Choosing between 4" ED Refractors for visual

[Stu]

4 minutes ago, Moonlit Night said:

Also one would imagine a AZ5 would be more manly than the AZ4, which it absolutely is not. 

Yes, from what I’ve read, the AZ4 was more solid, just didn’t look as trendy! I helped a new starter buy a setup, including an 80mm Vixen and AZ4 and thought it was an excellent mount.

[cajen2]

Yes, the AZ4 is a cracking little mount, but no slo-mos, sadly.

[Moonlit Night]

33 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

Yes, the AZ4 is a cracking little mount, but no slo-mos, sadly.

The funny thing is one never hears dobsonian user complaining about the lack of slow mo. When I had a mount previously with slow mo I took them off. The cables were never in the right place it seemed to me and I just felt that it was less intuitive, less friendly and generally not as much fun. But hey ho, that’s just me I guess. I have been nudging AZ mounts for decades, perhaps it’s a nack some never learn, like me and EQs, I can’t get on with them at all. 

Edited February 20 by Moonlit Night

[Moonlit Night]

Anyway what ever mount you choose do yourself a favour and buy yourself a Starfield from FLO. I have never heard a bad word said about them and I doubt anyone else has either? 
 

Anyone? 

[Bivanus]

My usual poison is a TS APO 102 mm f/7 on a TS AZT6. The mount has no slow-mos but funny enough I don't miss them and can track by hand Jupiter and Saturn rather well. I say go for the Starfield , it's practically identical to the TS including  the FPL53 ED and Lanthanum combo.

Here it is for comparison  https://www.teleskop-express.de/en/telescopes-4/apochromatic-refractor-55/all-apos-und-eds-223/ts-optics-doublet-sd-apo-102-mm-f-7-fpl53-lanthan-objective-9868 

If I would have the dough , I would go for a Rowan AZ75 and a slightly larger refractor , especially if intended only for visual ( max 130 mm so it's still manageable in weight) but that's my opinion.

[cajen2]

23 minutes ago, Moonlit Night said:

The funny thing is one never hears dobsonian user complaining about the lack of slow mo. When I had a mount previously with slow mo I took them off. The cables were never in the right place it seemed to me and I just felt that it was less intuitive, less friendly and generally not as much fun. But hey ho, that’s just me I guess. I have been nudging AZ mounts for decades, perhaps it’s a nack some never learn, like me and EQs, I can’t get on with them at all. 

Yes, I've had two dobs (still have one) so I'm very used to doing without slo-mos. That's possibly why I appreciate them so much now I've got them! 😉

[Mr Spock]

I have a Dob. It has an EQ platform. So no, I don't need slo-mos 

[quasar117]

4 minutes ago, Moonlit Night said:

Anyway what ever mount you choose do yourself a favour and buy yourself a Starfield from FLO. I have never heard a bad word said about them and I doubt anyone else has either? 
 

Anyone? 

That I will 👍.

 

I'm currently looking at a used AZ4 that I could regrease and working nice and smooth.

 

[quasar117]

Third of the way there...I now have a tripod 😅

[John]

21 minutes ago, quasar117 said:

Third of the way there...I now have a tripod 😅

I have one just like that (including the BC&F / AE branding). Nice tripod 🙂

Edited February 20 by John

[IB20]

I have an AZ4 and an AZ75. The AZ75 is absolutely next level and I have my perfect mount. It holds the f7 102ed like a dream (and the 125mm SM…). It doesn’t need slo-mos, the control and movement are second to none. The AZ4 is good but suffers with a bit of stiction and in comparison is chalk and cheese, higher power viewing isn’t quite as stable either. Obviously the price of the two mounts reflect these differences! 

[John]

2 hours ago, quasar117 said:

That I will 👍.

 

I'm currently looking at a used AZ4 that I could regrease and working nice and smooth.

 

More alternatives if you can live without slow motion controls: Tele Optic Giro mount or Altair Sabre.  Both would give you more capacity than the AZ-4, thinking of possible future scopes.

Just a thought - you may have had too many of those already !

