Altair Astro Starwave 102ED vs 102ED-R

[badgerchap]

2 hours ago, Ratlet said:

Usually takes me more than 30 minutes to get setup lol.  Just take the scope out first so it has a bit longer to acclimatise.

You could probably arrange a swap for a 102EDR if you weren't happy with the 103.  See. Some comments on the focuser of the 103 but appears to be the usual 'needs fettling' rather than anything major.

Yes, there's at least 30 mins of forgetting where I am and what I'm doing before I get anywhere near observing! Scope'll be iced up half the time before I get to use it 😂

Yes, I've seen the comments on the focuser, but as you say they don't seem to be unusual and in some people's experience not the case at all, so I suppose there are OK ones that meed a fettle and some are good out of the box.

[bosun21]

If you are mainly visual then bite the bullet and get the 102EDR you will have no regrets. If on the other hand you want it for mainly imaging then get the Askar 103 triplet. That's my two cents worth.

[badgerchap]

2 hours ago, bosun21 said:

If you are mainly visual then bite the bullet and get the 102EDR you will have no regrets. If on the other hand you want it for mainly imaging then get the Askar 103 triplet. That's my two cents worth.

So this is what's nudging me to the Askar. I tried imaging before, and got frustrated and also disheartened as I never had the kit to get any decent results, at least compared to some of the excellent stuff of SGL and other places. With this in mind I've decided to go back to just plain ol' visual on a nice Alt/Az mount, nice and simple, which seems like ideal territory for the ED-R.

 

BUT...there's always the chance that I'm going to end up trying imaging again. I've still got an (albeit old) EQ6 lying around, so it'll always be a possibility, as pure as my desire for visual seems right now. And the Askar is the same price as the ED-R, so as long as there's no detriment to using it for visual, it seems like the sensible choice (now).

[Bivanus]

Peace of mind & guaranteed to be OK for dual use.  Looks like a winner.

[Ratlet]

Stargazers Lounge:  we'll help you spend your money!

[Elp]

If you do decide on imaging again, either of your scope options will present a challenge at 700mm focal length, you'd need stability, good guiding, excellent focus etc, all separate from the scope.

[badgerchap]

22 minutes ago, Elp said:

If you do decide on imaging again, either of your scope options will present a challenge at 700mm focal length, you'd need stability, good guiding, excellent focus etc, all separate from the scope.

...or reducers.

[Elp]

The scope is still the scope, I've tried it with my SF102 at native and reduced. Not as straightforward as with my Z61 which presents next to no issues.

[badgerchap]

23 minutes ago, Elp said:

The scope is still the scope, I've tried it with my SF102 at native and reduced. Not as straightforward as with my Z61 which presents next to no issues.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect it to be considering the price/objective diameter ratio. 

If I do try imaging again, I'll not be expecting a lot tbh, but it's likely to be better than what I've had before (a WO 66 with a scratched objective 😭)

[LondonNeil]

Not a comparison of the 2 starwaves but the 102ed was reviewed by a member here

I bought that scope from him but haven't been able to use it yet (cloud,  life..... very frustrating!)  I don't know where you are but if near se19, you're welcome to come and have a look at it and through it, if it helps. 

[badgerchap]

2 hours ago, LondonNeil said:

Not a comparison of the 2 starwaves but the 102ed was reviewed by a member here

I bought that scope from him but haven't been able to use it yet (cloud,  life..... very frustrating!)  I don't know where you are but if near se19, you're welcome to come and have a look at it and through it, if it helps. 

A very kind offer but I'm a bit far!

 

SE19 eh? I bet the LP's a pig for you?

[LondonNeil]

Bortle 8-9, although I've made a little cart from an old Pram and use it to trundle to the end of the street and a bit of green space.  That is noticeably darker although I'm not sure I belive the lp maps which show it at bortle 7. It has a much less restricted view too.

I don't bother with targets that are north of me though, it's all just an orange glow.

[badgerchap]

10 hours ago, LondonNeil said:

Bortle 8-9, although I've made a little cart from an old Pram and use it to trundle to the end of the street and a bit of green space.  That is noticeably darker although I'm not sure I belive the lp maps which show it at bortle 7. It has a much less restricted view too.

