Best refractor between 90mm and 120mm

[TareqPhoto]

24 minutes ago, ronin said:

One of the Asto Physics triplets, or a scope with a LZOS lens. They are as close to custom made as you will get and supurb.

APM do scopes with LZOS objectives. Although Astro Physics seem to have a waiting list I am sure I have read of a retailer in the EU that stocks them. Guess they have a supply from AP that is external to the waiting list. Say this as someone on SGL purchased one about 6 to 8 months back.

The AP scopes appear to be 130mm, the Starfire, so out of the diameter you give.

LZOS objectives seem also to be 123mm diameter, but I know I have seen smaller. Contact APM for clarification I suppose.

TMB scopes are out of production, they were another excellent one. Think that the TMB objectives were LZOS also. There is a used TMB for sale here on SGL. Additionally you will find that some of the William Optics refactors are LZOS.

Officina Stellare were another that produced high end refractors but they list only RC "type" scopes on their site now. You may find that one of the German retailers stock their scopes.

To an extent unless you can line up 4 or 5 scopes on a very good test bench and subject each in turn to a battery of tests then select the "best" one there is no specific "best" refractor. Best will be a personal opinion. What you will get here is opinions based on name or "Get one as I have one and like it." Time to do your own research and decison making.

Could you visit NEAF when it is held as that is about the biggest Astro Show I know of, usually around March I think. April 21 it seems, later then I thought.

Someone recommended me to go with TMB-92SS as he tested or used Esprit 80mm and 10mm and said that this TMB scope outperforms both, so his recommendation like he took out 2 scopes together and this making is easier or narrower options to choose, so if i have to trust him completely then i can say i will go with TMB over Esprit, but he was the only one talked about TMB scope so i didn't take his words only.

I may think about 2 scopes instead of one if that budget of $4000-5000 can bring me 2 scopes at different aperture so i can cover more targets, but don't know if having 2 very nice scopes within the budget or nearly equal expensive one  is better than having one very expensive scope.

[PhotoGav]

I feel your pain! How do you decide which scope without getting them all, trying them all out in your system and then deciding which one worked best for you? Then send the unwanted options back!?

The problem is that at the decent end of the scope scale, the difference in image quality is more likely to be the sky conditions than the scope! Where are you imaging from and what are your skies like?

[TareqPhoto]

11 hours ago, PhotoGav said:

I feel your pain! How do you decide which scope without getting them all, trying them all out in your system and then deciding which one worked best for you? Then send the unwanted options back!?

The problem is that at the decent end of the scope scale, the difference in image quality is more likely to be the sky conditions than the scope! Where are you imaging from and what are your skies like?

I wish i have the luxury, but i don't have, so i have only to look at opinions/recommendations and order one hoping it is the right one.

I imaging from my yard, i live in a small city, it is in UAE.

The sky from my yard is not much good for DSO, light polluted as usual, but i am lucky enough that i can at least get emission nebulae, i tested my Ha filter and i was able to get M42 and Horsehead and Andromeda Galaxy and Rosette nebula, that is for quick test, i didn't test on another targets, M45 is bright enough, planets and the moon are clear, so it is only about how many targets of DSO i can get under polluted sky, and sounds i can have enough of them, i really don't need to only focus at toughest targets and forget about many amazing easier targets, i live in a red zone, not far from white, but sounds the sky from my yard in late night when most houses turning off some lights being better, East side is the clearest and best and those where i see M42/Cone/M45 are coming from, North is next, i can see Polaris clear and that is why i can polar align my mount easier, West is not bad but it has some light pollution from South which is the worst and more by western side, eastern side of South isn't that bad, but my house is covering the South completely, so North and parts of East and West are all what i can focus at.

Now, with the budget i am expecting soon i feel i will be crazy or stupid, either spend too much on one scope that is a top of the line or high end and miss the opportunity of buying more like 2-3 scopes at same price, because i keep thinking that a high end expensive scope will make me never look back to buy more, and that is why i said is it really worthy i buy 2-3 scopes for different targets because i don't have one expensive that i can use it on very few targets but have the best quality i can imagine, so it is like quality vs. quantity, many said that quality isn't really necessary, and some others say sooner or later i will upgrade to that quality scope so why bother waiting and buy now and buy later again, each has valid points, and i know all scopes will produce amazing results, even my cheapo ST80 can produce amazing results, no question about the capability of all scopes, it is only if the top quality scope will cut the edge and then i won't upgrade later is worthy or not, and i will buy another scopes too not just refractors, in my mind a Newt, also SCT for planetary, so a Refractor won't be as "Everything" scope, and if i get a Newt then is it really necessary i have 2-3 refractors then?

really headache and tough call/decision.

