Starfield 102mm (Doublet) vs Askar 103mm (Triplet)

[cloudyweather]

Hi all,

First let me say that I've read as much as I can find online and I'm looking for help.

I'm fairly new at astronomy, retired and a  semi-professional photographer in the past (love HQ lenses).  Not sure about all the image processing/stacking that seems to be needed for astro but may give that a go (I have an APS-C Fuji). But I'm also looking for Visual and somewhat portable (car / easy setup).

Consider the Starfield 102 + 0.8 reducer/flattener and the Askar 103mm + 08. reducer/flattener to be the same price and both in stock.

I've read nothing but glowing reports of the Starfield everywhere. Praising the quality build, finish & optics for both Visual and Imaging.

The Askar seems to have split views. Concern about cheaper glass than perhaps more expensive triplets. I did read of possible focuser issues on one site.

Why am I asking?  The Starfield has been out of stock for a few months and I could get the Askar, but I'll wait a little longer if needed.

Has anyone actually used both telescopes?  First hand experience of both? For Visual and Imaging?

Many thanks

[dweller25]

Hello @cloudyweather and welcome to SGL.

A 100mm refractor is a really good choice 👍

The Starfield has been around a while and there is quite a bit of feedback on them.

The Askar is relatively new and there is not as much real world information about it - apart from the imaging influencers on Youtube, but imaging and visual are two very different things.

If I had to choose now it would be the Starfield - based on the reviews - but the nights are short at the moment so I would probably wait until the Autumn when there may be more Askar reviews…

As you appreciate HQ lenses then the Fluorite doublets made by Canon Optron in the Takahashi FC100 range may be of interest - they are premium optics at a premium price though !

Hope that helps.

Edited May 6 by dweller25

[Elp]

There's a few people on here with one or the other, don't know if anyone has both.

I've got the Starfield 102 and have used it for both visual and imaging. It's a fine scope, 100mm really is a sweet spot for practical visual use if you're going to use it often. Note, it's not a small scope, you'll need a decent tripod and mount, as it's quite long it'll have to be mounted onto a pier extension if you don't have enough clearance from the mount to the back end of the scope with all your equipment connected if your objects will be say 60 degrees plus in altitude. Something not often spoken about, the 2.5 inch focuser is very good.

As an imager though, I was looking at the Askar 103 before a chance came to get the SF used. A triplet for imaging will be better corrected with less star colour bloat/fringing. For visual a triplet will be overkill, they also take a bit longer to cool down, and are heavier than an equivalent doublet.

I believe either will be a good choice. Note you'll also have to factor in flattener/reducer costs into the total if you plan on imaging, as well as many other attributed costs.

 

Edited May 6 by Elp

[Nik271]

The Askar seems a very good choice for imaging. Most people note that it sacrifices a bit of sharpness for a good flat field for imaging. For visual the Starfield is probably a better choice: lighter, shorter cool down time, unless you use a binoviewer where Askar has the advantage as the tube can be shortened so it can achieve focus for widest possible field of view. Really you can't go wrong with either.

Edited May 6 by Nik271

[Tiny Clanger]

1 hour ago, cloudyweather said:

Why am I asking?  The Starfield has been out of stock for a few months and I could get the Askar, but I'll wait a little longer if needed.

Can't help you decide, but can point out a returned starfield with a reduced price available : https://www.firstlightoptics.com/offers/offer_starfield-102mm-f7-ed-doublet-refractor_431919.html

[cloudyweather]

1 hour ago, dweller25 said:

Hello @cloudyweather and welcome to SGL.

A 100mm refractor is a really good choice 👍

The Starfield has been around a while and there is quite a bit of feedback on them.

The Askar is relatively new and there is not as much real world information about it - apart from the imaging influencers on Youtube, but imaging and visual are two very different things.

