The Worst Telescope You Owned/Looked Through.

[Renato1]

The worst telescope I own is one of those tiny Celestron First Scopes that came out for the 2009 Year of Astronomy. It probably did more to damage amateur/recreational astronomy than anything else that year or since. I paid $20 for it on Ebay, and that was too much. Anyone who paid $90 or so dollars for it new, I suspect would have been bitterly disappointed.

At the time, it was either US Sky & Telescope or US Astronomy magazine that did a glowing review of it stating how good it was for such a price, and the sharp images it produced. Whichever magazine it was, it must have damaged its reputation, because yes you can get a barely sharp image, but only if the object you are looking at is held exactly in the centre of the field of view. Any slight movement away from the centre makes the star or planets start to distort shockingly, to the point of being abysmal at the edge of the field. Any pair of binoculars showed better images of the moon than this "telescope".

The only thing good about that telescope is that it looks pretty neat on top of a book shelf, and it impresses my friends' kids (though I won't let them look through it and ruin the illusion).

But the absolute worst telescope I've ever seen was two years before the Celestron First Scope came out when some friends spent several hundred dollars on a telescope to look at ships in the bay, and asked me to have a look at it, as something was wrong. The telescope was a Tasco Galaxsee 114mm reflector with a tube length half the size of what one usually sees, 500mm focal length from memory. They lent it to me, the images of stars were junk, I collimated it, the images were still junk. I made up little aperture masks which should have shown me several pin point dots of the stars, but instead showed huge flares/ little comet shapes aimed at the edge of the field.

What the Galaxsee in fact was, was the big brother of the later Celestron First Scope. I was really quite astounded. At the time, I'd actually been quite impressed with cheap Tasco refractors and Tasco long tube reflectors, as they were noticeably better than the cheap telescopes that were around 15 years earlier. I just couldn't believe that a company like Tasco could put their name on such a piece of junk, and charge big dollars for it.

What's the worst telescope you've owned or have seen through?
Regards,
Renato

[Larryp]

[QUOTE=Renato1;1072375

At the time, it was either US Sky & Telescope or US Astronomy magazine that did a glowing review of it stating how good it was for such a price, and the sharp images it produced. Whichever magazine it was, it must have damaged its reputation, because yes you can get a barely sharp image, but only if the object you are looking at is held exactly in the centre of the field of view. Any slight movement away from the centre makes the star or planets start to distort shockingly, to the point of being abysmal at the edge of the field. Any pair of binoculars showed better images of the moon than this "telescope".

I think magazine reviews are often slanted in favour of the article being reviewed, simply because the publisher does not wish to upset the advertisers who make some of this stuff-its better to look for independent reviews, although they are often difficult to find!
In 30 odd years in this hobby, I have owned in excess of 20 telescopes of all different types. I can't say any of them were bad, but the most disappointing one I had was a Vixen VMC110. Optically it was fine, but the image was so dim that the only thing that looked any good at higher magnification (100x) was the moon. I think I used that scope once and immediately sold it!

[brian nordstrom]

:( mine was a horrible Celestron 'First Scope' ( ha ha , what a joke ! ) 50 refractor .
I picked this up at Cashies for $30? just for a try and all I can say about this scope is ,,,,, I am glad I grabbed it off the market before a starry eyed new first timer got hold of this rubbish , never a truer word spoken about this trash ,,, HOBBY KILLER !!! .

I dumped this thing , could not even see myself giving it away ,,
( more plastic than Michael Jacksons face :confused2: )
An emberrasment :shrug: .

Brian.

[PlanetMan]

Sadly I have only been in the astronomy hobby for half the time of Laurie and yet I have owned more than double the number of scopes in that time so I am clearly destined to never pay off my mortgage.

Ironically, akin to Larry my worst experience with a Telescope was also a Vixen - a NA140 - however also akin to Larry it wasn't terrible but simply disappointing in terms of performance for something sporting such spec's. The ideas/theory was attractive but the reality simply didn't work :shrug: Some folks seem to think that if it is made in Japan or it supposedly has some sort of changed coatings this has a greater effect in improving it's image over the laws of physics and optics in terms of refraction, focal length ratios etc

[stephenb]

I am similar to Larry - 30+ years, including a Tasco 60mm refractor, LX90, LX200, Bintel Dobs, two SDMs - no lemons.

[-George-]

The one I got right now... 'none'. Doesn't show me anything extra above what my eyes see. Every night I go out, I feel irritated that I don't have a better one than this because I can not see planets any larger than pin points. Can't wait to replace this junk scope within the next 2 weeks (hopefully) with a GSO 12" which should be pretty good.

