Jump to content


Thoughts on the Vixen VC200L?

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I'm very tempted to get a Vixen VC200L for imaging smaller DSOs such as galaxies and planetary nebulae etc.

I just wanted to get your thoughts on this scope.

At the moment I have a Takahashi FSQ-85EDX on a EQ6-R Pro housed in a Pulsar dome, which is great for wide-field imaging, but obviously not for anything small.

I am aware of the common characteristics of the VC200L that people mention, such as thick spider vanes leading to diamond shape stars and the focuser not being the best. But after looking at quite a few images taken with the VC200L, the stars don't bother me as I like diffraction spikes a lot. I think the scope is something different too, that not many people consider, even though it's been around a long time.



Edited by Chris Willocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chris Willocks changed the title to Thoughts on the Vixen VC200L?

Thanks both, just as I thought. Even though I've been tempted by the VC200L, Edge HD 8 and other similar sized reflectors, I've also been considering a mid-sized apo, such as the TS Optics 115mm F/7 Triplet, which has a good reputation and isn't overly expensive: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p3041_TS-Optics-PHOTOLINE-115-mm-f-7-Triplet-Apo---2-5--RAP-focuser.html. It should also be lightweight enough that I can piggyback my FSQ-85EDX on top of it also.

As mentioned in the thread that @JeremyS shared, these days pixel sizes are getting so small that apos can obtain small pixel scales similar to larger reflectors. Plus refractors are significantly less trouble. To be honest I've always been more of a refractor enthusiast.

For example, if I paired the TS Optics 115mm Triplet with the Starlight Xpress Trius Pro 814, then that'd give a pixel scale of 0.95"/pixel, which is pretty decent for imaging smaller objects (seeing dependent). Obviously a 115mm refractor would be slightly slower than a larger reflector for a given pixel scale, due to the smaller aperture, but a lot of the smaller pixel cameras are more sensitive e.g. the Pro 814 has a QE of 77% vs 54% of something like an Atik 383L for example.


Edited by Chris Willocks
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
  • 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.