Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

My search for a wide field telescope.


Guest

Recommended Posts

I am looking for a manageable wide field telescope.I was convienced that a 10 or 12 inch Dobsonian was the way that I wanted to go. Yesterday a friend & I visted Tring Astronomy Centre (who were very welcoming indeed).We had the opportunity of looking at several Dobsonians on show.I lifted some of them.What was apparent was that I donot like lifting large telescopes.Because of this a Dobsonian choice would just get left is the shed.

I have a 100mm F9 ED refractor.My search is for a manageable telescope that gives brighted wider field views. At the moment in my mind is an 8 inch Newtonian,a 6 inch f5 to F6 achromat refractor.Also there is the option of a Short focal length 6 inch Newtonian.I have seen the Explore Scientific David H Levy Comet Hunter 152mm Maksutov Newtonian ,anyone have any views or experiences with this telescope?

I have seen The Skywatcher MN 190,but this is a very heavy telescope.

Some of the brightest views that I have had with a telescope were with a Star Travel ST 120 refractor.I briefly had a 150mm Star Travel,but did not give it a proper chance.So wonder if this would be a route to take?

I understand that with such a telescope it will not reveal lots of dim DSO's.But I do enjoy just sweeping the telescope for star gazing.

I wonder what I will end up with.

I have to add that I use an Altair Sabre mount and would want any future purchase to be mounted on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hi GM, I too have a soft spot for wide field views and in terms of "sweeping the sky" binos are ideal but once you get up to something like 20x80 or 25x100 you are getting into heavier mounted equipment with ever narrowing fields of view, good though they may be. I have an ED 100 and just part of the attraction is (that with being F9) I can use a 35mm/68 degree EP to get a 26x 2.6 degree view. A 40mm would give near 3 degrees. In my mind its quite a good sweet spot. Going "brighter"  obviously means going bigger and at some point there is going to have to be a compromise. The ST120mm achromatic refractor will be brighter but at F5 maybe limiting the EP choice(sky condition, exit pupil) it will not go much if any wider and the quality of view may not be any better. There is also the ED120 option but that financially is a whole different ball game!   A 6" Dob is a good scope and will give over 2 degrees using something like 38mm Panaview. That to my mind is a pretty good setup.  However if you're set against a Dob and considering the mount you have then you are left with Shane's sensible and logical suggestion, a 150P/F5. A 28mm/68 degree EP will give 2.5 degrees and a 5.5 exit which is doable with good conditions. Not expensive second hand (I've just sold one!) and you could try it, find out whether it suited your needs and if it did, good, but if it didn't you could sell it and I doubt whether you would lose much if any money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of budget do you have Martin? At the cheaper end of the market a good old 150p f/5 Newt would suit your purpose as Shane said, and at the more expensive end the ES 152 Mak-Newt would do similar to the 150p but with a flatter field and more refractor type views. 

I good compromise might be something like a 150pds with a Baader photo-visual coma corrector, perhaps? 

I would like a 150p f/5 type scope back in my arsenal again, they are very versatile :) 

If you think you'd get aperture fever @ 150mm, then maybe look at the 200p? but then the FOV will be less than your ED100 which is worth bearing in mind considering your objective.

The 150p does sound like a good bet :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked up a Bresser 102S some time back and that is the most general purpose scope I have at present. Nice size and weight and very easy to use. Actually snapped it up from the Bresser Clearance site that Chris has supplied the link to. Price was jus too good to miss at the time, either 109€ or £109 after conversion. It had never in reality been a display item so maybe one of 50 put to one side for display but never unboxed for display then sold.

It is about f/6 and a cemented doublet.

ES do a somewhat similar at least on paper but that is a bit slower and if I recall right a seperated doublet. Should therefore be a little better on CA. The slower lens and the slight additional flexibility on the lens surfaces as they do not need to be the same for R2 and R3. Minor hiccup is the ES cost more.

Nice on a simple tracking mount but easy to use on a WO EZTouch manual Alt/Az.