[AstralTraveller]

Years ago my mother-in-law bought a 'telescope'; not sure from where but the reject shop would be a good guess. I only saw the moon through it. More purple haze than a 70's rock concert (but without the euphoria) and somewhat less detail visible than naked-eye. No harm done as she would never have really used it and god only knows why she bought it, because I'm sure she didn't. Some poor souls have turned up at club meetings with scopes of a similar ilk (and that is sad because they were interested in astronomy) but nothing I've seen compares. Really, two chemist shop magnifying glasses in a cardboard tube would have outperformed this little joke.

[Renato1]

Yes, that's the other aspect of a bad telescope, poorer performance than expected for the money. Especially if it's a lot of money.

I can understand magazine reviews being somewhat slanted, but to my mind that may involve not being critical on grey areas. I recollect Claude in the Adelaide astronomy shop pointing out to me a review in S&T which I'd also read, saying how an APO refractor was superb, and then mentioning in passing the violet twinge at high power - as Claude pointed out, that telescope plainly wasn't an APO.

To my mind, in the case of the tiny reflector First scope, the right thing for the magazine to do, would have been to tell the manufacturer that they'd review something else he put out, as they couldn't in good conscience write anything good about the First Scope.
Regards,
Renato

[Meru]

Haha excellent thread Renato, I have enjoyed reading about everyone elses experience. I'm not the only one then!

My first scope was a bushmaster 3" reflector or something of the likes... wait for it... for $200!!!! This was about 8 years ago when money went alot further. Needless to say, the views of the moon & planets were atrocious. My barlow was a plastic kaleidoscope and the moon was a purple haze indeed!

Though all being said, I owned it for 2 years and loved the views it gave regardless of how bad they were. Made me appreciate the stars for what they were, not what they looked like :) Upgrading to the skywatcher 8" newt on the EQ5 kit made me realise what I was missing out on though! It's sad because everyone expects to see pictures like in the magazines and often are turned away from the hobby. We must continue to educate and spread the word!

[Renato1]

Actually, this poor performance issue reminds me of the third worst telescope I've ever looked through. My only experience of achromat refractors at that stage was with an 80mm short tube refractor, which gave tiny violet halos at very high power.

Then one night at a club meeting I got the chance to look through a club member's pride and joy, a really long tube Meade 90mm achromat refractor. I was expecting to see something much better than in my telescope - instead even at moderate power, all the stars had huge bright violet halos - far worse than anything in mine. I didn't have the heart to tell him how poorly it was performing.
Regards,
Renato

[Steffen]

My worst one was the Aldi table-top Dob – before I fixed it. Out of the box it was plain not working. The secondary mirror was only partly underneath the focuser and the screws in the secondary cell weren't long enough to put the mirror in the right spot. A few screws and a spacer later the little scope actually worked ok, surprisingly so considering it only cost $50.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Star Hunter]

"The worse telescope is the one you haven't looked through..."

It's like the old saying.. "The best chair to sit in, is the one you haven't sat in.."

Jokes aside, my first 4" reflector was a scope that pulled out with four struts from the main steel tube that locked into place. Same principle as the SW Flexidobs. While its collimation was always up the spout, once fixed the images were superlative.

But the worse el cheapos was the ones that came out in '86 prior to Halley's Comet. Cheap plastic lenses, finderscopes that had a stop inside.. one would have got better results looking through a pencil with its lead removed!

Who remembers the ads for Bosch and Lomb telescopes in S & T mags back in the 70's and 80's? "... the tube is so strong, the military fire rockets out of it..." !!! Crickey, I'd hate to see the firing pin...!! Even Meade used photos in their ads taken with pro scopes for their Newts. and early SCT's....

So, can anyone actually pin down a scope that DOES live up to its name in build and image quality?

[loc46south]

Yup - I've got a Tak Mewlon 250S - I bought it 5 years ago - it arrived in NZ in perfect collimation and the findersope perfectly aligned - It has been carted around on the back of a landrover and my 4 x 4 ute. The collimation is still as good as the day it arrived. The scope is built like a tank - what other manufactured suggests that you use the finderscope as a lifting handle.

Cheers

[Star Hunter]

Now that folks, IS a scope! I have a Tak 180 Epsilon and concur that Tak gear is the best, as quality has its price and Tak's along with AP, Officina Stellare, Zeiss, to name few, get my vote.

[Renato1]

Well I have to admit that is extremely impressive !!!!

