Jump to content

Narrowband

ED80 v ED102: real-world thoughts?


Recommended Posts

Thanks in part to some great advice I've received on SGL, in my hunt for a good all-rounder as my first telescope, I have narrowed the field to a short refractor.

But because I can't actually test anything in person, I could use some real-world advice on the final selection.

My main requirements are that it be:

A - portable, so I can take it to a park in London (I have a garden, but buildings on all sides block a lot of the sky, so realistically I need to carry it 5-10 minutes to a nearby park, ideally stuck in a backpack)

B - both good DSO and planetary viewing alike in an urban sky (not imaging)

C - under £500 OTA

I have ruled out a Dob (portability) and a Mak (for poor DSO and narrow FOV). So I think I've settled on a short tube refractor.

I have considered the F5 refractors (cheaper, wide FOV, "bombproof" as someone put it). But I'm a little worried about CA, and build quality, and that the views, while crisp, won't be all that impressive at higher magnitudes. The ST120 would take in the most light but would also probably need an AZ5 w steel tripod (heavy), whereas the ST80 could sit on on a cheaper, lighter mount but might seem sadly underwhelming under Bortle-9 skies.

So I've been weighing up an ED doublet - the 3" and 4" Altair Ascents, which with the FPL51 glass are just on the right side of affordability, and seem to solve some of the short tube issues.

My question is:

1. What's the real-world difference between an 80ed and 102ed in people's experience? The larger scope only costs £100 more, and boasts it has 63% more light - but how big of a step up is that in terms of viewing appreciation? And does the fact I'm observing in London change the equation? It's also longer (73cm v 54cm) and heavier (4.2kg v 2.8kg) - would that make lugging it to the park that extra bit of a pain that would likely mean I don't take it out as much? No point buying a more expensive scope if I don't use it. It seems like a small difference but 54cm could go in a backpack whereas 73cm can't even fit in my suitcase.

2. Am I wrong to have written off the cheaper F5s? Would the ST102, for example, hit a "sweet spot" for planets, DSO and not too much CA to be annoying (incidentally I'm colourblind so false colour doesn't generally bother me, though focus/sharpness issues certainly would)? Everyone seems very attached to their ST80s, too, but I have a feeling I might want something with a little more flash. I haven't read great reviews of the ST120s either, at least not as "all rounders".

Any practical experience of comparing 3" v 4" (or 5") refractors (both ED and otherwise) in a real-world context would be hugely helpful – particularly the thing about the 63% more light in an 4" v 3".

Thanks!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best telescope is the one that you will actually use. If lugging it to a park is a definite requirement then I suspect that the 80 would be more practical. Just because you might physically be able to carry a 102 (plus heavier mount most likely) across town, I think the novelty would wear off pretty quickly. Remember you will also need eyepieces and a bunch of other odds and sods like extra clothing layers, a tablet to run Stellarium maybe... it all adds up.

My ST80 plus baggage still takes me at least two trips between the house and garden but I could maybe organise myself enough to do it in one if I really had to.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MercianDabbler said:

The best telescope is the one that you will actually use. If lugging it to a park is a definite requirement then I suspect that the 80 would be more practical. Just because you might physically be able to carry a 102 (plus heavier mount most likely) across town, I think the novelty would wear off pretty quickly. Remember you will also need eyepieces and a bunch of other odds and sods like extra clothing layers, a tablet to run Stellarium maybe... it all adds up.

My ST80 plus baggage still takes me at least two trips between the house and garden but I could maybe organise myself enough to do it in one if I really had to.

Thanks. Good advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just had a half hour play with my new (to me) Orion ST80, I can say for sure it is fun to use, easy to aim (so wide field it is practically its own finderscope .. ) light and perfect on even a flimsy tripod (tried it on my titchy manfrotto travel tripod, which whispers rather than boasts a carrying capacity of just 3kg  ) but at 400mm focal length , even with my strongest eyepiece (6mm ) Mars was still only a tiny dot, and the Moon did not even fill the field of view .

For an all round 'scope I suspect you would want a longer focal length , especially as the Moon and planets are some of the easy bright objects which you should be able to see in the city. And with that I've reached the end of my practical first hand experience with frac.s 🙂

Heather

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Having just had a half hour play with my new (to me) Orion ST80, I can say for sure it is fun to use, easy to aim (so wide field it is practically its own finderscope .. ) light and perfect on even a flimsy tripod (tried it on my titchy manfrotto travel tripod, which whispers rather than boasts a carrying capacity of just 3kg  ) but at 400mm focal length , even with my strongest eyepiece (6mm ) Mars was still only a tiny dot, and the Moon did not even fill the field of view .