Will come down to budget and really how big a scope do you want/need. Until I got this 102 my 90mm was about the best and a big part of the reason the 102 has kind of taken over is not that it is bigger but the Bresser achro is similar enough, but a lot less cost then the 90mm which is a WO Megrez 90 and at events with public you get a lot less bothered by people around the Bresser then the Megrez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Forget the Newts, forget the Maks! None will give you the rich field views like you'll see through the 6" StarWave. It's a true RFT!

Mike

 

 

DSC_5762-processed-600w.jpg

These look really nice but after the starwave 102 F11 i dont see me going with this brand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nightfisher said:

These look really nice but after the starwave 102 F11 i dont see me going with this brand

Hi Jules,

It sounds like you've had a bad experience with the 102 F11?

 I can only say that the 152mm F5.9 that ive used was a wonderful RFT. It wasnt too great on the moon and planets but thats not what it was made for. As a rich field scope it gave a wide, pin sharp field with well controlled CA which wasn't really evident except on the brightest stars. The SW 150 F5 achromats make great rich field scopes also, and at significantly less outlay.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikeDnight said:

Hi Jules,

It sounds like you've had a bad experience with the 102 F11?

 I can only say that the 152mm F5.9 that ive used was a wonderful RFT. It wasnt too great on the moon and planets but thats not what it was made for. As a rich field scope it gave a wide, pin sharp field with well controlled CA which wasn't really evident except on the brightest stars. The SW 150 F5 achromats make great rich field scopes also, and at significantly less outlay.

Mike

I did not like the way the focuser fitted to the scope, if you loosened the rotating screw the focuser felt like it would come of and i had the TAL 100RS at same time i felt the TAL had better optics, better focuser and a more sturdy build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Davesellars said:

Where would you mainly be using the scope?  If it's at your home then can't you just setup a dob and wheel it out for a session?

Garden is not laid out so as you could easily wheel out a large Dob.Also the grass area is very uneven due to the lovely pet dog.The tripod setup over comes the uneveness. Also a scope that is easily tranportable to darker sky sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an earlier thread you favoured / were considering an Orion Optics UK 8" F4.5, is this no longer an option as it may better complement your 4" F9 refractor? Have you considered binoculars for wide field, a quality pair of 15x70 (4.4. degrees), 16x70 (4.1 degrees) will show a lot at a dark site, ultra portable and versatile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think on balance I would go for the suggested Altair Astro 152mm f5.9. This is definitely a scope that I would like to try in future (when funds allow!)

It's not strictly relevant to the conversation but have looked through an Altair 102mm f11, at Jupiter I think, and thought the optics were very sharp and comparatively free of CA.

A lot of this depends upon your definition of Widefield. For me, you need to be down around or below 750mm focal length or even down to 500mm, to get a nice 3 or 4 degree field for sweeping those star fields, but everyone's definition is different. Having 152mm or 200mm at 900mm would certainly give you some additional depth in terms of fainter stars but at the expense of field of view. Depends what you want to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davesellars said:

Fair enough! :)

Not wide field but if it's aperture you're looking for perhaps look for a 2nd hand 9.25"  Celestron SCT and a small refractor for the widefield aspect.  Your mount will easily handle it I think.

Hi Dave.I did have a C9.25.Just did not get on with it though.Think that The 100mm does well on planets.The C9.25 was just too narrow a field of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Stu said:

I think on balance I would go for the suggested Altair Astro 152mm f5.9. This is definitely a scope that I would like to try in future (when funds allow!)

It's not strictly relevant to the conversation but have looked through an Altair 102mm f11, at Jupiter I think, and thought the optics were very sharp and comparatively free of CA.

A lot of this depends upon your definition of Widefield. For me, you need to be down around or below 750mm focal length or even down to 500mm, to get a nice 3 or 4 degree field for sweeping those star fields, but everyone's definition is different. Having 152mm or 200mm at 900mm would certainly give you some additional depth in terms of fainter stars but at the expense of field of view. Depends what you want to achieve.

Hi Stu.Thanks for that.As I mentioned ,one of my best star gazing experiences was with a Skywatcher 120 ST.This was in a dark sky setting in South Wales.The view of the double cluster was very bright.I was impressed. A 150 F5 or 6 achronmat is in my mind.I would use my 100 mm ED F9 for colour free (virtually) views of the moon , planets and brighter objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Martian said:

Hi Dave.I did have a C9.25.Just did not get on with it though.Think that The 100mm does well on planets.The C9.25 was just too narrow a field of view.

