Hi, Everyone,
This is my first post as a relatively new member of iceinspace. This is great site and has been very helpful (especially the equipment discussions).
I would like a little advice from anyone as I am about to purchase a new telescope primarily for observational purposes. It has to be of very high quality and portability; otherwise, it'll sit there unused.
I have narrowed down my choices to:
The Takahashi TOA 130 NS triple apo refractor
The new Takahashi FSQ 130 (astrograph)
The Takahashi Mewlon 250 CRS
The Skywatcher 150 ED triple apo refractor
The Questar 7" Maksutov-Cassegarin LW 7
I have not really given thought to a suitable mount though the thought of spending some $6000 - $7000 on a good one seems excessive (rather spend it on a great scope).
The only astrophotography I will be doing is with a DSLR, not a CCD (I know nothing about CCD imaging, though the results are impressive, to say the least).
If anyone can spare the time to offer some advice, please do.
I will not attempt to discuss the scopes you list as I am not familiar with any of them enough. I will address the philosophy behind your post. I notice that at least one of the scopes (the FSQ 130) is an astrograph so I am assuming that imaging is going to be a significant part of your ambitions.
Mounts are the most critical part of an imaging setup. A fairly good scope on a good mount will produce pretty good images. The worlds best scope on a poor mount will produce poor images. To buy one of those scopes and attempt to image on a cheap mount will be a lesson in frustration.
If on the other hand visual is your thing, you may get away with a under rated mount.
I've seen several of those scopes in action and nothing about them or the mouths required to carry them could be regarded as easily portable but I guess that would depend on your fitness level, age, transport, etc.
Might be an idea to go to a star party to see some in action...
All of these scopes and mount required would be far too big to transport away from your house and setup regularly and so would remain largely unused; unless you are really keen!
These all really need a more permanent setup.
Something smaller is required eg 4" apo , 6" sct, otherwise you will lose all interest.
First the mount, you should definitely spend that bit extra on a mount that you'll be happy with and one that can easily hold the rig. If you do feel you want to go cheap though, the Alt/Az EQ6GT will hold most of those visually without any issues.
As for the scope, I personally would take the Tak FSQ130 off the list. As good of an astrohraph that it is going to be, as far as I know it is still yet to be released AND there is a chance that you may not be able to use a diagonal with it due to not enough back focus.
If all you want is visual and have I real plans of doing astrophotography, I would suggest getting the biggest that you can comfortably move. I would also suggest getting a doublet because it'll be lighter and cool down faster than a triplet.
I personally would keep away from a large Mak-Cass because it is likely to have a LONG cool down time although it may have fans and stuff, not sure. Having a telescope that cools and climatised quick will be your best friend.
Thanks for your replies, Malcolm, Dunk, Joe and Colin. I was thinking 12 - 14Kg (OTA only) was around what I would call 'portable'. The Celestron CPC 925 is at what I call the upper limit of the portability range (I managed to get one for the college where I taught until retiring 3 weeks ago). It's optical quality that really matters to me; for example, I have seen reviews of the Chinese-made Skywatcher holding up extremely well against far more expensive refractors. (Cloudy Nights had an imaging shoot-out between the AstroPhysics 162 APO triplet refractor and the Sywatcher Esprit Ed 150; I couldn't pick any difference in the images)....Makes life tough, decision-wise...
If portability is a key issue I wouldn't go over about 10Kg for the optical tube.
Alternatively you could consider having two scopes, for example a very portable Tak FC100DF and a larger scope (C11 EdgeHD?) which requires a little more effort to use.
I own two TAKS tsa102, toa 130. you can't go wrong with a TAK. I would suggest a TSA 120 on az/eq6gt mount. If you ever want to upgrade you won't loose much money on the TAK, and the views are pin sharp when using the write eyepieces. I have the az/eq6 mount and have no trouble with the toa 130 for viewing. You can also photograph the planets-moon and auto guide for stars and DSO"S. I hope this helps
scopey
Thanks, Tony and Les. I seem to have read somewhere on this site that the SW EQ6alt-Az mount was giving some trouble with maintaining belt tension? Maybe not a good choice for a Tak...Don't know. I do lean towards the Tak 130 but I couldn't believe my eyes at this comparison (I found the link on CN) between the AP160 and the SW 150 ED that I referred to earlier: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/478771-ap-160-vs-sw-150-esprit/ Food for thought.
Yes the SW 150 is the curve ball here and for the price and quality you wont do better , a 150mm scope will always show more than a 120/130 scope no matter how good it is .
And I beileve the lovely EQAZ6 would hold the SW just fine .
If it was my money I would grab the SW Esprit ( I too read that comparisim and was impressed as well ) , a lot of 6 inch APO sweetness for very little money ,,, well compared to a 6inch Tak or AP , TEC , etc , etc .
Thanks, Brian. Yes, even though the TAK has the runs on the board, the SW 150 comes with star diagonal, tube brackets, finderscope, carry case, etc and performs extremely well. The TAK is just an OTA and would require an additional outlay of maybe $1500 just to match the SW outfit. And there is the old maxim, 'aperture is everything'!
Cheers,
Richard
Yep , aperture sure does rule , and in refractors it seems to be very evident in small jumps , like us , we have a small group of dedicated visual observers here and what comes to mind is a coulpe of Fluorite triplets of 110 and 115mm that are essentially perfect but worth thousands .
Now come's the curve ball , in the form of my 127mm f8 iStar achromat at the sum total of $630 and it performs so well that the APO owners perfer it over their scopes on many objects .
