| |
Main
Date: 19 Nov 2006 01:44:36
From: Monroe
Subject: Refractor Opinions Sought
|
Have been beginnin a study of hardware for the purchase of a telescope
. . . . . initiallly deciding upon a refractor . . . . . . . . .
Heavy consideration to Stellarvue Nighthawk series . . . . a few
models under consideration from their Classic to the newer Next Gen,
but all an 80 mm short tube spec (albeit, considerable differences in
quality of the glass). My use varies at the present about 50:50
terrestrial:astro. For astro use, looking for general use from
planetary, luner to messier and some DSO. Pretty much set on the
Nighthawk with the condition that large mag of Messier and DSO is out
of the question. But I have had a couple of people note that the
alternative of moving to a fairly good quality but larger obj achro
may be a good move considering my general use requirements. The
larger aperture would indeed capture more light and some of these do
have the longer FL to allow for some measure of reduction of chroma
and increased mag, but this where my dilemna begins. Just how much of
a negative/positive is the difference between these specs? I don't
have much user experience with scopes to be able to forecast, let
alone actually have experience with either spec of scope.
For comparison, I have had thrown out to me two Antares scopes . . . .
. . both 127 mm but with either F6.5 and F9.6. The same two
suggestions for consideration expressed a leaning to the F9.6, noting
the postives above. Both had indicated Antares as being a
particularly good quality scope for the money.
The price difference isnt all that much. The Antares scopes here are
$700 Cdn with EQ-5 mounts and a few other accessories including a
couple of EP's. (would in all liklihood break out accessories and
purchase particular ones separately). The Stellarvue scopes are along
the same costs, certainly better mechanical/optical quality, but w/o
the accessories, mounts, tripods. Quality accessories to match would
be a few "beano's". So the cost isnt' the driving factor. Moreso
usefulness as a general scope with the need for terrestrial viewing as
well as astro.
New at this, trying to get a sense of quality while living out in the
"sticks" (read: can't get my hands on any scopes to check out). So
looking for any opinions, particularly those that have used these
scope.
thanks
--
Monroe
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 02:03:09
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Refractor Opinions Sought
|
Troll Monroe wrote:
> Have been beginnin a study of hardware for the purchase of a telescope
> .. . . . . initiallly deciding upon a refractor . . . . . . . . .
>
> Heavy consideration to Stellarvue Nighthawk series . . . . a few
> models under consideration from their Classic to the newer Next Gen,
> but all an 80 mm short tube spec (albeit, considerable differences in
> quality of the glass). My use varies at the present about 50:50
> terrestrial:astro. For astro use, looking for general use from
> planetary, luner to messier and some DSO. Pretty much set on the
> Nighthawk with the condition that large mag of Messier and DSO is out
> of the question. But I have had a couple of people note that the
> alternative of moving to a fairly good quality but larger obj achro
> may be a good move considering my general use requirements. The
> larger aperture would indeed capture more light and some of these do
> have the longer FL to allow for some measure of reduction of chroma
> and increased mag, but this where my dilemna begins. Just how much of
> a negative/positive is the difference between these specs? I don't
> have much user experience with scopes to be able to forecast, let
> alone actually have experience with either spec of scope.
>
> For comparison, I have had thrown out to me two Antares scopes . . . .
> .. . both 127 mm but with either F6.5 and F9.6. The same two
> suggestions for consideration expressed a leaning to the F9.6, noting
> the postives above. Both had indicated Antares as being a
> particularly good quality scope for the money.
>
> The price difference isnt all that much. The Antares scopes here are
> $700 Cdn with EQ-5 mounts and a few other accessories including a
> couple of EP's. (would in all liklihood break out accessories and
> purchase particular ones separately). The Stellarvue scopes are along
> the same costs, certainly better mechanical/optical quality, but w/o
> the accessories, mounts, tripods. Quality accessories to match would
> be a few "beano's". So the cost isnt' the driving factor. Moreso
> usefulness as a general scope with the need for terrestrial viewing as
> well as astro.
>
> New at this, trying to get a sense of quality while living out in the
> "sticks" (read: can't get my hands on any scopes to check out). So
> looking for any opinions, particularly those that have used these
> scope.
>
> thanks
> --
>
> Monroe
I thought your were an SCT guy, Mick!