Funnily enough I have a C925 but more often than not I end up using the 4" for planetary, particularly at the moment with such rubbish seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grumpy Martian said:

Hi Stu.Thanks for that.As I mentioned ,one of my best star gazing experiences was with a Skywatcher 120 ST.This was in a dark sky setting in South Wales.The view of the double cluster was very bright.I was impressed. A 150 F5 or 6 achronmat is in my mind.I would use my 100 mm ED F9 for colour free (virtually) views of the moon , planets and brighter objects.

Then the contrast and star shapes in the 152mm f5.9 might well suit you very well.

The colour correction on these scopes is very good considering the fast focal ratio/achromatic objective. It's obviously not a lunar or planetary scope but great for Widefield/DSO observing.

Oddly enough they also work beautifully with a Quark for high mag Ha observing. The views through Derek's setup were excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Orion Optics VX6 at F5 & the VX 8 at F4.5 have crossed my mind as easily handleable telescopes.These have lighter weight tubes made of aluminium.I am sure that these would give reasonably wide fields of view.I know that F4's are geared towards imaging .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Then the contrast and star shapes in the 152mm f5.9 might well suit you very well.

The colour correction on these scopes is very good considering the fast focal ratio/achromatic objective. It's obviously not a lunar or planetary scope but great for Widefield/DSO observing.

Oddly enough they also work beautifully with a Quark for high mag Ha observing. The views through Derek's setup were excellent.

I did once look at Jupiter through a Star Travel 150mm .It did show colour on the edges,but the detail on the planetary disc was still pleasing. A refractor would be a non nonsense rig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grumpy Martian said:

I did once look at Jupiter through a Star Travel 150mm .It did show colour on the edges,but the detail on the planetary disc was still pleasing. A refractor would be a non nonsense rig.

The f5.9 152mm scopes are a very different (and better) proposition over the ST150s. Significantly better Optics with lower CA and I believe much better corrected for spherical abberation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, scarp15 said:

In an earlier thread you favoured / were considering an Orion Optics UK 8" F4.5, is this no longer an option as it may better complement your 4" F9 refractor? Have you considered binoculars for wide field, a quality pair of 15x70 (4.4. degrees), 16x70 (4.1 degrees) will show a lot at a dark site, ultra portable and versatile. 

I used to like binoculars.But am not comfortable since breaking my nose in an accident last year.The eyepieces cause a bit of soreness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Grumpy Martian said:

I used to like binoculars.But am not comfortable since breaking my nose in an accident last year.The eyepieces cause a bit of soreness.

Sorry to hear that, particularly as you use to enjoy binoculars. Just as an example, my Lunt's have deep quite soft rubber eye cups, no pressure against the bridge of my nose even if the interpupillary distance is set quite short. I hand hold or monopod mount mine, if tripod mounted I expect that you could ease back yet a little more, the 20mm eye relief on these makes using easy and relaxed to, I do not wear glasses. Anyhow would be interesting to learn what you eventually decide upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

Sorry to hear that, particularly as you use to enjoy binoculars. Just as an example, my Lunt's have deep quite soft rubber eye cups, no pressure against the bridge of my nose even if the interpupillary distance is set quite short. I hand hold or monopod mount mine, if tripod mounted I expect that you could ease back yet a little more, the 20mm eye relief on these makes using easy and relaxed to, I do not wear glasses. Anyhow would be interesting to learn what you eventually decide upon.

I bought a pair of 70mm Fujinon binoculars February of last year,not long after my accident.They were tripod mounted.The discomfort was evident when trying to look up high in the sky.They were sold.But I do have a set of Opticron 8 x 40 high resolution binoculars which give me great pleasure I can lay back on a lounger in the Summer and easily hand hold them.They donot cause soreness.But any bigger on a tripod does not work for me. So it's a single eyepiece with telescopes for me.

With regards to a telescope, it's going to be a decision between the 150mm F5 to F6 achromat refractor or an Orion Optics UK VX8 F4.5.I will post what I buy in the end.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.