PDA

View Full Version here: : Intes Micro Mak-Newts 5" or 6" - any owners?


MortonH
16-06-2015, 07:46 PM
An ad for a MN66 on Astromart caught my eye the other day. I see there have been a couple sold here over the years. Just wondering if anyone is using an Intes Micro Mak-Newt?

I'm specifically looking for opinions on the 5" or 6" models since they're the only ones that could conceivably be within my budget and would work on my mount.

glend
16-06-2015, 08:35 PM
Looking at the Astromart pricing for the Intes Micro MN66 ($1550 Aud equivalent),and adding shipping, etc you'd be paying about the same for a used MN66, a significantly smaller Mak-Newt, as for a new MN190 (which you can find for $1799 locally). I did look at them, and all of the potential distributors before I bought my Skywatcher. I can't find much difference in construction, both are heavily baffled. Bigger is better if you can afford it, and the Skywatch quality is good I can't fault it. Which ever one you get a good Mak-Newts a great design. What mount would you be using? The Skywatcher is best on a NEQ6 for imaging but you could get away with a HEQ5 for visual only imho.

MortonH
16-06-2015, 08:46 PM
Size and weight are important. My mount wouldn't handle the MN190. Otherwise I'd be tempted. I would also be buying used.

Forgot to mention that I'm visual only. How is the Skywatcher for visual?

glend
16-06-2015, 09:08 PM
Amazing contrast, no diffraction, no coma right out to the edges.

AG Hybrid
17-06-2015, 09:06 AM
The Mak-Newt from Skywatcher actually uses a 200mm mirror. I've been researching this scope for a while now as a potential next scope. Its front corrector is 190mm with baffles all down through the OTA. So, that means and problems with an up turned or down turned mirror edge should be eliminated. Optically you should only be using the good stuff from the primary mirror if you known what I mean.

I was thinking of using it as a half way astrograph and rich field, highly corrected visual instrument. It is however really heavy for its aperture.

dannat
17-06-2015, 10:50 AM
the ES 6" would be much cheaper- not sure how it would cope though -the tube seems awfully light cf. other mak netws -intes do make some good stuff

glend
17-06-2015, 11:45 AM
Just a few comments from my Mak_newt research before I bought mine. I looked at the ES mak-newt but it seems to be less featured than a Intes of the same size, basically a budget version of a proper Mak-Newt. It did not seem to have the internal tube baffling that the Intes-Micro and Skywatcher have, and it has a short focal length in comparison which may be good for wide field comet hunting but limits magnification for both visual use and imaging. It does not come with rear plate holes for a fan mount (has a small hole behind the primary but no tapped holes to mount a fan). Also if your considering comparisons with a APO refractor, the size of the ES 6" puts you in a 100-120mm APO refractor comparison area, and those ED APOs have come down in cost considerably over the last year.

Over on Cloudy Nights there is a guy with a collimation problem with his new ES mak-newt, which looks like the secondary is way out of alignment.
http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/503186-explore-scientific-comet-hunter-worth-the-trouble/

In summary on the ES, too small, less featured but low cost, would be my view.

As to weight, you can't really get away from it in a Mak-Newt, but it is well balanced (with the primary weighing just alittle more than the corrector plate/secondary assembly). So it sits on a mount nicely without the long moment arm of a long newt. My MN190 weighs a little less than my carbon fibre strut 10" f5 imaging newt, but it sits on the mount better imho.

All of the Mak-Newts will be collimation sensitive, and it helps to have a newt background when checking it and setting it up. The issue they all have is that the secondary is mounted directly on the back of the corrector plate - thus this puts the focuser very close to the end of the tube. On the MN190 the secondary has a small circle on it to aid alignment, just centre the secondary circle with the primary donut and your very close to perfect. I know from following some Cloudy Night threads on the Orion Mak-Newt (no longer in production and an earlier version of the Skywatcher with a larger secondary), that if you follow standard collimation practice (and don't have the secondary spot marked) it can cause all sort of issues. People try to use standard Newt secondary offset numbers from the newt calculators and this messes up collimation on a Mak-Newt. If possible get one with the secondary spotted it makes collimation very easy, and forget using Newt design secondary offsets. Once set they hold collimation very well.

Finally resist the temptation to upgrade the focuser, some CN people have been tearing their hair out trying to fit Moonlight focusers to MN190s and Orions, because there is no adaptor plate for them that allows the necessary adjustment of the focuser towards the front of the tube - result the collimation is way out. Surprisingly there is one for the Intes MN models. Check out the Moonlight Newt focusers and the
Intes MN Upgrade (Model IntesMN-MK) adaptor and you can see how it allows the focuser to slide forward along the tube.

Here are links to some info that show photos of the usual Mak-Newt tube baffling for the Intes and Skywatcher, my view is that if the ES had it they would promote it - and they don't:

http://www.myastroshop.com.au/guides/swdm190.asp

http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/telescopes/reflecting-telescopes-ota/maksutov-newtonian/intes-micro-alter-mn55-russian-standard-delivery.html
Hope this helps.

AG Hybrid
17-06-2015, 03:39 PM
EQ6 Pro for a 7.5 inch Newtonian -.-. Might let this scope slide. However, if Morton would like to get one. I'd very much like to look through it :D

glend
17-06-2015, 03:48 PM
That's exactly the problem, people think of these scopes as Newts when they are not really comparable, a better comparison in performance terms is with say a 6" APO refractor. When compared to an
APO they are lower cost and weight about the same.
Anyone wanting to look through mine will find it out at Bretti next new moon trip - weather permiting.

MortonH
17-06-2015, 04:05 PM
The OTA weighs 11kg. A bit too much.

Steffen
17-06-2015, 05:51 PM
Too much for an EQ6? How so? I'd have no hesitation putting an 11kg scope on an HEQ5Pro. For visual only, of course.

AG Hybrid
17-06-2015, 07:29 PM
No. A bit too much for Morton's mount. Not an eq 6.

MortonH
17-06-2015, 08:57 PM
Correct! :thumbsup:

Camelopardalis
17-06-2015, 10:20 PM
Edge 8 :D :lol:

AG Hybrid
17-06-2015, 11:48 PM
It gets great reviews from people who own them though.

Wavytone
29-12-2018, 04:33 PM
Sorry to revive an old thread...but ... yes, I do: a 2015 APM/Wirth/Intes MN86, and my son has an Intes MN56.
The MN56 I picked up cheaply (its old) but IMHO optically on Mars and Uranus it's just as good as the TS 130mm triplet APO I sold a while back. The MN86 is simply exquisite at 1/10 wave P-V overall and a match for any 8" newtonian. It's 13kg, same as my MK91.

These are both set up for visual with small secondaries - very small central un-vignetted areas, and limited focus range which means a DSLR probably wont reach focus.

The APM MN86 has a Starlight focuser which IMHO is nice, but the original Intes focuser (as on the MN56) is quite agricultural and I suspect all of the Intes Mak-Newtonians have the same unit - anyone intending AP must assume this has to be replaced.

For AP you'll also need a larger secondary (to overcome vignetting off-axis) and some hacking would be needed to change the backfocus to suit a camera - which I have no intention of doing as I have growing dislike of scopes that have been ruined by incompetent hackers. Possible exceptions being Lewis and Kunama.