Questar 3.5" standard

[munirocks]

My experience was bad, terrible in fact. I ordered a new one, a 50th Anniversary model no less, four and a half years ago and it had multiple, severe quality issues that they couldn't sort out in five attempts. After 18 months of waiting, returns, hassle, worry, and eventually confrontation I got my money back. After I told my story over on the CN Questar thread, only one person there has bought one in the last three years, and they didn't report back. So can they still make them like they used to? Who knows? They couldn't for me. Worst experience and biggest disappointment ever. 

[Merlin]

I have the hair-shirt equivalent of the Questar, the Skymax 90. It's an ex-demo one and for the princely sum of £90. needless to say, before you scoff, it gives superbly sharp images of the Moon and Planets. The mechanical parts of the Skymax 90 are probably nowhere near as robust as the Questar's, but I'm perfectly satisfied with the optical quality, limited only by aperture.

[RT65CB-SWL]

Not in the same league as the Questar 3.5...

  

the poorman's Questar... my 're-modded' Meade ETX105. 

[Peter Drew]

Let's get this into perspective. At their original launch, the 3.5" Questar was unique in its quality of performance, build and versatility. Years of advertising inside the front cover of S & T cemented this reputation in the mindset of the readers and lead to the myth that it was unbeatable at its aperture. It's still a fine telescope by any standard but these days several less expensive telescopes of similar aperture can match or beat it. There is no doubt that the complete package has an attractive look about it but as ever, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". "All that glisters is not gold".