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

[L8-Nite]

Yeah, the word amazing is subjective, and to me about as meaningless as the word potential, both of which are used by the presenters in the program "Homes Under The Hammer" so liberally, lol.

 

 

[niallk]

Interesting thread - I've wondered before too: especially when you could get a high end 18" Teeter/Zambuto dob for the same price as a Questar 7" ... 

[timwetherell]

20 hours ago, swamp thing said:

I've wondered the very same thing about refractors  
 

 

Oooooo, watch your words sir - That's fighting talk!   But yes, you can certainly get a lot better bang for your buck than a big hunk of glass or a Questar will ever offer. A friend of mine has a Questar. It's very nicely made and the optics are tip-top but my impression was that it the view was much the same as any other good mak of similar aperture which is to say pretty damn good! My impressions of decent maks is that they are more "refractor-like" than most refractors are

One thing I do like about the Questars is the tabletop tripod system. Especially in the days before driven mounts were so cheap and common. Imagine it's 1975. In 30 seconds you can be observing from your garden table with a top quality scope, setting circles and clockwork mount that tracks the stars. When you're done you pop it under your arm and go back in. Meanwhile your mate is still heaving the bits of his 4" refractor or 6" f10 equatorial Newtonian out of the garage. Even in 2016 it would be nice to have that convenience (presuming I knew nothing about cool down!) I've never owned a Questar but I can to some extent see the appeal as a "grab and go" if you're lucky enough to have a lot of spare cash. 

I kind of agree with Fiery Jack, it's a hobby and if it makes you happy to have one and you can afford it then more power to you. If you collect stamps and a two penny red or whatever, is the rarest  coolest bit of sticky paper one can own and you've dreamt of owning one since you were a boy and now you can afford it, then buy one. But I sure wouldn't. You can't even post a letter with it!  

[Paul M]

I've never had one nor am I ever likely to have one but I think they are a thing of beauty.

When I was a boy I couldn't find nor afford any astronomy magazines but a family friend loaned me an old copy of Sky and Telescope. The magazine alone was a thing of beauty and when I spotted the Questar adverts inside I was in love. Deeply in love. The price was irrelevant. It meant nothing to me, an order of magnitude beyond my comprehension.

But boy, did I want one!

[swamp thing]

Seriously though  regarding Questars.

I always thought that it wasn't just about high quality optics but their reputation for overall quality. What I mean is they are supposed to be tough little scopes that are designed and built to last. They are a travel scope in the true meaning of the word. I have heard that one can beat on a Questar and it will take it. Ive read Questar owners report on the overall toughness of their little scopes dragged up mountains or across deserts. Questars that have bounced around in the back of land rovers on overland expeditions and still worked as good as new at the end of it. Try that with a meade ETX or a skywatcher and see how long it lasts. 
Not everyone that owns one will beat on them. To use the car analogy, not everyone that owns a land rover will venture far off road but if you do you are secure in the knowledge that you have kit that will take a beating like no other.
 

[Peter Drew]

Ah, but you could buy 10 replacement  ETX90's or SW's for less than one Questar!  

[swamp thing]

39 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

Ah, but you could buy 10 replacement  ETX90's or SW's for less than one Questar!  

Tough to buy a replacement when you're in the middle of a desert........ 

[Ruud]

Ed Ting did a review titled Can a $200 Chinese Maksutov Topple the Mighty Questar?

It turns out that the Questar actually is better.

If you like the review, Ed has many more on http://www.scopereviews.com

[moriniboy]

Not all Questars are the same........

[L8-Nite]

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

Ah, but you could buy 10 replacement  ETX90's or SW's for less than one Questar!  

And you would probably have to, lol.   

It would be interesting to know how many ETX's will bite the dust in time while our 45 year old Questar still lives on.  I'm confident it will provide exemplary service for the person lucky enough to acquire it long after I'm gone.

All kidding aside, and this has been fun banter, ....... be happy with your choices, and enjoy the night sky.  

 

[Peter Drew]

The Questar12 was over $100,00!

[mikeDnight]

30 minutes ago, moriniboy said:

Not all Questars are the same........

I remember looking longingly at the adverts for the Questar, especially the 12" shown above, but if I remember rightly, it was over £12000.00. Back in 1980 I was a 18yr old apprentice plumber and it took me the whole of that snowy January/February repairing burst pipes, before I could afford my prized 60mm Astral refractor from Dixon's. It cost £110.00.Looking back I'm glad I had a struggle to obtain my early scopes, as it made me appreciate them all the more. 

The Questar was never really a mass produced instrument even though many were made. Each one would have been individually figured and each tube assembly lovingly assembled. I'd have no doubt that on a night of good seeing, a Questar would have a noticeable edge over a mass produced Synta/Meade/Celestron. To those who are passionate about their instruments, the edge in performance and construction is worth every penny. And why not? The iñstruments are as much a part of the hobby as the observing, and to many they are even an obsession. Of the numerous scopes I've owned and used over the years its always been the ones with truly high quality optics that have the edge on the night sky. To me and many like me quality outweighs aperture every time, and if that means spending an uncomfortable amount of money, the so be it.

 

Mike

[mikeDnight]

30 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

The Questar12 was over $100,00!

Hi Peter,

 

If you meant £100,000.00, then EEK!

I was going off the price of the 3.5", which I think was about £3,500.00. Which still deserves an EEK! Still if I had the readies spare I'd pay it. You know I'm silly enough!

 

Mike 

[Physopto]

No doubt it is a realy nice and beautifully built scope, but I would rather have a FSQ106ED, or a Vixen 100 VSD.  I just happen like refractors! I did have a small Celestron 5SE for a while and liked the views for such a small aperture. But I am always drawn back to a Frac!