Side note ; one of these guys is seriously looking at the 150 Esprit ,,, cant wait personally for him to bite the bullet .
Brian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decimus
Thanks, Brian. Yes, even though the TAK has the runs on the board, the SW 150 comes with star diagonal, tube brackets, finderscope, carry case, etc and performs extremely well. The TAK is just an OTA and would require an additional outlay of maybe $1500 just to match the SW outfit. And there is the old maxim, 'aperture is everything'!
Cheers,
Richard
Do you have a sense of what you want to achieve when you start out? Purely visual, and what objects are you interested in, or purely imaging, or a mix of both.
The only reason I say this, is because looking at your list of 5 scopes, they are all over the place. Each one is quite varied in it's purpose.
If you can nail down a few specific areas that really interest you, I think you will get some telescope recommendations more tailored for the task.
Also, depending on your experience a "very high quality" telescope may be a waste of money to begin with, as you sort out your niche in this hobby. As beautiful as a 5" APO is, it's a poor choice if you find out you like chasing faint galaxy clusters.
Well... I have just bought an 8" f/8 mirror which is 1/21 wave (0.995 strehl) to make a lightweight planetary scope (dob) that should easily give any of these refractors up to 150mm aperture a run for their money, with a small secondary, curved vane spider and proper thought given to keeping stray light out. A project to build this winter in tie for spring/summer, I hope.
I also have had the opportunity some years ago to use both two Quester 3.5" and a Questar 7. While the small 3.5" Questers definitely are essentially perfect in every imaginable way and perform better than many would expect, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the Q7. Good, but if I was going to spend that amount on a scope I think I'd buy something else.
Incidentally if you ARE after a Mak for lunar & planetary I'd suggest instead you consider:
a) One of the scopes from APM in Germany assembled using russian optics; not only does APM offer the usual choices of aperture and focal ratio but you can also specify the quality of the optics (yes it costs more) or settle for the bog standard russian grade. And APM build a far better tube than Intes does.
b) A Maksutov-newtonian, there are several cheap commercial ones at 190mm aperture around f/5-6.
c) And if thats not enough, APM will assemble a custom Maksutov Newtonian to your specs.
You are right there Wavy , in NZ I have a 10inch f10 , yes its a 2.5 metre focal length but with its 20mm , yes !!! 20mm secondary the detail seen on the moon and planets easily equaled our clubs excellent C14 and easily beat an AP 155 super planetary , it's just BIG !!! note the steps in the background .
Thats her the long alloy tube on the Dob mount .
A good long focal length Newt can rumble with the best 'for sure'.
Look at the gold scope , its a 5inch f13.7 also with 20mm secondary , its a lunar killer esaily taking 400x plus on a good night and with the EQ pipe mount it is easy to do.
Both Newt's have rotating tubes .
Brian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavytone
Well... I have just bought an 8" f/8 mirror which is 1/21 wave (0.995 strehl) to make a lightweight planetary scope (dob) that should easily give any of these refractors up to 150mm aperture a run for their money, with a small secondary, curved vane spider and proper thought given to keeping stray light out. A project to build this winter in tie for spring/summer, I hope.
I also have had the opportunity some years ago to use both two Quester 3.5" and a Questar 7. While the small 3.5" Questers definitely are essentially perfect in every imaginable way and perform better than many would expect, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the Q7. Good, but if I was going to spend that amount on a scope I think I'd buy something else.
Incidentally if you ARE after a Mak for lunar & planetary I'd suggest instead you consider:
a) One of the scopes from APM in Germany assembled using russian optics; not only does APM offer the usual choices of aperture and focal ratio but you can also specify the quality of the optics (yes it costs more) or settle for the bog standard russian grade. And APM build a far better tube than Intes does.
b) A Maksutov-newtonian, there are several cheap commercial ones at 190mm aperture around f/5-6.
c) And if thats not enough, APM will assemble a custom Maksutov Newtonian to your specs.
Last edited by brian nordstrom; 03-02-2016 at 10:55 PM.
Thanks for all the advice, guys. I guess it all boils down a trade-off between the detail that aperture can bring from large reflectors versus the high-contrast and sharpness that can be found in a high-end refractor. I am still inclined towards a large refractor (although a Tak Mewlon is tempting). I love deep sky objects (M42 and Eta Carinae looked spectacular through the Celestron CPC 9.25 SCT I used with students at the college where I worked) but I also recall the spectacular view of the Moon through a 5" Vixen refractor last year and that was 'persuasive'! Back to the drawing board for now....
By the way, for anyone who missed the AP 160 refractor vs the SW 150 Esprit, here's the link again: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/478771-ap-160-vs-sw-150-esprit/
You may be interested to know that the Esprit 150 VS AP 160 comparison will be coming back for another round next month. Jerry will be testing both scopes again only this time he will be using CCDs instead of DSLRs. Should be interesting given that the performance of these two scopes is a lot closer than the price delta that separates them!
Thanks, Brett. I am sure looking forward to the new review.
Meanwhile, I still cannot make up my mind about whether to buy a TAK 130NS APO or the Skywatcher Esprit 150 APO. The extra inch of aperture in the latter might outweigh any superficial differences in image quality, maybe....
I believe there is a Tak VS Esprit comparison somewhere on CloudyNights, if I'm not mistaken.
You mentioned that you were primarily looking for something to do visual work with. I've not looked through either of these scopes but I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that the Takahashi has superior optics.
A Takahashi will also retain it's value much better than a scope which is mass-produced in China, so that might be something else to consider.