The Telescope That You Never Got On With

[F15Rules]

"Had an Equinox 120 that just never impressed me for visual use and was soon sold on. I know lots rave about how great a scope it is but always left me feeling disappointed after using it"

+1 from me.

I had an Equinox 120 that I paid £900 for over 5 years ago and was just completely underwhelmed by it. I did get most of my money back when I sold it on, thankfully. I then read all the continuing rave reviews about the ED120 range and a couple of years ago I tried again with a DS Pro 120 ..Again, I didn't rate the views and the mechanics were also very industrial.. in fact I got ES Reid to check it out before I sold it on, so convinced was I that it was a lemon.

Es actually said the lens was a very good example, which perplexed me but relieved me at the same time, as I could sell it on with a clear conscience. Maybe the scopes weren't actually that bad, but I had had as good or better views(for me) with scopes like the Tal 100RS,  and Celestron ED100 for far lower cost, and then a D&G USA 5" F15 that simply blew the ED120s away.

To be honest those two experiences really coloured my opinion of Skywatcher, and even now I don't own a single piece of SW equipment. And the latest debacle with the ED150's loaned to John for testing have done nothing to improve my view of the brand. (Not, of course the fault of John or FLO!) 

But it does go to show that once trust in a brand is lost, it can be very difficult to regain it.

Of course , I know that many SGL members love their ED120s, and their opinions are of course just as valid as mine..We are all very different, and that is as it should be??

Dave

[Gina]

Have to say I've been very satisfied with SW equipment.

[wookie1965]

40 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

I don’t get on with achromats - had a Tal 100RS and a Tal 125R and sold both due to chromatic aberration.

I really like the performance to price ratio of Newtonians but my bad back does not ?

I like refractors, cats and Maks ?

I have a Tal 100rs and I have no CA that i am aware of cracking scope my goto scope these days.

[Gina]

Achromats are alright for narrow band DSO imaging.

[johninderby]

Although wasn’t impressed with the Equinox 120 simply love the Skymax 180. Skywatcher does do great maks.

[nightfisher]

Yet another one that ended up with an ED120 that really failed to impress me, it should have been a scope for life, but only had it for a few months, again there was nothing wrong with it I just did not enjoy it, prefer my skymax 127. I have owned and sold a few scopes that just proved very awkward to use, like the Antares 105 F15, and Tal 125r plus I have tried a few newts and just don't like them

[dweller25]

21 minutes ago, wookie1965 said:

I have a Tal 100rs and I have no CA that i am aware of cracking scope my goto scope these days.

Then it has APO performance - I would keep hold of it ?

[Ricochet]

6 hours ago, niallk said:

What I haven't gotten on with is my Celestron 25x70 Skymaster binoculars.  I bought an L bracket for my Az5 mount which I use for the Lunt: this may make them a bit more usable... but so far the views do nothing for me

I had forgotten but I had a pair of those too. Chromatic aberration blurred the views, the requirement for a tripod (and rdf) made them more of a hassle to get out than the dob and a sloppy focuser that meant the dioptre needed adjusting each time the focus was changed. 

51 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Later in life tried a Dob, what an awful back breaking experience that was, guaranteed to put the eyepiece in the most uncomfortable positions, soon got shot of that but still fancy another reflector with an EQ mount.

Get an adjustable seat and there are no issues with a dob. A reflector on an eq mount will be even more back breaking. 

[Alien 13]

1 minute ago, Ricochet said:

I had forgotten but I had a pair of those too. Chromatic aberration blurred the views, the requirement for a tripod (and rdf) made them more of a hassle to get out than the dob and a sloppy focuser that meant the dioptre needed adjusting each time the focus was changed. 

Get an adjustable seat and there are no issues with a dob. A reflector on an eq mount will be even more back breaking. 

I have to stand when observing, sitting is just not an option.. A reflector on an EQ can always put the eyepiece in the correct position, I admit that you have to twist the tube though. 

Alan

[wookie1965]

12 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

Then it has APO performance - I would keep hold of it ?

I am I use it for solar as well with a Herschel wedge.

[John]

One of the things that occurs in reading these threads is that either some scopes vary quite a bit in general performance and optical quality unit to unit (hence the varying perceptions of, say, the ED120) or various facets of our personal choices combine in a way that enables some scopes to tick all or most of our preference boxes while others, although competant instruments, fall short.

Actually, quite probably both the above are at work, hence making the "whats the best scope" question very difficult to answer

Maybe our preferences and perceptions change over time as well, just to make things more confusing

So all I can say with any confidence is that my ED120 seems a very good scope to me and I like it lots. I've never tried being anyone else or to be honest ever used another ED120. Not much of a "data point" am I ?

 

[Charic]

11 minutes ago, Ricochet said:

Get an adjustable seat and there are no issues with a dob. 

