6" Apo Refractor-like for £1300

[John]

Not my advert but having owned a 6" F/6 Russian mak-newt I imagine that the lunar and planetary performance of this 7" F/8 would be wonderous

http://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=127369

Ok it's a 30 lbs scope which will take some time to cool and needs a pretty stout mount but 6" apo refractors have similar characteristics.

 

[Stu]

I saw this John, and whilst now is not the time, I do fancy trying one of these at some point. I think it would be best permanently setup though, quite a beast. 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

That is one beast of a scope. With such a small centra obstruction it should be a real planet killer

[paulastro]

These are tremendous telescopes John, a friend of mine in the Midlands still has one (or he did when we last in touch) and I owned one myself for a while.

In fact it's through a 7 inch f8 Intes Micro  Mak-Newt that I had my best ever view of Jupiter, quite a while ago now.  The detail really was outstanding in every way. Never seen as good since.  It certainly was apo-like in good conditions.  So, if it's so good, why hasn't every planetary and lunar nut  got one - and why haven't I still got one!?  The following are some of the reasons for most people I expect - they didn't ALL apply to me by the way, some will be more important to others depending on the individuals preferences and ability.

 

1  They are  a bit of a monster in both size and weight, so the older and more frail you are the more likely you are to be put off.

2  They are rather agricultural in construction.  They do work well though - the focusers are poor by modern standards but they can be replaced of course. The best mechanical feature for me was how the tube rotated within the 'built-in' cradles - easy to rotate.  If they had traditional cradles it would have been nearly impossible.

3  They aren't pretty and shinny and so have never really become as popular as they should have.  To those who remember, Optical Vision used to import they and they were in their colour catalogue, presumably they couldn't sell enough to make it worthwhile.

4 There is a cool down period if kept indoors (very unlikely with 7 inch sizes and above!), though not as much as the same size Mak-Cass.

5 The images in all sizes are a little better than the same size Mak-Cass in my view.  However, a Mak-Cass is a much shorter tube and this can be the deciding factor for some.

6 In terms of handling, observers may prefer the handling qualities of a more refined and 'smooth-operating' refractor telescope.  Though, to get the same performance you will certainly need an apo refractor of the same aperture, or perhaps an inch smaller in the larger sizes.

7 They are not the easiest to collimate, but once done they stayed put, or at least that was my experience. (in part due to the small secondaries in the longer focal lengths which of course are a big part of why they are such good planetary scopes.

8 They do seem to be a fraction dimmer than an equivalent refractor, but it's not enough to take anything away from the views in my view.

 

I must admit I really have a really soft spot for the Mak-Newt, and if none of the above worry you, they take a lot of beating.  I've also owned 5 and 6 inch Mak-Newts and they were all excellent and apo-like in performance.  Another friend of mine still has an 8 inch f6 in an observatory and that is an excellent planetary scope too.  If you can't afford a good apo, the view of one of these is the best you can get and a bargain to boot.

I would add that the 6 inch f8 versions are also extremely fine, and on a par with a good apo and though still heavy, no where near as heavy as a 7 inch f8.

Also I must ad that the Intes-Micro versions are baffled to death, including the metal screw on heavy metal dew caps.  Hence as well as having suberb contrast for planetary, they make excellent deep sky instruments in all apertures.

Before anyone asks, I've never looked through the current Skywatcher 190mm Mak-Newt.  It is f5.6, which I wouldn't expect to give a good a image as the longer focal ration Intes-Micro versions. Having said that I'd love to try one out.  I know someone who has one and is not currently using it.  I've asked if I can take it home to try it out several times but have been turned down each time.  I suspect this is because he knows how much I like Mak-Newts and is afraid I may never return it to him, lol.

[mikeDnight]

Call me negative!

