What is my scope for ?

[KP82]

1 hour ago, Marc1964 said:

Yes, I read somewhere in the forum that you had a Skywatcher I believe? I am thinking of the Bresser Messier AR-102S/600 version which supposedly has better build quality... However am also tempted by the AR-102S/460 which has an element of ED glass which is supposed to help with reducing CA to the equivalent of an F7 scope. Also tempted as I said above by a Long Pern but buying from EU and not understanding exactly how much custom charges are is putting me off somewhat! 

I had a Bresser AR102xs (102/460) for about 3 months. It was solid and compact. The focuser was miles ahead of any SW Startravels. I replaced the stock finder shoe with a baader one temporarily so I could use a RDF with standard synta mounting stalk.

When I bought it I also thought the ED glass (the exact specs weren't disclosed) would help with surpressing the CA. But in actual use, the ED was pretty much non-existent. The blue/violet halos were very prominent around the Moon and brighter stars including Pleiades even at low-ish mag (38x). With a 5mm BST at 92x, the star image was a mess due to CA and SA.

[Marc1964]

11 minutes ago, KP82 said:

When I bought it I also thought the ED glass (the exact specs weren't disclosed) would help with surpressing the CA. But in actual use, the ED was pretty much non-existent.

This is what I was concerned about. Unfortunately full ED or APO set up is beyond my budget. I was leaning towards the 102/600 anyway as I am concerned that the extra cost of the 102xs is worth it... 

[KP82]

16 minutes ago, Marc1964 said:

This is what I was concerned about. Unfortunately full ED or APO set up is beyond my budget. I was leaning towards the 102/600 anyway as I am concerned that the extra cost of the 102xs is worth it... 

That Longpern 90/500 costs £400 inc. VAT. If you could stretch maybe another £100, you could get an Altair Ascent 102ED f/7 that would completely trounce any of the achro you mentioned.

A recent review of the Altair Ascent 102 by a member:

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by KP82

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

I've owned 130mm, 150mm and 204mm reflectors, 120/600mm and 102/714mm refractors and a 102mm Mak.

The Maksutov was a cheap customer return item and will never be sold. It's so small and handy for taking on family camping trips and can be used as a spotter scope with the addition of a cheap 45° diagonal and zoom eyepiece.

The 102/714mm apo again, is lightweight, easy to set up, no collimation woes & minimal cool down. In an urban yard, it shows decent widefield views while also able to push magnification to realistic limits and maintain clarity. This also will be taken to star camps undoubtedly. Definitely a keeper.

Due to a lack of storage space, these will be my only two scopes for the moment. The 4" apo will replace my 150mm newtonian and an unused 8" Dob I've had a while is also going, until I can afford a 10" truss tube GoTo dob. No more nudging for me and easy storage.

As most people come to realise I hope, it's not the size of the telescope, but sky quality which dictates the quality of views. Taking that ST80 of yours to a truly dark site will reveal and resolve a staggering number of DSOs compared to an 8" Dob in a Bortle 8 urban back garden. Heck, even the view through 10x50 binoculars is staggering at a dark site.

Realistically, most of us are squashed into cities. We likely don't have garages, workshops, secure sheds, observatories or big wallets so go with what you can afford, store and move easily. Most of all use the gear and enjoy it to its fullest whatever you have. That's all that matters.

[DaveS]

Time was, the ST80 was pretty much the go-to 'scope for guiding, though now the slew of ED50mm 'scopes have taken that role.

I've accumulated a few 'scopes of varying FL, aperture and sophistication. I think the count is now 6 or 7 but I'm not sure.

[Tiny Clanger]

4 hours ago, Marc1964 said:

I actually did look into a small trolley of some sort but TBH didn't see anything that would carry the Bresser Messier 6" table top mount or the planetary securely without shaking. That would be bad for the scope and the idea of nightly collimation.... I know Bresser do a handle which is useful, but again it's either the base or finding a good support which is key.