[PhotoGav]

It sounds as though your skies are not the best and you are not that far down your astrophotography journey, so perhaps it makes sense to not blow everything on a scope that you won’t really see the full benefit of, like the Tak. I am in exactly the same position and it is frustrating to think that if you go for a ‘cheaper’ scope you might end up wishing that you had gone for the ‘expensive’ one. Personally, I am probably going to go for an Esprit 100 as the reports keep on suggesting that it is an excellent quality performer and extremely good value. I am pretty sure that I will be delighted with the results I get from it and wouldn’t notice anything different with a Tak, just a lot less damage to my bank account and budget left for other items. Good luck.

[RayD]

I totally agree with Gav.  It seems to spend additional money on a 'scope on which, with your skies, you are unlikely to see the additional benefit would be a little pointless, unless you intend to travel with it to dark skies of course.

I have an Esprit 100 with the SW field flattener, and use it with my Atik 16200 (2" filters needed for this combination) and I am absolutely delighted with it.  In its price range I would say it is hard to beat, particularly when you look further than the optics, and start looking at the quality of the standard focuser etc.

The Esprit 120 is also reported to be very good within the price range, and which one suits best is determined by your imaging equipment and target selection/FOV.

If you start going up in price to the Tak or AP, then I'm not sure that you are necessarily going to justify the additional costs in your location.  In any case, it is quite a nice dilemma to have and any one of the items you are considering will no doubt preform wonderfully.

[TareqPhoto]

Finally someone somewhere else convinced me to go with another options, he mentioned a Tak, very expensive one, more than another expensive Tak scope, so i told him that this is really too much and beyond my budget even for another less expensive Tak, so my idea to him is to wait this one until like 2019 then i can afford it.

Instead, he mentioned another scope that he believes and swears it is slightly better than Esprit 100 that he has, almost is same range of focal length, and even the price is cheaper than Esprit 100, so i will trust him and go with that scope, from his experience he promise me that it won't let me down, and he still says that Esprit is Excellent scope, but he will choose the other one and he has that, so i will save money now, and later maybe in 2019 or 2020 i will have enough budget AND EXPERIENCE later that i can be ready for anything including a Taka scope itself.

In the other hand, while i am mind blowing via Astrob... i came across to someone using Lacerta Newt scope, 250/1000, his images out of it is INSANE!!! Unbelievable!!! i even told myself: isn't this a Tak scope results? and really in my plan was also an 8" or 10" F4 Newt, but wasn't sure which, i found one from Skywatcher also F4 either 8" or 10", that was much much cheaper than Lacerta, Lacerta is made in Europe from what i read, so are both scopes in same quality regardless they are made in different continent but they share almost same specifications as aperture and focal ratio? If they are undoubtedly in same optics quality then i better go with SW version because it is much cheaper and call it a GREAT night for 2 scopes.

In same league, i saw also some used RCOS 14.5, their images out of this beast is nothing but pieces of arts or masterpieces, so i can think about other alternatives to a Tak, but even another alternatives aren't cheap, so in all cases if i will waste about $5000-6000 on any scope then only Tak is coming to mind, so maybe i have to resist the fine images i can see around from specific glasses, and sounds those very expensive scopes are in hands of skillful people who can squeeze all the best craftsmanship out of them and made us drooling to death.

[swag72]

My thoughts are that probably about 80% of the final image is down to processing skill of the imager......

Someone who is good at processing can make an image from a £1000 look excellent, faultless even...... someone who cannot process can end up with images from a £5k scope looking very much worse...... will you notice the difference in the data coming from a cheaper or more expensive scope? I doubt it very much......

[TareqPhoto]

29 minutes ago, swag72 said:

My thoughts are that probably about 80% of the final image is down to processing skill of the imager......

Someone who is good at processing can make an image from a £1000 look excellent, faultless even...... someone who cannot process can end up with images from a £5k scope looking very much worse...... will you notice the difference in the data coming from a cheaper or more expensive scope? I doubt it very much......

Yes, i know that, but the quality of scope can help to a degree too, why does he goes with the expensive version of a scope when he can buy cheaper version if same quality and still he can do amazes? ask yourself that.

[swag72]

2 minutes ago, TareqPhoto said:

.......ask yourself that.

Don't worry I have spent time on this already 

[alacant]

Hi.$4000. Phew, unless your seeing is consistently good, that seems a lot. Maybe you could get something more economical so that you can learn guiding, processing and see just how good your local conditions are? For €450, you could have a very nice ES triplet sitting side by side your st80 on your EQ6, and be imaging next week This time next year, having witnessed what is really entailed in this dark art, you could sell it for what you paid for it and put it toward your Takahashi. Or -more likely- keep it and compliment it with something else. By then you'd know whether you were in this for the long haul or not! Experience, especially hands on- helps a lot [1]- JTOL and HTH.