If I had to choose now it would be the Starfield - based on the reviews - but the nights are short at the moment so I would probably wait until the Autumn when there may be more Askar reviews…

As you appreciate HQ lenses then the Fluorite doublets made by Canon Optron in the Takahashi FC100 range may be of interest - they are premium optics at a premium price though !

Hope that helps.

Thanks for confirming the 100mm choice. You are right about the nights right now - although most seem to have had constant rain clouds for months.

That Takahashi looks nice - and so light. I wonder if they ever appear in sales - black friday sort of thing.

[Elp]

2 minutes ago, cloudyweather said:

That Takahashi looks nice - and so light. I wonder if they ever appear in sales

RVO have had the 76 and 100 on offer for months, don't know if they're in stock though.

[cloudyweather]

1 hour ago, Elp said:

There's a few people on here with one or the other, don't know if anyone has both.

I've got the Starfield 102 and have used it for both visual and imaging. It's a fine scope, 100mm really is a sweet spot for practical visual use if you're going to use it often. Note, it's not a small scope, you'll need a decent tripod and mount, as it's quite long it'll have to be mounted onto a pier extension if you don't have enough clearance from the mount to the back end of the scope with all your equipment connected if your objects will be say 60 degrees plus in altitude. Something not often spoken about, the 2.5 inch focuser is very good.

As an imager though, I was looking at the Askar 103 before a chance came to get the SF used. A triplet for imaging will be better corrected with less star colour bloat/fringing. For visual a triplet will be overkill, they also take a bit longer to cool down, and are heavier than an equivalent doublet.

I believe either will be a good choice. Note you'll also have to factor in flattener/reducer costs into the total if you plan on imaging, as well as many other attributed costs.

 

Thank you for confirming 100mm as a sweet spot for visual. And the need for a decent tripod/mount with extension. I was trying to use binoculars the other night on Alcor and Mizar (painfully) so definitely need greater than 60 degrees of altitude.

It had been suggested that the AZ-GTiX would fit the bill but I'm not so sure now.  I had heard triplets would be better for imaging due to corrected colour - just didn't know if the glass quality made a difference. Good to know a triplet would be overkill for visual. Thanks

[cloudyweather]

1 hour ago, Nik271 said:

The Askar seems a very good choice for imaging. Most people note that it sacrifices a bit of sharpness for a good flat field for imaging. For visual the Starfield is probably a better choice: lighter, shorter cool down time, unless you use a binoviewer where Askar has the advantage as the tube can be shortened so it can achieve focus for widest possible field of view. Really you can't go wrong with either.

I do like a sharp image... thanks

[cloudyweather]

55 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Can't help you decide, but can point out a returned starfield with a reduced price available : https://www.firstlightoptics.com/offers/offer_starfield-102mm-f7-ed-doublet-refractor_431919.html

Thanks

"Generally good condition but a slight amount of dust in the optics from usage but not worthy of cleaning."

Ooo, I don't like dust and it's 'in' the optics not 'on'. My prime camera lenses are all spotless, never cleaned just covered and they have lots of glass.

[cloudyweather]

32 minutes ago, Elp said:

RVO have had the 76 and 100 on offer for months, don't know if they're in stock though.

Looks like same price as FLO (double the Starfield/Askar)... at 740mm and f/7.4 it's marginally better for visual right? Still, what a price and length 815mm.

[Elp]

A longer f ratio helps with correction I believe with refractors.

[cloudyweather]

Thank you so much everyone.

I've got a few extra questions.

Can the Starfield be 'switched' easily during a session between Visual and Imaging?

What mount do you/would you use for the Starfield? It would ideally need to be somewhat portable... despite living in rural Wiltshire, you wouldn't believe the bright led street lights. I don't intend to carry it on my back, just car but I do have a restricted view very dark spot in the garden. Really portable things like the AM3 raise the price somewhat. Or add in a slow mo alt-az for travelling visual.  Too many options.

