Questar 3.5" standard

[pragmatist]

Has anybody had any experiences with these little gems?

[Craney]

Just dreams.....

[pragmatist]

1 hour ago, Craney said:

Just dreams.....

Desirable then.

[mikeDnight]

paulastro bought a beautiful 3.5" Questar some years ago that once belonged to Peter Sellers. He bought it from Peter Sellers son! It was a beautifully designed instrument that was as much a work of art as it was a scientific instrument. Sadly I never did get chance to observe through it, as Paul sold it on. It now belongs to another friend and I still haven't looked through it!

Mechanically it was a masterpiece of engineering, but according to Peter Drew, the ETX 90 is essentially just as good optically as the Questar 3.5". 

[Craney]

A combination of me as a young kid looking at Scientific American adverts, the unreal price (on my pocket money), the classy look of it  and latterly reading reviews that put it in high regard optically, or so I thought....   But probably best if somebody knowledgeable or has owned one chips in......

[Ruud]

Probably the best marketed 90 mm in the history of amateur astronomy!

QuestarCat.pdf

q60.pdf

q72.pdf

EDIT

It was in the wrong folder but I found it back: http://www.scopereviews.com/90mmComparo.html 
It's by Ed Ting and the title is "Can a $200 Chinese Maksutov Topple the Mighty Questar?"

[Peter Drew]

I've had a few, they are a very good 3.5" telescope. I used the one Paul once owned and had the opportunity to compare it to my excellent ETX90 Mak that I bought from Paul. My feeling, on the day, was that I preferred the planetary images in the ETX although terrestrially the Questar had a brighter image due to better baffles. Build quality was superior on the Questar as you might expect. For the price difference I wouldn't trade my ETX for a Questar.  

[pragmatist]

I think it’s very much the same as owning a  Leica M camera. You know that there are much better cameras for a lot less but it’s the pleasure of owning something of quality. 

[Ricochet]

17 hours ago, pragmatist said:

Has anybody had any experiences with these little gems?

If you are asking because you have seen one going cheap on eBay avoid it at all costs. There have been many scam listings added recently and should you send money outside of eBay you will never see it again. 

[Ruud]

15 minutes ago, pragmatist said:

You know that there are much better cameras for a lot less but it’s the pleasure of owning something of quality. 

There might be a contradiction here...

[paulastro]

17 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

paulastro bought a beautiful 3.5" Questar some years ago that once belonged to Peter Sellers. He bought it from Peter Sellers son! It was a beautifully designed instrument that was as much a work of art as it was a scientific instrument. Sadly I never did get chance to observe through it, as Paul sold it on. It now belongs to another friend and I still haven't looked through it!

Mechanically it was a masterpiece of engineering, but according to Peter Drew, the ETX 90 is essentially just as good optically as the Questar 3.5". 

What actually happened was that Peter and I took the Questar and a good ETX 90 tube assembly to a hillside to look at a conjunction of evening planets, some years ago now.  After comparing the two for a very long time, we couldn't say with any certainty that there was any difference between them optically. Of course, in terms of engineering, it was chalk and cheese.  It doesn't make sense to buy a Questar just for it's optical quality as you could get much better views for the money invested.  As a piece of telescope history and one of the most iconic, beautifully looking and best engineered telescopes that has ever been made there's little that will come close.

[dweller25]

“As a piece of telescope history and one of the most iconic, beautifully looking and best engineered telescopes that has ever been made there's little that will come close”

Maybe a Takahashi refractor will ?

[pragmatist]

7 hours ago, Ricochet said:

If you are asking because you have seen one going cheap on eBay avoid it at all costs. There have been many scam listings added recently and should you send money outside of eBay you will never see it again. 

Yes I’ve seen a couple on flea bay like that.

[pragmatist]

7 hours ago, Ruud said:

There might be a contradiction here...

If there is then I can’t see it.

[pragmatist]

I can’t believe I’m considering one....then again I have owned Leica rangefinders so it kind of makes sense. I quite like iconic, plus it’s still a damn fine little belter of a scope. 

