Jump to content

 

1825338873_SNRPN2021banner.jpg.68bf12c7791f26559c66cf7bce79fe3d.jpg

 

Which one of these three would you choose...


Doc
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you had the choice of the three below, what would be your choice. They would be mounted on a EQ6 and be used for a mix of both visual and for imaging. A small guidescope such as WO 66 would be used as well.

Meade 5000 127 ED APO

Telescope House Meade Series 5000 ED APO OTA 127mm & Diagonal & Case

Skywatcher Equinox 120 ED APO

Telescope House Equinox Pro 120mm ED Apo OTA

WO FLT 98 APO

William Optics - William Optics FLT 98 Carbon-fibre Triplet APO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The new 130 APO triplets are about to hit the market at just over £2,000.00 from several brands.

Astro Professional TRIPLET APO 130/910mm

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/de/info/p3279_Astro-Professional-Triplet-APO-130-910mm---3--Crayford-Auszug.html

More expensive but a step up from the FPL-51 127 ED triplets. It'll be interesting see how well they perform.

John

Edited by johninderby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the meade will be a little better corrected, and have a flatter field of view. and the little bigger lenses is a plus to.

but i might be wrong.

alfi

Edited by alfi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interested too - though my budget would never realistically be MUCH above £1000. Correct me if I'm wrong: The Meade has a TRIPLET objective, the ED120 a doublet?

Have extensively persused other forums re. these questions, but will spare you my "opinion of oprions", in deference to experience... at least for now! :)

Edited by Macavity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mick

Part way through last year I had the same soul searching excercise and my conclusion, the Meade, so I got one and I would do it again. Superb imaging and visual scope. It is so good I sold my C11.

OBTW re field flattness of the Meade with DSLR. I bought a WO Mk4 flattener at the same time as the scope, having had experience with WO scopes and curvature I thought I may need one, I used it 3 times now I dont use it anymore because the field of teh scope is so good just a slight bit of coma at the extreme corners.

Phil

Edited by philj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is proving an interesting thread. We considered the Meade 127 triplet some time ago but the opinions then were mixed to say the least. My own thoughts are that it is considerably more difficult to produce a triplet lens-cell than a doublet so at around £1000 it is better to buy a good doublet than a cheap (comparatively) triplet. After saying that, I heard recently that additional quality-control has been put into place in an effort to improve consistency.

If this thread remains positive we'll put the Meade 127 triplet into stock :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick will you be keeping your Tal 100RS for visual use? If the answer is yes then if the scope is going to used for mainly imaging then I suppose the question is whether the scope is going to be housed in an observatory. If that was the case then I would buy the Meade on the other hand if you are going to be setting up the mount/scope each time I would possibly go for the smaller WO.

However, the SGL astro imagers on the forum will give a more positive opinion.

Regards

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sense (from CN threads) that many would swap an "AP", "TMB" etc., 4-5 inch triplet APO for an existing (anything upto...) 8" Newtonian-type? <G> - Albeit with the caveat that some... perfect reflector, in idealised conditions, would still be rather better? I'm genuinely interested in the capabilities of the Skywatcher ED 120. Despite being "decrepit", and (conventionally) observatory-less, I can still loft 14lb onto one side of my GIRO III. :)

The Meade seems to be quite the bargain. The Skywatcher(s), so elegant. For the adventurous, even "no-name" ED scopes seem to be emerging? I guess the NAMED versions give you a guarantee of "Strehl" etc. For me, I sense >10" Dobs are now (realistically) too heavy, the bigger MAKS too specialised. I am so sorely tempted... Heheh :icon_eek:

Edited by Macavity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is proving an interesting thread. We considered the Meade 127 triplet some time ago but the opinions then were mixed to say the least. My own thoughts are that it is considerably more difficult to produce a triplet lens-cell than a doublet so at around £1000 it is better to buy a good doublet than a cheap (comparatively) triplet. After saying that, I heard recently that additional quality-control has been put into place in an effort to improve consistency.