 

Thanks! Yeah, I know even experienced astronomers love their ST80s, but I fear I'll miss something of the wow factor.

The Altair 80ED and 102ED have a focal length of 560mm and 714mm, respectively.

I guess that's what I'm wondering:

How big a jump is it from a 560mm 3" frac to a 714mm 4" frac? Is it nearly twice as good (as 63% more light would suggest)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Basementboy said:

Thanks! Yeah, I know even experienced astronomers love their ST80s, but I fear I'll miss something of the wow factor.

The Altair 80ED and 102ED have a focal length of 560mm and 714mm, respectively.

I guess that's what I'm wondering:

How big a jump is it from a 560mm 3" frac to a 714mm 4" frac? Is it nearly twice as good (as 63% more light would suggest)? 

The widefield views of the ST80 are enjoyed by many experienced astronomers. However they more than often also have other scopes to cover those areas where the ST80 falls short.

You could always use Stellarium to simulate the brightness in eyepiece between a 3" and 4" scopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine a lot of dsos will be difficult in London. The moon and planets will still be OK, though as well as a lot of double stars. Therefore maybe a 127mm Mak might be the best bet. It would be portable, have a long focal length and gather more light than a 80mm. I have a 100/900 frac. It's OK in its flight case and a tripod and a rucksack (you still could do with somewhere to sit). A mak would be easier to walk with and be good at high mag. Star hopping would be more difficult but I don't know how much dim stuff you would manage to see in London.@Tiny Clanger would you rather have your Mak on the moon, planets and doubles? 

Another option is to get an ST80 for a year and see how you get on. You will find out what you want to do next. Everyone who gets into the hobby upgrades. I think it's a good idea to start with a decent but cheap scope and then you will know what you want. Does the CA annoy you? Do you want to use higher mag? Do you need more aperture? Do you need it to be more portable? etc.

Good luck with your choice. None of your options here will be a disaster- it's just some will be slightly more suitable than others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would something like the Evostar 90/660 and its ilk be of any use as a step between the 80 - 100 range? I have one and find its fairly portable moving around the garden but it wouldn't fit in a rucksack I don't think (tube is 75cm from diagonal to end cap). Its a typical short tube excels at clusters and wide field, I have seen a few brighter DSO, Mars is the only planetary target I have been able to see at present which you can observe some shadowing on the surface on good nights (though small), does some doubles where they aren't overly bright (you get to much CA halo'ing otherwise). Has its share of SA at the edges but not enough to cause me to much trouble. Sadly I fear there is no good "all rounder" they all excel at different things and as I have found out you can push your telescope to do various things but it can be an exercise in frustration at times :)

I don't have either but I would suspect something like a ST80 or Mak102 would be ideal for what you are looking for from reading lots of posts. I would hesitate to buy a small ED scope due to the cost for visual only. 

Go with something you will likely use, pointless spending extra pennies on one that will be a pain to lug when you could invest in eyepeices (which make a huge difference) etc. Good luck with it :D

 

Edited by wibblefish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KP82 said:

You could always use Stellarium to simulate the brightness in eyepiece between a 3" and 4" scopes.

Did not know that. Stellarium Plus feature, I assume? Thanks for the tip

 

36 minutes ago, domstar said:

Another option is to get an ST80 for a year and see how you get on. You will find out what you want to do next. Everyone who gets into the hobby upgrades. I think it's a good idea to start with a decent but cheap scope and then you will know what you want. Does the CA annoy you? Do you want to use higher mag? Do you need more aperture? Do you need it to be more portable? etc.

 

I like this idea. Also the idea of getting a 127 Mak, and more or less sacrificing DSOs, which I likely wouldn't be able to see well anyway. Might as well do what I can in London, as well as I can, without trying to force it. I could always pick up a cheap ST80 later/as well, to see what it's like – though I get the feeling it wouldn't do planetary OR widefield well in London skies.

And I do like the portability option of a Mak, and the fact that I assume it will be pretty great on moon/planets.

Honestly seems every time I lean toward something, I suddenly find a different option that seems more suitable. Here's hoping it's because I'm getting close to a decision and not just going in circles!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wibblefish said:

Would something like the Evostar 90/660 and its ilk be of any use as a step between the 80 - 100 range? I have one and find its fairly portable moving around the garden but it wouldn't fit in a rucksack I don't think (tube is 75cm from diagonal to end cap).