The only thing that may come close to being on par with it is the instructions on my waterproof Fujinon 7X50 Binoculars for cleaning them. They say to hold the binoculars under a tap and turn the water on.
Regards,
Renato

[Larryp]

You named all the best! :thumbsup:

[Renato1]

I still have my first K-mart Focal 114mm 900mm fl reflector. It took me 10 years to finally collimate it after reading an article in Astronomy magazine, and making up a tool with a camera film tube. Fantastic images ever since. I watched the great Comet Crash on Jupiter in it because it gave better images than my C8 - which was Halley's Comet vintage, and pretty hopeless on planets till Roger Davis fixed it.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

That's a nice happy ending. They don't happen too often with telescopes.
Cheers,
Renato

[madbadgalaxyman]

Undeniably by far the worst telescope I have ever used and owned was a Bausch and Lomb (= Criterion) 4000.

This little four inch Schmidt-Cassegrain was essentially unable to show anything on the planets but the two major belts of Jupiter. I doubt if it could even split Cassini's division on Saturn.

Paradoxically, on account of its small size and very light weight, it was still a very very useful scope for carting around on holidays, as I am not much of a planetary observer, and the deep sky views were significantly better than they had been through a 3 inch unitron refractor that I owned.
I used it with a small and lightweight altaz mount, and took it overseas, giving me my first views of far northern deep sky objects (from the Mohave Desert.)

Light transmission seemed to be good on my model, and the fuzzy planetary views did not bother madbadgalaxyman, who tends to ignore planets.

All of which is to say that even optically poor 4-5 inch SCs do have their uses, as they are small and light to move around.

[doppler]

I have done quite a bit of travelling in the outback and under really dark skys the widefield veiws through mine are spectacular......though sometimes I wish I had room for the scope to get a closer look.

Rick

[allan gould]

The worst that I have ever looked through was a Meade 16"SCT.
Lacked definition and wouldnt come to a proper focus and the image shift was almost across the whole field of view in the eyepiece.

[Renato1]

In "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide" Dickenson &Dyer assert that a really good 8" SCT will give as good a planetary image as a 5" refractor, which suggests that it is unrealistic to expect too much from a 4" SCT as far as planets go.

Can it really have been your worst scope? You seem pretty fond of it! To me, DSOs are the bread and butter of telescopes, while planets are the nice to haves.

Great fun scanning around the far northern sky with a small telescope, is it not? I do it in Italy every couple of years.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

That's a lot of money to spend on a dud telescope. Did the owner give any indication that it settles down after some time, or that it required collimation?
Regards,
Renato

[Stardrifter_WA]

Hi all,

I have been fortunate in that I have never owned a poor telescope, having worked in an specialist optical business, I knew better.

However, the worst telescope I have ever looked through, which will come as no surprise really, is a "Focal" brand. I think, from memory, it was a K Mart brand around the early eighties. A Coke bottle would have given better focus on the Moon.

It was bought for a child (sound familiar?) and because they couldn't even see the Moon with it (it was just a big blurry blob), they brought into our store. They returned it and ended up buying a decent 60mm from me.

Unfortunately, it wasn't a singular event, it happened a lot. I now work in education, and realise that I was also an educator way back then too.

However, on the other end of the scale, the best telescope I had the privilege to use frequently was a 24" Boller and Chivens Cassegrain. Now that was a nice instrument to look through. Although I used it for photometry, I did, occasionally, looked through it visually. The object that really sticks in my mind is looking into the heart of Omega Centauri.

I have had the privilege of seeing some very fine surveillance optics too, including high end (military) night vision equipment. Some of this stuff few people get to see, and some of it was just mind blowing. They can be watching you and you would never know it?

So, I was lucky, I learned about telescope optics well before I could ever afford to buy them. If I had deep pockets, I would have the best available, but it is all a compromise, on the affordability scale. I know that if I had a spare million, I would have one very fine instrument. Now where did I put my Lotto form? Alas, that will never happen. I know that if I bought every ticket in a "chook raffle", bar one, I still wouldn't win it. :lol:

Cheers Pete

[julianh72]

My first telescope was also a 50 mm "department store" refractor, but in my case, it was "good enough" to show me things I couldn't see with the naked eye, and to convince me that I wanted to see more!

[brian nordstrom]

:) Lucky you as you must have got the only good one , I would have loved it at 14 years old when I started this hobby but as StardrifterWA says " , we become some sort of expert's over the years ". and as you say it started you off on our sweet hobby and that's not a bad thing .

On the 'Plactic' comment , I stripped the objective and all 3 eyepieces and there was not one ! piece of glass in any ,, all PLASTIC !!! shame on you Celestron ...:mad2: and the only metal in the whole thing was the OTA ( Alloy) and the focuser shaft and the nuts and bolts ( steel ? ) ,, it was a joke alright .

Brian.

[cometcatcher]

My greatest lemon was a Long Pernq 90mm "APO" refractor. Smokey low contrast images, heaps of magenta and blue CA on everything I looked at. It was actually worse than my 120mm Skywatcher achro refractor. In complete disappointment, I sent it back.

