Meade 127 or Equinox 120?

[A McEwan]

Ok, ok, I know - I'm sorry for yet another comparison question, but I'm curious about these two telescopes.

They have similar apertures (Meade = 127mm, Equinox 120mm) and sell for about the same price (Meade = £1095, Equinox = £1049), but the Meade is a triplet and the Equinox a doublet.

From what I've read, both deliver near colour-free images and have good quality control, and both are very attractive scopes to look AT rather than through.

I'm not in any danger of ordering either one immediately but am curious as to the merits of each one - why would one be chosen over the other?

Thanks,

Ant 8)

[Viking]

A couple of links to Equinox 120mm

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php/topic,30889.0.html

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php/topic,28885.0.html

John

[John]

Like yourself Ant, I've been intrigued by both these scopes since their launch as, one day, I'd really like to own a 5" class Apo.

I've not had the chance to use either yet but I've read all the views and reviews that have been published avidly.

In some ways it's suprising that the Meade 127 made it to market at all. It was rumoured some time ago, then the 80mm appeared along with more rumours that Meade had quitely dropped plans for a 127mm version due to QC concerns with the design. Then relatively recently Telescope House and others were promoting the scope but I note that they stress that all the scopes coming in will have been though a European-based QC check which is an interesting move. Slightly earlier than the Meade actually arriving, what appears to be a clone of the scope went on sale by Astronomica at the same price (but no Euro-QC check claimed).

The Equinox 120 however seems to have been through a more conventional development and launch process and a clone is now offered by Orion (USA) which I usually interpret as a good sign as Orion have their reputation to think of and I doubt that they would take a risk if they were not pretty confident in the scope.

It's a difficult one to call, especially without having the opportunity to try for onself yet but at the moment I would sway towards the Equinox for the following reasons:

- Synta have a proven track record of being able to produce good doublets incorporating an FPL-53 element. I've owned 3 ED80's and 1 ED100 and all performed excellently (superbly for their cost).

- The Equinox is quite a bit lighter than the Meade which means more portability and less need to spend big bucks on the mount.

- Personnally I feel there is likely to be more QC variation (notwithstanding the additional QC check) with a budget triplet than a budget doublet.

- I think the triplet would take longer to cool down - quite a lot more glass mass involved.

- As a visual observer I'm not convinced that the benefits that a triplet could bring (assuming the Meade delivers those) would mean a lot to me. If I was an imager I might be thinking differently.

So that's where I am at the moment on this for what it's worth !.

John

[A McEwan]

Thanks John, that's a good summary.

I notice now that the Black Diamond Evostar 120ED DS-Pro is also available, with the4 same optics as the Equinox, but with different paint scheme and slightly different accessories - for £130 less at £919 at FLO. This is getting really interesting...

I can't tell if the focuser on the DS-Pro model is rotatable though, whereas I know the Equinox one is.

I am visual observer too, and enjoy (and appreciate the quality of) the views through my ED100 Pro. (And my ED80)

Ant

[GazOC]

I agree with John, I've got an ED100 and hope to get a ~5" apo "one day" and I'd probably go with the Skywatcher. I'm sure the Meades getting in the UK are checked and are fine but there just seems to be less question marks over the SW 120s. My only concern is whether the extra 0.75" is worth the upgrade.....I'm sure I'll convince myself it is!!!

[FLO]

It is significantly more difficult to manufacture a triplet than a doublet, particularly when designing and manufacturing the lens cell (the part that holds the elements). So, whilst from a marketing point-of-view it'd be great to bring an affordable triplet onto the market, in reality that is very difficult to achieve.

It is one thing to assemble an affordable triplet that will shine in a magazine review but to produce that same performance consistently .... that is the challenge. Perhaps Meade have cracked it with their new European quality-control(?)

[GazOC]

From side-by-side comparisions I've read the SW is slightly better colour corrected than the Meade. The trade off seems to be, at the same focal ratio, using FPL-53 allows the design to be a doublet while the FPL-51 requires a triplet to deliver similar results.