Ive observed through this make and aperture of scope on numerous occasions over the years, and although they all gave nice views, none ever seemed to me to deliver a refractor-like performance. My friend paulastro really likes them but for me they never really managed it! It could be argued that to get the best out of a Mak Newt I'd need to use one over an extended period, which I haven't done, but on the occasions I did use them they performed like Newtonians less the spider diffraction. They didn't show the degree of sharpness seen in apo refractors, though planetary detail was pleasing. And they are incapable of wide field performance like the refractor is.

Quite a number of years ago, an article in S&T compared this scope with three apo refractors. Several seasoned observers compared and contrasted the scopes over several nights while observing planetary and deep sky. Two of the apos were triplets and one a 128mm fluorite doublet. With regard to deep sky, all agreed the Mak Newt gave the dullest images, while the doublet fluorite showed the brightest dso's. Despite the aperture advantage, it seemed the thick Maksutov corrector was absorbing light. It's just something to consider if this scope was to be bought with dso's in mind.

[John]

Interesting views from those who have owned and used this design

Personally I really liked the Intes MN61 152mm F/5.9 mak newt that I owned. I ran it together with the ED120 for a few months and found the two very close in performance on the planets with the mak-newt having a slight edge on deep sky objects.

I kept the ED120 in the end because it's cool down time was a bit faster, it was a little more portable and could be held steadily on a lighter mount.

My mak-newt had a 19% central obstruction and at F/5.9 was pretty versatile.

With the one in my link being longer, fatter and significantly heavier than my MN61 I tend to agree with Stu that a permanent mounting would make a lot of sense. 

Interesting scopes though and worthy of discussion IMHO, even if we don't all want to rush out and buy one

One thing that I also like about them is that they are a little "different"

 

 

[paulastro]

I've got to say Mike, I think you just like pretty scopes like those rather fancy good-looking Japanese scopes .

I disagree when you say they don't produce a refractor-like performance.  They certainly do in my view, not as good as a quality apo of the same aperture, but certainly apo-like never mind refractor-like.

I'm a great fan also of 6 inch f8 Newtonians (and still have one), but contrary to what you say Mike, I'm afraid I disagree again, views of any 6 inch f8 Mak-Newt I've looked through have all been superior to any 6 inch f8 Newtonian I've used.  I've also had excellent deep sky views through them, and you can easily get over a two degree field with both of these telescopes of course.  There aren't that many deep sky objects over two degrees across, it depends what your requirements are.

I'd suggest people have a look through one and take a look for themselves and make their own minds up if they are interested.

[mikeDnight]

Hi Paul,

I can't ever remember looking at dso's through your 7" Mak Newt, though I did so through your 5" Mak Newt at the AC back around 2001/2002. I remember the view I had of the double cluster through the 5" and it didn't give me the buzz that the refractors did at the time. It was before the Vixen fluorite was donated to the AC, so the only fracs around were SW achro's. I remember that night like it was yesterday. You were thrilled to bits with your little Mak Newt, but from my perspective it was Phils SW 150 F5 achromat that outshone everything there as far as rich field fuzzy finding went. I know you've always regarded the Mak Newt highly, but so far they've never wowed me in any regard. Even while using your binoviewer while studying Jupiter I could only ever say it was a "nice" view. I had a finer, more intricate and better defined view of Jupiter on my first view of the planet through your DL than I've ever had through pretty much anything else, ever! 

May be you're right about me preferring pretty scopes!

[Peter Drew]

I have a 5" F6 MN and a 190 F5.6 MN, (might be the one Paulastro mentioned ). I haven't used the 5" for some time but I recall it gave very good images, I think "dullness" of DSO's is down to the greenish cast that the coatings seem to impart. The donated 190MN I have yet to try out, as said it is big and heavy but I'm motivated to give both an airing at the next opportunity. 

[John]

47 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

I have a 5" F6 MN and a 190 F5.6 MN, (might be the one Paulastro mentioned ). I haven't used the 5" for some time but I recall it gave very good images, I think "dullness" of DSO's is down to the greenish cast that the coatings seem to impart. The donated 190MN I have yet to try out, as said it is big and heavy but I'm motivated to give both an airing at the next opportunity. 

