Extender-Q 1.6X or Powermate?

[MalcolmM]

I feel on the best of nights my Taks could take more power than the TOE 2.5 gives me.

I tried a Tak Barlow but couldn't get it to come to focus!

I've read great reviews of the Extender-Q 1.6X and how it's much better than a Barlow. But how would it compare to a Powermate, aside from the obvious power difference (1.6 vs 2.5)?

I love Tak kit but am just wondering what the difference might be. The benefits I'm looking for include extra power and using lower power eyepieces to get the power (more eye relief). I presume neither option will help with small exit pupils and floaters. I could possibly get a x2.5 and a x5 Powermate for the cost of the Extender-Q. Will I have any issues getting the Powermate to come to focus? I assume not as it's parfocal.

Any thoughts/experiences on the above are very welcome. 

Malcolm 

[Roy Challen]

I, too, really would like to know the answer to this. From what I've read, the extender is way better than a barlow...but it's also way more expensive. It would allow better balancing with FS60-CB using the cradle.

[John]

I've owned and used the 2.5x 1.25 inch Powermate and the 2x 2 inch one. They are superb optical devices - practically invisible apart from the image amplification that they provide. I found little or no change to the focus position and they did not vignette eyepieces with larger field stops in the respective formats. 

I'm a visual astronomer only - no imaging experience with them.

I have not used the Tak extender I ought to add.

Edit: On the topic of eye relief, Powermates do not change that as far as I'm aware, unlike conventional barlows.

Edited May 16, 2023 by John

[Mr Spock]

I have a x2.5 Powermate and I can say it is optically excellent 👍

[JeremyS]

I have Extender Q’s for for my FC 100DZ and TSA 120. In the latter case I leave it on nearly all the time. Invisible in use and optimised by the Tak guys for Tak scopes. I also have a 1.7x extender on my FC 76 DCU, but I normally use without as it is something else to carry (I normally use this scope for travel).

[Deadlake]

Both the Extender and PowerMate are meant to be great products. 

Really depends on the amplification required with the scope with regard to choice.

One question I have has anybody here used either the Extender or PowerMate in combination with a BV, with he telemetric lens ahead of the BV?

[josefk]

i have the 2x 2" TV powermate Malcolm and agree with others that optically it's fantastic (invisible). Ergonomically i don't love it though.

• After the diagonal it turns delos/ethos eyepieces into huge baseball bats (not soooo bad with smaller orthos admittedly). Maybe more a perceived ergonomic issue (worry about leverage) than a real one.  
• Before the diagonal (which is always how i intended to use it) it pushes focus out by 50...60mm so needs an additional spacer of that length before it. That makes for a long extended train after the focuser which is not so nice somehow re. balance.

The big drawback of the tak extender (IMHO and never having used one 🙂) is it uses screws rather than a compression clamp (so far as i can tell) - i'm too OCD to burr my shiny eyepiece barrels! 
 

edit - of course this should read …too OCD to burr my diagonal nosepieces. Not eyepieces. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by josefk

[josefk]

1 hour ago, Deadlake said:

One question I have has anybody here used either the Extender or PowerMate in combination with a BV, with he telemetric lens ahead of the BV?

i use a 2x 2" TV powermate ahead of MaxB II BV (with GPC and Baader T2 diagonal) on occasion. It all works fine. The TV PM has the same effect on focus position of the BV/EPs as it does with mono EPs so in my set-up also needs the same additional spacer before the powermate.

[John]

33 minutes ago, josefk said:

• After the diagonal it turns delos/ethos eyepieces into huge baseball bats (not soooo bad with smaller orthos admittedly). Maybe more a perceived ergonomic issue (worry about leverage) than a real one......  

Yes, that is an issue 🙄

 

[mikeDnight]

The extender Q's are designed for these scopes and are wonderful. They are five element and correct for any residual aberrations. As for high power, I've used the 1.6X Q along with a 2X barlow and have been left speechless by the lunar views I've had. However, just using a barlow on a binoviewer will give you 4X amplification, and you still have the comfort of using long fl eyepieces. I've used the Q and various powermates, and prefer the Q, but the Q can be fiddly if you use the screw on adapter version. The 2" version may be easier!