The latest Meade refractors are also cheap, plastic and wobbly. I bought an SN102 OTA and while the optics are fine, the focuser is a joke. It's all plastic. Thin plastic! The rack and pinion are plastic and as such the plastic teeth wear / strip very easily. It will be upgraded to a GSO Crayford in the future. The diagonal it comes with is plastic. Thin plastic!

Looks like both Meade and Celestron have gone to the dogs lately.

[Renato1]

Hi Peter,
The K-mart Focal brand was a mixed bag. Their cheapest telescopes were just as you described. But their 76mm reflector and 114mm reflector were actually quite good - if you were fortunate enough to either buy a well collimated one, or knew how to collimate them.

I was a new member of a pistol club at the time, where people needed spotting scopes to see where they'd hit the target at long distance. The advice then was to head to K-mart and buy the Focal spotting scope at $165, as it was half the price of the next readily available one, and just as good (on targets, that is).

Also, their $75 refractor wasn't that good on stars, but okay for general viewing of boats in the bay. Friends had one, and it was way better than the much later Galaxee one I described as the worst one in my original post.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

That is remarkable. Did they charge you APO prices for it?
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Some can indeed be good enough. I bought a Celestron Powerseeker 50, 50mm refractor from Dick Smiths about 5 years ago for $36. I bought it out of idle curiosity. It was hard to use, till I loosened up the mount a bit, with some sand paper.

But I was quite surprised, it gave clean images of Jupiter and Saturn, without the flare and gross chromatic aberration that I had been expecting. It was better than the long tube 90mm Meade Achromat I mentioned below.

I suspect that a beginner who knew how to find planets would have been very satisfied with that $36 expenditure. Plenty of his or her friends would have been wowed by those images.

Seeing that it was half okay, I bought one for my then young nephew to muck around with, who lives on a ten acre property surrounded by lots of other 10 and 20 acre properties. He said it was very good, especially for looking at the distant neighbour's backyard and seeing all "those naked persons".
Regards,
Renato

[cometcatcher]

A semi-apo price at $800, but this thing wasn't even that in performance. Perhaps it was faulty, but I keep reading of others similar experiences with this brand.

[Larryp]

I forgot, in my previous post, that I bought a Long Perng 90mm Apo as well. As you say, absolute rubbish-I sent mine back, too.

[cometcatcher]

Just for you Renato. ;) http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Tasco-Telescope-Galaxsee-375X-Good-Condition-/221414109794?pt=AU_Cameras_Telescop es_Binoculars&hash=item338d4f3262

The dust obviously adds to the value. :D

[Renato1]

$700 - for that!!!

Staggering the prices some people put on Ebay.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

This is what I do not understand - you and others pay $800 for a semi-APO and get such lousy chromatic aberration performance.

Meanwhile I buy a short tube 102mm achromat refractor, the "Celestron WideView Spotting Scope" with 500mm focal length for $150 on Ebay (original price nearly double that) and find I can put the power on it up to 220X or more and get good images with only a bit of chromatic aberration - when I use the Baader achromat filter it, turns the image yellow but only improves the it very slightly.

So how come Celestron can make a cheap and good achromat, while Long Pern make an expensive and lousy Semi-APO?
Cheers,
Renato

[Rob_K]

I haven't owned many telescopes, all in my sig except my first scope which I had for many years, a 60mm refractor, Dick Smith or some other chain store brand, can't remember. Loved it. But I've looked through all sorts.

To me the telescope doesn't matter, skies are everything. The Universe is amazing at any scale through just about any scope or type of eyepiece if the skies are dark. I do draw the line at most plastic 'toy' scopes though. I once bought a $15 plastic scope from Go-Low as a joke. At first it surprised me - Jupiter & moons looked surprisingly good. Then I looked at a bright star.... and it had moons too! And the next bright star!!

My own experience is that anything with glass works well as long as it's not faulty and as long as it's not pushed. I think the worst views I've ever had are through quite respectable 10 & 12" dobs newly-purchased by people new to the hobby. Collimation aside, the tendency is to use overly high mags that create horrible fuzzy grey stars and altogether vomitous views! Waste of a light bucket if you ask me, I feel like screaming "Back off, back off"! :P

Cheers -

[Larryp]

Hi Renato,

Long Perng actually can make some decent scopes-they make more than 50% of all William Optics scopes.
The 90mm we are talking about was very well made -its just the lens that was crap!