[zero]

I am the second part of the European quality control . I've tested every Meade 127 sold by TH prior to sale and have not had a bad one - including the 'not cooled down properly'sky at night review one.

The Meade is optically a better scope than the Skywatcher's in terms of colour correction etc.. as you would expect from a triplet. The doublet will appear evrso slightly brighter as there are less optical surfaces so for purely visual use it's a tough call. The Meade also uses Japanese Ohara FCD-1

Steve's pretty much right about the cell. No-one in the 'cheaper' stakes i.e WO as a prime example (I've worked on a lot of them) make all these great triplets over 80mm, but can't make a cell that keeps the lens spacing right. That's why TMB's etc.. are the price they are. Most of these chinese based larger triplets will suffer from varying degrees of spacing issues, and lens tension issues because the cells are generally poorly set up. The WO's typically use 4 grub screws to move one or more of the elemets of the triplet cell to effectively change the spacing, thus changing the collimation also. This method in principle is sound, but using 4 adjusters does not work properly,especially if you are moving 2 elements - you need to use 3 at 120 degrees to make accurate adjustments. Also if the adjusters are too tight you then get various abberations on the image. Now it is fair to say that most of these issues you would never see under the night sky under normal conditions visually, but when you start putting your camera on it's a different story. It's rare to see a non-respaced triplet with a truly concentric diffraction pattern straight out of the box.

All this aside, the Equinox 120's are outstanding telescopes and would be a great all rounder. I have not found a pup yet.

Steve

[John]

Thanks for that input Steve - sounds like we have a choice of 2 great OTA's in the 5" apo class now for a little more than a grand apiece

Who'd have thought that possible a few years ago !.

John

[kniclander]

It is one thing to assemble an affordable triplet that will shine in a magazine review but to produce that same performance consistently .... that is the challenge.

Steve, are you suggesting that the scopes that get reviewed are "handpicked"? I had (naively?) assumed that they just picked one off the shelf? :scratch:

Dan

[zero]

I know TH don't handpick review stuff, as a) it makes little difference to the review, and I don't have time as they usually come back needing attention anyway. I checked that particular one after the review as it was the first into the country (and only one at that point) so went straight out for the review before I got to see it- and I personally didn't believe the accuracy / validity or fairness of the test in the magazine. I would assume that other suppliers follow the same rule.

You also need to bear in mind that when you see a group test for instance, they can test 3 or 4 pairs of identical binoculars from the same factory and give them different results, so what's the point of going to all the effort? I do, however check Apo's prior to sale when bought from TH. So you are not in the least bit naive. Besides,the first I know about it is when the review's in print which can be good, and can be bad.

Steve.

[FLO]

I am the second part of the European quality control

Yes, I know

The Meade is optically a better scope than the Skywatcher's in terms of colour correction etc.. as you would expect from a triplet.

Whilst a triplet can potentially outperform a doublet for colour correction I am not convinced that, at this price, it can be achieved consistently. That is just my opinion born of experience selling telescopes and talking to others in the trade/industry and here on SGL.

No-one in the 'cheaper' stakes i.e WO as a prime example (I've worked on a lot of them)

Be fair Steve, Telescope House are not a William Optics dealer so you are unlikely to have been exposed to a 'lot of them'.

The WO's typically use 4 grub screws to move one or more of the elemets of the triplet cell to effectively change the spacing, thus changing the collimation also. This method in principle is sound, but using 4 adjusters does not work properly,especially if you are moving 2 elements - you need to use 3 at 120 degrees to make accurate adjustments. Also if the adjusters are too tight you then get various abberations on the image.

I know the model (doublet) that you are referring too and I am aware that you have worked on one. The initial run did have a poor lens cell but that was remedied later and the model has since been discontinued.

That's why TMB's etc.. are the price they are.

Agreed, but (mentioning no names) we both know that even the elite brands have struggled with lens cells...