I don't bother with targets that are north of me though, it's all just an orange glow.

I can imagine. Birmingham's 30 miles away and it still ruins my entire northern sky. Have you had any success with LP filters?

[LondonNeil]

I've yet to try filters.  I'm sure of you grey the right filter for the target that it will help a little,  but I don't think their is any miracle filter. 

[Louis D]

Under Bortle 7+ sky conditions, I recommend going with an OIII filter to reduce background skyglow as much as possible.  Not all nebula will respond to it, but most do to some extent in my experience.

A UHC filter can help some, but it's main advantage is to let in some H-β light at the expense of letting in more skyglow.  I can't recall ever getting a better view of a nebula with an H-β over an OIII, but then again, I don't normally hunt down H-β rich nebula.

There's no hope for galaxies under bright skies.

Larger globular clusters can be resolved if you have at least 7 to 8 inches of aperture and push the power up above 190x or so.  Until they resolve, they can be nearly impossible to make out as faint smudges.

Brighter open star clusters make for decent targets under light polluted skies.

Solar system objects are pretty resistant to light pollution.

[badgerchap]

23 hours ago, LondonNeil said:

I've yet to try filters.  I'm sure of you grey the right filter for the target that it will help a little,  but I don't think their is any miracle filter. 

I tried one several years ago under moderate LP and I couldn't really see a difference, but it was only a cheap filter, so better ones may be more effective.

[badgerchap]

Back to the original topic and I have a further reply from Altair:

"Hi there, FPL53 has a slight edge in terms of colour correction performance. Most customers cannot tell the difference especially if over 35 years old due to vision degradation in the blue end of the spectrum. However in this case, the optics quality also come into play and ED-R lens is over overall higher quality in terms of general surface accuracy and general mounting accuracy. The focuser is also better quality. If you are imaging, you can probably make the results of both lenses look the same in post processing."

So...still not crystal clear, to be honest. Still no definitive answer on whether or not it's FCD100 or not in the ED-R. I feel they're being a little evasive at this point, as I did flat out ask if it was true or not. Interesting that they are now pointing to the focuser and the figuring of the lens, so perhaps it is indeed FCD100 but the rest of the price difference to be found in the overall quality of the ED-R rather than the cost of the glass itself?

 

I still feel a little unsatisfied by this response.

[RobertI]

5 hours ago, badgerchap said:

However in this case, the optics quality also come into play and ED-R lens is over overall higher quality in terms of general surface accuracy and general mounting accuracy.

That bit is very interesting. So not only does the ED-R have better glass, but better figuring, lens cell and focuser. I think that information, coupled with the wide positive experience of the scope on SGL and elsewhere, is a huge tick in the box for the ED-R / Starfield, possibly even in preference to the Askar. Plus there are plenty of used ones around.

 

[badgerchap]

11 minutes ago, RobertI said:

That bit is very interesting. So not only does the ED-R have better glass, but better figuring, lens cell and focuser. I think that information, coupled with the wide positive experience of the scope on SGL and elsewhere, is a huge tick in the box for the ED-R / Starfield, possibly even in preference to the Askar. Plus there are plenty of used ones around.

 

It does seem like it's really likely to be a better scope, and to be honest if it wasn't for the existence of the Askar I'd definitely have my mind made up by now. The finder and auxiliary device mounting options on the latter seem very attractive, but it's an extra couple of kg, so I'm still a bit undecided.

[Ratlet]

1 hour ago, badgerchap said:

It does seem like it's really likely to be a better scope, and to be honest if it wasn't for the existence of the Askar I'd definitely have my mind made up by now. The finder and auxiliary device mounting options on the latter seem very attractive, but it's an extra couple of kg, so I'm still a bit undecided.

I don't envy you mate.  I was fortunate enough to find one second hand for a good price so went for the 102ED.

[badgerchap]

24 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

I don't envy you mate.  I was fortunate enough to find one second hand for a good price so went for the 102ED.

I'm determined to buy new this time. I've only bought 2nd hand before and the results have been...mixed, to say the least.