Why are Questar Telescopes so expensive and yet popular/desirable??

[Moonshane]

OK, I get that they are well made and optically very good, but so are a lot of other scopes of the same sort of aperture and at a much faster focal ratio. These alternatives offer much better value for money too. If you spend the sort of money that a Questar calls for then you can obviously buy a larger aperture or a really superb refractor, for example.

 

So, I’d be interested to know why they are so popular and why you chose one? Is it a cult following thing? Are they really so far ahead of anything else available at the same aperture? Was it convenience for travel?

[Moonshane]

PS no matter what people say I won't be buying one!

[laudropb]

I have often wondered this myself.

[m0dal]

Same reason that people buy Rolex rather than a Timex. Both tell the time but one has hand-crafted engineering and a demonstration that the owner can afford to pay premium prices.

[Moonshane]

I can see the Rolex comparison but surely a Rolex is more accurate than a Timex? Maybe it's not! If Questar's are more optically accurate than other scopes then fair enough but are they?

[bomberbaz]

Jush had a look at one and talk about drool, however the price is for those with more money than sense, (sure you not buying one shane )

[xtreemchaos]

it because it makes people happy to have something a cut above the rest, same reason my son likes a new M5 every 2 years, it makes him feel good, it makes my eyes water when he tells me how much he gets for trading in and it allso makes the garage very happy.charl.

[swamp thing]

I've wondered the very same thing about refractors  
 

 

[John]

I assume that it's all about the workmanship, standard of finish, polish of the optics and that sort of thing.

I believe Peter Drew has used a Questar and has compared the views with more "ordinary" scopes and has not found that much of a difference. I'm sure he commented as such in a thread quite a while back ?

 

 

[spaceman_spiff]

35 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

I can see the Rolex comparison but surely a Rolex is more accurate than a Timex? Maybe it's not! If Questar's are more optically accurate than other scopes then fair enough but are they?

I know this is off topic but mechanical watches like those made by Rolex are way less accurate than quartz watches costing 50 times less. The accuracy of mechanical watches is quite sensitive to temperature, movement, even the position you leave it in when you go to bed! 

My Rolex gains about 2 seconds per day while my Fiancée's watch stays bang on for weeks! 

[Moonshane]

I think this is partly my point in a way. Televue eyepieces for example are better than most and about as good as you can get in many ways. They are clearly more expensive but also clearly better than cheaper options. If the Questars are not actually optically better I do wonder why people go on about them so much.

[Moonshane]

Maybe it is just vanity / status?

[Physopto]

I had a Rolex many years ago. It was useless. It kept stopping on my wrist. Worked fine if left on a bedside cabinet!!!

As the spaceman_spiff  intimated,  modern watches are cheaper, usually just work and are more accurate! So why waste good money on a symbol of wealth? They don't work any better.

 

The same goes for a telescope. I had a Meade LX200 12". Nice scope but as most will know the mount and electronics leave a lot to be desired. I am sure that  Queststar is not much better than a standard scope of the same type visually, if at all, so why waste the extra money? Oneupmanship? Possibly. If no one knows then it is not that. For your own pleasure? Maybe. I like nice things so I can understand wanting a special, even if later realising it may not be worth it.

As the saying goes " It is your choice and if you have the money it is no one else's business"

After the Meade, I had an NEQ6 then an EQ8, now a GM1000HPS, (extremely accurate). That is a progression in my mind. I would like a FSQ106ED instead of my WO 132mm but that is another story.

In short the Queststar may be the scope of some ones dreams! That will be the reason I would suspect that it is bought, to own "a special something of beauty".

I prefer practicality!

Derek

[xtreemchaos]

+1 for status but its all in ones mind cos who knows what otheir people think? charl.

[Mark at Beaufort]

I saw one on display at Astrofest on Saturday - did not check the price. I just looked at the price from the States and they are about $5000 - expensive, very expensive.

[Peter Drew]

Reputation, reputation!, reputation! or just advertising. Questars have been around since the 1950's, it was a long time before there was anything similar to compare.