[raymo]

My Skywatcher SW 80 was stunning value for money, as I have said in another thread. $199 from the now defunct B.T.O.W. Slight yellow one side of focus on the moon, and slight violet the other side, and virtually
no colour if the focus is spot on. The focuser is poor, but a little tension on the focuser lock screw takes care of the slop. The tripod is solid, and has slow motions, and a moveable scope mounting block.
raymo

[Renato1]

Hi Laurie,
I know that Long Pern make decent telescopes, but the 90mm one that Kevin Comet Catcher is talking about sounds pretty poor.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

I used to share the same thought as you, that somehow or other you can make some use out of any telescope for observing something in the sky.

But that changed when I tried the Galaxee I mentioned in the first post.

Imagine my surprise when I tried looking at trees and mountains from my friends' place, and seeing a tiny part in the centre of the image in focus, going to total blur all around the edges?

True, if one was happy observing something in the sky using the very narrow area in the centre of the field of view, and to ignore the other 90% of the image, I suppose one could do something with this telescope. But the natural reaction is that one would really want to do is kick it.
Cheers,
Renato

[Stardrifter_WA]

Hi Laurie,

It is all about QC Laurie. If you are taking more time with QC, it will cost more.

I could probably go to Long Perng and order a large quantity of telescopes and say I don't want to pay any more than $50 a piece (yes, I am being a little ridiculous, but it makes the point). Long Perng will make them to that cost, with the cheapest materials, so I couldn't expect to receive good quality for that price point.

However, if I say to Long Perng, I want a telescope made to a particular high specification, rather than a price, they will be able to do that too, but it will cost me accordingly.

I think this is an issue when people are comparing scopes that come out of the same factory, under different brand names. They may all look the same, but have vastly different pricing. And, I have discovered that they are not all the same optically, at a given price point. There will even be variation from scope to scope, unless you have exacting QC, but this is an added cost. This probably accounts for why some people say that mine was okay, whilst another will say their's was crap.

It all comes down to economies of scale. A high manufacturing run, with lower QC costs, will result in a cheaper scope. I might add too, that it is also subjective, as one's expectations can have a bearing on whether you think it is good or not. I had a friend who swears his telescope is the best he has seen, but to my critical eye, I think it is very average, as my expectations are much higher.

Whatever the case, I am extremely happy with the optics on my WO FLT 110, no matter who actual manufactured it. But, I did take a gamble in buying it though, as I had never seen through one, and only went on other, independent, reviews. It was a calculated risk, as the price was right, and one that I am very happy that I took.

Cheers Pete

[Larryp]

Hi Peter-I wasn't trying to disparage W.O. scopes-in fact I once owned a ZS110 and was quite satisfied with it.
Your summation, in a nutshell, is you get what you pay for. The Long Perng 90mm may cost $800 or so, and be a poor quality scope, but in comparison, I had a Stellarvue 90mm Apo which was an absolutely superb scope, but cost $1900.00.
But I still believe NO refractor should have the colour error that Long Perng had-it was at least twice as much as any achromat I have ever looked through-I expect much more than that for my $800.00
Cheers
Laurie

[Stardrifter_WA]

I did realise that Laurie, I didn't think you were being disparaging in any way, as I do realise you are not like that. I wasn't being defensive, just putting an alternative view forward so, sorry if it came across that way.

Although I love my 110, I would trade it for a Tak any day, but I cannot justify the additional cost, I am just not that rich.:sadeyes: Sure, the Tak is unquestionably better, but is it three times better? How much do we pay for that little bit extra? Like anything, there are limits. Unfortunately, my bank says no! :lol:

Although the 110 is the best refractor I have ever owned, I am not saying, in any way, that it is the best out there, as it simply isn't, but at around $2,300, it met my price bracket vs quality, so was the best I could justify paying for, and it is worth every cent, but that is just from my perspective, no one else's. It has no CA, and that is important to me.

I would love a Tak 150, but at $15,000, plus a mount to suit, probably another 10k, it ain't gonna happen, ever. :sadeyes: Besides, it would be too big and heavy to be portable, which is why I like the size and weight of the 110, it suits me.

Cheers Pete

[Larryp]

You have a great collection of scopes anyway, Peter-all good stuff! I actually wish I had never sold my Stellarvue 90mm Raptor-it was a magnificent scope, and its new owner is rapt.
You are quite right about Taks-very expensive for a slight improvement, but its the same with anything-you can get to 95% quite readily, but that other 5% costs the earth!
Cheers
Laurie

[Stardrifter_WA]

Yeah Laurie, I bet that pun was intended? :lol:

I didn't realise you had sold the Raptor. When you got, you were so 'rapted' in it. :D

That is why I rarely sell anything, as I know I will regret doing so. I just put it in the back room, like, open the door, through it in and shut it quick so that nothing else falls out. :rofl:

But, the exception to the rule, did occur recently when I sold a scope, but only because someone, who shall remain nameless, really wanted it, and kept asking me to sell it.