[Merlin]

As much an American iconic as the Coca Cola bottle, but vastly overpriced?

[ollypenrice]

I once read an article about the difficulty of buying a present for Alan Whicker, the man who had everything. The writer said that you were reduced to things like a gold plated belly button brush. I think the Questar might be the gold plated belly button brush of telescopes.

Questar trivia: in Jon Krakauer's excellent book Into the Wild we learn that the hero bought his father an expensive telescope before leaving his regular life behind. In the film version, though, we see that the telescope in question is a Questar. Blink and you'll miss it, but there it is!

Olly

[paulastro]

On ‎29‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 17:54, dweller25 said:

“As a piece of telescope history and one of the most iconic, beautifully looking and best engineered telescopes that has ever been made there's little that will come close”

Maybe a Takahashi refractor will ?

At the risk of becoming Mr Unpopular in some quarters, I think the Questar leaves any Tak I have ever seen or used following in its wake in all aspects - except for the quality of the optics.  No comparison in my view.  .  Taks are no way iconic.    As a practical observing instrument, I'd have a Tak any time .

[pragmatist]

You think Questar is overpriced, you should dip your toes into the vastly overpriced world of Leica rangefinder cameras though I did enjoy owning my M9. £5000 for the body and another £2200 for the beautiful Summicron 35mm F2. Summilux 1., add another 2k. Suddenly a Questar becomes an attractive option however the Tak shadow will always try to steer your sensible head in his direction. Us humans by our very nature will always question what we could have got with that money but theoretically we could say that with any telescope purchase. I guess we pay our money and enjoy what we have.

[dweller25]

18 hours ago, paulastro said:

At the risk of becoming Mr Unpopular in some quarters, I think the Questar leaves any Tak I have ever seen or used following in its wake in all aspects - except for the quality of the optics.  No comparison in my view.  .  Taks are no way iconic.    As a practical observing instrument, I'd have a Tak any time .

Fetch the rope boys, we have a Tak hater

PS - the quality of the optics is what really counts ?

[ollypenrice]

Tak make scopes which vary between excellent and ordinary but they are designed, manufactured and marketed as telescopes. It's hard to believe that this can really be said of the Questar. It's a bit like a Rolex watch. Does anybody buy a Rolex watch just because they want to know what time it is?

I hate to say it but I find the Questar slightly Kitsch as an object. That star chart on the tube - no - not to my taste. But I think it's fun that such items are still made and available in 2018. I'd hate to see them disappear.

Olly

[pragmatist]

7 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I hate to say it but I find the Questar slightly Kitsch as an object. That star chart on the tube - no - not to my taste. But I think it's fun that such items are still made and available in 2018. I'd hate to see them disappear.

Olly

Which is why we need people like me. I am hugely tempted because I want something different from the ordinary but let’s not forget, they actually do seem to be very good scopes albeit an expensive grab n go. 

[ollypenrice]

8 hours ago, pragmatist said:

Which is why we need people like me. I am hugely tempted because I want something different from the ordinary but let’s not forget, they actually do seem to be very good scopes albeit an expensive grab n go. 

Then you should go for it and enjoy it!

Olly

[pragmatist]

5 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Then you should go for it and enjoy it!

Olly

Having said that, those FSQ 106 ED’s are nice ??

[ollypenrice]

6 hours ago, pragmatist said:

Having said that, those FSQ 106 ED’s are nice ??

They're nice and they're not. Depends what you want to do with them. They cover a chip so large that nobody makes it, but you pay anyway. They are well colour corrected and sharp but they suffer from huge sensitivity to focus drift during temperature change. They produce artefacts around bright stars which you process out or, as I do, ignore. Personally I prefer the original fluorite 106N. But the key question about any telescope is, Will it do what I want it to do? Of my 106N I'd say, 'mostly, yes.' Of my TEC140 I'd just say, 'Yes.'

Olly