I've had two 1.6X extender Q's but nolonger have one. Personally I saw no difference in the quality of the image in the eyepiece other than the obvious amplification. The biggest game changer for me has been the use of a binoviewer with a barlow on its nose piece.

The attached pic shows an extender Q on my DZ with barlowed binoviewer. It adds quite a chunk to the back end!

Edited May 16, 2023 by mikeDnight

[josefk]

8 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

The attached pic shows an extender Q on my DZ with barlowed binoviewer. It adds quite a chunk to the back end!

 

A similar level of overhang on my kit means I will probably try the Baader 2.6 GPC at some point to see if it’s possible to avoid using anything at all before the BV.  

[josefk]

Hi Malcolm - not sure if its helpful for you but you can see i have a been in my bonnet about ergonomics of the powermate and these pics would have helped me when considering a powermate vs. Q extender some months ago. 

Nice ergonomics and optically unreal - this may be your primary use case in which case ignore everything else 🙂

 

Not nice ergonomics which is a shame because this type of combo was my primary use case - i wanted to avoid getting into eyepieces <5mm and leverage existing WA eyepieces down into the lower focal lengths:

 

This combo works nicely but the extender before the powermate was an unpleasant surprise for me. I still don't understand how it is essentially par focal after the diagonal but so impactful before it (this is a 75mm extension - a 50mm didn't work):

 

Though it works ok I don't really like this combo it feels long and unwieldy. Again this a shame because i was basically hoping to have two ranges of operation from one set of eyepieces ending at 8mm but now i'm buying <5mm eyepieces to avoid the powermate (strictly speaking to avoid the extender in fact)...

Cheers

Edited May 17, 2023 by josefk

[MalcolmM]

Thanks very much everyone for your replies. It sounds like both are optically excellent and in a sense either would do grand.

Thanks @josefk for the pics, they are very helpful. Generally, with the exception of Binoviewers, I like to keep things small and light! The Powermate does look quite a big chunk of metal and glass! Funny, but last night, it occurred to me too that a 2.6 GPC would be a good way to easily up the power of the Maxbrights. It would probably require a small spacer to come to focus. 

Regarding the Extender/Powermate, I think if I'm honest I'm torn between getting another Tak accessory (which is always a pleasure 😀 ) and the x2.5 Powermate which arguably is a better amplification factor. Generally when I have these decisions, Tak wins 😀

Thanks again,

Malcolm 

[JeremyS]

Which Extender Q are we talking about? The Extender Q for my TSA and for my FC 100DZ are not screw in, but slip in. You can see in place in this pic, just before the diagonal. As you can see, it’s quite compact.

There are screw in ones for the FC76 and FS 60, the diameter of the tube. Or smaller ones as shown in Mikes pic.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by JeremyS

[JTEC]

I’ve not used the Extender but the 2x2 Powermate has been a primary option with my 12” Dob and Celestron 11” SCT.  It’s optically superb and, as others have said, ‘invisible’.  For me the optical excellence would outscore the supposed ergonomic issues.  But perhaps too much is being made of these - the Powermate body unscrews so, at least in a bino configuration, it’s a lot shorter - please see the attached pic.  The whole set up is very solid. The Powermate is beautifully built and it isn’t going to be he source of any ‘wobble’ or lack of orthogonality in the system. 

[JeremyS]

25 minutes ago, MalcolmM said:

Generally when I have these decisions, Tak wins 

Thanks again,

Malcolm 

Couldn’t have put it better myself Malcolm 🤣

[Littleguy80]

Take a look at the review on this version of the Extender-Q: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-adapters/takahashi-ex-q-16x-for-fsq-106ed.html

I think that’s the version which Jeremy has. Doesn’t seem to need all the extension tubes which Mike’s version has. 

Looks like the perfect combination of performance and Ergonomics to me 😉

[JeremyS]

21 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

Take a look at the review on this version of the Extender-Q: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-adapters/takahashi-ex-q-16x-for-fsq-106ed.html

I think that’s the version which Jeremy has. Doesn’t seem to need all the extension tubes which Mike’s version has. 

Looks like the perfect combination of performance and Ergonomics to me 😉

Yes that is the one I have for my FC 100DZ, Neil.