I am familiar with your work at Telescope House and have respect for your opinion but we must be careful not to exaggerate when having these discussions.

Isn't it about time you applied for retailer status?

[zero]

Hi Steve,

Firstly I think it can be acheived consistently at the price, as steps are taken post production to make sure of it. Yes it's technically after market, but ity's good for the end user.

You're right TH are not a Wiliams dealer (but were a long while ago). I've done alot of work for Ian King as he is a friend of mine, so in fact I have worked on quite a few. I've been in this business for going on 15 years, I've owned more refractors than I care to think about, and I've worked on scopes from 60mm achro's to respacing 8" TMB triplets, so I don't really think I'm exaggerating, I'm just trying to contribute to a discussion drawing on my experience. It's an opinion that's all. I'm not a retailer, and I'm not representing Telescope House either, so I have no intention of applying for retailer status thanks.

[FLO]

I've done alot of work for Ian King as he is a friend of mine, so in fact I have worked on quite a few.

I guessed that was where your experience came from so I phoned Ian for a chat before posting my response, so I have a pretty clear idea how many you have worked on

I'm not a retailer, and I'm not representing Telescope House either

When I or any other retailer posts a comment or response SGL's members are aware that I am connected to FLO. When you post most members have no idea that you have been:

... in this business for going on 15 years

and will not be aware of your connections with Telescope House and their products.

If you had retailer status then this probably wouldn't have blown up because, like me, you would no doubt have been more careful with your post.

Lets not fall out over this and lets not get carried away, particularly now that Ian has been bought into the conversation

[MartinB]

Don't you just love refractor discussions - the fine art of dancing around on the head of a pin.

I have had an ED120 for some time now and can confirm it is a wonderful scope. In bad seeing on something like Vega low down or Venus you will see some colour. Provided that isn't what gives you pleasure you will have to work very hard to see significant colour. Contrast on lunar craters is remarkable. In any thing other than very good seeing I prefer the solar system views through this scope than I do through a 12" dob or an LX200R. Doubles that you would struggle with on a well collimated 12" newt are easily split with the refractor.

But it's more than just colour correction, the whole optical quality of the ED120 is high - well collimated, well corrected, no astigmatism, excellent edge of field performance. I got the scope when it's stock was low due to some ill informed opinion on Cloudy Nights and picked up a bargain, it has consistently exceeded expections both visually and as an imaging scope.

I compared the ED120 with an FLT 110 some time ago. I had them mounted side by side. I could not tell apart as far as colour correction goes looking at the moon. The ED120 gave better resolution owing to the extra bit of aperture.

I'm sure the Meade 127 is a very fine scope and an endorsement from Zero would go a very long way towards making me feel confident buying one.

The ED120 is wonderfully simple (and light) - a cheap and cheerful crayford, 2" focuser, no focus rotator and a budget paint job. So, no pride of ownership, no tactile joy in using, just great views.

[zero]

I wasn't aware it had blown up Steve. Although, in fairness, so you have a 'pretty clear' idea especially now that Ian has been bought into the conversation as you felt the need to phone him, I've worked on around 30 WO scope's in total, over the past few years, not all the same model and most through my profession as well as some for Ian. Ian simply likes to test products prior to sale as I'm sure you do . I wasn't trying to have a pop WO, or their dealers, or attempting to do them any injustice whatsoever, it was merely an example -though it would seem a poorly chosen one at that. For balance, I've worked on Tak's, Astrophysics, quite a few Vixen's, and TMB's to similar levels, WO was the example as they were the first to try and mass produce larger cells at a cheap price -and it has to be said they have done so with a degree of sucess which is clear. I make no attempt to post in connection with Telescope House. If it's better for me to refrain from enterring these discussions then that's fine, as i wouldn't want to upset the applecart, or harm any potential sales for any retailers on here..this is supoesed to be social after all.

[FLO]

If it's better for me to refrain from enterring these discussions then that's fine...