I have owned a couple of Questars and used several others, they are very nice telescopes optically and the overall appearance is second to none. Based on their high price, when I launched my business in 1972 I specialised in the design and manufacture of Maksutovs offering a 90mm unit often called the "poor man's" Questar. They had similar optical quality but not the finery of the Questar. I capitalised on the few weaknesses of the Questar namely the slow focal ratio, the never ending turns of the focuser and the left right reversal of the early models when used terrestrially and addressed them accordingly. Despite being a "one off" enthusiast I did make around 100 of these, sales dwindled when Celestron introduced the cheaper C90. I currently have a very good Meade ETX90 which I have done side by side comparisons with a modern Questar, optically there was little difference, the Questar gave a tad brighter image terrestrially probably due to better baffling. Fit and finish being a different matter though!

[chiltonstar]

My first view through a Mak was a Questar on a ranch near Knoxville - I've particularly liked Maks ever since.

However, I wonder how many of us could see much difference between a Questar and a Skywatcher equivalent (all I can afford) side by side? Any more than most of us could see much difference between the best newt that OOUK could supply, with expensive EPs, compared with a Skywatcher dob with mid-range EPs?

Chris

[r3i]

2 hours ago, Moonshane said:

Maybe it is just vanity / status?

Yes, they certainly have a high 'bling factor'.

[Merlin]

In my collection of 'scopes I have the SKYMAX 90. The optics are truly astonishing, limited only by the aperture. Whether the mechanical parts are robust in the long term remains to be seen.

There is some back play in the focuser, but it was a demonstration model when I bought it for £90 on an EQ-1. The 'scope is now used on bigger mountings.

[andrew s]

4 hours ago, Moonshane said:

I can see the Rolex comparison but surely a Rolex is more accurate than a Timex? Maybe it's not! If Questar's are more optically accurate than other scopes then fair enough but are they?

A cheap plastic quatz/radio controlled clock is more accurate than any expensive mechanical watch. Regards Andrew

[L8-Nite]

12 hours ago, Moonshane said:

............................. So, I’d be interested to know why they are so popular and why you chose one? Is it a cult following thing? Are they really so far ahead of anything else available at the same aperture? Was it convenience for travel?

I chose to get a Questar after observing through one back in 1985, the high contrast views blew me away. Observing for me has been mostly a go it alone hobby, so it had nothing to do with the scope being popular or a cult following; I've never been a follower.  Even though I had a very good 3" refractor at the time, I thought, someday I'll treat myself, and twenty six years later I purchased one.

Edit: It's a telescope of uncompromised quality, both optically and mechanically; perfection in its class, and I'm very happy with it.

 

[Mr Fiery Jack]

This is after all a hobby for the vast majority of us, not scientific research, a hobby. Now you can contribute to genuine scientific research in the field of astronomy from the very computer you are reading this from, galaxy zoo and what have you. You might get lucky, you might be the very first, with your 22 inch dob to see a super nova no other human being has ever seen , but then you probably won't. if it turns you on to split stars with a custom built 3 inch f15 refractor then more power to you I say. If you absolutely must have a dob so big you need 3 blokes and a transit van to shift it good for you. Who cares, its just a hobby. To be honest I don't really get the point of this thread.

[bomberbaz]

car comparison, a ford fiesta and a rolls royce will both get you from a to b as they do the same job, however with a roller you will arrive there feeling less tired as you will have more a pleasurable journey.

[Physopto]

Well I can see the point of this thread.

The original question was just asking for our views. A fair few of us have given ours in a fair minded manner. After all this is just a hobby, or is it? It can be the most important thing in our lives for some. Some of us go way beyond what others would ever do. That also includes how much or little that we spend in time or money. Some of us cannot afford much but intensely enjoy our "StarTime".  Others like me enjoy a bit when possible but enjoy the fiddling trying to get something to work, ( not much in the way of clear skies).  There are some of us that spend enormous sums on equipment as a treat. I do not take holidays as such, I would rather spend my hard earned on something I can keep. As a group of people there is a great variation of interests and knowledge that covers a vastly diverse spectrum. 

In short I think there is room for all types of astronomers and questions.

Derek

[Moonshane]

I have no real axe to grind but often see articles or comments saying how amazing they are and I never paid much attention,  assuming they are a well made scope with better than average optics at at a price. My view based on responses has not been changed. As for the point of the thread, it's the same as any thread discussing kit really?