All going well, I may be downsizing my equipment collection in a year or two, but, most of it will go to my son anyway. I am heading towards a Lunt 80mm PT solar scope, as I am more interested in this, since I saw Ha scopes at Stellafane last year.

Cheers Pete

[LewisM]

Worst for me:

North Group 127ED. TERRIBLE mechanicals, sloppy retractable dew shield, and grossly soft focus (and adding a Moonlite focuser made NO difference). Even just looking at the glass I felt it was terrible quality. New owner seems happy, so horses for courses.

Bushnell 8" Dobsonian. I owned it for about 8 years. It had horrific coma, but on axis was OK. Even slightly off axis, and it was unusable. It almost put me off Dobsonians for life.

I have one of the Aldi mini-dobs for my daughter. I got lucky, as it is a good one. It is SURPRISINGLY good! And cheapest yet for me! (I got it cheaper as the disc etc was missing from the box)

[doug mc]

My biggest disapointments were with the 5 and 6inch acro refractors. After being amazed looking through a 4inch f/15 Unitron refractor back in the late seventies, on returning to this hobby in 2002, i drooled over the big acros. After using 4,5 and 6inch f/8 to f/10 units, i found the average 6 to 8inch newts were much better. I currently have an Celestron C8 new, and a 8inch f/6 eq. mounted newt with a Parkes mirror in it. No substitute for quality i guess. I really did want those acros to work. The worst scope i had was my first main one, a KMart 114 eq reflector. I discovered the secondary was distorted by too much by back pressure in the mounting, pushing it against the two points on its major axis. Replaced it with a new one by mounting it with double sided foam tape. With the secondary bent along the minor axis it showed stars as crosses at focus. The C8 has very good optics, and on a eq5, is a comfortable observing experence.

[cometcatcher]

Here's a single unprocessed frame of M42 from the Long Perng 90mm F5.5 "APO". Only as much CA as an achro, possibly more.

Also deserving dishonorable mention is a 500mm F6.3 mirror lens I bought from ebay. This is the Jewel box cluster. Nice Mexican hat stars from it.

[LewisM]

That M42 looks VERY similar to the images the NG127 did for me. Nearly ALL the NG127 images I find on the net have the same soft focus, and particularly soft in blue (makes the stars look ghostly).

Some got good 127's. I also know quite a few who did not. I was unlucky.

[Stardrifter_WA]

I nearly bought one of those, but after doing my research, I decided that it was a case of "pot-luck" in getting a good example, as most reviews I saw were kind of critical about the CA. Whereas, when I first looked at the WO, they seem to have good reviews, apart from the focuser, which is crap, but that can be replaced.

Whenever buying anything of value, I do extensive research, as I am not rich, so can't afford to make mistakes, and if there are more than a few negative comments, I steer clear.

I was lucky, it seems......I didn't buy one. :D

Fortunately, I have never had any issues with the optics on any telescopes I have actually purchased. Mounts, that is a different matter, although the problems with mounts is, pretty much, all down to software issues. I know this much, if some of these mount manufactures where doing the programming for passenger aircraft, I wouldn't get on the plane, as I would likely end up on the Moon. :lol: However, I now have most of it sorted, so I am happy. :)

[Renato1]

Here I am describing two lousy relatively inexpensive telescopes, and you've bought two expensive lousy telescopes! Glad the Aldi one worked out for you.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Very interesting about those big achromats.

Good to see another fellow K-mart Focal 114mm owner. As I mentioned below, it only took me ten years to get it collimated correctly (we didn't have the internet back then), but when I did so, and put a 6X30 finder on it, it became a joy to use. I still have it, and I especially enjoy the 4 spikes on each star - gives me the feel of those astrophotos from big research telescopes I used to see published when I was growing up.

On the positive side, though rudimentary, the instructions with that telescope did tell you about collimation. I bought a good quality 5" reflector in Italy seven years ago. But it was out of collimation and I fixed it in 3 minutes. However, when I looked at its otherwise very comprehensive manual, it did not mention collimation once.
Cheers,
Renato

[tonybarry]

Interesting question. Depends on the meaning of "worst".

My first scope was one of those Focal 114mm newts on a EQ1. I bought it when I was 15, about 40 years ago. I got to see Saturn and it was quite magical. I hit the limits pretty quickly though - no navigation ability as the setting circles were too small to do anything with. Had no info so star hopping was not an option.

Fast forward to 2007. Bought an 8" Optec newt on an EQ1 for $100. OK collimation, same problem with navigation. Sold it, but now I knew I wanted something which would GoTo.