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 05:18:54
From:
Subject: Re: Refractor Opinions Sought
|
Try a < $250 80mm short-focus refractor and tripod for terrestrial use
and an 8-inch or larger Newt or SCT for planets and DSOs. You will get
more versatility, more capability and probably spend less in both the
short-run and long-run.
Monroe wrote:
> Have been beginnin a study of hardware for the purchase of a telescope
> . . . . . initiallly deciding upon a refractor . . . . . . . . .
>
> Heavy consideration to Stellarvue Nighthawk series . . . . a few
> models under consideration from their Classic to the newer Next Gen,
> but all an 80 mm short tube spec (albeit, considerable differences in
> quality of the glass). My use varies at the present about 50:50
> terrestrial:astro. For astro use, looking for general use from
> planetary, luner to messier and some DSO. Pretty much set on the
> Nighthawk with the condition that large mag of Messier and DSO is out
> of the question. But I have had a couple of people note that the
> alternative of moving to a fairly good quality but larger obj achro
> may be a good move considering my general use requirements. The
> larger aperture would indeed capture more light and some of these do
> have the longer FL to allow for some measure of reduction of chroma
> and increased mag, but this where my dilemna begins. Just how much of
> a negative/positive is the difference between these specs? I don't
> have much user experience with scopes to be able to forecast, let
> alone actually have experience with either spec of scope.
>
> For comparison, I have had thrown out to me two Antares scopes . . . .
> . . both 127 mm but with either F6.5 and F9.6. The same two
> suggestions for consideration expressed a leaning to the F9.6, noting
> the postives above. Both had indicated Antares as being a
> particularly good quality scope for the money.
>
> The price difference isnt all that much. The Antares scopes here are
> $700 Cdn with EQ-5 mounts and a few other accessories including a
> couple of EP's. (would in all liklihood break out accessories and
> purchase particular ones separately). The Stellarvue scopes are along
> the same costs, certainly better mechanical/optical quality, but w/o
> the accessories, mounts, tripods. Quality accessories to match would
> be a few "beano's". So the cost isnt' the driving factor. Moreso
> usefulness as a general scope with the need for terrestrial viewing as
> well as astro.
>
> New at this, trying to get a sense of quality while living out in the
> "sticks" (read: can't get my hands on any scopes to check out). So
> looking for any opinions, particularly those that have used these
> scope.
>
> thanks
> --
>
> Monroe
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 17:11:45
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Refractor Opinions Sought
|
Monroe wrote:
> Have been beginnin a study of hardware for the purchase of a telescope
> . . . . . initiallly deciding upon a refractor . . . . . . . . .
>
> Heavy consideration to Stellarvue Nighthawk series . . . . a few
> models under consideration from their Classic to the newer Next Gen,
> but all an 80 mm short tube spec (albeit, considerable differences in
> quality of the glass). My use varies at the present about 50:50
> terrestrial:astro. For astro use, looking for general use from
> planetary, luner to messier and some DSO. Pretty much set on the
> Nighthawk with the condition that large mag of Messier and DSO is out
> of the question. But I have had a couple of people note that the
> alternative of moving to a fairly good quality but larger obj achro
> may be a good move considering my general use requirements. The
> larger aperture would indeed capture more light and some of these do
> have the longer FL to allow for some measure of reduction of chroma
> and increased mag, but this where my dilemna begins. Just how much of
> a negative/positive is the difference between these specs? I don't
> have much user experience with scopes to be able to forecast, let
> alone actually have experience with either spec of scope.
>
> For comparison, I have had thrown out to me two Antares scopes . . . .
> . . both 127 mm but with either F6.5 and F9.6. The same two
> suggestions for consideration expressed a leaning to the F9.6, noting
> the postives above. Both had indicated Antares as being a
> particularly good quality scope for the money.
Whatever optical "quality" the F5.6 has will be nullified by it's
terrible colour error.
Get the F9.6.
>
> The price difference isnt all that much. The Antares scopes here are
> $700 Cdn with EQ-5 mounts and a few other accessories including a
> couple of EP's.
Supposedly, the Antares scopes are higher quality than run of the mill
Chinese examples, but that is a question. On deepsky both will outdo
just about any 100mm apo, the shortcomings being colour error when used
on planets.
-Rich
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 20:53:40
From: laura halliday
Subject: Re: Refractor Opinions Sought
|
Monroe wrote:
> Have been beginnin a study of hardware for the purchase of a telescope
> . . . . . initiallly deciding upon a refractor . . . . . . . . .
