Latest Addition To The Armoury

[cloudsweeper]

Since selling on my ST120 frac, I've had a vacancy for a short tube, widefield, grab 'n' go telescope, and this is it - the Bresser Messier AR 102S 102/600 (f/5.9) achromat.

I was pleased with this telescope's big brother, the AR 127L - smooth hex focuser, build quality, great sharp views - so chose this from the same stable.

Replaced the straight-through finder with a nice Baader RDF, and the 1.25" diagonal with a decent 99% 2" one, so now it's ready for first light.

 

(When I say latest, I surely mean final.......🤔)

Doug.

[mikeDnight]

I've never had chance to use a Bresser, but I get the feeling they have following have quite a following on SGL. It sounds like a serious wide field scope and it looks good too! 

[LukeSkywatcher]

Is this the same as the AR 102XS?. I bought one a couple of years ago. I use it in conjunction with my Quark Solar filter. Love it. 

Really nice build quality. The smoothness of the focused is excellent.

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by LukeSkywatcher

[cloudsweeper]

5 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

Is this the same as the AR 102XS?. I bought one a couple of years ago. I use it in conjunction with my Quark Solar filter. Love it. 

Really nice build quality. The smoothness of the focused is excellent.

 

Almost Paul.  The 102S means short focus; the 102XS means extra short.  The 102S is therefore that bit slower, and gives greater mag.  I have the Exp Sci ED80 for super-widefield, so this a nice bridge between that and the AR 127L.

Doug.

Edited April 29, 2020 by cloudsweeper

[LukeSkywatcher]

1 hour ago, cloudsweeper said:

Almost Paul.  The 102S means short focus; the 102XS means extra short.  The 102S is therefore that bit slower, and gives greater mag.  I have the Exp Sci ED80 for super-widefield, so this a nice bridge between that and the AR 127L.

Doug.

Ahhh ok. The focal length of the Xs is 460mm. The S is 600.

Had too look it up to remind myself.

I thought the Xs was 600mm.

My bad.

Edited April 29, 2020 by LukeSkywatcher

[johninderby]

I had the xs and CA was a bit of a problem at higher mag but not terrible. The s would have been a bettter choice for regular visual. 🙂

[LukeSkywatcher]

3 minutes ago, johninderby said:

I had the xs and CA was a bit of a problem at higher mag but not terrible. The s would have been a bettter choice for regular visual. 🙂

You did have the Xs and liked it. I dont find CA a problem with the scope. It's there, but minimal.

Edited April 29, 2020 by LukeSkywatcher

[johninderby]

Just now, LukeSkywatcher said:

You did have the Xs and liked it. I sont find CA a problem with the scope. It's there, but minimal.

Was a good widefield scope.👍🏻CA was only really noticeable at higher mag though. Great scope for the money though. 🙂