solarmax 2 60mm or lunt

[MBJ]

any users had the chance to compare a lunt 60mm pressure tuned scope with 1200 bf and a solarmax 2 60 single stack with bf10 for visual,

iown the latter and have been told lunt are far better for visual.

[Pig]

I don't think you would notice any massive difference betwixt the two, it will be unlikely many people have owned both scopes mainly due to the costs involved.

Most folks seem to be happy with either and both have had very good reviews. I had the Lunt 60mm with a tilt tuner and it was excellent. However, I eventually settled on the Quark Chromosphere with a shorty frac.

I do not think you would be disappointed with either, especially so if you go for a double stack option. Do you prefer white or gold is probably the most difficult decision you will have to make

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The Lunt certainly has the better press. I have the SolarMax-II 60 with BF15, and it is a nice visual scope. The main issue I have is the central obstruction in the etalon. The Lunt lacks that. I used to have a little LS35 and at low magnification in particular, that was easier on eye position. I do wonder whether the LS60 will be a sufficient step up. Maybe save up for an LS80 or a Quark.

[Merlin66]

The Lunt 60 has an internal etalon similar to the SM II scope.

Very similar performance.

Michael , the original SM60 had an external etalon.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The Lunt 60 has an internal etalon similar to the SM II scope.

Very similar performance.

Michael , the original SM60 had an external etalon.

True, but we were talking about the SM-II 60mm

[Merlin66]

Hmmmm

I didn't know the internal tilt tuned etalon in the SMII 60 had a central obstruction.

I thought it was similar to the etalon used on the PST.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Hmmmm

I didn't know the internal tilt tuned etalon in the SMII 60 had a central obstruction.

I thought it was similar to the etalon used on the PST.

It definitely does. The CO is small, and does not affect the view much, but at large exit pupil it can be a bit of a pain. This review:

http://www.stephenramsden.com/solarastrophotography/reviews/SolarMax%20II%2090%20review%202010-10-23.pdf

Shows it clearly on page 6

[Merlin66]

ok but the review is an 90SMII....

I accept your experience with the SM 60II

(I'll stick with the original external SM60.........)

[Peter Drew]

I have a SM60mm external etalon and an internal SM6011 in my hand, I can confirm that both have CO's.     

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

ok but the review is an 90SMII....

I accept your experience with the SM 60II

(I'll stick with the original external SM60.........)

Sorry, linked to the wrong review. Here is the right one:

http://www.stephenramsden.com/solarastrophotography/reviews/2010%20Coronado%20SolarMax%20II%2060mm.pdf

Page 4 shows the CO

[Peter Drew]

SM6011 etalon clear aperture 35mm, central obstruction 9mm.  

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

So just over 25%.

[Luke]

I haven't directly compared them but owned two SolarMax 60's (very nice scopes!) and have looked through several rather nice Lunt 60's inc PT. Without directly comparing, I would say the views were similar, I did not feel the need to flog the SM60 and get a Lunt. Of course a direct comparison would have been more revealing, but any huge improvement would have been obvious to me.

Re: Stephen Ramsden's shootout in the linked PDF, when I read that a while back, the images made me worry that the SM60 is quite far behind in terms of imaging than the Lunt 60 but I think focus was perhaps a touch off, SM60's can produce some superb images.

If I had a chance to do a direct shootout I would be really interested to test at higher power. The reason why is that with my SM60s I found that pushing the mag up high on the disc did not really reveal much finer detail. However, my Daystar Quark and Tele Vue 60 does reveal finer detail on the disc at those higher powers. I wonder if this is anything to do with the central obstruction of the SM60. At low and medium power there was very little in it between my Quark and Tele Vue 60 vs SM60.

[Peter Drew]

I have a full aperture SM60 front etalon fitted to a ST80mm scope and BF15 diagonal. There is little difference in detail seen between it and a friends tilt tuned Lunt 60 in single stack mode, I would say that the Lunt edged it on evenness of field. Double stacking is another matter, the Lunt double stacked with a full 60mm front etalon gives the best Ha view I've seen with a small solar telescope.    

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I haven't directly compared them but owned two SolarMax 60's (very nice scopes!) and have looked through several rather nice Lunt 60's inc PT. Without directly comparing, I would say the views were similar, I did not feel the need to flog the SM60 and get a Lunt. Of course a direct comparison would have been more revealing, but any huge improvement would have been obvious to me.

Re: Stephen Ramsden's shootout in the linked PDF, when I read that a while back, the images made me worry that the SM60 is quite far behind in terms of imaging than the Lunt 60 but I think focus was perhaps a touch off, SM60's can produce some superb images.

If I had a chance to do a direct shootout I would be really interested to test at higher power. The reason why is that with my SM60s I found that pushing the mag up high on the disc did not really reveal much finer detail. However, my Daystar Quark and Tele Vue 60 does reveal finer detail on the disc at those higher powers. I wonder if this is anything to do with the central obstruction of the SM60. At low and medium power there was very little in it between my Quark and Tele Vue 60 vs SM60.

The SM-II 60mm can produce really good images. The focuser is not as good as I would like, so that could cause part of the problem.

[Luke]

The SM-II 60mm can produce really good images. The focuser is not as good as I would like, so that could cause part of the problem.

I did find it a bit of a pain focusing with the SM60, both mine had some backlash, the helical is the weak point for me, though it did work and I guess they were keeping costs down.

My Tele Vue 60 has a much better helical focuser, but even that one I struggle to get focus tight with the Quark, a fair few of my captures are a touch off! So I guess a dual speed is best for imaging. My focus is definitely tighter with my Quark and bigger scopes, which have good dual speed focusers on them.

[Davey-T]

Only got experience of  the Lunt LS60DS and have to say that for imaging the stock focuser is OK  but I changed it for a motorised Moonlight which allows for the best possible focusing when imaging, Moonlight is a bit of an indulgence but I think a motor focus is essential as you can hide away in the dark to focus.

Visually I could manage with the stock focuser.

Dave

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

For my mosaics I still use the stock focuser of the APM 80mm, which is quite usable, but not brilliant. Something better would be nice, and is possible with this scope, as with the Lunt LS60, but not so with the SolarMax-II 60. Bit of a shame, really

[Pig]

I wouldn't have wanted to hang a heafty camera off my Lunt focuser

[Philip Benson]

One afternoon at the Herstmonceux Astronomy weekend a few years ago I had the chance to compare various solar scopes from Daystar, Coronado and Lunt.   Switching between each I was struck by the better size and clarity of the image provided by the Lunt LS60.   The daystar scope provided a noticeably fainter image than the other two but then it may have been double stacked.  Can't remember for sure.

Anyway I came away from that event convinced that Lunt was the way forward for me and I now have a Lunt LS60 for portable use and an LS152 in my observatory.   Both pressure tuned and both excellent.