Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

If you only had one ??


If you could only choose one  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Which would you choose

    • ED 120
      25
    • ST 120
      2
    • Evostar 120
      0
    • 200P f/5
      17


Recommended Posts

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! :D 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

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  :icon_biggrin:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

:Dlly

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...

Edited by ollypenrice
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by mikeDnight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

:Dlly

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 :biggrin:, 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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! :eek:

Olly

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   :evil4::icon_biggrin:

And it could also double as an extra cowl on my log burner chimney. :evil4::icon_biggrin::thumbsup:

Edited by F15Rules
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  :icon_biggrin:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just put them into the focuser :icon_biggrin:  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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☺.

Edited by F15Rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. 

5a97f5d87c79b_2017-03-1820_24_15.thumb.jpg.675ed0ae76838f3931018f922dfd0dc3.jpg 

Sorry I've a terrible sense of humour!  :grin:

Edited by mikeDnight
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :p

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... :D

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

5a97f5d87c79b_2017-03-1820_24_15.thumb.jpg.675ed0ae76838f3931018f922dfd0dc3.jpg 

Sorry I've a terrible sense of humour!  :grin:

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

Just put them into the focuser :icon_biggrin:  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  :icon_biggrin:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • 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.