Your posts are some of the first I click on Steve. I hope you continue joining these discussions

Whether you come out of the closet and accept retailer status is between you and SGL's ADMIN team.

I personally hope that you do. It'll make you more accountable

[GazOC]

A an aside, is the Moon a valid test for colour correction? If your pupil dilates larger because of the brightness of the Moon to a size larger than the exit pupil the scope/ eyepiece combination is giving arn't you effectively stopping down the scope? A 120mm f7.5 could be really be giving results based on being (say) a 80mm f11.

[MartinB]

Steve, your input is much appreciated. Many of us are aware of your expertise in this area. Please, please continue to input into these discussions.

For members not in the know Steve is a very talented telescope engineer who did such a beautiful job restoring Patrick Moore's classic refractors and is part of AE/BC&F astro engineering (I think!!).

I think it is best if you are whiter than white regarding declaring possible commercial links when commenting on brands of scope to avoid any possible concerns about conflict of interest.

[MartinB]

A an aside, is the Moon a valid test for colour correction? If your pupil dilates larger because of the brightness of the Moon to a size larger than the exit pupil the scope/ eyepiece combination is giving arn't you effectively stopping down the scope? A 120mm f7.5 could be really be giving results based on being (say) a 80mm f11.

Jeez, I don't know!!! :shock: :shock: The brighter the target the brighter the colour around the rim I would have thought. Running for the door now, never to return to a refractor discussion ever again

[kniclander]

Zero, pls don't stop posting becasue you seem to be very knowledgeable and experienced. In my (very) humble opinion, you should say somewhere (perhaps in your signature) that you work for TH - that way, you can say exactly what you think and people can draw their own conclusions. if you don't, then I suspect that you may find that you actually refrain from posting your honest opinion becasue people might perceive bias. Hope I'm not speaking out of turn - it's just my opinion.

[zero]

Cheers. I don't post because I work for TH, and I don't particularily feel the need to be associated with them whilst I'm on a forum as i do it for my own enjoyment as part of my hobby. I'm aware that some may assume I'm bias, as I make no actual secret of what I do, but I don't think I am. I wouldn't want to detract from Steve's business as it's directly linked (in part) to this forum,as he is the sole sponsor and good luck to him. I know what it's like trying to make a living in this business.

You're not speaking out of turn, so don't worry . I can see the point, but if I become labelled as a retailer, it starts being work (and I'm not a retailer and don;t work in TH technically), and it starts making it awkward to voice my opinion.

I don't like bulls**t and marketing, I like astronomy and telescopes, and I supose I'm what some would politely call forthright, although I've been called alot worse.

Vega's the better colour test by the way. False colour capital of the universe .

Steve

[Lady Isabella]

The WO's typically use 4 grub screws to move one or more of the elemets of the triplet cell to effectively change the spacing, thus changing the collimation also. ve

Can anyone provide a link to a WO product that shows this, as I'm intrigued by this.

Using triplet refractors (and doublets) I was always told that the last thing you would want to do is actually change the spacing between the elements in a triplet refractor. I know that some triplets allow you to change the collimation by simply moving the lens cell, but I've yet to see one that allows the end user to alter the spacing of individual lens elements.

[zero]

It's not technically an 'end user' feature -and, importantly, I'm not recommending anyone has a go at it -underneath the felt on the side of the cell there are usually 4 recessed grub screws (sometimes there two sets, on for the middle element and one for the rear element). The theory is that if you shift an element, it effectively changes the distance between the optical surfaces, therefore changing the spacing slightly. You also have to take into account the temperature of the cell / glass as that plays an important role in how well the lens fits the cell. Please don't try it, as the screws are glued in place aswell. It's worth noting that these are tiny adjustments, and not 'collimation' in the traditional sense. you wouldn't normally do it outside, you would need an optical test rig. It's rare for a triplet to be along way out, so we are talking fine detail that would take a lot of finding on the night sky.

[zero]

fogot to mention, adjusting these can knacker your scope all too easily, so I'm not endorsing it.