[1]Is there an astro club or group around your area? It's a great way to try before you buy.

[TareqPhoto]

5 hours ago, swag72 said:

Don't worry I have spent time on this already 

I didn't so that i follow the same.

[TareqPhoto]

13 minutes ago, alacant said:

Hi.$4000. Phew, unless your seeing is consistently good, that seems a lot. Maybe you could get something more economical so that you can learn guiding, processing and see just how good your local conditions are? For €450, you could have a very nice ES triplet sitting side by side your st80 on your EQ6, and be imaging next week This time next year, having witnessed what is really entailed in this dark art, you could sell it for what you paid for it and put it toward your Takahashi. Or -more likely- keep it and compliment it with something else. By then you'd know whether you were in this for the long haul or not! Experience, especially hands on- helps a lot [1]- JTOL and HTH.

[1]Is there an astro club or group around your area? It's a great way to try before you buy.

Some on Facebook mentioned or recommended me TMB92SS, he swore that it is a tad or slightly better than Esprit, he favors it over Esprit, he has Esprit 100 and 120, but i don't know if he is trying with me to forget about the Esprit and go with something less so he convinced me about TMB, or if that TMB is really nicer than Esprit, but from what he said it sounds it is the best option, so i can go with that, and still have saved budget, and i can buy another scope i asked about in another forums, so i will ask about it here too and see what you could find out for me.

This one:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-quattro-f4/skywatcher-quattro-f4-imaging-newtonian.html

And this one:

https://www.365astronomy.com/lacerta-250-1000-photo-newton-reflector-telescope-with-octo60-focuser-w-carbon-tube-made-in-germany-assembled-in-austria-with-4-lens-gpu-comacorrector.html

I asked because i saw someone used that second one "Lacerta" scope and have so amazing unbelievable results, many will say it is processing, sure, but there is the scope that help too, so how can you see the difference between the two optically or in quality?

So, as you can see, i still can forget about very expensive scopes, even that person who recommended me that TMB also told me about Takahashi TOA 130, he told me this scope is like a big treasure. it is a dream, it is even more expensive than Takahashi FSQ-106 which is another gem, i told him i can't afford that 130 now, maybe i can get that FSQ instead, but if that 130 is like outperforms everything else then i can wait this for another year, maybe 2019, could be 2020, so i can go with something else now and enjoy it and i won't sell them even if i get that T$$$$K. 

[alacant]

15 minutes ago, TareqPhoto said:

This one:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-quattro-f4/skywatcher-quattro-f4-imaging-newtonian.html

Ah, at last. A proper telescope! (runs for cover...)

[TareqPhoto]

5 minutes ago, alacant said:

Ah, at last. A proper telescope! (runs for cover...)

What do you mean?

[alacant]

9 minutes ago, TareqPhoto said:

What do you mean?

The quotation is borrowed from here. Best of luck with whatever you choose:)

[TareqPhoto]

13 minutes ago, alacant said:

The quotation is borrowed from here. Best of luck with whatever you choose:)

Ah i see, so now you call a Newt a proper scope?

[kens]

I'm a bit confused as to why you are specifying an aperture rather than the focal length you are after. Reading between the lines it sounds like you are after a range of OTAs to cover different image scales. You mentioned in the firt post that you've covered planetary in another thread so it sounds like you are after a particular image scale for DSOs which implies that you want  a fast scope? I think you also mentioned you want to complement your ST80 so you are therefore not after a 400mm FL. So are you after something with a shorter FL for wide field (say 200mm) or a longer focal length for smaller galaxies, globs, planetary nebulae etc - say 800mm? That would help narrow down the options

[PhotoGav]

Glad to see that you are making progress with your decision making process.

I'm desperately trying not to be sucked in to the Newt v Frac debate...!

[TareqPhoto]

21 minutes ago, kens said:

I'm a bit confused as to why you are specifying an aperture rather than the focal length you are after. Reading between the lines it sounds like you are after a range of OTAs to cover different image scales. You mentioned in the firt post that you've covered planetary in another thread so it sounds like you are after a particular image scale for DSOs which implies that you want  a fast scope? I think you also mentioned you want to complement your ST80 so you are therefore not after a 400mm FL. So are you after something with a shorter FL for wide field (say 200mm) or a longer focal length for smaller galaxies, globs, planetary nebulae etc - say 800mm? That would help narrow down the options

Ok, let me make it better way.