If this thread remains positive we'll put the Meade 127 triplet into stock :)

Thanks all for you replies...

Is it better to get a top notch doublet then a nearly good triplet. In the past I've read quite a few reports that Meade quality control is a little dubious. Do meade check every triplet 127 and give a report?

After having first hand experience with Meade with regard to my Lightbridge is build quality as good as Skywatcher or WO.

The Equinox does look sexy in that lovely black livery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick will you be keeping your Tal 100RS for visual use? If the answer is yes then if the scope is going to used for mainly imaging then I suppose the question is whether the scope is going to be housed in an observatory. If that was the case then I would buy the Meade on the other hand if you are going to be setting up the mount/scope each time I would possibly go for the smaller WO.

However, the SGL astro imagers on the forum will give a more positive opinion.

Regards

Mark

At the moment Mark a observatory is a long way off. So will be kept in a shed.

These are the scopes that appeal to me, the money will be here once my car is paid off in about three months. Then I might tread into the world of the dark side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all the reviews i have read on ED120 V 127 the 120 has always

won,allbeit by narrow margins,everywhere from S@N to the CN forums.

The Equinox is about as well finished as a refractor can be,focusers

on them can be a bit of a lottery though.

So my vote goes to the 120,the newer DS-PROs are going to be a lot lighter than the Equinox and may well have a better focuser,

never tried any of them though but have tried a few Equinox,s.

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mick,

For what it's worth I think the 98 is over priced as you will be paying quite a bit for the carbon fibre styling. No doubt it will be very well crafted as all of the WO scope are, and owning two I have to say I'm a bit of a fan.

But it's not going to give you much extra photon grab over the tal, and if you're planning on getting stuck into imaging then I think there are some other stalwarts to consider.

Have you thought about maybe going for a equinox 80 and then saving for a larger maybe 6" triplet?

Otherwise, as previously stated I'd still go with the 127.

Drop Robbieince a PM and he'll tell you all about his 127. He also has a megrez 110.

Finally, you mentione guiding with the 66. If you can get one keep hold of it. They are lovely and we use ours more than the 132. It always goes with us and with the pentax 14xw on gives some cracking views.

Have fun choosing.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) I wouldn't go that far.....

I'm just the sort of person who likes to think around the problem a little.....

The scope manufacturers don't make it easy either. I was chatting to my local astro dealer the other day and we were trying to recall the William Optics range. Neither of us could work out the logic in having a 66, 70, 72, 80, 88, 90, 98, 110, 132, 152 and a 158, never mind sorting out the triplets from the doubles, the flourite from the Ohara, FPL51 or 53, multi coated, super coated, STM, CNC and DDG etc....

It's hard to make a decision, but it's easy to spend lots of cash!

Sometimes I wonder if I'm atracted to the tools a little more than the craft....and then I go look at Saturn!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm waiting to see what happens when the new 130 APO triplets arrive. Much higher spec than the Meade 127 etc. although about £1,000.00 more. Will they push down the price of the various 127 triplet ed scopes to the £999.00 price point?

John

They should do John especially if they are widely available here in the UK. The likes of TEC, AP etc are very hard to obtain and of course are at a premium as they are top of the range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iam now to John if they are all FPL 53 then they should be worth the wait,i doubt that they will push the existing 5"ers down in price

though.

From memory in the S@N test the 127 suffered from more spherical

abberation than the 120,both were on a par CA wise,also being a triplet its weight and cool down time may be an issue.

Saving up for a 6"er i think ,would be a long wait as the

cheapest i can think off the top of my head is about 6K.

Re the Megrez 110 as its a faster 51 doublet it does show noticable colour compared to the other three.

The 98 may be the pick from an imaging perspective.

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will they push down the price of the various 127 triplet ed scopes to the £999.00 price point?

There lies the problem. The holy grail for scope manufacturers is to produce a triplet with a reasonable aperture that sells at around £1000. Some big-name brands have tried and failed (being unable to consistently deliver the required performance).

IMHO triplets are necessarily expensive and should stay that way ... at least for now.

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
 Share

  • 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.