[quasar117]

4 minutes ago, IB20 said:

I have an AZ4 and an AZ75. The AZ75 is absolutely next level and I have my perfect mount. It holds the f7 102ed like a dream (and the 125mm SM…). It doesn’t need slo-mos, the control and movement are second to none. The AZ4 is good but suffers with a bit of stiction and in comparison is chalk and cheese, higher power viewing isn’t quite as stable either. Obviously the price of the two mounts reflect these differences! 

I appreciate the comparison. As much as an AZ75 would be perfect I just can't justify it right now. Something to aspire to though!

[quasar117]

3 minutes ago, John said:

More alternatives if you can live without slow motion controls: Tele Optic Giro mount or Altair Sabre.  Both would give you more capacity than the AZ-4, thinking of possible future scopes.

Just a thought - you may have had too many of those already !

In fact John I was messing around the scrap metal pile at work earlier looking a putting  together a pipe mount....which is same principle as a giro I believe. Would involve lapping the threads to get the movement smooth. Might be to much bother than it's worth though as a bit of welding would be needed to adapt it to a tripod.

[quasar117]

11 minutes ago, John said:

I have one just like that (including the BC&F / AE branding). Nice tripod 🙂

With regards to looking after them is beeswax best or an oil? 

[John]

Just now, quasar117 said:

With regards to looking after them is beeswax best or an oil? 

Probably remiss of me but I've not needed to treat it with anything so far. I guess mine is about a decade old now 🤔

It still seems to look fine.

 

[IB20]

20 minutes ago, quasar117 said:

I appreciate the comparison. As much as an AZ75 would be perfect I just can't justify it right now. Something to aspire to though!

If you do decide to pull the trigger on the 102mm f7 (any iteration), you’re in for a real treat. They are marvellous scopes. 👍🏻

[quasar117]

15 minutes ago, John said:

Probably remiss of me but I've not needed to treat it with anything so far. I guess mine is about a decade old now 🤔

It still seems to look fine.

 

 The finish on mine is fine I just thought it might be a good idea in the future.

 

1 minute ago, IB20 said:

If you do decide to pull the trigger on the 102mm f7 (any iteration), you’re in for a real treat. They are marvellous scopes. 👍🏻

I will be ordering one earlier next month 👍

Edited February 20 by quasar117

[Sunshine]

1 hour ago, quasar117 said:

Third of the way there...I now have a tripod 😅

Beautiful tripod! I’m jealous, always wanted a berly.

[quasar117]

2 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

Beautiful tripod! I’m jealous, always wanted a berly.

Should hopefully last a lifetime:)

[quasar117]

Just been looking on FLO and noticed the Stellamira 80ED F10 for the same price as the Starfield?

I know it's a smaller aperture but with it being a slower scope would it perform better on planetary and lunar?

 

[RobertI]

When I was researching which refractor to buy, one of these was on my shortlist - they are quality ‘solar system’ scopes made by Long Perng and I really wanted one, but in the end I felt that a 4” F7 would be a more versatile all rounder which is no more difficult to mount and use. I haven’t done a side by side comparison but I would think the extra 22mm of aperture (28% increase on the 80mm) would allow the  4” to reveal more of those micro-planetary details, and would have a much bigger effect than the differing focal length.

Edited February 21 by RobertI

[Mr Spock]

1 hour ago, quasar117 said:

Just been looking on FLO and noticed the Stellamira 80ED F10 for the same price as the Starfield?

I know it's a smaller aperture but with it being a slower scope would it perform better on planetary and lunar?

 

No. Less aperture equals less resolving power. The 102 is a much better planetary scope.  

[Ratlet]

I feel like I've asked before, but in terms of light grasp, how would a 4" f7 stack up against a 130pds?  Would the extra aperture be offset by the enlarged secondary?

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

18 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

I feel like I've asked before, but in terms of light grasp, how would a 4" f7 stack up against a 130pds?  Would the extra aperture be offset by the enlarged secondary?

I've had both a 130p and 102 f7. The 130p is a cheap & fun to use scope I would not knock however side by side there's no contest. The ED f7 refractor wins in all departments.