Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Meade 127 or Equinox 120?

A McEwan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Lady Isabella

Lady Isabella

Posted
Posted

The doublet will appear evrso slightly brighter as there are less optical surfaces so for purely visual use it's a tough call.

I see this mentioned quite a lot on the net, yet doing side by side comparisons with doublets and triplets, I've yet to (and other experienced visual observers who use my scopes) experience this. I once remember reading a long maths based paper on this issue. The verdict was that while you can measure the transmission loss between a 2 and 3 element lens, the human eye and brain would not be able to detect such a difference visually at the eyepice, and that if a telescope showed a noticeable difference then there is something very wrong with the scope in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GazOC

GazOC

Posted
Posted

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

Without a doubt, this will most definitely Knacker your scope. Don't do it.

BTW, by altering the spacing between the lens elements, will you not change the level of Sperical Abberation?

Yup, closer spacing will over correct and wider spacing will under correct IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking

Viking

Posted
Posted

Back to the original post. This thread seems to have been hijacked somewhat. Not mentioning any names.

I provided a couple of links near the top of this thread. From one is my take on the Equinox back in July.

I am still extremely pleased with the scope; on a minor point, I do like the colour.

Have you made up your mind yet. Some nice spending coming up.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A McEwan

A McEwan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Back to the original post. This thread seems to have been hijacked somewhat. Not mentioning any names.

I provided a couple of links near the top of this thread. From one is my take on the Equinox back in July.

I am still extremely pleased with the scope; on a minor point, I do like the colour.

Have you made up your mind yet. Some nice spending coming up.

John

Wel... I know I said I wouldn't be ordering anytime soon... but they just keep nagging at the back of my mind. If I had a 5" (ish) ED/APO (oops - I didn't mean that - don't shoot me!!!) I could theoretically lose my ED100 and my 127 Maksutov to make space in my collection (except the ED100 is a known quantity with me and I'm quite fond of it).

Have I decided between the Meade and the Skywatcher offerings? No, not yet. I might be leaning towards SW because of my previous experiences with them though. Then there's the Equinox / DS Pro choice. Different paint schemes, and I still don't know if the focuser on the DS Pro is rotatable. I like rotatable as I use an EQ mount. A Vixen GP. I presume it would carry any of these scopes with ease?

You see - more questions!

That was an interesting fencing bout by the way - quite intriguing! I couldn't believe when I clicked on this thread aftr work today and saw all the responses! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted

... and I still don't know if the focuser on the DS Pro is rotatable.

No, the new focuser on the Evostar 120ED DS Pro is dual-speed but not rotateable.

I use an EQ mount. A Vixen GP. I presume it would carry any of these scopes with ease?

It would be fine for visual but probably a little under-mounted for imaging.

That was an interesting fencing bout by the way

We'll kiss and make up later :D (we've known each other for a few years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A McEwan

A McEwan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Glad to hear that, Steve! Wouldn't like to think I'd started a war or anything... :D

Thanks for confirming about the focuser. So, can I get this straight: The DS Pro comes with finderscope, diagonal and non-rotatable focuser, and the Equinox comes with no accessories but has the rotatable focuser. Both have cases. The Equinox is £1049 and the Pro is £969?

As it's for visual use I'd accept that my GP is suitable, as it is mounted on a Berlebach Uni 18 tripod (half a tree) and hasn't shaken for several years.

I'm going with the flow here and assuming I wouldn't notice the diff between 127mm and 120mm for visual applications.

Does anyone have any reports of visual performance on the planets and Moon? I know what I'd expect DSO's to look like through them, but I'm really looking for justification for going from a 100mm ED to a 120mm ED now!

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lady Isabella

Lady Isabella

Posted
Posted

I have a 102mm ED scope and use a 120mm. Personally I would prefer a larger jump from 100mm, more like 130mm or 140mm. If Skywatcher ever bring out one of the aforementioned scopes then I would buy one in an instance.

I also use one of the 80mm triplets scopes with FCD1 glass, this is one of my imaging scopes. And for that purpose it is superb. It gives me images that are every bit as good as my other imaging scope that cost me 3 times as much.

We do live in very interesting times with these refracting telescopes, and have never been so spoilt for choice with such wonderful instruments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinB

MartinB

Posted
Posted

Does anyone have any reports of visual performance on the planets and Moon? I know what I'd expect DSO's to look like through them, but I'm really looking for justification for going from a 100mm ED to a 120mm ED now!

Thanks!

See my earlier posting in this thread re the ED120. There was a noticeable improvement in resolution of lunar detail compared with an FLT 110 which I compared side by side. I didn't do a side by side comparison of DSOs but a nearly 10% increase in aperture is significant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A McEwan

A McEwan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Nice review MartinB - helps to clear things up a bit.

Lady Isabella, good point, but I can't stretch to a 130mm or 140mm tube right now (though I am on the AP Gran Turismo waiting list! :shock: ) but the 120mm is a very affordable package for the benefits it provides. Plus, I'd probably use a 120 mor than a heavier bigger scope, as I have my 8" Dob for large (ish) aperture views, and access to a 12" dob and 14" LX200R.

Thanks anyway everyone for the input. I'm going to have a think now...

Ant 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

I hadn't spotted this discussion but went for the Meade myself (as you may know.) That doesn't mean I wouldn't fancy the SW120, though... I find the Meade very good indeed for imaging though maybe blue stars bloat a little. They do the same in my Genesis so it may be me!

When I was doing my homework on these scopes I couldn't find anyone imaging with the 120 without reducer-flattener. Off the top of my head I don't know if anyone is posting from an unreduced 120 at the moment?

Olly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.