A year of using the 102ED-R

[RobertI]

It’s the anniversary of receiving  my Altair Astro Starwave 102ED-R so I thought it would be a fitting time to share my opinion after a year of using this little beauty (bit of a giveaway there!).

Just for context, my reason for buying this scope was to experience what a medium sized doublet refractor with premium glass (FPL53) could do visually. I’d been impressed with the double splitting abilities and clean images provided by my Tal achromat, and amazed by the stories of what can be seen with modest 100-120ED refractors. 

It took a few sessions to really appreciate what the scope could do. It’s a very different beast to a 150 Newt or a C8. It’s deep sky abilities are pretty much what you would expect from 100mm and it’s double splitting abilities are good with beautiful clean and crisp star images without CA. But the real revelation was for solar system observing - the detail on Mars, Jupiter the moon and the sun is amazing. Unless the seeing is very good, it is on a par with the C8 in terms of detail, but the image is cleaner and more pleasing to the eye with wonderful contrast and sharp edges. With a binoviewer the observing experience becomes even better and this combination has been my most used setup over the last year. 

Another asset is the beautifully made, heavy duty two-speed R&P focuser. Focussing is a tactile joy and induces very little vibration with the modest 714mm focal length. The Tal on the other hand was a distinct problem to focus at high powers with its 1000mm focal length and single speed focuser.  

Add to all of this the fast cool down, reluctance to dew up and portability and you have the perfect scope for everything except deep sky, and even then it’s probably better than any other type of mirrored or achro 4” scope. I recently viewed the entire Veil complex with a 2” 38mm  eyepiece giving 3.8 degree FOV and a UHC filter - quite beautiful. 

At £900 it isn’t cheap and is hard to compare value for money with a 4” achro or 6” newt costing a quarter as much, but for me it’s been money very well spent and I would probably only ever sell it to experience the joys of a premium Tak! 👍

Edited September 1, 2021 by RobertI

[Stu]

Great stuff Robert, glad you are still enjoying the scope as much now as when you first got it. There is certainly something special about a good quality 4” apo refractor 👍👍

[JeremyS]

Super super super 👍🏻

[Chris]

Your reports are always so well written and great to read Rob  What a wonderful scope. Wishing you many more happy years with it....unless you upgrade to a Tak  

Edited September 2, 2021 by Chris

[RobertI]

2 hours ago, Chris said:

Your reports are always so well written and great to read Rob

Thanks Chris! 🙂

[Alan White]

Nice to read and confirms what many of us with ED100mm scopes think,
A great prtable sized and very capable scope size.

Tempted to try a 120-130 ED now?
 

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

Great review. Thanks. Although I'm v. happy with the poor cousin 102ED guttersnipe. 😀

If I had an observatory I'd probably never leave with a 150mm apo installed. One can dream...

 

[iantaylor2uk]

Great review. I have an Altair Astro Starwave ED 110ED-R which got a good review in Sky at Night magazine (https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/reviews/telescopes/altair-starwave-110ed-r-refractor/) and I have got some good images with it (once I used a flattener and a UV-IR filter, as my ZWO camera doesn't have one). Build quality is good, and I imagine it would be very similar to your 102 ED. The only thing is that in mine the glass is FPL-51, not FPL-53. 

[John]

40 minutes ago, Alan White said:

Nice to read and confirms what many of us with ED100mm scopes think,
A great prtable sized and very capable scope size.

Tempted to try a 120-130 ED now?
 

Trouble is, it's really nice to have a 100/102mm AND a 120/130mm

Nice summary of the joys of a fine 4 inch refractor Rob

 

 

[Alan White]

1 hour ago, John said:

Trouble is, it's really nice to have a 100/102mm AND a 120/130mm

Indeed an as well as rather than an instead of option.

[RobertI]

2 hours ago, Alan White said:

Tempted to try a 120-130 ED now?

Very much so! 😂 It would be good to get a squint through a 120/130 with similar glass to compare at some point. 

[RobertI]

2 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Great review. Thanks. Although I'm v. happy with the poor cousin 102ED guttersnipe. 😀

I suspect in most situations there is very little to choose between the two! Enjoy your scope. 🙂

Edited September 2, 2021 by RobertI

[RobertI]

2 hours ago, iantaylor2uk said:

Build quality is good, and I imagine it would be very similar to your 102 ED. The only thing is that in mine the glass is FPL-51, not FPL-53. 

Very nice scope. AA have a confusing naming convention - I assumed that the “R” indicated FPL53 glass (as the 102ED has FPL51) but clearly not! 
 

