Different reducers look the same. Act the same?

[emadmoussa]

The Celestron f6.3 looks identical to the Meade and Antares f6.3. I wonder if they're actually the same product with different names as a lot of other things in astronomy gear?

Generally, the Celestron seems to have good reviews (mostly in the UK), while the Meade has a bigger market in the US, but the reviews seem to vary. The same applies to Antares reducers. 

[Davey-T]

AFAIK the Meade and Celestron ones are identical, don't know about the Antares but it may well come from the same manufacturer.

There have been a few dodgy Meade ones over the years due to manufacturing errors and no doubt a few of these are still circulating in the second hand market, the main problem was them having the wrong focal length but it's easy to check.

Did you end up with an ACF version ? if so the normal 6,3 reducer is not designed to work with it although I've used it in mine for imaging with Atik314, never bothered to use it for visual.

Dave

[emadmoussa]

5 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

AFAIK the Meade and Celestron ones are identical, don't know about the Antares but it may well come from the same manufacturer.

There have been a few dodgy Meade ones over the years due to manufacturing errors and no doubt a few of these are still circulating in the second hand market, the main problem was them having the wrong focal length but it's easy to check.

Did you end up with an ACF version ? if so the normal 6,3 reducer is not designed to work with it although I've used it in mine for imaging with Atik314, never bothered to use it for visual.

Dave

An LX90 GPS with UHTC, but there are contradictory views whether or not it's an ACF. I've been reading and the general agreement that an ACF won't make a lot of difference to a visual observer. Also, some astronomers have been reducers with this scope version without a problem. I'm getting a GPS version with tons of accessories, including EPs, which would save me at least 1K (enough for a grab and go frac set-up  )

 

[RT65CB-SWL]

5 minutes ago, emadmoussa said:

An LX90 GPS with UHTC, but there are contradictory views whether or not it's an ACF. I've been reading and the general agreement that an ACF won't make a lot of difference to a visual observer. Also, some astronomers have been reducers with this scope version without a problem. I'm getting a GPS version with tons of accessories, including EPs, which would save me at least 1K (enough for a grab and go frac set-up  )

 

I read somewhere on i'net last year and the reviewer found the Celestron FR/FF was the better one. I have used it visually on my 're-modded' ETX105 without any issues, purely as a 'spacer' as the focus shaft knob does not have enough space when I attach a Crayford focusser to the aluminium backplate. (see photo)

 

I just got to think of an idea on how to re-balance it! 

[Macavity]

I seem to have amassed a large number of generic 1.25" focal reducers. lol ?
I do have a generic Antares 0.5x reducer. Seems OK -  Very versatile/useful etc!
https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-05x-focal-reducer-2.html 

One has to think a bit about what the ACTUAL focal length of these thing tho...
The reduction factor is going to (obviously) depend on the distance inside the
focus of the FR and position of the (usually) CCD! Sadly, few advertisement tell
you the exact (negative) focal length, and it's a tad hard to measure directly. ?

One way is to buy/try one out in various configurations, take a "hard copy" of
a known image and measure it with a ruler! They are not the MOST expensive
of things... And you can similarly test them out for (image) aberrations etc. ?

The Celestron 0.67x types are held to be generally "sound"? The 0.33x was
"deleted" though.... Generally held to have NOT to work particularly well. ?

[emadmoussa]

I guess, like you say, won't know until I've tried. I contacted an SGL member who's got a Meade reducer for sale. We'll see. 

[Louis D]

8 hours ago, Macavity said:

The 0.33x was
"deleted" though.... Generally held to have NOT to work particularly well.

I read Meade discontinued it because too many people were returning them complaining they didn't work well visually.  They were never intended to be used visually, but people bought them for that purpose anyway.  Apparently, they were fine for imaging with small chips, though.