Could be! I think 75cm is too long, though – for that I might as well be going whole hog on the 100 ED doublet. But I hear you on price. Wary of splashing out before I know what's what about what.

What are your skies like in Norfolk? London really is quite washed out, although my chosen park location – on top of the Burgess Park hill – is about as far from street lights and houses as it's possible to be here. But I'm thinking DSOs might just not work for me in the city. So I'm starting to think to focus on planetary – in which case yep, a Mak!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

Could be! I think 75cm is too long, though – for that I might as well be going whole hog on the 100 ED doublet. But I hear you on price. Wary of splashing out before I know what's what about what.

What are your skies like in Norfolk? London really is quite washed out, although my chosen park location – on top of the Burgess Park hill – is about as far from street lights and houses as it's possible to be here. But I'm thinking DSOs might just not work for me in the city. So I'm starting to think to focus on planetary – in which case yep, a Mak!

Where I am its quite washed out (middle of town in Norfolk) at times I think its rated as Bortle 5 (19.25SQM) so it makes star hopping quite difficult (plus dodging bright lights in all directions). That said even if you can't see stars visually at times when viewed through a finderscope / main scope there is always a good view especially with a wide field refractor it seems :)

I think DSO is tricky, I have only been at this since early Nov and I still struggle with them especially faint ones, often its trying to work where and what its meant to be but I think its a practice thing as well. I think the most impressive ones I have seen so far tend to be star clusters and some bright nebula such as Orion!

I nearly got a 102 Mak as a first scope but glad I didn't as I am not sure planetary would've held my interest overall, that said I am enjoying double stars which is another good target for Mak. Mostly I like just trying to locate anything and everything even if my scope isn't the most suitable, its equal parts frustrating and rewarding :D

Honestly whatever scope you choose, get one you will get the most use out of and it will always be the right one that will give you many wows :)

Just a thought (not sure on budget / portability) would something with a GOTO work, that would make you less reliant on star hops etc. I am sure there are plenty of other peeps who will be able to wade in with options who have lots of telescopes and experience!

Edited by wibblefish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, domstar said:

I imagine a lot of dsos will be difficult in London. The moon and planets will still be OK, though as well as a lot of double stars. Therefore maybe a 127mm Mak might be the best bet. It would be portable, have a long focal length and gather more light than a 80mm. I have a 100/900 frac. It's OK in its flight case and a tripod and a rucksack (you still could do with somewhere to sit). A mak would be easier to walk with and be good at high mag. Star hopping would be more difficult but I don't know how much dim stuff you would manage to see in London.@Tiny Clanger would you rather have your Mak on the moon, planets and doubles? 

Another option is to get an ST80 for a year and see how you get on. You will find out what you want to do next. Everyone who gets into the hobby upgrades. I think it's a good idea to start with a decent but cheap scope and then you will know what you want. Does the CA annoy you? Do you want to use higher mag? Do you need more aperture? Do you need it to be more portable? etc.

Good luck with your choice. None of your options here will be a disaster- it's just some will be slightly more suitable than others.

Hi domster,

I originally bought a 150 heritage dob (which I've hardly mentioned on here for , ooh, days now, so thanks for the opportunity to say : I love it , it;s great, buy one everybody . 🙂)  The heritage 150 has a focal length of 750mm. I became interested in viewing the planets when Mars Jupiter and Saturn were in my suburban skies in the late summer/autumn and bought the 127mak precisely because with the 1500mm focal length it excels at planetary and lunar use. I'm not bothered by 'splitting' double stars ( I've read that around half of all stars are binaries , , I don't mind if I can tell they are by looking at them or not , )

If the Moon is up (as it was last night) or planets are in my back garden's visible  area of sky, I put the 127 mak out to cool , if not, and I'm hoping to see some DSOs I put the dob out. I've only had the dob for 3 months, and have not had plentiful clears skies or comfortably warm nights to spend a lot of time just comparing the two 'scopes on the same objects yet, I'm concentrating on finding and seeing new things rather than rating the instruments.

I bought the second hand Orion ST80 partly to see cheaply what all the fuss is about with refractors 🙂 , partly to have a really instant set up I can take outdoors when there is cloud cover so I may give up and pack away at a moment's notice . It goes on a standard photo tripod & head, is so wide field (400mm ) it scarcely needs a finder , it is a finder (and was used as one by its previous owner) It will never be my first choice for serious observing, but for a quick, 5 minute gap in the clouds, or to take camping, or to let friends borrow, or to stick in a bag and take to the park on foot, it fills a gap the other two 'scopes had left.