One word : hovercraft

 

[wibblefish]

19 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

One word : hovercraft

 

I think a simpler system like this would be more useful!

[Tiny Clanger]

6 minutes ago, wibblefish said:

I think a simpler system like this would be more useful!

My eyes  saw 'starhopper' , for some reason my brain said 'spacehopper' and I thought, that's not going to keep a newt collimated ! 🙂

[reezeh]

On 31/01/2021 at 12:56, Stu1smartcookie said:

Of course an achromat will always be an achromat and always have limitations

If you're ever planning on H-alpha solar I can't see any disadvantage at all. CA should not be an issue, saving you a lot of money over an apo. And aside from imaging an achromat isn't a big handicap. Go back not a million years and achromatic refractors were seen as serious kit well worth having. A six inch achro was "THE Mars scope to have"

A good telescope is anything you're using and looking through. If it shows you things, then it's a good scope. 

 

Edit: Additional: talking of solar,  even white light and projection is something suitable for an 80mm achro. The just above 1" resolution is getting close to what you'll achieve in daytime most places anyway.  And chances are, the objective lens won't suffer as a cemented apo. Just get some cheap uncemented eyepieces if you want to project the sun. 

it's a  win-win! 

Edited February 1, 2021 by reezeh
Additional paragraph.

[Stu1smartcookie]

48 minutes ago, reezeh said:

A good telescope is anything you're using and looking through. If it shows you things, then it's a good scope. 

 

And one that is actually used ! 

[Macavity]

I *think* the idea is to THINK about performance (your experience) of scopes
in areas you try them out. My first ever scopes were a MAK90 and an ST102...
Deliberately "chalk and cheese"? Taught me a lot? Form your own opinion?

Despite "Swearers by" certain scope types, their is also some commonality.
Quality, aperture and focal length seem to matter as much as scope type? 🙂

Edited February 1, 2021 by Macavity

[Orange Smartie]

I'm following this thread with interest, because although I'm a beginner and have only very recently acquired my first (well, second) telescope, it looks likely that I'll be able to expand my collection as some members of my family have said they'd like to buy me a "nice present" as a gesture after what has been a fairly testing year (guess it has for a lot of people).

I know this has all been done to death elsewhere, but I was interested in opinions on say a Mak (could probably afford up to about 127) vs a larger Dobsonian than the one I currently have for when I can get a longer night's viewing in.  I appreciate the limitations of Maks with wide field views, but I admit I'm attracted to them for their portability.  I know it's not comparing apples to apples and all that, but any Mak 127 opinions would be interesting.  Just curious really.

Pete

[Tiny Clanger]

15 minutes ago, Macavity said:

I *think* the idea is to THINK about performance (your experience) of scopes
in areas you try them out. My first ever scopes were a MAK90 and an ST102...
Deliberately "chalk and cheese"? Taught me a lot? Form your own opinion?

Despite "Swearers by" certain scope types, their is also some commonality.
Quality, aperture and focal length seem to matter as much as scope type? 🙂

As I understand it, aperture and focal length are characteristics which are more practical to use and easier,  (and therefore cheaper) to produce in certain types of telescope, hence the emphasis on 'scope  types. in discussions. 

E,G , biggest aperture frac. I can see from a quick look on FLO is a 150mm for £2.7k , At the exact same price there's a 280mm Schmidt-Cassegrain, or for about £300 less there's a 406mm reflector (all on different mounts, first is EQ, other two are go to .)

Not so easy for me to speedily see and compare focal lengths (which are less directly related to price than aperture I suspect) , but there are obvious practical, physical limitations on reflector focal length ( yes, I've see those photos of insanely long home made dobs which require a head for heights and an industrial stepladder to look into, but I'm thinking about commercially viable consumer 'scopes here !) . The cassegrain design is a way around the physical long tube problem : just do some origami on the light path ...  are there any short focal length SCTs or Maks ? I'd like to know .