For DSO i have and look for:

Canon lenses such as 300 2.8L IS mk1, 100-400, 70-200 2.8L ISii, 135L, 100 macro....etc i have, i can use 300mm with 1.4X extender to be in 420mm F4 league, but i don't know what is this equivalent into scopes? also i have 2X so i can go to 600mm f5.6, stop down 1 stop and it is about 600mm f6.3 or f7.x, so wide field is covered here.

ST80... i have

TMB92SS or Esprit 100/120 i want, if i get TMB92ss then the range of 500mm is almost covered, and i can use a reducer to be in 400mm range so i don't need to buy an 80mm APO, it won't give so much big difference between 400mm and say 465 for example if i used a reducer with TMB or Esprit 100, then i want another scope can go larger or longer or narrower field, but i don't think i should go much over 1000mm anyway, and Esprit is in 800mm range so i was thinking myabe slightly more.

10" F4 Newt, this is in 1000mm range, different scope than refractor, and different focal length or aperture whatever to call, more for deepest or smaller targets that i can't cover with 400-600mm

With above setup i can try planetary sometimes with Barlow, mainly if i get a scope that can have 1000mm or more, but it is not necessary or a must, just practice or test only.

 

For planetary:

In my mind only 14" either C14 or Meade 14", before i asked or though about 11" or 12" Meade, but the more i look at 14" images the more i like it over all 11" images i saw and my mind and heart screaming "14", in fact i even dream about 16", but even 11" or 14" are too much, 11" is less headache more forgiving, but i don't want to go into same photography issue of go smaller and upgrade later, i don't care about it even if it is full of headache, at the long run it is not saving for my budget, if i have $10000 only then better buy something that is $7000-9000 scope than i buy something of $2000-3000 now then i will pay again about $7k-9k to upgrade, i will buy once not twice and i will ignore the success learning curve of that.

So, as you can see above, i want a refractor for DSO and SCT for planetary, i won't use SCT for DSO or refractor for planetary, different scopes for different tasks, and because i asked about 14" in another forums they told me that i "NEED" or must change the mount i have, this is another big $$$$m, i thought once i have that budget about $4000-5000 then i can get C14 right away and use it on my mount AZ-EQ6 for ONLY PLANETARY VISUAL AND IMAGING, not DSO imaging at all, but they told ne it is a bad idea, C14 is too much to learn with and too heavy, so i simply canceled my plan on C14 and focus on getting more smaller scopes for DSO only, later maybe in 2019 or 2020 i will have budget for strong expensive mount then i can go with 14" or 16", i won't waste money now on 8" SCT or 11" for learning, for that i prefer to buy SW 180mm Mak instead and i still save money, but a Mak i didn't see much nice images of planets, only very sharp over processed and not smooth nice gradient as from Celestron SCT, but once i think about SCT then i won't look less than 11", not even 11" itself.

I also asked about 12" Meade, sounds it is also in 3000mm league, i may like this and keep it for long time and i may not think about 14" too, but if i get 11" i will always dream and moan for 14" even if i am not ready, i will accept at least minimum that Meade 12", but i didn't get much answers about that Meade and i don't know if it is fine on my AZ-EQ6 for planetary because it is less weight than 14", but definitely more than 11" weight, and my mount rated at 44lbs at best.

I have camera for DSO and i have another camera for planetary, and i will buy a barlow, and telling me that 9.25" and 11" are the best choice for beginner won't change the fact i want larger than 11" no matter what, so the only way for that is i save for a better stronger mount first, and sadly they mentioned either Astro-Physics mounts which is above $6000 and not rated at 200 lbs while they all swear by Losmandy G11 which is more affordable but it isn't so high capacity anyway, 75lb maybe, and there is new mount which is iOptron 12 which is rated at 110lbs but they don't trust it, so they don't give me much choices about affordable even expensive mounts, even someone said his Paramount MX can't keep that of 14", and then some else mentioned they worked fine on CGEM with C14, so i really don't know whom to believe and i won't change my mind about 14" [or 12" and larger].

[TareqPhoto]

42 minutes ago, PhotoGav said:

Glad to see that you are making progress with your decision making process.

I'm desperately trying not to be sucked in to the Newt v Frac debate...!

You and others are the reasons i am making process, and i still keep going, i hope i won't do wrong choices, and wrong choices i am meaning the quality of the glass/optics, not the easy of use, because even if it is very very difficult at least it is not impossible, sooner or later i can handle something very challenging, so i will keep reading and asking and looking around, and pick my tools wisely, but i also try to save myself with extensive items sometimes, i did see a lot buying stuff and they keep changing and upgrading, i can't sell anything i buy even locally, no way overseas, so i try to buy the items once and for lifetime even if it will take me decades to learn, some are really a slow learners and very quick giving up, i am not, and even if i failed for example with $20K mount and $10K it is all because of me, not my tool, and i will be happy after all because i have $$$$$$ equipment.