just not collect anywhere near the light of the Lightbridge.

[John]

As has been said a 10" newtonian / dobsonian will out perform a 130mm refractor on deep sky objects without any doubt at all.

The 130 refractor might get close to the 10" on the planets when seeing conditions are mediocre.

I might have a look at other 10" dobsonian options than the Lightbridge though.

A smaller issue is that I'm not sure that Stellarvue scopes are easy to get over here. I can't recall seeing any dealers for the brand in the UK for some time.

[amgray04]

As has been said a 10" newtonian / dobsonian will out perform a 130mm refractor on deep sky objects without any doubt at all.

The 130 refractor might get close to the 10" on the planets when seeing conditions are mediocre.

I might have a look at other 10" dobsonian options than the Lightbridge though.

A smaller issue is that I'm not sure that Stellarvue scopes are easy to get over here. I can't recall seeing any dealers for the brand in the UK for some time.

John, outside of Meade, what other brands would you recommend? I have read that Meade has high marks, however, if I am mistaken, please enlighten me.

[Chris]

Hi and welcome to SGL

I do like refractors, if you look at my sig you'll see have 4 refractors and no others type of scope (at present). They give magical views for what they show: pin sharp stars richly contrasting with a very dark sky background. I even love how they look which I know isn't particularly practical. Great views of clusters, doubles, planets, Moon, and bright DSO's.

However, if you wan't a scope specifically for DSO's as you've mentioned, I would be seriously tempted by a 10-12" Dob, collimating tool, and a Telrad finder. I've just bought a 5" refractor as a compromise do it all scope, but I'm under no illusion that a well collimated 10" Dob would thrash it specifically on DSO's. 

Both longish refractors and Dobs will hurt your back without a good observing stool.

I wouldn't buy a Lightbridge either, I think they are probably ok but quite heavy from what I've heard. Skywatcher do very well regarded budget dobs, the 10" solid tube is only 415 pounds.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians.html

You could have a 10" Dob and a nice ED refractor for the price of the Stellevue I should imagine.

[John]

John, outside of Meade, what other brands would you recommend? I have read that Meade has high marks, however, if I am mistaken, please enlighten me.

The Meade Lightbridge range are decent and have the same optics in them that the less expensive Revelation dobsonians (sold by Telescope House) have. The Skywatcher 10" dobsonians (available in both solid tube and flex tube forms) are also very popular for good reasons.

These are all good value for money scopes that will provide lots of deep sky observing potential while remaining relatively portable.

Perhaps if you could say a bit more about what you are looking for above and beyond what your 127mm mak is doing for you we can provide some more suggestions ?

[nicoscy]

Instead of the Lightbridge, I would go for a 12" from Orion Optics. f4 if you plan to use a paracorr and want something short, f5.3 if you want to view sans paracorr. With premium mirrors of course.

I have the 12" f4 and I am set up in under 5 minutes, laser in the focuser and waiting for scope to cool for collimation....

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The 2 scopes are almost polar opposites.

The Newtonian will gather a lot of light, the 10" will gather 3.6x more, so if it is DSO viewing really it has to be the Lightbridge.

Lots will depend on your skies, Cambridge is bad, bits of Cambridgeshire can be dark.

Detail will be better through the 130, refractors tend to deliver this.

The Lightbridge will need a coma corrector, to improve the image.

If you intend any form of imaging then the 130 with an equitorial, the lightbridge is not really suited to imaging.

To an extent the Lightbridge is a little specialised - big visual scope, the 130 is more general - will image, will do visual just not collect anywhere near the light of the Lightbridge.

If detail is better in a 130mm than a 10-12" quality Dob, your collimation is off . Contrast at a given exit pupil is better in a frac, but a 10" can resolve more detail, although it can take a bit more time to wait for a steady seeing moment to actually get that extra detail.

[amgray04]

The Meade Lightbridge range are decent and have the same optics in them that the less expensive Revelation dobsonians (sold by Telescope House) have. The Skywatcher 10" dobsonians (available in both solid tube and flex tube forms) are also very popular for good reasons.

These are all good value for money scopes that will provide lots of deep sky observing potential while remaining relatively portable.

Perhaps if you could say a bit more about what you are looking for above and beyond what your 127mm mak is doing for you we can provide some more suggestions ?

I guess it would be wise to give as much info as possible so that the experts are appropriately armed with knowledge. I wish it was that easy to say 'Hey! This is what I want out of  telescope'. I'd say mostly I'd like to be able to view DSOs with greater clarity than my 127 mak offers. Do not get me wrong, the SW 127 mak that I have is an awesome scope. Good first purchase, and I'd purchase it again in the same scenario. But after spending the summer learning the sky and what interests me more, I have realized what it is that I'd like to build upon. I do plan on using my mak for learning astrophotography (the wife is a photographer, so it was my way a wrangling her into astronomy, kudos me). But that is for another forum post.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

If it is mainly DSOs get more aperture. In that case a big Dobson is the best bang for buck. For astrophotography it depends. The mak is great on the moon and planets, but not for DSOs. For that a short refractor is the best

[cotterless45]

Unless you're a weightlifter, avoid the 10" Lightbridge. It's a monster to move. It's also a devil for any sort of muck that is attracted to mirrors, irrespective of shrouds and covers.

You weapon of choice depends on your targets, an 8" f6 Newt is just lovely from light polluted sites. It doesn't overkill reasonable eyepieces either. Personally , if I were on the lookout, it would be the eponymous 200 Dob or 250.

Your 130 pea shooter is the biz for clusters , doubles and clean stars. A bit of aperture above 150mm will blow you away,

Nick.

[amgray04]

Thank you everybody for the candid responses. To save some serious $ I believe I will be looking into a Dob/Newt in the near future and keep the refractor on the back burner for awhile. Thanks again!