SW Evolux ED or WO Zenithstar 61 Apo

[johninderby]

10 minutes ago, Stu said:

Gosh, your eyes must still be good John, with a 0.2mm exit pupil 👍

Not the most comfortable I’ll admit but doable for a short closer look. Prefer 200x for the comfort. 🙂

Edited June 20, 2022 by johninderby

[Stu]

8 hours ago, johninderby said:

Not the most comfortable I’ll admit but doable for a short closer look. Prefer 200x for the comfort. 🙂

I still can’t see any reason why the EvoLux would cope with more than double the power of the Stellarmira f10 or any other top end 80mm scope that I’ve used. To be honest this is much more likely down to conditions than actual differences in capability. It’s interesting that this happened when observing through gaps in the cloud. I often find these can have great transparency but not great seeing. Best nights for seeing are the slightly hazy ones when the atmosphere is really still.

 

[johninderby]

Will have to see how things go with this scope over a longer time to see if this was a one off when conditions were just right or repeatable. 🤔

Using a 2.5mm eyepiece with a 2x focal extender was something that I didn't expect to work just a lets see what happens when you push things too far, or should be, moment.

Anyway will see how I get on when the nights get properly dark. 🙂

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I never push my APM 80 mm F/6 APO triplet over 140-160x visually, anything higher I distinctly see blur, stars are no longer pinpoints. It may be down to having a high visual acuity (1.75, or 75% higher than average, last time it was measured), I would never use 400x in an 80mm. Even in my 8" scope I rarely if ever push that far (on Mars and the moon if the seeing is really great, sometimes on other planets). 

[Mr Spock]

On nights of excellent seeing, my 12" will be sharp at x380. On the same night I keep my 102mm to x179 for the best lunar views. It can support x286 on doubles, but the image is too dim really.

[badhex]

17 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

On nights of excellent seeing, my 12" will be sharp at x380. On the same night I keep my 102mm to x179 for the best lunar views. It can support x286 on doubles, but the image is too dim really.

I have only done it once, but I had the same 102mm as yours up to 397x on the moon, just for giggles really. Turned out to be actually incredibly sharp - and I mean actually sharp not just okay ish - with maybe just a tiny hint of FC. I suspect it was a serendipitous confluence of things but I even managed to take a handheld phone photo, although it's nowhere near as good as the actual view. 

[johninderby]

When things are just right you can break the rules. 😁😁😁

[badhex]

BTW, back on topic - I also have the ZS73 so I can personally vouch for the optical and build quality of WO's small scopes, assuming that the same thing applies to the ZS61 from what I have read. That said, despite the unknown glass factor and untested track record, so far very little bad is being said about the SW by those who have taken the plunge. Every new product line starts without any track record, and a few brave souls have to be the first to venture into the unknown. Even TeleVue EPs and Taks were once new and unknown!

Feel free to ignore me anyway, I'm a bad influence as @johninderby might tell you 😂

 

[badhex]

4 minutes ago, johninderby said:

When things are just right you can break the rules. 😁😁😁

I was shocked John tbh. Like, your brain is saying "this is silly, the views will obviously be terrible" but you try it anyway and it's not? 

Edited June 21, 2022 by badhex

[johninderby]

At 400x the view of Clavius was stunning. So much detail. 👍🏻

[Steve]

[Elp]

15 hours ago, bomberbaz said:

two shoes part

The z61 allows putting two finder brackets onto the scope left and right, if you also get the cat handle you can have a third in the centre.

[johninderby]

The Evolux has the two spots for finder shoes on the clamshell and one on the focuser. and the optional handle has a slot for mounting accessories.

Edited June 21, 2022 by johninderby

[Adam J]

2 hours ago, Steve said:

As a physicist I have to agree with Scotty.  

[johninderby]

2 hours ago, Steve said:

One of my favourite Canadian actors. Of course Shatner was also Canadian.

Edited June 21, 2022 by johninderby

[Stu]

2 hours ago, johninderby said:

At 400x the view of Clavius was stunning. So much detail. 👍🏻

But no more than at much lower power, just larger, dimmer and very likely full of floaters!

[johninderby]

Surprisingly floaters weren’t much of a problem. 🙂

[Stu]

4 hours ago, johninderby said:

When things are just right you can break the rules. 😁😁😁

Actually my main point is that there remains a statement made that the SM80mm f10 is only good for x200 (a scope which you thought was excellent when you owned it), but the EvoLux 82mm is fine at x432.

I’m sorry to challenge this, and for disclosure I haven’t owned or even viewed through either scope, but I do not accept that one will be that much better than the other. Both are from credible Far East suppliers, and there maybe small incremental improvements but until the two are put side by side under the same conditions and magnifications then to me it remains that they are likely to give similar results. Happy to eat humble pie if and when objective reviews confirm the result or otherwise. Until then, I believe any differences of this magnitude will be down to atmospheric conditions, not the scopes themselves so suggest people do not make purchasing decisions basis on the info.

With apologies to the OP.

As you were…..

