Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Little and Large - scope size comparison


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, RobertI said:

The 8” is pretty compact. 

Yes, f/4. If I photographed my lineup with the 8" f/5.9 the difference between that and the 12" would still be vast, but nowhere near as staggering as with Michael's.

Maybe we should turn this into a thread for us all to display our smallest to largest. Sadly, my 10 inch is still on it's holidays so won't be able to play this game!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always think this is an interesting comparison. Both set to transportation length, my LZOS 105 f/6.2 and my LZOS 130 /9.2. Only 25mm difference in aperture but that combined with 3 f-stop difference in focal ratio makes a heck of a difference!

242E39C9-9889-41E1-9F23-A9561EA642F6.thumb.jpeg.a9f854545290181b3bc0f2d9824601d4.jpeg

Should acknowledge that the 105 does have a long sliding draw tube which really keeps the transport length down to about 19”.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a few refractors that I've owned / still own. 1st photo shows a Synta 150mm F/8 achromat, a Bresser 127L F/9.4 achromat and my Vixen ED102SS F/6.5. 2nd photo compares my TMB/LZOS 130 F/9.2 triplet, Skywatcher ED120 F/7.5, Takahashi FC100 F/9 and the Vixen ED102SS again. 3rd photo shows the Vixen 102, the Skywatcher 120 and the rather monstrous Istar 150 F/12. The latter is physically the largest and heaviest refractor that I've owned.

3fracs01.jpg.1aabaee7e601ac9f2e97498c94d7f4cc.jpg4refractors.JPG.dd4ce932638b8a654ba56c7e37cecfc4.JPGistarandothers.jpg.41717136ac9007f78ce19f8fb1f554a2.jpg

Edited by John
  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any excuse to parade my Vixen beauties!

ED70SS, SD81S, ED102S, SD115S.

(Note. The only way dust and other foreign bodies can enter a refractor is via the eyepiece end and standing them up on their objectives can cause these nasties to fall down the tube on to the rear element, something I would not do.)

 

IMG_4301.JPG

IMG_4300.JPG

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Franklin said:

 

(Note. The only way dust and other foreign bodies can enter a refractor is via the eyepiece end and standing them up on their objectives can cause these nasties to fall down the tube on to the rear element, something I would not do.)

Agree with this, I don't even like removing eyepieces or diagonals...so I need to buy at least one more!😁

It seems like 3 or 4 scopes is the right number of scopes needed.😉

Edited by Roy Challen
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roy Challen said:

Agree with this, I don't even like removing eyepieces or diagonals...so I need to buy at least one more!😁

Absolutely, good telescope husbandry doesn't take much effort and can make all the difference in keeping your optics at their best. I try to leave a prism diagonal in at all times it completely seals the tube. I use a 2" desiccant plug for when I bring a scope in after a session.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Roy Challen said:

Agree with this, I don't even like removing eyepieces or diagonals...so I need to buy at least one more!😁

It seems like 3 or 4 scopes is the right number of scopes needed.😉

Agreed here as well - which is why I own 5 diagonals and 7 finders 😁

I have a 3 scope agreement with my other half. So I'm on very thin ice currently with 7 😬

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A perfect illustration of how scope volume and weight varies as the cube of the linear dimensions. 8” => 12” is only a 50% increase in linear, but it increases the volume and mass by a factor of 3.5!

I’ll put up a pic of my own 8” and 12”, of similar f-ratios, and my 105 & 140.

Magnus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread! I also took a photo of my dobsons together although it was not really for comparison.

Here are my 12" f6 and 16" f4. The red bag at the bottom is my 4" Tak.

The 12" is 41mm shorter now following the focuser replacement. Not much though, considering that its focal length is 1813mm.

Love dobsons!

IMG_20220529_135624.thumb.jpg.da76c4e49725f4e34238f28fc06d7f8c.jpg

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMG_20220218_162948.thumb.jpg.403ff65a15aae5f4e018d385d33f7d3c.jpg

From L to R, my daughter's SW 100p, my SW Heritage 150p and my StellaLyra 8" (now gone). Just to show the difference in sheer physical size as dob apertures increase. Sorry about the rubbish photo quality - very poor phone camera.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very funny thread and definately not funny hahaha.

I would one day like to do the entire Herschel list (not just the H400 which i am anyway totally stalled on); but where i live currently i have to hump my gear about to observe whether on foot or in the car so the 12" or 14" i would really need to make the project feasible looks a bit daunting - i would practically need to move house to make it possible. I see night vision in my far future if i don't move to the Norfolk coast first!

IMG_4336.thumb.jpeg.98881770edb35b74d217bc72cdb42681.jpeg

if i could physically carry the mounting arrangements of the larger scope to a photogenic spot without needing to break it down it would take an equally "amusing" pic. There is easily >20kg difference and a three hands versus one hand difference in mounting arrangements between the 130mm and the two little ones.

IMG_4337.thumb.jpeg.b67aaeead6f6542d6e349db2b75a8879.jpeg

  • Like 3
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.