If you only had one ??

[ollypenrice]

ED120 with the 8 inch Newt in second place. I just love good refractor views, though the Newt would go deeper. I wouldn't go for the ST120 because it's cheap and cheerful and I'm a ghastly, frightful snob!  The slower doublet 120 (which I used to have) is better but not as good as the ED.

By the way, the idea of having only one scope is rather alarming. Is it even allowed as a concept on SGL? By gad, it shouldn't be!

Olly

[Peter Drew]

3 hours ago, Stu said:

If you only had one ?? was the title Peter!

One scope, only one! 200P means only white light solar with film?  

Still struggling (must be the cold) to see what rule I've broken. I chose just one telescope, I wasn't aware of a rule that said how it was to be used. A 200P could be used for visual, imaging or solar, it's versatility being the main reason for my choice. A Herschel Wedge and a Quark could be added, a PST mod most likely not.  

[Alien 13]

None of the above for me I am afraid, I only like Maks now ...... Had a newt and it was too fussy, a frac is ok but not realy as camera friendly.

Alan 

[ollypenrice]

22 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

None of the above for me I am afraid, I only like Maks now ...... Had a newt and it was too fussy, a frac is ok but not realy as camera friendly.

Alan 

Dear me, I need to sit down with a stiff drink! Surely nothing loves a camera so much as a refractor?

lly

PS unless you want to image those round things, you know, just beyond arm's length. Bother, what do you call them? Oh yes, planets...

[mikeDnight]

5 hours ago, spaceboy said:

and your reasons why  

The ED120! It's the sharpest scope out of those listed and is preferable for lunar and planetary. Also, it is a great RFT that excells at wide, rich star fields and brighter DSO's & comets. 

[Alien 13]

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Dear me, I need to sit down with a stiff drink! Surely nothing loves a camera so much as a refractor?

lly

Its OK no need to panic, I only meant that the camera is bolted to a solid back plate rather than a wobbly tube with a slippy focusser , I am partly joking of course but I can hand hold my Mak and DSLR for Lunar shots and the whole assembly is so solid without spacer issues etc. 

Alan

[spaceboy]

At 10-8 between the ED and 200p I hope there are going to be a few more members willing to participate in the vote even if they don't offer up a reason. I didn't think it was going to be so close to call. I know the ED is a superb scope having owned one (and want another) but I thought the aperture king rule would have already pulled the 200P out ahead. I admit refractors are far more versatile than newts so maybe this has swayed the voting?

[niallk]

I suppose after hearing so much about these "refractor" thingies but having never looked through one,  I'd have to try out the ED120.

But not if I have to give up my 15" dob - then I'm not playing

[ollypenrice]

9 minutes ago, niallk said:

I suppose after hearing so much about these "refractor" thingies but having never looked through one,  I'd have to try out the ED120.

But not if I have to give up my 15" dob - then I'm not playing

On that basis I think I might not play either! 

Olly

[25585]

200P F6 Dobsonian mounted. So I chose the F5 as nearest.

[Paz]

If it had to be one from those I'd go for the 200. Aperture is significantly better, no colour splitting to worry about, it's practical on a dobsonian mount no grovelling on the floor getting to a low eyepiece, no flipped images from a diagonal, cost is low, f5 so wide range of magnifications  available. If I fancied some tracking an equatorial platform is possible and cheaper than an equatorial mount.

[F15Rules]

On 27/02/2018 at 15:59, Peter Drew said:

 

On 27/02/2018 at 15:59, Peter Drew said:

A 200P could do all of that without too much trouble.  

And it could also double as an extra cowl on my log burner chimney. 

[Trikeflyer]

Just got a 120ed refractor and have only viewed the moon and m42 with it so far. Also have a 200 Dob but f6 which I also love. If the newt was f6 it'd have been a really difficult choice for me. ?. Lets face it, scopes are like shoes, you need more than 1style to be prepared for all situations! ?

[Stu]

On 27/02/2018 at 20:06, Peter Drew said:

Still struggling (must be the cold) to see what rule I've broken. I chose just one telescope, I wasn't aware of a rule that said how it was to be used. A 200P could be used for visual, imaging or solar, it's versatility being the main reason for my choice. A Herschel Wedge and a Quark could be added, a PST mod most likely not.  

Me too Peter, how are you going to fit the Herschel Wedge or the Quark to the 200P?

[Peter Drew]

Just put them into the focuser   To be fair, I would probably have to raise the primary a bit to achieve focus, but as I said, no problem for me. The secondary would be far enough inside the focal point not to have a heating problem short term with the wedge and the Quark could have a 35nm Baader reflective filter fitted before the secondary. Granted, not the best of solutions but it could be done.

[F15Rules]

 I voted ED120 because:

I didn't like the other 3 options.

I don't like diffraction spikes.

I do like small, tight stars.

I do like the ED120 focuser. (compared to the others).

I do like looking up the proper end of the tube.

I don't like standing to observe, which I think I'd have to with the 200, for many objects.

I do think the ED120 had an unfair advantage in the relative cheapness of the competition Vs the ED120..another choice of scopes, another result?

Dave☺.

[BillP]

No contest for me, the refractor (120 ED) over larger Newt or SCT or MAK or MN.  I like to keep things at 6" or less so easy to achieve an airy disk without too much magnification and too much challenge from the atmosphere.  Pristine star points and fast passive cooling for me just can't be beat.  And I have to say, that for going deep a drive to a dark site beats 3x the aperture at a light polluted site.  So putting the smaller package in the car with easy-peasy setup and takedown is much preferred.

