Bresser AR127L/1200 or Altair Starwave 102/f11

[Paul67]

Struggling to choose between these two. My viewing will be doubles, clusters and some deep sky with filters. Not really concerned with Luna and planets. I would like the cleanest views of doubles as possible as a priority.

The Bresser has 127 aperture at F9.4 and by all accounts is pretty good. It is well built and runs at the same cost as the Altair when you add the 1:10 gear set for the focuser. The added aperture should allow for more deep sky.

The Altair with 102mm aperture has lots of information on the internet and is very well regarded (under different names). The glass is Ohara and Shott and looks to have nice coatings. The build looks top notch for the money.

Is there anyone who has owned both of these scopes to do a comparison? I think I may end up buying both if I cant choose.

[Knighty2112]

Not owned a Bresser ‘frac, but I did own an AA 102mm f11 and it was a cracking scope. In a fit of madness I sold it to Charl on here a regretted it ever since! 

[Paul67]

4 minutes ago, Knighty2112 said:

Not owned a Bresser ‘frac, but I did own an AA 102mm f11 and it was a cracking scope. In a fit of madness I sold it to Charl on here a regretted it ever since! 

Haha , cheers Knighty, it does look a lovely scope. My heart says the Altair and my head half says more aperture.

[John]

I've owned a Bresser 127L and that one was a pretty nice 5 inch achromat. I've not used one of the 102mm F/11's but they always seem to get good reviews. Having also owned a Meade branded version of the 127L (the AR5) and found it rather mediocre optically I wonder if there is some optical quality variation in the 127's that might not be present in the 102 F/11's with the latter being, supposedly, a "hand finished" objective ?

If you got a good 127 it would split tighter doubles than the 102 of course and go deeper on DSO's.

The 127L would need a more robust mount than the 102mm F/11 which might be another factor. The 102 F/11's are built to a higher standard overall from what I've seen of them.

 

[Paul67]

5 minutes ago, John said:

I've owned a Bresser 127L and that one was a pretty nice 5 inch achromat. I've not used one of the 102mm F/11's but they always seem to get good reviews. Having also owned a Meade branded version of the 127L (the AR5) and found it rather mediocre optically I wonder if there is some optical quality variation in the 127's that might not be present in the 102 F/11's with the latter being, supposedly, a "hand finished" objective ?

If you got a good 127 it would split tighter doubles than the 102 of course and go deeper on DSO's.

The 127L would need a more robust mount than the 102mm F/11 which might be another factor. The 102 F/11's are built to a higher standard overall from what I've seen of them.

 

Thanks John, I think the higher quality optics of the 102 might swing it with a view to owning the 6inch Skywatcher ED in another year or two.

[xtreemchaos]

i have both and there both good scopes, the 127l will show dimmer stars but there heavy and show a tad more CA than the 102 but not overmuch and can be sorted with a contrast booster. i love both scopes the same, i use the starwave almost every day for solar and its a great match for closeup work with a quark, the 127l is also a great moon imaging scope. goodluck, charl. 

[Paul67]

7 minutes ago, xtreemchaos said:

i have both and there both good scopes, the 127l will show dimmer stars but there heavy and show a tad more CA than the 102 but not overmuch and can be sorted with a contrast booster. i love both scopes the same, i use the starwave almost every day for solar and its a great match for closeup work with a quark, the 127l is also a great moon imaging scope. goodluck, charl. 

Thanks Charl, thats exactly what I was looking for. Can accept slight loss in doubles to split so long as the image is clean in the 102.

[xtreemchaos]

yes the 102 is clean and sharp and lighter to boot id say not far off ed lenses in imaging. charl.

[Paul67]

3 minutes ago, xtreemchaos said:

yes the 102 is clean and sharp and lighter to boot id say not far off ed lenses in imaging. charl.

Brilliant, would you say a AZ5 would hold it (for the time being) untill I have the funds for an Giro ercole?

[xtreemchaos]

im not too sure ive never used a AZ5 ive had my one on a eq5 and that carryed it fine and tracked well but its mounted dayly on my HEQ5 sweet, Gus Knighty2112 might know i think hes used the mount. charl.

[Knighty2112]

Never used an AZ5 with my AA 102mm. Mostly used a Skytee 2mount with it. I did use it on my Vixen Porta Mount also occasionally (which is similar to an AZ5), but I had to balance the scop well on the mount. The scope on the Skytee was solid even in gusty weather, but less so on the Vixen so I would say that the AZ5 would work with the scope, but not really as a permanent solution to using it really. 