Edit: just read the article you linked to and it says:

 “...the ‘R’ indicating an upgraded rack and pinion focuser with additional features for an improved experience.” 
 

I now understand .... kind of!

Edited September 2, 2021 by RobertI

[Stardaze]

I'd really like one of these or similar. Their part codes are a little confusing to be honest, with quite a few variations. Same with the TS versions.

What mount are you using with yours out of interest? 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Stardaze

[RobertI]

One thing I have never got to the bottom of is the “Lanthanum glass” - much advertised with the TS and Tecnosky versions but not mentioned on the AA version - what is it (a coating, a type of glass, a process) and is it a “premium” feature or not? There seem to be a LOT of discussion on CN about this, some people even claiming it’s actually a way of reducing cost of making glass, so does not necessarily equate to high quality glass. Perhaps this is not the place for a long discussion on this, but would be interested if anyone has a definitive answer?  
 

I posed the question to AA and got a resounding silence.....

Edited September 2, 2021 by RobertI

[RobertI]

3 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

I'd really like one of these or similar. Their part codes are a little confusing to be honest, with quite a few variations.

What mount are you using with yours out of interest? 

I use mine on the Skytee 2, sometimes alongside the C8. It’s really rock solid on this mount. I’ve retained the ‘sticky grease’ of the Skytee as I like the reassurance of knowing that if I loosen the clutch the scope will not swing down and crash into the tripod legs!!

Edited September 2, 2021 by RobertI

[Stardaze]

Just now, RobertI said:

I use mine on the Skytee 2, sometimes alongside the C8. It’s really rock solid on this mount. I’ve retained the ‘sticky grease’ as I like the reassurance of knowing that if I loosen the clutch the scope will not swing down and crash into the tripod legs!!

That's probably what I will end up with in the end, seems to be a pretty good match. It will probably be my mini project for next year now. 

[RobertI]

2 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

That's probably what I will end up with in the end, seems to be a pretty good match. It will probably be my mini project for next year now. 

Yes it’s a great value mount and really solid. I would love a Rowan AZ100 - once your scopes start creeping up the quality ladder, the mounts start to follow, then eyepieces! But have no real reason to change the Skytee. 

[Stardaze]

9 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Yes it’s a great value mount and really solid. I would love a Rowan AZ100 - once your scopes start creeping up the quality ladder, the mounts start to follow, then eyepieces! But have no real reason to change the Skytee. 

I've been working on the EP's this year so more than happy with those now. Would love a nice 4" frac to compliment the dob. There seems to be a large gulf between a Skytee and the Rowan, but the latter is far too OTT for my purposes. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Stardaze

[John]

1 hour ago, RobertI said:

One thing I have never got to the bottom of is the “Lanthanum glass” - much advertised with the TS and Tecnosky versions but not mentioned on the AA version - what is it (a coating, a type of glass, a process) and is it a “premium” feature or not? There seem to be a LOT of discussion on CN about this, some people even claiming it’s actually a way of reducing cost of making glass, so does not necessarily equate to high quality glass. Perhaps this is not the place for a long discussion on this, but would be interested if anyone has a definitive answer?  
 

I posed the question to AA and got a resounding silence.....

The most expensive glass will be the ED element - in the case of the ED 102R this is FPL-53 from Ohara. What matters about the 2nd element (the mating element) is that it is a good match for the ED element in terms of it's optical characteristics. To me this is more important than whether or not it is a lanthanum glass or not.

With the cost of using FPL-53 for the ED element it seems unlikely to me that a manufacturer would use anything other than a well matched glass for the mating element. In 2017 FPL-53 glass cost 18 times as much as the BK7 crown glass which would be used in an achromat objective.

So, personally, I think the lanthanum thing might be a bit of a "red herring".

 

 

[RobertI]

14 minutes ago, John said:

The most expensive glass will be the ED element - in the case of the ED 102R this is FPL-53 from Ohara. What matters about the 2nd element (the mating element) is that it is a good match for the ED element in terms of it's optical characteristics. To me this is more important than whether or not it is a lanthanum glass or not.

With the cost of using FPL-53 for the ED element it seems unlikely to me that a manufacturer would use anything other than a well matched glass for the mating element. In 2017 FPL-53 glass cost 18 times as much as the BK7 crown glass which would be used in an achromat objective.

So, personally, I think the lanthanum thing might be a bit of a "red herring".

 

 

That puts things into perspective very nicely John, and your conclusion seems very valid. Thanks for taking time to explain. 👍