Frac for widefield and a bit of solar W/L

[nightfisher]

I have set my camp out to concentrate on Solar system visual and imaging using a nice 127 Maksutov, and i am happy with this choice, its a case of accepting what i can do and making the most of this.

However being limited to a long focal length scope does have its draw backs, not the end of the world, but keep thinking it might be nice to have a widefield frac, low budget and hopefully some thing that will be happy on the star discovery mount, the main contender for me would be the Bresser 102 F5 with hex focuser, but i suspect this not being very useful for Solar white light, so another contender might be the Rother valley optics own brand 90mm F8.8 frac, guys what are your thoughts on this as i might be able to fund this purchase after the wedding

[Moonshane]

What about a used 120 ST?

I'd go for aperture if possible. I got great WL views through my old 120.

[nightfisher]

Thanks Shane, i like the idea of the ST120, that time i took a look with your old one i found it a nice scope, but the syntra focuser tends to let the job down, also the 120 might be a bit much for the star discovery but keeping options open

[Owmuchonomy]

Can't comment on the scope choice Jules but the odds are stacked against us Solar watchers for a few years for there to be much regular activity to catch in WL.  The views through your old SW130 were pretty good but even better through my ED80.

[Dave In Vermont]

Hmmm.....A good wide-field choice, eh? Good for Solar in White-Light? Hmmm.....That's a tough one....

 

 

Nothing really comes to my...

 

 

mind.

I'll think about it though.

Dave

[Chris]

I think the Bresser 102 f5.9 might be good on your mount, jules. The focuser will be good, and the f ratio doesn't matter as much for solar I don't think?

[ronin]

Would agree with Chriss on the idea of the Bresser 102/600. Similar to the f/5 option - which I was unaware of - and the additional 100mm makes it a slightly better all round scope. I could expect the 102 width at f/5 to be a source of minor problems from the lens edges.

As said in addition to being used as a dedicated to solar they make a very good general scope, if you do any they are good for outreach. Finder is not the greatest but would be the same on either f/6 or f/5.

If you get one then you have to add the 2" extension to the focuser for visual, the "basic" scope is set up for imaging when delivered. Think mine came with 2 extension pieces, not sure why 2 of them. You would work it out but may as well mention it, too easy to head out and not realise it, or to not get around to adding it in.

Is the WL solar to be filter or Herschel wedge, or both.

[Piero]

I would probably go for a SW 80 ED. It's wide field, grab 'n' go, cools down quickly, and will allow good WL. How much are you keen to spend?

[Stu]

Jules, didn't you enjoy that 80mm TS scope you had before? Worth getting another?

What's your budget?

 

[nightfisher]

8 hours ago, Stu said:

Jules, didn't you enjoy that 80mm TS scope you had before? Worth getting another?

What's your budget?

 

Yes, thinking about it the TS 80 was a cracking scope for the low price, i found it hard to fault it, the budget is about £200 ish, so the TS would come in way under

[nightfisher]

So thanks to lockie this is now a 2 horse race, with the TS 80 and the bresser 102s 600 head to head

[nightfisher]

OMG, £220 for a 102 widefield ......................with ED glass

[Chris]

16 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

OMG, £220 for a 102 widefield ......................with ED glass

I researched this scope and someone bench tested it...The verdict wasn't great. They also tested the 102 f/5 Synta acrho along side and that tested better. My suspicions were raised by the f/4.5 bit, it's just too hard to do a good job with such a fast scope on such a tight budget.

I think I found the bench test and comparison via CN if you want to look into it. 

[nightfisher]

15 minutes ago, Lockie said:

I researched this scope and someone bench tested it...The verdict wasn't great. They also tested the 102 f/5 Synta acrho along side and that tested better. My suspicions were raised by the f/4.5 bit, it's just too hard to do a good job with such a fast scope on such a tight budget.

I think I found the bench test and comparison via CN if you want to look into it. 