And this for the TSA: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-extenders/tak_tka37595.html

I also have the older screw it’s one that Mike posted a pic of. This also works well (“invisible”, I think is the term 🤣). But it’s not as convenient as it is longer and needs screwing in.

I also also this for the FC 76DCU or FS60: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-extenders/cq-17x-extender-for-fs60cb-and-fc76dcu.html

Which scope are you thinking about Malcolm?

[MalcolmM]

@JeremyS and @Littleguy80, I already have the CQ 1.7x Extender for the 60CB and 76DCU Jeremy.  I was thinking of this one which should work in the FS60CB, 76DCU and FC100DC 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-extenders/tak_tka00595.html

Malcolm 

[MalcolmM]

43 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

Take a look at the review on this version of the Extender-Q: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-adapters/takahashi-ex-q-16x-for-fsq-106ed.html

I think that’s the version which Jeremy has. Doesn’t seem to need all the extension tubes which Mike’s version has. 

Looks like the perfect combination of performance and Ergonomics to me 😉

I have a DC with the smaller focuser so would presumably need some sort of converter to use this one?

Malcolm 

[JeremyS]

46 minutes ago, MalcolmM said:

@JeremyS and @Littleguy80, I already have the CQ 1.7x Extender for the 60CB and 76DCU Jeremy.  I was thinking of this one which should work in the FS60CB, 76DCU and FC100DC 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-extenders/tak_tka00595.html

Malcolm 

I was pretty sure you had the CQ extender, Malcolm.

Thanks for the link to the Tak 00595 extender. I didn’t realise it was still available. I have one for use with my FS 102. As already mentioned, it works very well, but it does need to screwed on and off - and it adds quite a bit of length. I suspect that’s why Tak switched to the other versions for their larger focuser OTAs.

[John]

Powermates used in a dob do have some supplementary uses 😏

[jock1958]

Nearly bought one of those screw on Extender Q's a few years ago but price, ergonomics and faff of fitting & removing put me off, having said that the slip on extender that @JeremyS mentions is a lot smaller and seems easier to fit & remove.

I've had my 2.5 - 1.25" Powermate for a few years and it is brilliant, and views through it are exactly as others have said.  I use it on the BV's and cyclops. If you are on a budget they do crop up second hand from time to time, think I paid £100 off ABS.

 

 

[Don Pensack]

8 hours ago, josefk said:

Hi Malcolm - not sure if its helpful for you but you can see i have a been in my bonnet about ergonomics of the powermate and these pics would have helped me when considering a powermate vs. Q extender some months ago. 

Nice ergonomics and optically unreal - this may be your primary use case in which case ignore everything else 🙂

 

Not nice ergonomics which is a shame because this type of combo was my primary use case - i wanted to avoid getting into eyepieces <5mm and leverage existing WA eyepieces down into the lower focal lengths:

 

This combo works nicely but the extender before the powermate was an unpleasant surprise for me. I still don't understand how it is essentially par focal after the diagonal but so impactful before it (this is a 75mm extension - a 50mm didn't work):

 

Though it works ok I don't really like this combo it feels long and unwieldy. Again this a shame because i was basically hoping to have two ranges of operation from one set of eyepieces ending at 8mm but now i'm buying <5mm eyepieces to avoid the powermate (strictly speaking to avoid the extender in fact)...

Cheers

The 6mm and 8mm Ethos, if used as 2" eyepieces, need 0.7" of out travel from the telescope's focal plane.

If used as 1.25", however, they require 0.3" of in-travel from the focal plane, which is easier to accomplish in most scopes and/or in a Paracorr.

I think of them as 1.25" eyepieces, not 2", despite the 2" skirts.

[Highburymark]

I have the ED 1.5x which is made for the TSAs and FSQs. Again, optically excellent. 
But I also very highly rate the 4x Powermate, which I use all the time with my binoviewers and specialist Leica and Zeiss 25mm microscope eyepieces. These are the brightest and sharpest eyepieces I own, so magnifying them four times for lunar and planet work is a pretty good test of a barlow/extender - a test the PM4x passes with distinction. This gives me 144x in my 120mm refractor. Sometimes I use both the 1.5x ED and the PM4x together for 216x.