[mikeDnight]

 

On 27/02/2018 at 21:07, spaceboy said:

At 10-8 between the ED and 200p I hope there are going to be a few more members willing to participate in the vote even if they don't offer up a reason. I didn't think it was going to be so close to call. I know the ED is a superb scope having owned one (and want another) but I thought the aperture king rule would have already pulled the 200P out ahead. I admit refractors are far more versatile than newts so maybe this has swayed the voting?

Two great scopes with different qualities! The 200p will be undeniably brighter, so if DSO's are someone's passion, then the 200p will be an excellent choice. Also, the 200p, due to its greater aperture will have greater resolution, at least in theory! Where the refractor really scores, from my personal point of view, is in its higher level of definition and image sharpness. Also, the refractor should never need recoating or recollimating and will be as good in one hundred years from now as it is today. They also hold their value better than their reflector cousins, which although not a game changer, is still worthy of consideration. For lunar observing, I've always felt that a good 4" refractor is preferable to an 8" reflector primarily because the image quality is far more pleasing. 

M Barlow Pepin in his book Care of Astronomical Telescopes and Accessories pages 35 & 36, touches on the refractor reflector comparison, but as you might expect, it doesn't offer any solid answer. The reality is that some people enjoy or even need the brighter images produced by a larger reflector, and there's nothing wrong with that, as we all differ in visual acuity. W.F. Denning in his book Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings, makes the observation " What one man sees in a 5 inch glass another man needs a 10 inch." So with that in mind it does away with the "aperture is king" nonsense. Aperture has its place, but if anything is King its Definition, as unless definition is high, then aperture counts for nothing! And a good refractor oozes definition!! Definition in reflectors can also be excellent, but light scatter, spider defraction and central obstruction all play a part in smearing the image to some degree. 

 

Sorry I've a terrible sense of humour!  

[Fredster1970]

Chose the ED120. Almost clicked the 200P but I just loved the views through my ED80 (now sold for the 6SE). And with no collimation, tighter stars, purer star colours. Would love an ED120.

[Macavity]

I suppose it would depend on the PRICE versus "desperation" factor? BUT 
if nothing else were possible, an ST120 might have quite a lot going for it? 

I do now have one (plus Sky-T) as my general "knock-about" scope. It can
live outside in my observatory (cupboard) - Ready at a moment's notice... 

[25585]

1 hour ago, mikeDnight said:

 

Two great scopes with different qualities! The 200p will be undeniably brighter, so if DSO's are someone's passion, then the 200p will be an excellent choice. Also, the 200p, due to its greater aperture will have greater resolution, at least in theory! Where the refractor really scores, from my personal point of view, is in its higher level of definition and image sharpness. Also, the refractor should never need recoating or recollimating and will be as good in one hundred years from now as it is today. They also hold their value better than their reflector cousins, which although not a game changer, is still worthy of consideration. For lunar observing, I've always felt that a good 4" refractor is preferable to an 8" reflector primarily because the image quality is far more pleasing. 

M Barlow Pepin in his book Care of Astronomical Telescopes and Accessories pages 35 & 36, touches on the refractor reflector comparison, but as you might expect, it doesn't offer any solid answer. The reality is that some people enjoy or even need the brighter images produced by a larger reflector, and there's nothing wrong with that, as we all differ in visual acuity. W.F. Denning in his book Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings, makes the observation " What one man sees in a 5 inch glass another man needs a 10 inch." So with that in mind it does away with the "aperture is king" nonsense. Aperture has its place, but if anything is King its Definition, as unless definition is high, then aperture counts for nothing! And a good refractor oozes definition!! Definition in reflectors can also be excellent, but light scatter, spider defraction and central obstruction all play a part in smearing the image to some degree. 

 

Sorry I've a terrible sense of humour!  

Sadly true though. Seen it in show rooms. Not so much with dobs but definitely GEM newts. 

Easy to see why fork mounted cats are popular. 

 

[Stu]

15 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

Just put them into the focuser   To be fair, I would probably have to raise the primary a bit to achieve focus, but as I said, no problem for me. The secondary would be far enough inside the focal point not to have a heating problem short term with the wedge and the Quark could have a 35nm Baader reflective filter fitted before the secondary. Granted, not the best of solutions but it could be done.

Gosh, that's the first time I've heard that! I always thought the secondary would overheat if doing that sort of thing. Interesting.

[Peter Drew]

Not a common practise but one I've done before knowing any better in the past with a 4.5" and 6" Newtonian without a problem. It would be interesting to try a 35nm filter in front of the secondary in conjunction with a Wedge, the brightness attenuation would be similar to a green filter and you would have a nice red Sun. 

[swamp thing]

I guess the 120ED for me..........

I need a new flue pipe for me boiler   

[Alfian]

I voted for the ED120, not that I've ever used one, but given that I have the ED100 and can't see myself parting with it, the choice was reasonably clear given the limited list. Where aperture is king I suppose the 200p would be the only choice but I have something of a probably irrational aversion to f5 reflectors so that was out and can't imagine either of the other two competing with the ED120 even given any possible variability in quality. The list could/should have been a bit wider, then a really good debate would have ensued. What should have been on the list?