Bought a Meade ETX80 backpack scope (80mm achromat on alt-az goto mount). Average optics, noticeable CA as you would expect from an achromat. But Goto was magical. Lack of a finder scope was a big limitation. Now I knew I wanted GoTo and reasonable aperture and that meant a SCT.

Bought a second hand Meade LX90-8" (alt-az mount) and loved it. Awesome scope. Did everything. Great views. Excellent gotos.

Then I got aperture fever, and bought a new Meade LX90-10" ACF … and it took 4 months to sort it out. The optics were good. But the mount was rubbery and would vibrate with the slightest touch. Eventually took it apart and found there were three silicone grommets where they shouldn't have been in the mount, on the flange between the base and the spindle. Removed them, removed the useless azimuthal scale, and spun down the base exterior where the scale used to sit (on a lathe), so that the mount could spin freely on azimuth when bolted together. It transformed the mount and it is now a great performer. Optics are excellent. Unguided tracking is near to perfect. Focal length is a bit too great but that is part of the SCT recipe.

The last scope I don't own (but have the use of) and that is the Evans 30" Dob at Linden Observatory. This scope is an awesome machine, and it has ruined me for smaller scopes. It is susceptible to wind, and it is so big that it takes two or three people to safely operate it. It won't drop below 10 degrees altitude, and you are climbing ladders to view anything over 20 degrees altitude. But it delivers views of astronomical objects that simply cannot be beaten visually.

Each of these scopes was / is deficient in some way. But each solved one more problem and showed me the way forward. I consider all of them good scopes.

Is there a worst scope ? I am not sure about this. As my physics teacher advised me forty years ago, "No experiment is a complete failure. You can always use it as a bad example."

Regards,
Tony Barry

[cometcatcher]

With big achros, CA gets worse with larger diameter and shorter f/D ratios, but even my 80mm F15 achro has blue fringing around bright stuff like Jupiter.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Hi Tony,

Yep, had aperture fever too Tony, but it is always a trade off, particularly their cost. Large apertures are big and heavy, difficult to transport, unless, you have lots of money to set up trailers etc. Saw some awesome set ups at last years Stellafane.

The other downside is getting the mirror realuminised. I need to get my 16" realuminised, but I am thinking it might be easier just buying a new mirror, particularly considering that I cannot find anywhere that can realuminise it with an overcoat, at a reasonable cost, unless I send it to the states, but then freight is an issue.

I am getting too old to lug heavy stuff around any more, so portability is the main criteria these days.

I use my 16" from my back yard, just wheel it out of the shed, in suburban Perth, but I have much more enjoyment with my 110 in a dark sky! See much more too, compared to my 16" in the city, despite the smaller size. I also use an 8" SCT in my observatory, and even this is heavy for me to lug around too, which is why I got a Sirius observatory. I would love to replace the SCT with a large Apo refractor, but that isn't going to happen, unless, a miracle occurs, like winning Lotto, but I won't hold my breath.

The 110 set up just suits me now, not hard to transport and set up, has no maintenance requirements, has very sharp images, so I just take to dark sky sight, use and enjoy. It is certainly much more comfortable sitting in an observing chair, instead of balancing on top of a ladder.

There comes a point when aperture stops being fun, particularly when you have a stuffed back. :sadeyes:

Cheers Pete

[Renato1]

Hi Tony,
Very interesting the direction that you went - GOTOs. I don't own a single GOTO telescope, because I went the other direction and just bought better finders, and used them in combination with red dot finders and Telrads.

The list of K-mart Focal 114mm owners has just increased again, I think you're the fifth or sixth on this thread.

Did you ever ask Meade what the story was with those grommets?

How's life in sunny Penrith? I used to visit it several times a year when I was working. Every now and then my mouth waters when I remember the plate hamburger meal I'd get at Panthers Bistro. Unfortunately, I was always flying so never took a telescope there, but used to enjoy seeing Deneb and Cygnus with binoculars, which is tougher to see down here.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

I know the feeling.
Renato

[Larryp]

Have to agree with you, Peter.
My TSA120 is right at the upper limit of portability for me, and even so, I have only used it once since I bought it due to medical problems!

[LewisM]

I have only ONE telescope now, but 3 mounts ;) Funny that... had to "sell the farm" to buy the Takahashi - a life-time investment.

No plans offloading any of the mounts just yet.

[Earl]

Haven't looked through one and don't plan to, but the $79.95 70mm "525 power" refractor Kogan is flogging at the moment is isn't exactly going to give a lot of folks a lot of fun....

Cheers,

- Earl

[Renato1]

Well, at least it's 70mm. Who knows, might be okay with some good eyepieces?

