F4 Newtonian - Small Apo - Maksutov-Newtonian

[ReZ]

Hey guys
I've finally managed to get myself an NEQ 6. now I'm looking for a scope. After months of reading and searching on the net, I ended up with three decisions. I will use the scope for Deep-sky, but i like to do planetary sometimes.

1- Sky-watcher Quattro 8 f/4 (Good aperture, Good FL and Good Optics / collimation and bad built quality)
2- William Optics GTF-81 Five element APO (Good (built and optics) quality / limited aperture)
3- Sky-watcher MN190 Maksutov-Newtonian (Good for visual and AP / high weight and higher price)

Its a dead end for me, each one has Pros/Cons of its own and i cant choose. So I hope you can help me out.
I'm not trying to start the old war of Refractor/Reflector so don't fight each other
I will add a long FL system (RC or SC) in a not-near future but for now it will be all i have. I will image with a Crop DSLR (Nikon D5500), I plan to get a CCD but it too belongs to the same not near future.
Thanks in advance and I apologize for my Bad English.

[Gerry Casa Christiana]

If I had the choice I would definitely go for a MN but why not look at the explore scientific 152mm saves on weight and great for viewing. 

Im interested where and how much was you eq6?

[nightfisher]

32 minutes ago, ReZ said:

Hey guys
I've finally managed to get myself an NEQ 6. now I'm looking for a scope. After months of reading and searching on the net, I ended up with three decisions. I will use the scope for Deep-sky, but i like to do planetary sometimes.

1- Sky-watcher Quattro 8 f/4 (Good aperture, Good FL and Good Optics / collimation and bad built quality)
2- William Optics GTF-81 Five element APO (Good (built and optics) quality / limited aperture)
3- Sky-watcher MN190 Maksutov-Newtonian (Good for visual and AP / high weight and higher price)

Its a dead end for me, each one has Pros/Cons of its own and i cant choose. So I hope you can help me out.
I'm not trying to start the old war of Refractor/Reflector so don't fight each other
I will add a long FL system (RC or SC) in a not-near future but for now it will be all i have. I will image with a Crop DSLR (Nikon D5500), I plan to get a CCD but it too belongs to the same not near future.
Thanks in advance and I apologize for my Bad English.

Your English is pretty good, i would say 8" F4 newt, but you would need a corrector for it

[ReZ]

1 hour ago, Gerry Casa Christiana said:

If I had the choice I would definitely go for a MN but why not look at the explore scientific 152mm saves on weight and great for viewing. 

Im interested where and how much was you eq6?

Thanks for your answer. I live in Iran, the telescope and related instruments has a monopoly and it is pretty hard to find any other brand than sky-watcher and GSO

 

[ReZ]

1 hour ago, nightfisher said:

Your English is pretty good, i would say 8" F4 newt, but you would need a corrector for it

Thank you, that's an encouraging statement to see.   yeah if i go down that route, I will buy an aplanatic CC which optically matches the optic. Thanks

 

[nightfisher]

My thinking with this OTA is being able to barlow or powermate up for planetary work while being good for main interest of deep sky at native focal length

[ReZ]

1 minute ago, nightfisher said:

My thinking with this OTA is being able to barlow or powermate up for planetary work while being good for main interest of deep sky at native focal length

Yeah thats right. I was going to buy this optic while its almost an all-around OTA , but this WO came along and confused me again.

 

[ReZ]

is there anyone to say anything else?

 

[Freddie]

I don't like star spikes so the MN was the one for me and I have no regrets.

[ReZ]

2 minutes ago, Freddie said:

I don't like star spikes so the MN was the one for me and I have no regrets.

Thank for your comment.
How do you like your MN Freddie? How's the quality of Imaging? can it be used as an all-around scope? is collimation any hard on it?

[Freddie]

Can't fault my MN as far as I'm concerned other than the std focuser needs an upgrade but there are plenty of options out there. I use a Moonlite. Could maybe do with a few hundred more mm on the FL for the smaller targets though but that's just being picky. Collimation is a bit tricky to get right but holds very well once set. I think it produces really nice tight images. Can't comment on use as an all rounder as I only use it for DSO, I've never even looked through it with an EP.

[ollypenrice]

Is your environment prone to wind and abrasive dust? This might be more harmful to an open tube than a closed?

For widefield deep sky imaging you don't need aperture. Small apertures produce decent results. EG from 85mm:

However, if you want to focally extend to planetary imaging scales then you will need aperture. I often think that trying to cover too many bases with one scope is not the best way forward... So my deep sky thoughts are these:

In terms of ease and probable initial productivity I would say refractor then Mak Newt then Quattro.

In terms of fully sorted scopes (assuming they can be fully sorted which is never certain) and an experienced imager then the best results would come from the Mak Newt. When sorted they are phenomenal. But they are big and heavy. Wind?

In terms of portability and ease of setup (= how often will you use it??) then refractor first.

What would I personally buy in your situation? Refractor. (And save the planetary till later.)

Olly

[ReZ]

22 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Is your environment prone to wind and abrasive dust? This might be more harmful to an open tube than a closed?

For widefield deep sky imaging you don't need aperture. Small apertures produce decent results. EG from 85mm:

However, if you want to focally extend to planetary imaging scales then you will need aperture. I often think that trying to cover too many bases with one scope is not the best way forward... So my deep sky thoughts are these:

In terms of ease and probable initial productivity I would say refractor then Mak Newt then Quattro.

In terms of fully sorted scopes (assuming they can be fully sorted which is never certain) and an experienced imager then the best results would come from the Mak Newt. When sorted they are phenomenal. But they are big and heavy. Wind?

In terms of portability and ease of setup (= how often will you use it??) then refractor first.

What would I personally buy in your situation? Refractor. (And save the planetary till later.)

Olly

Thank You Olly for your helpful answer.
Yes I live in Tehran which is surrounded by mountains and my imaging site will be on top of a mountain which i will drive almost 120KM (75mi) to get to. So portability is a must. and the places is quite windy in autumn and winter, so short, closed tubes will have a priority. So in these terms it will be Refractor>Mak>Newt
thanks Olly.