All that pondering as to whether or not I should buy the water butt base, to stand my Dob on from earlier  upgrade recommendations ?
Why would anyone want to stand at their scope all night, unless for medical reasons or your Dob is bigger than mine.
I know bigger is better, but some folk are up their step ladders to reach the focuser!!

Nah!, seated comfortably is the way I observe. I've even got a RACI finder scope  to add this season ( if/ when I get the correct 'O' ring that I should have bought many months back )  and my latest Telrad even has a right angle finder built into the dew shield, I wonder how that will fare in use?

[Highburymark]

I didn't really get on with the Celestron C6. Very good star tests and collimation but was never satisfied with views through the eyepiece - stars were bloated, though it was a decent lunar and planetary scope. C8 Edge was a lot better,  but sold it to buy myFC-100 and don't regret it.

 

[LukeSkywatcher]

My 1st scope was a 90mm refrac on an EQ. Great scope but I quickly found out that I hate EQ. 

[chiltonstar]

I've never owned anything I| didn't like although the "horses and courses" rule applies of course. I did borrow a 6" newt for a time which I didn't get on with. Most of an evening session was spent trying to collimate it or struggling with the (inadequate) EQ mount. This has put me off Newtonians for life although recently I have been thinking of trying again with a 10" dob.

Chris

[LukeSkywatcher]

4 minutes ago, chiltonstar said:

I've never owned anything I| didn't like although the "horses and courses" rule applies of course. I did borrow a 6" newt for a time which I didn't get on with. Most of an evening session was spent trying to collimate it or struggling with the (inadequate) EQ mount. This has put me off Newtonians for life although recently I have been thinking of trying again with a 10" dob.

Chris

A Dob and a Newt on EQ, are different animals. The Dob should be great

[chiltonstar]

1 minute ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

A Dob and a Newt on EQ, are different animals. The Dob should be great

It's not the EQ mount - my Vixen SP is great - it's the collimation and coma issues that the newtonian design seems to have.

Chris

[Saganite]

The Meade 12" Lightbridge that I had was a really quite heavy tube framed dob, a fine scope optically, but I had to become quite adept at collimating it every time I moved it, and I swear It would lose collimation just looking at it. The 12" that I have now holds collimation in spite of being moved around in the garden, several times in a session.

[John]

17 minutes ago, Saganite said:

The Meade 12" Lightbridge that I had was a really quite heavy tube framed dob, a fine scope optically, but I had to become quite adept at collimating it every time I moved it, and I swear It would lose collimation just looking at it. The 12" that I have now holds collimation in spite of being moved around in the garden, several times in a session.

One of the mods I had to do with my 12" Lightbridge was to uprate the primary collimation springs. The stock items were rather too weak. The 12" LB's were heavy lumps though they were / are good looking scopes.

Much prefer my OO 12" F/5.3 though

[Alfian]

The Celestron 130EQ which got me going 6 years ago was good for that reason, but I was pleased to move on and I'll leave at that. I had a SW 150p f5 on an AZ4. In lots of ways a good set up and  hard to fault, but somehow I never gelled with it, couldn't get enthusiastic about it which was a shame. Given that its a very "sensible" scope, which is probably why I bought it, (well it made sense to me at the time), I've even thought of re-visiting the experience but resisted so far.

[Gina]

I started with a Celestron 130EQ about 8 years ago though bins before that for many a year.

[Saganite]

1 hour ago, John said:

One of the mods I had to do with my 12" Lightbridge was to uprate the primary collimation springs. The stock items were rather too weak. The 12" LB's were heavy lumps though they were / are good looking scopes.

Much prefer my OO 12" F/5.3 though

Perhaps, had I uprated the springs, I would have had a happier time, and I agree that it was really a quite handsome scope, but also, like you ,I am extremely happy with the OOVX12L.

[Ricochet]

2 hours ago, chiltonstar said:

It's not the EQ mount - my Vixen SP is great - it's the collimation and coma issues that the newtonian design seems to have.

Chris

The longer the focal ratio, the larger the coma free area and the less critical the collimation. Perhaps a slower newt is what you are looking for. 

[chiltonstar]

29 minutes ago, Ricochet said:

The longer the focal ratio, the larger the coma free area and the less critical the collimation. Perhaps a slower newt is what you are looking for. 

Could I lift an f8 10 inch newt?

Chris

[LukeSkywatcher]

2 hours ago, Gina said:

I started with a Celestron 130EQ about 8 years ago though bins before that for many a year.

1980-2008.............all i used was a set of 10x50. Bought the 90EQ in 2008.

Now i cant stop buying astro gear. I have more than i need. Cant be bothered to sell it. I dont need the money.

Im an astro hoarder.