Chris no need for the comparison as i would not get this, the focal length is to short for white light, i was just browsing the bresser site and spotted this

[davyludo]

I've got an ST102 (F5) - which I've just built a solar filter for last night (with baader solar film). Never done any solar stuff before....will be interesting to see how it goes. Needless to say....sun is hiding today 

I know the focuser on them gets a bit of stick, but mine is totally fine - feels really firm, stable and precise. No wiggles, wobbles, slips or sticks. Therefore.... it's probably the only bit of any of my kit that I've not taken to bits.... because I know a nice SW focuser must be a rare thing!

Actually also looking at a 2" diagonal and a 32mm panaview for widefield scanning.

Have actually thought about getting a 127 mak for planets and moon. Personally I feel the st102 and 127 mak would be a nice pair - allow me to do a bit of everything.

[nightfisher]

54 minutes ago, davyludo said:

I've got an ST102 (F5) - which I've just built a solar filter for last night (with baader solar film). Never done any solar stuff before....will be interesting to see how it goes. Needless to say....sun is hiding today 

I know the focuser on them gets a bit of stick, but mine is totally fine - feels really firm, stable and precise. No wiggles, wobbles, slips or sticks. Therefore.... it's probably the only bit of any of my kit that I've not taken to bits.... because I know a nice SW focuser must be a rare thing!

Actually also looking at a 2" diagonal and a 32mm panaview for widefield scanning.

Have actually thought about getting a 127 mak for planets and moon. Personally I feel the st102 and 127 mak would be a nice pair - allow me to do a bit of everything.

Yes a 127 1500f/l mak and a 102 600f/l frac covers a huge amount of astronomy, i am thinking i will end up giving the bresser 102 600, but i just need to wait a little while as i need to sell the 102 Maksutov (assuming i am more than happy with the 127 Maksutov)

[davyludo]

19 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

Yes a 127 1500f/l mak and a 102 600f/l frac covers a huge amount of astronomy, i am thinking i will end up giving the bresser 102 600, but i just need to wait a little while as i need to sell the 102 Maksutov (assuming i am more than happy with the 127 Maksutov)

The Bresser 102 looks really nice!

Ahhh, so did you have the 102 mak and upgrade to 127? 

I was actually originally thinking about a 102 mak (for quicker cool down and more portable). But figured if I liked it...then I'd probably want to upgrade. I feel like a 127 mak would be more of a "keeper".

Sorry to hijack your widefield/solar post. Just interested to hear your thoughts on moving from 102 to 127 mak. 

[nightfisher]

Yes i have the 102 Mak, and i was using it for Luna imaging, this it does with dedication, but i also had other scopes, after a bit of head scratching due to ever increasing light pollution i decided a 127 Mak would be ideal for me, but of course a 127 mak can never do widefield, i have not had a chance to try the 127 hence hanging onto the 102 till such time, also i may end up keeping the 102 as i will struggle to get a full moon on the chip of the 1000D but the 102 does this just nice

[davyludo]

5 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

Yes i have the 102 Mak, and i was using it for Luna imaging, this it does with dedication, but i also had other scopes, after a bit of head scratching due to ever increasing light pollution i decided a 127 Mak would be ideal for me, but of course a 127 mak can never do widefield, i have not had a chance to try the 127 hence hanging onto the 102 till such time, also i may end up keeping the 102 as i will struggle to get a full moon on the chip of the 1000D but the 102 does this just nice

The 127 mak seems to have so much love on here.... which kind of made me want in more than the 102. I'm also only looking at visual just now, no imaging.

I might bug you once you've had a chance to compare them to see what your opinion is on how they compare.

Anyway good luck with the bresser 102!

[Alien 13]

3 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

Yes i have the 102 Mak, and i was using it for Luna imaging, this it does with dedication, but i also had other scopes, after a bit of head scratching due to ever increasing light pollution i decided a 127 Mak would be ideal for me, but of course a 127 mak can never do widefield, i have not had a chance to try the 127 hence hanging onto the 102 till such time, also i may end up keeping the 102 as i will struggle to get a full moon on the chip of the 1000D but the 102 does this just nice

It would be interesting to have a head to head with the two Maks, I have an 90mm one and it performs brilliantly on lunar imaging but have thought about getting the 127. The thing stopping me is a thought at the back of my mind that although its bigger would it be better, bigger mirror to shift during focusing, longer cool down, bigger bits of glass and slightly faster f ratio causing more optical errors and the main thing would one be as cute.