The Kogan 8X42 binoculars aren't as good as the Andrews 8X42s, but they are are lot cheaper and are quite useable.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Do you use all three mounts with the Tak?
Or are you planning on a baby Tak for one of them?
Regards,
Renato

[tonybarry]

Hi Renato,

No I dod not ask Meade about the grommets. As it was I had to spin about 1 mm off the lower flange on the base to prevent it dragging on the upper flange, and that means it was either a one-off bad job or the whole thing was a crock. I suspect that it was a one-off, and the fix allowed the true nature of the mount to come through (which is exceptionally good at tracking).

Penrith is good. Panthers is now the size of a small suburb, and the carpark around it probably needs a shuttle bus to get people in from the periphery to the centre. I have been there a few times but not often.

The best thing about Penrith is the Penrith Observatory at the University of Western Sydney in Werrington. They are a good bunch of people and they are keen on spreading the news about astronomy to the locals. They also have a 24" RC in a Big Dome, the mirror of which is presently being recoated.

THe Western Sydney Amateur Astronomy Group (WSAAG) meets there every third Wednesday of each month.

My take on Goto hasn't changed. If you have the time and the grits, starhopping is hard to beat. If not, Goto is a big help. I do asteroid occultations, and my target fields are generally unremarkable. Starhopping is really difficult for these, and would add hours to the setup time. I have done it a couple of times on the Linden 30 before it got Goto'ed, and the pain was "astronomical". Fortunately we had Rob Horvat (WSAAG president, and strictly visual / starhopper person) to keep us on the track. But even so it was not easy.

I think for newcomers to the sport / hobby, Goto is a mixed bag. It adds to the cost, but it also adds to the success rate of finding stuff. The new Orion and Skywatcher Goto Dobs are driving the price down very well. My take is that it is worth it. Your mileage of course may vary, and it's entirely your call as to what you choose to work with.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[tonybarry]

Hi Pete,

The weight of the LX90-10" is right at the upper limit of what I can usable. It's 24kg, and tripod a further 9kg. By comparison, the LX90-8" which I owned previously was 13.5kg, with 9kg tripod. The improvement in view was (in my opinion) not worth the extra weight, cost, or reduction in field of view. But the tracking has improved out of this world. So I am sticking with the 10".

I've discussed with other members of the club (WSAAG) and a number of us feel that with the availability of the Evans 30" goto dob at Linden Observatory, there is no need for big scopes. Anything we might be able to afford is not going to measure up against this monster. So our personal scopes should be mainly good and light.

Yes health concerns are very important. And keeping the weight down on the back is a big issue.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[LewisM]

The FSQ 106 weighs in at 7kg by itself, WITHOUT finderscope, CCD, guidescope, rings, bars... my 2 Vixen mounts are rated at 10kg photographic on the GPD2 and 12kg photographic on the Sphinx.

By the time you add rings, bars, finders, guidescope, focal reducer, dew shield and a CCD, you go over 10kg (almost 12), and I do NOT want to risk my beloved GPD2 for that. I COULD try it on the SPhinx, which I plan doing, but for now, the NEQ6 will suffice.

Will lighten the rig as much as possible (already using a modified Takahashi 7x50 finder as a guidescope) and see if my GPD2 won't smoke at the bearings ;)

[Renato1]

Hi Tony,
Yes, I tend to forget the learning curve with starhopping, mainly because I used binoculars for about 10 year. Though I still suspect many interesting sights would be missed with GOTOs.

A friend did drive me by an observatory in that area years ago, but I don't recollect which it was.

Panthers always used to amaze me with each visit over the years. How much more can it grow?

I wonder how many other had the problem you had with your Meade, and still haven't solved it?
Cheers,
Renato

[Stardrifter_WA]

Hi Renato,

Dialling up those hard to find objects is such a breeze. I would rather spend time on the object, rather than on the time finding it.

However, that doesn't stop you from just wandering around the sky. I do that a lot. Using the hand control, I just sweep back and forth across an area. Have found some interesting asterisms that way.

Having said that though, doing starhopping does teach one the sky more easily.

Cheers Pete

[Renato1]

Hi Peter,
I can see the advantages of what you describe, and many at my club attest to it. And I can see that it would be especially handy if one was viewing from home, with a dark sky. But there seems to be an awful lot of stuff to lug around and set up if driving to a dark site.

I guess for me, the main thing missing would be the thrill of the hunt.

Anyhow, to each our own.
Cheers,
Renato

[Stardrifter_WA]

True that Renato. :)

Just because you have a goto, doesn't mean that you can't still enjoy the thrill of the hunt. After all, that is why I still have the latest in star charts. Not everything is listed in the goto catalogue!

Cheers Pete