Yes, I think the ST80 is a great starter 'scope, easy to use , easy to store, cheapto mount adequately, an ideal small step up from binoculars .But I think anyone sticking with star gazing would soon find its limitations annoying and want to upgrade . The wide field, an advantage in some ways, is a major drawback when it comes to magnification, and the CA (which is absent in a reflector)  is easily visible.

My little ST80 is 80/400  (and mounted on a photo tripod & head) vs Wibblefish's 90/660 which is of a better quality, higher mag and aperture 'scope on a proper mount  if I recall correctly the pronto? Do I have that right ? Given that the OP is after a portable whole set up and will need something to go under whatever 'scope he buys , I wonder how portable and effective a set up it is over all  ?

Heather

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, wibblefish said:

Just a thought (not sure on budget / portability) would something with a GOTO work, that would make you less reliant on star hops etc.

I've been thinking that, yes! But I also quite like the idea of what you say you do ... hunting around just to find anything and everything. GoTo seems cool but a bit like .....  cheating ..... ?  ;)

I can't help but think that if you struggle with DSO even in Bortle 5 skies, then I'm going to flail in Bortle-9 and might be best off giving up and going planetary for now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

My little ST80 is 80/400  (and mounted on a photo tripod & head) vs Wibblefish's 90/660 which is of a better quality, higher mag and aperture 'scope on a proper mount  if I recall correctly the pronto? Do I have that right ? Given that the OP is after a portable whole set up and will need something to go under whatever 'scope he buys , I wonder how portable and effective a set up it is over all  ?

Heather

Yeah, that one is an AZ pronto head and aluminum mount so its a little more meaty ST80 on a small photo tripod though it doesnt feel like alot of weight (the mount head is actually the heaviest bit) when I have disassembled before but I suspect the OTA length is the more unwieldy bit. I merely wondered as there was talk about an ST102 whether something similar would be a good half way house between the two but I am not overly familiar with the ST102 specs. I honestly think the OPs gut feel of a wide field 80mm portable setup is likely the way to go unless dead set on planetary in which case a 102 / 127 Mak would work :) 

14 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

I've been thinking that, yes! But I also quite like the idea of what you say you do ... hunting around just to find anything and everything. GoTo seems cool but a bit like .....  cheating ..... ?  ;)

I can't help but think that if you struggle with DSO even in Bortle 5 skies, then I'm going to flail in Bortle-9 and might be best off giving up and going planetary for now

Ah I don't know on that, I suspect its just me being a bit alot of a newbie :) 

Edited by wibblefish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could try a UHC filter on some DSOs. They work well for emission nebulae, but not galaxies or clusters.

If you're going with a Mak, maybe you want to pick up a GOTO mount so you don't have to worry about star hopping in light polluted London with limited fov of the Mak. The 102 or 127 Mak should work fine on an AZ-GTi. With a Mak you will need to give up on larger DSOs, but smaller ones like planetary nebulae and globulars are still within the reach.

1 hour ago, Basementboy said:

Did not know that. Stellarium Plus feature, I assume? Thanks for the tip

No, it's part of the desktop version and free.

Edited by KP82
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! I have zero experience with anything smaller than a 102ED, but I can say this - my Altair 102ED-R could easily be carried 10 mins in a larger backpack/gym bag. Its approx. 4kgs and is approx. 70cm in length with the dew shield retracted. But. 

Add in the mount, and you're looking at carrying a decent amount of weight even if you go with an alt az mount. The lightest thing I've dared stick my 102 on is a Skywatcher AZ4 with an aluminium frame, and even then I'm gritting my teeth with every gust of wind. Then there's the guide/finderscope, eyepieces, filters, if you have dew shields and if you need a power supply...It's doable. But worth thinking about seriously in order to get an idea of weight. 