I've heard good things about the MN190's from owners of them. Nice donation to have

 

[paulastro]

1 hour ago, mikeDnight said:

Hi Paul,

I can't ever remember looking at dso's through your 7" Mak Newt, though I did so through your 5" Mak Newt at the AC back around 2001/2002. I remember the view I had of the double cluster through the 5" and it didn't give me the buzz that the refractors did at the time. It was before the Vixen fluorite was donated to the AC, so the only fracs around were SW achro's. I remember that night like it was yesterday. You were thrilled to bits with your little Mak Newt, but from my perspective it was Phils SW 150 F5 achromat that outshone everything there as far as rich field fuzzy finding went. I know you've always regarded the Mak Newt highly, but so far they've never wowed me in any regard. Even while using your binoviewer while studying Jupiter I could only ever say it was a "nice" view. I had a finer, more intricate and better defined view of Jupiter on my first view of the planet through your DL than I've ever had through pretty much anything else, ever! 

May be you're right about me preferring pretty scopes!

Mike, these comments of course only address some views you 'remember' from way back in 2001/2002 - some 15 years ago at best.  I still stand by my last post which you haven't commented on (apart from looking at the double cluster in a 5 inch).  In your first post you said that ...."Ive observed through this make and aperture of scope on numerous occasions over the years".  Not terribly recently then?  I can't remember you ever looking through my 7 inch f8 either so at least we agree on one thing .  Perhaps you'd like to update your experiences with some MNs with more aperture than 5 inches (and look at more targets than the double cluster perhaps?) and perhaps then respond to my last post on this thread.  I'll look forward to reading your comments then, particularly when using larger apertures on planets and the Moon.

For anyone who has not looked through a MN, try and get a view though one if you can - there's lots to like.

 

 

[paulastro]

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

I have a 5" F6 MN and a 190 F5.6 MN, (might be the one Paulastro mentioned ). I haven't used the 5" for some time but I recall it gave very good images, I think "dullness" of DSO's is down to the greenish cast that the coatings seem to impart. The donated 190MN I have yet to try out, as said it is big and heavy but I'm motivated to give both an airing at the next opportunity. 

OK Peter, I admit it, I was talking about your 190MN . 

I'll continue to look forward to observing with it .

[BRADLEY 1953]

Hi   Paul. Peter, Mike,  et al.  Another interesting discussion, to which I will add a few comments, ( before it degenerates into fisticuffs!!) LOL.  I have had limited experience with MN's, but have observed Jupiter and Saturn on occasion through an 8 inch, presumably the same scope belonging to Paul and myself's aforementioned mutual friend. Whilst this was some years ago now, I well remember thinking that the planetary images produced were noticeably superior to those of the 8inch Smidt/ Cass which I owned at the time and also those through a 6inch Newtonian which I had previously used. Of course i DID NOT have these instruments at hand to allow a direct comparison.  I now have a 155mm  triplet  APO, and whilst local seeing conditions are everything, I would nevertheless suggest that at least for planetary work, the MN design  can only be bettered by a top class refractor,  and of course inch for inch the difference in price makes the former a very attractive proposition. However, while I  only live some 20 miles from Worcester, I think i WILL give this one a miss, as my partner is convinced I already have too many instruments cluttering up the house.  (not true of course).     best wishes    Chris.                    

[paulastro]

Hello Chris.  Thanks for your comments.  Our friends MN which we have shared views with on occasion is in fact the 7 inch f8 I had my best view of Jupiter with, not an 8 inch.  it was this view (I don't think you were present on this particular occasion) that later led me to acquiring a previously owned one for myself some time afterwards.

By the way, I don't think your house looks cluttered at all!   ( but I won't admit to having said this when I next visit, I'm not that brave! )

[mikeDnight]

3 hours ago, paulastro said:

Mike, these comments of course only address some views you 'remember' from way back in 2001/2002 - some 15 years ago at best.  I still stand by my last post which you haven't commented on (apart from looking at the double cluster in a 5 inch).  In your first post you said that ...."Ive observed through this make and aperture of scope on numerous occasions over the years".  Not terribly recently then?  I can't remember you ever looking through my 7 inch f8 either so at least we agree on one thing .  Perhaps you'd like to update your experiences with some MNs with more aperture than 5 inches (and look at more targets than the double cluster perhaps?) and perhaps then respond to my last post on this thread.  I'll look forward to reading your comments then, particularly when using larger apertures on planets and the Moon.