It is definitely a matter of personal choice. It would be an awful world, (well even more than it is) and boring, if we all liked the same things. I mean what would the DOB MOB do?

Derek

[mikeDnight]

30 minutes ago, Physopto said:

No doubt it is a realy nice and beautifully built scope, but I would rather have a FSQ106ED, or a Vixen 100 VSD.  I just happen like refractors! I did have a small Celestron 5SE for a while and liked the views for such a small aperture. But I am always drawn back to a Frac!

It is definitely a matter of personal choice. It would be an awful world, (well even more than it is) and boring, if we all liked the same things. I mean what would the DOB MOB do?

Derek

Agreed!

I'd rather have a good frac rather than anything else too. 

[ollypenrice]

17 hours ago, bomberbaz said:

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.

Nope, I won't buy this analogy. I prefer the Rolex one, which I think hits the nail on the head and was what I had in my mind already. Whether you buy a Rolex because you like the fit, finish and whole idea of exquisite engineering, or whether you buy it as a status symbol, is something only you know. You don't buy it because it keeps better time, though. For that you just need a £30 Casio digital.

And so to the Questar, which I doubt anyone buys just for the optical quality because this can be matched and even roundly beaten at a lower price (albeit with greater bulk.) The global quality may have something of the Rolex about it and this may appeal to owners. The only Questar owner I ever met described himself as an optical junkie and the Questar as a piece of optical jewellery. I think that says it all.

Personally I will never be a fan either of Rolex or Questar or Cartier (etc etc etc) because I'm afraid I see them as self-conscious examples of products intended to feed conspicuous consumption. They are not my kind of thing. Now I like good instruments and own a couple, but my elderly Tak FSQ looks like part of a 1958-X ray machine in finest NHS green and my TEC 140 looks like a long white tube. I'm not into anondized red, carbon for carbon's sake and the catwalk appearance of Officina Stellare stuff, the latterday Questars.

Questar can sell at the price they do because they have created a marketing mystique around themselves. You're paying for 'collectibility,' not instead of good optics but as well as good optics.

On 10/2/2016 at 11:50, swamp thing said:

I've wondered the very same thing about refractors  
 

 

There's always one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, seen the 14 inch Zambuto-Lukehurst on ABS? Oh man!

Olly

[spaceboy]

I think it is a rich person thing. We cannot relate to it because we are not rich.

If money was no object then purchases are not so based on value but rather on getting what is considered the best that money can buy. Whether it be the case or not regards the views makes no difference. As a package the Questar range offers a level of craftsmanship that has been marketed in such a way that it makes the "brand" desirable by those who can afford it.

 

[Moonshane]

I'd sooner be me I reckon. But I do agree with the each to their own consensus. My motive for this thread seems to have been misunderstood to some extent. I am not in any way criticising anyone with any scope - we should all be glad that we are all into astronomy - I was simply trying to understand why people buy these scopes and I think I have my answer.

As for the 12" Questar, I'd honestly sooner have my 12" f4 dob (or perhaps a nicer, newer vision with optics that are certified at a high level of accuracy) even if money were no object.

[Physopto]

I would not like to criticise anyone for any purchase really as it is a personal choice. Everyone to their own. I am not over fussed on DOBs but know friends who love them, it is their thing! The views can be fantastic. I cannot afford the millionaire buys, but don't blame someone with the funds to spend their cash as they would like. It is none of my business how someone spends their money and I do not feel agrieved that I cannot do as they do. I am probably the same as most of us a bit jealous at times but glad that they can and do enjoy their equipment. I expect there are some who feel that about some of my gear. I am pretty happy with what I have, but then there is always another day. If I really wanted a Questar I could have bought one, at the expense of many other items. I have spent many years saving and scrimping to get my bits and peices together. To me it has been a great journey of discovery, disappointment at times, but above all I have made many friends along the way. 

From all the answers to the original question I think I can see an answer as can Moonshane. It has been interesting reading all the views about the scope. 

Even the person with the least might want a scope of this build quality, but I suspect  most of us want practicality and value for our money. 

Derek

[tich]

I hope we get to see your Questar this year Mike. & the Dob Mob

[Dave In Vermont]

This is probably a photo that could be captioned:

FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY - WHICH WOULD YOU BUY?

Dave

[L8-Nite]

12 hours ago, tich said:

I hope we get to see your Questar this year Mike. & the Dob Mob

Most likely Tich. It will be nice to catch up with you, the mob, and the usual suspects once again.   

[DaveS]

11 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

This is probably a photo that could be captioned:

FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY - WHICH WOULD YOU BUY?

Dave

Er....none of the above . I'm a 'fraccy imaging buff.

[Linda]

I've looked at the Questar website, at the 7" Maksutov. The specs mention:

CLEAR APERTURE: 7 inches, 178mm FOCAL LENGTH: Basic visual, 100 inches, 2540mm, Camera close, 112 inches, 2800mm PHOTOGRAPHIC FIELD OF VIEW: 1°15'

Compared to my telescope, that has focal length 1500mm and field of view approx 2 degrees, this is a great deal narrower. It might still be great on planets, but I personally wouldn't wat this telescope, because of it's extremely narrow field of view.

[swamp thing]

12 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

This is probably a photo that could be captioned:

FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY - WHICH WOULD YOU BUY?

Dave

Hmmm! 28" webster ($18,000+),  3.5" Questar ($6,500)........"The same amount of money"? What money are you using, and can I have some please?