I cannot speak about viewing potential really as I haven't looked through an 80. My 102 gives what I believe to be cracking views, but its above your budget so not sure re CA and other flaws a 102 in your price range could have. But if I had to lug the scope around with my bare hands just to view, I'd be highly tempted to go for an 80. I'm a newbie too! Good luck :)

Edited by ToHellAndBack123
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ToHellAndBack123 said:

I cannot speak about viewing potential really as I haven't looked through an 80. My 102 gives what I believe to be cracking views, but its above your budget so not sure re CA and other flaws a 102 in your price range could have. But if I had to lug the scope around with my bare hands just to view, I'd be highly tempted to go for an 80. I'm a newbie too! Good luck :)

Thanks! The 102 is juuuuust at the top of my price range (accounting for all the accessories), currently 499 at Altair. And yeah I think I'd need an AZ5 w steel tripod so a good 10kg plus scope and other stuff (as you so rightly mention, not to mention extra clothes etc) - 20kg? That's doable in a backpack. But I'd have to carry the mount. Is the reason you say you'd be tempted to go for the 80 mainly just because of the awkwardness of the 102+mount? Or the weight? Or both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

Thanks! The 102 is juuuuust at the top of my price range (accounting for all the accessories), currently 499 at Altair. And yeah I think I'd need an AZ5 w steel tripod so a good 10kg plus scope and other stuff (as you so rightly mention, not to mention extra clothes etc) - 20kg? That's doable in a backpack. But I'd have to carry the mount. Is the reason you say you'd be tempted to go for the 80 mainly just because of the awkwardness of the 102+mount? Or the weight? Or both?

Ah, mine is the Starwave 102 ED-R, with the FPL53 glass - it's £899 from Altair currently. That's why I tried to be a bit cautious with describing views, because idk if the less expensive scope will be different 😅 

I say I'd probably go with an 80 partly because of cutting down weight where possible, but also because I am highly protective of my scopes and as a clumsy short gal the 102 is harder for me to handle, so to speak. I'm terrible with my mounts, I don't mind kicking them or knocking them off doorframes etc - but the 102 is nearly half as tall as me and I'd be worried about it being easier for me to knock around 🤣

I may just be imagining issues even for myself here, but I underestimated the weight of everything I've purchased so far on my stargazing journey so I tend to err on the side of caution.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 102 Mak, it originally came on an EQ1 mount with aluminium tripod. I have swapped this to an AZ Pronto mount and fitted it to a Manfrotto photographic tripod I already had. I have just weighed the complete ensemble, as seen in the photo, it comes in at around 4.5Kg sans eyepiece:

 

IMG_0850.thumb.jpeg.a39aa3d5315455788b7d76e719e6836d.jpeg

Edited by Aquavit
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Aquavit said:

I have a 102 Mak, it originally cam on an EQ1 mount with aluminium tripod. I have swapped this to an AZ Pronto mount and fitted it to a Manfrotto photographic tripod I already had. I have just weighed the complete ensemble, as seen in the photo, it comes in at around 4.5Kg sans eyepiece:

 

IMG_0850.thumb.jpeg.a39aa3d5315455788b7d76e719e6836d.jpeg

Nice setup, that's a manfrotto 190xpro isn't it ? I have the same tripod for photo use , my 127 mak is on a manfrotto 55 /az5 combo because the extra weight of the head and mak need a heftier tripod I feel. The new tiny widefield st80 sits on my 190 and photo head easily, I even tried it on a manfrotto travel tripod (rated to carry just 3kg) with no problems.

For those unfamiliar with the 102 mak 'scope, I'll point out this one in the photo has a nice warm foam insulating jacket and dew shield, it doesn't look like that out of the box!

Heather

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Heather, it is the 190XPRO tripod. Very stable carrying the Mak and the Pronto and would make a very portable setup. I know a lot on here don't like the pivot point location on the Pronto mount, but for a short lightweight scope I find it works very well. Not that I have much to compare it to, being a newbie!

Edited by Aquavit
Grammar.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aquavit said:

I have a 102 Mak, it originally came on an EQ1 mount with aluminium tripod. I have swapped this to an AZ Pronto mount and fitted it to a Manfrotto photographic tripod I already had. I have just weighed the complete ensemble, as seen in the photo, it comes in at around 4.5Kg sans eyepiece:

I like that AZ head. At the moment my ST80 lives on a Manfrotto 055 tripod (bought for camera use but overspecified with one eye on grab and go telescope use) but I am still using the ball head that it came with. It is usable but a bit of a pain so I'm canvassing for better options. A video camera tripod head is another thing under consideration but the need isn't great enough to make me want to splash out on a new one, whichever option I end up going for.

5 hours ago, domstar said:

Everyone who gets into the hobby upgrades

FWIW my other scope is a Vixen SP102 (1000mm F10) on a Super Polaris mount that I bought from BC&F in London in the late 1980s. Who says everyone upgrades? 🤔

To be fair I have been buying quite a few eyepieces recently.

To not entirely hijack the OP's thread... When the SP102 setup goes anywhere beyond the property boundary it's a car job for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.