For anyone who has not looked through a MN, try and get a view though one if you can - there's lots to like.

 

 

I definitely observed through your 7" MN on several occasions along with you. In fact you've had that size of MN on more than one occasion. The last time was around 2008/9 if memory serves. I also observed along with you at John's for several hours using his MN back in April 2005. May be on each occasion I used the MN's the seeing wasnt good enough to let them perform at optimum. All I'm saying is that to me they are not refractor-like. Their planetary performance has always looked soft to me and never appeared refractor sharp. The views were reflector-like!

[paulastro]

Well Mike, I'll bow out of this one, it's getting a bit tedious.  I will say though,  that I can't truly remember anyone else who's used a MN to any extent who doesn't think it's capable of apo -like images, never mind refractor-like.  I've certainly never met anyone else who considers they don't give better images than a Newtonian of the same aperture and focal ratio.

Over and out! 

[John]

I wish I'd not started this thread now

It's developed into the sort of thread that sometimes appears on another forum. Thats not a compliment

 

 

[mikeDnight]

Just for the record, I didn't say that the MN's weren't apochromatic, neither did I say they didn't perform better than a Newtonian of the same aperture and focal length. 

It's a real shame when on a Scopes discussion forum, someone fails to read and interpret a simple and plain speaking post correctly, and instead twists what has been posted because he has taken offence where none was intended. Quite frankly its wearisome and takes the joy out of any kind of discussion. Having differing views and experiences is how we build a picture of things and it helps in our decision making. Treading on eggshells for fear of upsetting an individual suffocates free discussion. Perhaps it's time to step away completely!

 

[Scott]

I think it's time for everyone to settle down. It WAS a nice thread with people sharing differing views. 

Shame really ?

[Mark at Beaufort]

I agree with Scott. There are members on this thread that I admire and respect for their knowledge on scopes and I want them to continue posting information on their experiences. However, perhaps its time to put this particular thread to bed.

[Peter Drew]

After a bit of dusting off I'm now in a position to do a side by side comparison between a 5" Mak, 5" MN and a 5" triplet refractor. I'm looking forward to seeing what I think as I'm a pretty average observer with average eysight so no particular bias. 

[jetstream]

1 hour ago, Mark at Beaufort said:

perhaps its time to put this particular thread to bed.

Not yet please! I have a couple of questions, how does a Mak newt compare to an SCT? or Mak Cass? I'm looking for a lunar/planetary scope goto scope down the road. Are the Intes scopes that much better than say a C8?

[Mark at Beaufort]

1 hour ago, jetstream said:

Not yet please! I have a couple of questions, how does a Mak newt compare to an SCT? or Mak Cass? I'm looking for a lunar/planetary scope goto scope down the road. Are the Intes scopes that much better than say a C8?

Okay Gerry I understand your wishes. I also enjoyed this thread and I am sure many others as well. One of my favourite memories of a SGL Star Party was standing side by side with @John with him using his Mak Newt and I had a 6" Skywatcher PDS. We star hopped from one DSO to the other - brilliant night.

[jetstream]

Thanks Mark, I hope to get some insight on these telescope designs I don't have any experience with and just came across the thread. I am particularly interested in the Intes scopes in comparison with the C8 SCT class. The posts have given some good info already- I really need to look through these type scopes some how.

[John]

Ultimately it's up to the moderators of course but as the thread starter, after a little thought, I'm happy to see it carry on. Mike is entitled to express his experiences as is everyone else of course. It all goes into the "melting pot" of thoughts for others to draw on as they wish

It would be a dull old world if we all saw things in exactly the same way.