meade acf

[mozzie]

while at astrofest had the opportunity to look through a 8"acf lx90 with a meade u/w 18mm the field of view was flat and there was no coma all the way to the edge the view was very crisp and it blow me away :eyepop:i was going to buy a 14"lx200 second hand but after seeing acf ill pay the extra they wont be in the country till chrissy fingers crossed but i was that impressed.any body else seen through one or own a acf to comment on ? would be appreciated
mozzie

[renormalised]

I own a copy of the scope you're talking about. Optically, it's an excellent scope. One of the clearest I've ever observed through. With an UHC or neb filter its views of faint fuzzies is fantastic. For imaging, there are better scopes i.e. easier to setup, but don't let that stop you from buying one. You will need a EQ wedge for long exposure astropics, but you can take pics of the planets, Moon and bright DSO's in Alt-Az.

Once you set the scope up, though, it will find and track any object you enter into the autostar with ease. Pretty much centre it in the eyepiece every time.

I'll fill you in on some more after I have tea!!!.

[mozzie]

i have a lx90 12" and they are a great scope very accurate in there centering of objects but the optics on these acf its mind blowing at the eyepiece
mozzie

[coldspace]

Hi Mozzie,
yes the ACF optics are alot better than the standard SCT. I remember when I first looked through one at Astrofest 4 years ago it was way better than I thought. So I bought one 2 years ago and it has not let me down.
Almost as sharp as a nice apo.
You were probally talking to Peter Marples at astrofest, both him and me have LX200R 12 inch scopes same as ACF, and they are very good.A friend of mine has a 14 LX200R tube on a AP1200 mount and the views and images are great, so get the 14 incher you will be happy.
LX200 compared to LX90 mounts is no contest, alot better, stable and better engineered.

Just remember that the 14 fork mount ACF is a very big scope. Over 50kgs compared to 34 kgs for the 12. I have been lugging my 12 out to my back yard by myself but the 14 would be a bit of a struggle unless 2 people are involved. Get the Peterson mounting assistant, make sitting the scope on the tripod so much easier and safer.

Now that I have finished my observatory I wish I had got 14 but for now the 12 will do till maybe a 16'R :P. Aperature fever takes hold.

No, my 12 will do with a Mallincam attached Its all i need for now.

The ACF optics are really nice compared to my other scopes I have had.

A 14 ACF in darks skies will really shine, I know my 12 does.

Regards Matt.

[mozzie]

thanks for the replies matt i was talking to peter maples at astrofest im going to his place later in the year to look at his scope my wife wants to go to ikea near brissy dohh!!!! cant complain telescopes arnt cheap my lx90 is in a dome so its not going to be moved thats why i am going for the 14" theres no difference in the acf and the r models is there?
mozzie

[coldspace]

No there is no difference between the R model and the ACF. Meade first called them LX200 R for Ritchey Chritein but even though they perform like a Ritchey they are more of a advanced modified SCT.A few of the big Ritchey Chritein manufactures sued Meade to change the name so Meade then changed it to ACF.
The R models were made in the US but Meade now makes them in Mexico to the same standards apparantly.

If you are coming down to Peters place to look at his and you have time I live 5 mins away and have just finished my observatory. If you are here at night and its clear we could put the Mallincam through its paces.
Just let Peter know.

Regards Matt.

[Paul Haese]

I have had the opportunity to look through an ACF or R version that Meade puts out. I really liked the sharp pin point stars, and the flat field. These scopes are way better than the previous Meade SCT's and you should consider the ACF's over the standard versions.

[mozzie]

ill let peter know when im coming up and try and get to have a look at your observatory matt
mozzie