Askar APO Triplet Telescopes

[Rusted]

Just curious: Which mounting can easily handle the weight and length of the 185mm for high res, planetary/lunar imaging?
Or wouldn't it be suitable for such tasks? You don't buy a telescope in isolation. It needs to be held rock steady. 

[bosun21]

8 hours ago, Elp said:

I saw Nico's video, thought they were quite similar. A few people have been imaging with the 0.6x on the 103 with fantastic results, normally below 0.8x with larger sensors it becomes more difficult to get a flat field. Obviously visual it matter less.

Don’t forget that Nico is backed and supplied by Askar.

[scotty38]

13 hours ago, Stuart1971 said:

Can someone explain why these scopes are so reasonably priced, compared to other comparable triplets, especially other triplets in the Askar range such as the PHQ versions, as in my mind you get what you pay for with a scope and these must be a lot cheaper for a reason….or no one would ever buy there higher priced scopes, so where is the compromise here…?? 
sorry to be a cinic…

The PHQ is a quad rather than a triplet but still a reasonable question as adding the flattener to the 140 only takes you to £2400 versus £4000 for the 130PHQ.

[johnturley]

3 hours ago, Rusted said:

Just curious: Which mounting can easily handle the weight and length of the 185mm for high res, planetary/lunar imaging?
Or wouldn't it be suitable for such tasks? You don't buy a telescope in isolation. It needs to be held rock steady. 

The 185mm would be potentially great for high resolution planetary/lunar imaging, depending on the quality of the lens. I find that my Esprit 150 gives better results than my 14in Newtonian, unless atmospheric conditions are very good.

It would however require a suitable mount, maybe an EQ8 or CEM120 (expensive), although the mount is not as critical as with deep sky imaging, some planetary imagers produce excellent results with dobsonians.

John 

Edited November 18, 2023 by johnturley

[DaveS]

The 185 would ride happily on my little DDM 60. I could be tempted if I hadn't sworn off buying new gear.

[Mr Spock]

First light for the 185 - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057654241164

Looks OK to me. BTW, listed as $13k in the US.

[John]

3 hours ago, Rusted said:

.... You don't buy a telescope in isolation.....

Quite right. With the 185mm there are the mount, the observatory and the divorce costs to factor in ........ 😬

Edited November 18, 2023 by John

[scotty38]

3 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

First light for the 185 - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057654241164

Looks OK to me. BTW, listed as $13k in the US.

Oh, that'll knock the shine off....

[johnturley]

11 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

First light for the 185 - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057654241164

Looks OK to me. BTW, listed as $13k in the US.

Sounds like the price of £5,049 which FLO are listing it at may be incorrect, would expect to to be around £10k in £'s.

John 

Edited November 18, 2023 by johnturley

[Stuart1971]

5 minutes ago, johnturley said:

Sounds like the price of £5,049 which FLO are listing may be incorrect, would expect to to be at least £10k in £'s.

John 

Buy one quick…😂

[Grant]

If somebody is listing it for $13k that must be a mistake, other U.S retailers are around $5k which matches the UK price when you take into account VAT etc..

[Zermelo]

49 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Buy one quick…😂

Get thee behind me, Satan (other malevolent deities are available)

[Rusted]

2 hours ago, johnturley said:

The 185mm would be potentially great for high resolution planetary/lunar imaging, depending on the quality of the lens. I find that my Esprit 150 gives better results than my 14in Newtonian, unless atmospheric conditions are very good.

It would however require a suitable mount, maybe an EQ8 or CEM120 (expensive), although the mount is not as critical as with deep sky imaging, some planetary imagers produce excellent results with dobsonians.

John 

Thanks John. Seeing the 185 being [carefully] cuddled really brings home the proportions.
My 180mm achromat is in an 8" Ø tube. 185mm is 7.25" so even bigger. A handle is almost essential.
Too big a diameter to get your hands safely around it to lift it onto a mounting IME.
Particularly when you take it down again in the early hours covered in ice.
Don't let me put anyone off though. That's a lot of APO at any price! 

[DirkSteele]

That price for the 185 is unbelievable. Unless they have used low grade glass with lots of inclusions and bubbles, and the finish is rough then it an absolute bargain.  I paid £22k for my LZOS 180 f/7 back in 2013!

 

I would caution that a scope of this size does need a permanent home to get the most out of it, though it is portable. I took it to Astro Camp once.