> (snip...)
> For comparison, I have had thrown out to me two Antares scopes . . . .
> . . both 127 mm but with either F6.5 and F9.6. The same two
> suggestions for consideration expressed a leaning to the F9.6, noting
> the postives above. Both had indicated Antares as being a
> particularly good quality scope for the money.
> (snip...)
>
> New at this, trying to get a sense of quality while living out in the
> "sticks" (read: can't get my hands on any scopes to check out). So
> looking for any opinions, particularly those that have used these
> scope.
The Antares scopes are a lot of telescope for the money.
The slower one (127 f/8.6) has better colour correction,
and I've certainly been pleased with mine. If you can,
get one with a 2" focuser.
You'll want a minus-violet filter for prime focus photo-
graphy, though I found the EQ-5 mount a little shaky for
prime focus work. After the character-building experience
of using the EQ-5 for webcam planetary imaging (Mars,
2003) I ordered a G-11. YMMV.
No scope can be both an excellent terrestrial spotting
scope and an excellent astronomical scope at the same
time. The 127mm Antares scope is lots better on stars
than on birds: it's just too heavy for rapid motion.
Decide which is more important to you and go for it.
Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 06:27:02
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Refractor Opinions Sought
|
I completely agree, Laura. My spotting scope is a world class scope for
birds, but for astronomical objects it is very average (Swarovski 80mm HD).
Too dark for anything but the moons of Jupiter, and hard to find things in
the night sky without a Telrad pointer. Conversely, to try and use an
astronomical scope for daylight earth viewing would be awkward at best.
Dave
"laura halliday" <marsgal42@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164084819.933770.290950@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Monroe wrote:
>> Have been beginnin a study of hardware for the purchase of a telescope
>> . . . . . initiallly deciding upon a refractor . . . . . . . . .
>> (snip...)
>> For comparison, I have had thrown out to me two Antares scopes . . . .
>> . . both 127 mm but with either F6.5 and F9.6. The same two
>> suggestions for consideration expressed a leaning to the F9.6, noting
>> the postives above. Both had indicated Antares as being a
>> particularly good quality scope for the money.
>> (snip...)
>>
>> New at this, trying to get a sense of quality while living out in the
>> "sticks" (read: can't get my hands on any scopes to check out). So
>> looking for any opinions, particularly those that have used these
>> scope.
>
> The Antares scopes are a lot of telescope for the money.
> The slower one (127 f/8.6) has better colour correction,
> and I've certainly been pleased with mine. If you can,
> get one with a 2" focuser.
>
> You'll want a minus-violet filter for prime focus photo-
> graphy, though I found the EQ-5 mount a little shaky for
> prime focus work. After the character-building experience
> of using the EQ-5 for webcam planetary imaging (Mars,
> 2003) I ordered a G-11. YMMV.
>
> No scope can be both an excellent terrestrial spotting
> scope and an excellent astronomical scope at the same
> time. The 127mm Antares scope is lots better on stars
> than on birds: it's just too heavy for rapid motion.
> Decide which is more important to you and go for it.
>
> Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
> Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
> ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce
>
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 05:42:06
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: Refractor Opinions Sought
|
"Dave" wrote
> I completely agree, Laura. My spotting scope is a world class scope for
> birds, but for astronomical objects it is very average (Swarovski 80mm
> HD). Too dark for anything but the moons of Jupiter, and hard to find
> things in the night sky without a Telrad pointer. Conversely, to try and
> use an astronomical scope for daylight earth viewing would be awkward at
> best.
Unless you live under strong light pollution, a good quality 80mm scope can
show you a lifetime's worth of the night sky. I think you're completely
mistaken. Under dark skies with my old ST-80 achromat, with one of the lens
elements I mistakenly re-installed backwards (!!), I couldn't believe all
that I could see through that thing.
Howard Lester
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 22:56:34
From:
Subject: Re: Refractor Opinions Sought
|
Dave wrote:
> I completely agree, Laura. My spotting scope is a world class scope for
> birds, but for astronomical objects it is very average (Swarovski 80mm HD).
> Too dark for anything but the moons of Jupiter, and hard to find things in
> the night sky without a Telrad pointer. Conversely, to try and use an
> astronomical scope for daylight earth viewing would be awkward at best.
But it may be the only way to take certain pictures; see, for example:
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/LX200/ >
|
|