Thanks

[Elp]

Switching depends on how you've connected the imaging train, it's simple to remove it for sure. The easiest method is to use a flip diagonal, camera connected at the straight through side, eyepiece at the top, use the flip mirror to switch between the two. The main consideration will be how much "extra" stuff are you willing to take with you outside, imaging requires a lot more.

Mount, I use a Tecnosky Cubo for manual, thought I'd miss slomo, I dont as it works very well simply by pushing it. If I want to maximise my visual time I use a goto mount, spend less time finding targets and more time looking at them, in fact if you have a camera attached and a computer controller it makes it even quicker as you can plate solve with the camera so your target is dead centre every time, then flip to the eyepiece, super hassle free.

Edited May 7 by Elp

[dweller25]

Mounts….

This ALT-AZ for light weight easy to set up and use…

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth-astronomy-mounts/skywatcher-az4-alt-az-mount.html

This Equatorial for tracking, visual, imaging and GOTO….

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/equatorial-astronomy-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-pro-synscan-goto.html

[apaulo]

I use the starfield on the celestron avx, everyone that has looked through it and used it are very impressed. As in woooowwww

[cloudyweather]

Is anyone able to summarise the differences between the EQ5 Pro and HEQ5 Pro ? Of course there's also a EQM-35 Pro. It's really difficult finding out anything from the Skywatcher product specs... and I think they have too many products...

I see the Celestron AVX has 2" tripod legs which might be overkill for me.

Thanks

 

[M40]

I note earlier you mentioned moving your setup to different places, the heq5 is heavy, likely twice the weight of the eq5, but, the heq5 can handle a stellamira 125mm with ease. The sm125 ota and the starfield 102 ota are similar weights so food for thought. All the best.

[cloudyweather]

15 minutes ago, M40 said:

I note earlier you mentioned moving your setup to different places, the heq5 is heavy, likely twice the weight of the eq5, but, the heq5 can handle a stellamira 125mm with ease. The sm125 ota and the starfield 102 ota are similar weights so food for thought. All the best.

Yes you are right. I will need to move occasionally. Dare I ask how the Stellamira 125mm compares to the Starfield 102mm? I have to admit to seeing it on FLO... Thanks

[cloudyweather]

My 'overall' budget is probably around £2,000. How that is split between optics/mount etc ...

[Elp]

The optics shouldn't really be the highest percentage of that budget, tripod + mount should be.

[cloudyweather]

10 minutes ago, Elp said:

The optics shouldn't really be the highest percentage of that budget, tripod + mount should be.

That's what I'd heard:)

[M40]

17 minutes ago, cloudyweather said:

Yes you are right. I will need to move occasionally. Dare I ask how the Stellamira 125mm compares to the Starfield 102mm? I have to admit to seeing it on FLO... Thanks

I've never used the starfield but I can say that I have absolutely no regrets on the sm125. M45 positively sparkles in visual, solar system objects are surprisingly good and much as I dont do astrophotography, I do have a go at eeva and I will not run out of targets any time soon. Just to thicken the plot just a little, flo have an open box sm125 at a very good price because of a blemish in the carbon fibre. Enjoy 🤣

[Mr Spock]

Starfield 102 on an EQ5 (great mount for visual only), and the scope that replaced it. If you are imaging you'll probably want an HEQ5. Both mount and scope are within your budget.

Phone image through the Tak. There's very little difference between the Starfield and the Tak. I had them side by side and it was a tough call as to which was better.

[cloudyweather]

7 minutes ago, M40 said:

I've never used the starfield but I can say that I have absolutely no regrets on the sm125. M45 positively sparkles in visual, solar system objects are surprisingly good and much as I dont do astrophotography, I do have a go at eeva and I will not run out of targets any time soon. Just to thicken the plot just a little, flo have an open box sm125 at a very good price because of a blemish in the carbon fibre. Enjoy 🤣

"Brand new, unused but with some carbon fibre irregularities in the weave pattern ...!". I'm not a structural engineer but I'd have thought the weave was integral to the material integrity - but like I say, I'm not a structural engineer.