[Stu1smartcookie]

Ok so the topic as i seem to recall .. ZS61 or Evolux 62 ? I certainly value the WO zs61 as , like @badhex writes ,the quality of Williams Optics is fantastic . A colleague of mine has the Evolux 62 and is very impressed by the quality , also . The Evolux is certainly priced well . 

Whether the WO ZS61 is £ 150 better is in the eye of the beholder but at least they have the temerity to quote the optic quality ie fl53 glass . I cannot fathom why Skywatcher continue to shy away from stating what glass is used . And for those who may say its unimportant , there are many more who crave the hallowed fl53.

Having owned the ZS61 and an evostar 72 ( yes i know its not the Evolux) the difference in quality is marked . 

Its personal choice of course but , if you have the money , i would go for the ZS61 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Stu1smartcookie

[badhex]

14 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Ok so the topic as i seem to recall .. ZS61 or Evolux 62 ? I certainly value the WO zs61 as , like @badhex writes ,the quality of Williams Optics is fantastic . A colleague of mine has the Evolux 62 and is very impressed by the quality , also . The Evolux is certainly priced well . 

Whether the WO ZS61 is £ 150 better is in the eye of the beholder but at least they have the temerity to quote the optic quality ie fl53 glass . I cannot fathom why Skywatcher continue to shy away from stating what glass is used . And for those who may say its unimportant , there are many more who crave the hallowed fl53.

Having owned the ZS61 and an evostar 73 ( yes i know its not the Evolux) the difference in quality is marked . 

Its personal choice of course but , if you have the money , i would go for the ZS61 

I also have an Evostar 80 (FPL53) and I would say the ZS73 (also FPL53) is a markedly better scope for a few reasons, including the quality of the views through the scope. One thing worth remembering - which I know we all know - is that FPL53 in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean the optics won't have other issues that make the views less than stellar. 

There have been absolutely tonnes of posts both here and CN debating why SW no longer talk about glass types, and their main point is that the designs are essentially their IP and give them the competitive edge which allows them to achieve high quality at reasonable costs to the consumer - a point which I think is fair. My best guess would be that they are using an equivalent - if not better - glass from a different, less well respected glass manufacturer and matching optical designs so they aren't paying Ohara FPL53 prices. They state that the EvoLux series sits above the Evostar in terms of performance, and although I don't need a new scope right now, I'm prepared to take them at their word unless reviews and feedback proves otherwise. 

I think, at the end of the day, whilst I too am a sucker for glass type keywords like FPL53 and Lanthanum, fluorite etc, the main thing is how does it perform? Can we say that side by side we'd be able to tell the difference between FPL53 and SW's new glass types/optical designs? When will FPL53's iron grip on our wallets end? 😂

Edited June 21, 2022 by badhex

[badhex]

Obviously @bomberbaz needs to buy both scopes and do a side-by-side comparison to answer this burning question. 

 

See? I *am* a bad influence 😂

[Skyline]

Everyone complained when the EVostar 72ED was released, but the images are look really good and its become quite a popular scope to have.

The only thing I have found with WO is guaranteed Bling and from a personal view, their accessories either over priced or you need to fiddle more to get your setup working the way you want.

Time will tell, I can't comment on the blue bloat because I have not experienced it so far.

I have taken images with my Celestron C80ED (about 5years ago) with FPL53 and the EVOLUX62ED both using a DSLR on different occasions, but I do not see any or much difference at all, happy to upload images if that helps?

[bomberbaz]

1 minute ago, badhex said:

Obviously @bomberbaz needs to buy both scopes and do a side-by-side comparison to answer this burning question. 

 

See? I *am* a bad influence 😂

If I could convince FLO to do so on a sale or return basis I might well do so 😉

There are some good points raised and in particular one does make me wonder is SW's inability to state the glass type.

I am going to do a paper based side by side checking stats, product details, comments basically anything I can pull up about the OTA's regarding both to see if I can break my impasse on decision. 

[Stu1smartcookie]

11 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

If I could convince FLO to do so on a sale or return basis I might well do so 😉

There are some good points raised and in particular one does make me wonder is SW's inability to state the glass type.

I am going to do a paper based side by side checking stats, product details, comments basically anything I can pull up about the OTA's regarding both to see if I can break my impasse on decision. 

Steve , there is a WO zs61 up for sale on SGL for good(ish) price but the scope does look in great condition ... the asking price brings it a lot closer to the Evolux . 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Stu1smartcookie

[bomberbaz]

2 minutes ago, Skyline said:

Everyone complained when the EVostar 72ED was released, but the images are look really good and its become quite a popular scope to have.

The only thing I have found with WO is guaranteed Bling and from a personal view, their accessories either over priced or you need to fiddle more to get your setup working the way you want.

Time will tell, I can't comment on the blue bloat because I have not experienced it so far.

I have taken images with my Celestron C80ED (about 5years ago) with FPL53 and the EVOLUX62ED both using a DSLR on different occasions, but I do not see any or much difference at all, happy to upload images if that helps?

My personal thought is images need to be unprocessed if possible otherwise their value is somewhat debateable however you could upload processed images for other thread viewers should you wish.