Heather

[Marc1964]

2 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

My eyes  saw 'starhopper' , for some reason my brain said 'spacehopper' and I thought, that's not going to keep a newt collimated ! 🙂

It will be the Hubble mirror disaster all over again!

[Marc1964]

56 minutes ago, Macavity said:

I *think* the idea is to THINK about performance (your experience) of scopes
in areas you try them out. My first ever scopes were a MAK90 and an ST102...
Deliberately "chalk and cheese"? Taught me a lot? Form your own opinion?

Despite "Swearers by" certain scope types, their is also some commonality.
Quality, aperture and focal length seem to matter as much as scope type? 🙂

Completely agree.  Compromises, or trade-offs are always needed - however what I need has to be portable - I have no good seeing conditions from my garden, so either have to drive somewhere or walk for 15 minutes to a set of fields.  Portability is therefore a must - as important as all the factors you correctly identify!

I have, and love my current refractor.  I have looked through dobsons and appreciate the light gathering abilities.  Not loooked through a Mak yet - that will have to wait, so that is next year's plan 🙂

Horses for courses and I'm in this for the long term, no need to rush - which is just as well given the general lack of stock!

[Tiny Clanger]

10 minutes ago, Orange Smartie said:

I'm following this thread with interest, because although I'm a beginner and have only very recently acquired my first (well, second) telescope, it looks likely that I'll be able to expand my collection as some members of my family have said they'd like to buy me a "nice present" as a gesture after what has been a fairly testing year (guess it has for a lot of people).

I know this has all been done to death elsewhere, but I was interested in opinions on say a Mak (could probably afford up to about 127) vs a larger Dobsonian than the one I currently have for when I can get a longer night's viewing in.  I appreciate the limitations of Maks with wide field views, but I admit I'm attracted to them for their portability.  I know it's not comparing apples to apples and all that, but any Mak 127 opinions would be interesting.  Just curious really.

Pete

The 150 dob 127 mak combo works for me. I bought the latter specifically to use on planets/ the Moon, and am very happy with it. I already had a very sturdy photo tripod, so bought an altaz5 which is hefty and very smooth in use .

I think there is probably little effective difference when looking at the Moon & brighter planets between the 102 and 127, if I'd not already owned that tripod, I'd have gone for a 102 on a steel tripod with the az5 or 4 head to make best use of my money, there's so much magnification possible I think a really steady platform is vital.

[Marc1964]

2 hours ago, reezeh said:

If you're ever planning on H-alpha solar I can't see any disadvantage at all. CA should not be an issue, saving you a lot of money over an apo. And aside from imaging an achromat isn't a big handicap. Go back not a million years and achromatic refractors were seen as serious kit well worth having. A six inch achro was "THE Mars scope to have"

A good telescope is anything you're using and looking through. If it shows you things, then it's a good scope. 

 

Edit: Additional: talking of solar,  even white light and projection is something suitable for an 80mm achro. The just above 1" resolution is getting close to what you'll achieve in daytime most places anyway.  And chances are, the objective lens won't suffer as a cemented apo. Just get some cheap uncemented eyepieces if you want to project the sun. 

it's a  win-win! 

Not planning solar - not something that interests me at all at the moment!

[Marc1964]

3 hours ago, wibblefish said:

I think a simpler system like this would be more useful!

Hmmmm... youve been hanging around with @Tiny Clanger too long....

[Orange Smartie]

2 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

The 150 dob 127 mak combo works for me. I bought the latter specifically to use on planets/ the Moon, and am very happy with it. I already had a very sturdy photo tripod, so bought an altaz5 which is hefty and very smooth in use .

I think there is probably little effective difference when looking at the Moon & brighter planets between the 102 and 127, if I'd not already owned that tripod, I'd have gone for a 102 on a steel tripod with the az5 or 4 head to make best use of my money, there's so much magnification possible I think a really steady platform is vital.

I'm guessing the Mak is good for looking at double/multiple stars too?  When I started out, I imagined that galaxies would be a favoured target, not factoring in the issue of moonlight spoiling everything for me.