[Paul67]

1 minute ago, Knighty2112 said:

Never used an AZ5 with my AA 102mm. Mostly used a Skytee 2mount with it. I did use it on my Vixen Porta Mount also occasionally (which is similar to an AZ5), but I had to balance the scop well on the mount. The scope on the Skytee was solid even in gusty weather, but less so on the Vixen so I would say that the AZ5 would work with the scope, but not really as a permanent solution to using it really. 

Thanks Gus, it would be a stop gap for a couple of months till I get the heavier mount, think I'm now sold on the 102.

Thanks to everyone for helping me choose my new toy

[johninderby]

Always liked my 102 f11 and had a lot of great views with it. Optics are quite good for an achromat and it does look like a proper frac.  ?

Only got rid of mine after I got the Carton 100 f13 which totally outclassed it which isn’t surprising given the price difference but for the money the 102 f11 is a very good performer. Well recommended.

[Paul67]

9 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Always liked my 102 f11 and had a lot of great views with it. Optics are quite good for an achromat and it does look like a proper frac.  ?

Only got rid of mine after I got the Carton 100 f13 which totally outclassed it which isn’t surprising given the price difference but for the money the 102 f11 is a very good performer. Well recommended.

Yeah, I've read some very good things about those Carton lenses! Certainly sound like keepers.

[johninderby]

Now that there are no more of the objectives available they have become a collectors scope and very rarely come up for sale. A very special scope indeed.  ?

Big Red is going nowhere!!!

[Paul67]

6 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Now that there are no more of the objectives available they have become a collectors scope and very rarely come up for sale. A very special scope indeed.  ?

Big Red is going nowhere!!!

Wow, now that IS a scope! Beautiful.

[R26 oldtimer]

I have the 127L and it's a great example of what a 5" achromat can deliver. Great focuser and collimatable lens cell. You can always make a couple of aperture masks to step it down to 100mm F/12 or 80mm F/15 and make it pretty much apo.

[Paul67]

9 minutes ago, R26 oldtimer said:

I have the 127L and it's a great example of what a 5" achromat can deliver. Great focuser and collimatable lens cell. You can always make a couple of aperture masks to step it down to 100mm F/12 or 80mm F/15 and make it pretty much apo.

Thanks Oldtimer, I did consider this and one of the reasons which is making it difficult to choose. I think the quality of the lenses (although I believe the 127 is pretty good) and the look of the 102 is swinging it, but it is tight.

[R26 oldtimer]

Either way you'll get a very good scope!

[John]

I don't think the AZ5 would be an option with the 127L, even on a very temporary basis.

 

[F15Rules]

Hi Paul, 

I have owned both scopes, as an AR127L and a Lyra Optic 102mm F11 (not both at the same time).

They are both nice scopes: the AR127 goes deeper but has noticeably more CA. The Lyra (made by Kunming Optical, same as the Altair Starwave) was a league above the Bresser /Meade in build and optical quality. The Lyra bested my Tal 100RS which was an excellent achromat. Cosmetically the Lyra/Altair is top notch, and for your stated preference of doubles is definitely the better bet IMO..the F11 ratio will give more depth of focus and the focuser itself is far better quality.

Mount wise, I used a CG5 (EQ5) for mine. I found that the 2" tubular steel tripod of the CG5 was far more stable than the EQ5's 1.75", especially with a long tube (both these scopes are quite long).

Good luck!

Dave

[Paul67]

In all honesty, whichever scope I choose it will likely sit there for a couple of months till the mount is bought. Doing it this way around gives me added incentive to save harder for the mount, knowing I have a shiny toy that  can't be used  thats my logic.

[Paul67]

2 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Hi Paul, 

I have owned both scopes, as an AR127L and a Lyra Optic 102mm F11 (not both at the same time).

They are both nice scopes: the AR127 goes deeper but has noticeably more CA. The Lyra (made by Kunming Optical, same as the Altair Starwave) was a league above the Bresser /Meade in build and optical quality. The Lyra bested my Tal 100RS which was an excellent achromat. Cosmetically the Lyra/Altair is top notch, and for your stated preference of doubles is definitely the better bet IMO..the F11 ratio will give more depth of focus and the focuser itself is far better quality.

Mount wise, I used a CG5 (EQ5) for mine. I found that the 2" tubular steel tripod of the CG5 was far more stable than the EQ5's 1.75", especially with a long tube (both these scopes are quite long).

Good luck!

Dave

Thanks Dave, Doubles will definitely be my priority. I'm feeling confident in the 102. 

[F15Rules]

 

Hi Paul,

I found a review of my Lyra 102mm F11 from 2012 which might be of interest..

Dave

 

[Paul67]

2 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

 

Hi Paul,

I found a review of my Lyra 102mm F11 from 2012 which might be of interest..

Dave

 

Lovely, having a read now.