Edited November 18, 2023 by DirkSteele
Typo

[johnturley]

2 hours ago, Rusted said:

Thanks John. Seeing the 185 being [carefully] cuddled really brings home the proportions.
My 180mm achromat is in an 8" Ø tube. 185mm is 7.25" so even bigger. A handle is almost essential.
Too big a diameter to get your hands safely around it to lift it onto a mounting IME.
Particularly when you take it down again in the early hours covered in ice.
Don't let me put anyone off though. That's a lot of APO at any price! 

Although slightly tempted, I am not seriously thinking of getting an Askar 185 at present, although would have been very tempted if they had been around at that price when  I purchased my Esprit 150. If I had wanted a larger APO Refractor at that time, I would have had to pay more than double the price, I did in fact briefly consider a CFF 160 which was available then for around £9k, but was put off by reports of inconsistent optical quality, and problems with the lens holding collimation. A TEC or APM LZOS 180 would have been around £18k, so opted for an Es Reid tested Esprit 150 at £4k. 

Incidentally the Askar is about the same weight as my Esprit 150 (which is mounted piggy back on my 14in Newtonian in an observatory shed) at 14.9 kg net, and a similar tube diameter at 185mm, although I assume the tube length will be about 35 x 7 = 240 mm longer (maybe less with the retractile rear lens tube). As mentioned previously I still have my doubts as to whether the listed price of £5,049 is correct, especially as their 151mm version costs £4,399, and what I thought before was the cheapest 180mm APO around, the TS 180 costing around 12k Euros. 

I would however be very interested to hear any reports about the optical quality of the Askar 185.

Edited November 18, 2023 by johnturley

[globular]

13 minutes ago, DirkSteele said:

I would caution that a scope of this size does need a permanent home to get the lost out of it, though it is portable. I took it to Astro Camp once.

Agree totally - but I think your LZOS 180 f/7 weighs about 22.7kg while the Askar 185 is a fair chunk lighter at 17.2kg.  

[DirkSteele]

6 minutes ago, globular said:

Agree totally - but I think your LZOS 180 f/7 weighs about 22.7kg while the Askar 185 is a fair chunk lighter at 17.2kg.  

Yep that is about right. LZOS lens cells are built like tanks and the 3.5” Feathertouch is also a chunk of metal which probably accounts for a good amount of the difference.

[Concordia000]

The 103 and 185 are both at insane price points. £1k for a 4” triplet is insane enough on its own, but the 185 at “merely” £5k is 1/3 of the price of other (admittedly, “premium”) scopemakers’ offerings.

To put that into perspective, the 185 is cheaper than the Astro-physics 110, the CFF 140, and the Takahashi TOA-130 and FSQ-106 (which admittedly have more complex optical designs).

Though I can’t see the 185 being a “best seller” because the scopes of that size will require a permanent setting

[Rusted]

I have a 3.5" FT on my f/12 iStar achromat and can vouch for the weight. Handy for balancing a heavy lens and its cell though. ☺️

 

[Deadlake]

Interesting to watch how this scopes perform.

My understanding is a lot of far east scopes have far lower performance handling aberrations. I.E your will not notice when imaging however will pick up visually.

However to say game changing at this price point is an under statement even if FK-61 glass is used, it’s around 10x cheaper then FPL53.

I suspect that someone on CN will DPAC this scope soon.

Weight of 17 kg for the 185 mm is pretty good as well.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Deadlake

[scotty38]

Any thoughts on the retractable tube being a tilt magnet at all?

[Stuart1971]

31 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Any thoughts on the retractable tube being a tilt magnet at all?

Retractable, I thought it screwed on and off….🤔

[John]

30 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Any thoughts on the retractable tube being a tilt magnet at all?

APM/LZOS refractors have used a similar approach for years. My LZOS 130 is 17 years old and has an extension tube at the focuser end. No signs of droop with it even with a 2 inch diagonal plus 21mm Ethos installed. The Askar approach looks even better engineered than the APM/LZOS one I think.

 

[scotty38]

18 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Retractable, I thought it screwed on and off….🤔

It does on the 103 and 120 but the 140 and 185 have this different approach 

[scotty38]

17 minutes ago, John said:

APM/LZOS refractors have used a similar approach for years. My LZOS 130 is 17 years old and has an extension tube at the focuser end. No signs of droop with it even with a 2 inch diagonal plus 21mm Ethos installed. The Askar approach looks even better engineered than the APM/LZOS one I think.

 

Ok that’s good to hear but definitely this telescopic arrangement rather than screw in?