[Marc1964]

3 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

One word : hovercraft

 

@Tiny Clanger NO. Too bloody noisy!  Enough light pollution where I live without adding more noise....

[Marc1964]

4 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Realistically, most of us are squashed into cities. We likely don't have garages, workshops, secure sheds, observatories or big wallets so go with what you can afford, store and move easily. Most of all use the gear and enjoy it to its fullest whatever you have. That's all that matters.

Absolutely.  The best scope for me in one sense given what I want to do would be a Dobsonian, it would be a sensible hardware choice.  Practically though it would not be used.  Hence the small, refractor.  It's a trade off - the scope I need is a portable one... It's just a matter now of making the best choice given the restraints of space, money, availability....

[Tiny Clanger]

3 minutes ago, Orange Smartie said:

I'm guessing the Mak is good for looking at double/multiple stars too?  When I started out, I imagined that galaxies would be a favoured target, not factoring in the issue of moonlight spoiling everything for me.

I'm not particularly interested in double stars, so have not deliberately looked for many except as a passing fancy when I was moonwatching, but when I did , the mak was fine. I can't compare it with double stars in the dob , because I've never tried for any with it !

I do rather like globular and open clusters though, The brightest ones can be seen with the mak from my suburban light polluted back garden, but I've had much more success with the dob. that extra aperture seems to make quite a difference, not to mention the wider field making my useless finding skills less of a handicap..

There are somewhat darker rural areas 3km or so away which I'm keen to spend some quality observing time at with both 'scopes, but going  out without a really important reason at the moment just isn't on . 

Heather

[John]

33 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

...  are there any short focal length SCTs or Maks ? I'd like to know .

 

Meade produced an F/6.3 SCT in the 8 and 10 inch apertures a few years ago. It was not a great success as I recall. People seemed to prefer the performance that the F/10 versions produced and would use an F/6.3 focal reducer if they wanted wider views.

Mak-cassegrains have always been F/10 or slower as far as I know.

Mak-newtonians can be faster though but you don't get the advantage of the short tube length with those because its not such a "folded" optical design.

Schmidt-Newtonians are fast scopes available in focal ratio of F/4 but again you don't get that really short tube advantage.

 

[Orange Smartie]

19 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

I'm not particularly interested in double stars, so have not deliberately looked for many except as a passing fancy when I was moonwatching, but when I did , the mak was fine. I can't compare it with double stars in the dob , because I've never tried for any with it !

I do rather like globular and open clusters though, The brightest ones can be seen with the mak from my suburban light polluted back garden, but I've had much more success with the dob. that extra aperture seems to make quite a difference, not to mention the wider field making my useless finding skills less of a handicap..

There are somewhat darker rural areas 3km or so away which I'm keen to spend some quality observing time at with both 'scopes, but going  out without a really important reason at the moment just isn't on . 

Heather

Thank you for taking the time to answer.  I'm very lucky to live in an area without much light pollution, so in truth I probably need portability a lot less than many people.

You have made an important point though - I'm not very good at finding stuff yet, so I might really struggle with a narrow field of view.  I hadn't considered that.

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

35 minutes ago, Orange Smartie said:

I'm guessing the Mak is good for looking at double/multiple stars too?  When I started out, I imagined that galaxies would be a favoured target, not factoring in the issue of moonlight spoiling everything for me.

My 102 Mak is OK at double stars, I had a good session with it a couple of weeks ago.  I listed some of them for another new member to try. Although as you up the mag, airy disks come into play, unlike the refractor, which maintains a pinpoint of light at the same magnification. It's great on the moon too and wasn't that far behind the 150p newtonian on Mars. Slighty less detail, but no diffraction spikes when Mars was at its brightest. Apples & oranges. I would have purchased 127 as they're not much bigger than the 102, but 102 price at the time though was too good to pass on. The only real down side is the very narrow field of view compared to a fast f ratio newton or a refractor.

@LeeHore7 has had a couple of great Skymax 127 sessions recently. There's thread somewhere.