Alan

[nightfisher]

5 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

It would be interesting to have a head to head with the two Maks, I have an 90mm one and it performs brilliantly on lunar imaging but have thought about getting the 127. The thing stopping me is a thought at the back of my mind that although its bigger would it be better, bigger mirror to shift during focusing, longer cool down, bigger bits of glass and slightly faster f ratio causing more optical errors and the main thing would one be as cute.

Alan

To me the big secret with Maksutov`s is to keep them in an unheated area, my outbuilding is just perfect, so the scope is cooled ready any time for use, i am really pinning my hopes on the 127 with the star discovery on the wooden pier mount

[davyludo]

31 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

It would be interesting to have a head to head with the two Maks, I have an 90mm one and it performs brilliantly on lunar imaging but have thought about getting the 127. The thing stopping me is a thought at the back of my mind that although its bigger would it be better, bigger mirror to shift during focusing, longer cool down, bigger bits of glass and slightly faster f ratio causing more optical errors and the main thing would one be as cute.

Alan

Do you think the difference would be more noticeable when comparing them visually or for imaging? With the larger aperture, should the 127 show more detail (higher resolution)? 

If you're not going to really notice the difference (visually) between 102 and 127....i might be tempered by the 102 mak instead. 

Maybe a question for a separate thread.

23 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

To me the big secret with Maksutov`s is to keep them in an unheated area, my outbuilding is just perfect, so the scope is cooled ready any time for use, i am really pinning my hopes on the 127 with the star discovery on the wooden pier mount

Unfortunately I can't keep mine outside so I'd be stuck with longer cool down time. Which is why I got the ST102 first. 

[Alfian]

Just to chip in regarding the 102/127Mak discussion and I appreciate this has diverted Jules' OP but it seems to have gone in that direction. (new thread Dave?) I'm sure Jules won't mind me saying that he bought the 102 Mak from me and I had bought it pretty much solely for luna observation for which it excels. Some of Jules' photos have proved the point. The 102 Mak though chunky is considerably less chunky than the 127 that hides its weight well! The beauty of the 102 is that it  undemanding to mount (for visual work) and even works well on a ball head and a decent photo tripod. I reckon half an hour cool down is fine so thats easy too. My "up" time with the 127 Mak has been fairly limited but aperture tells. I had a short session with it a couple of nights back. I'd left it in my camper doorway near an air vent for a couple of hours, so it was nicely chilled. The views of Saturn surprised me with it being so low in the sky,  at 150 -166x the rings looked good with hints of the Cassini division coming and going. In terms of choosing between the 102 and the 127 Mak I don't think the difference in focal length 1300 v 1500 makes much difference because if a  narrow fov is an issue then neither will suit. I think it essentially comes down to mounting and cost. The 102 is wonderfully easy to mount,  the 127 needs a little more. The extra aperture of the 127 is definitely worth having but that bumps the price up. In terms of  optical capability the 127 is the the choice, (as no doubt the 150 Mak would be!) but thats only half the story.  Apologies again for the wee diversion.

[nightfisher]

Ian, more than welcome to chip in, and saved me typing up similar, i may still favour the 102 on the new pier

[davyludo]

13 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

Ian, more than welcome to chip in, and saved me typing up similar, i may still favour the 102 on the new pier

Sorry again Jules. I have created a new post if you and Ian are interested in discussing this separately:

 

Anyway - do let us know how the 102/600 frac turns out if you get it. I managed to use my newly built solar filter about an hour ago and managed to get a nice view of sun. Looked like there was a single spot clearly visible! I was really chuffed at seeing something straight away. The 9mm x-cel gave me a really good view. 

I'll need to have a look at images people have taken so I can assess how good my view actually was. But I was quite happy