Thoughts on the 16" Lightbridge from any owners

[stephenb]

I put the following questions out to any current and previous owners of Meade Lightbridge 16" Dobs. I am purely interested in the optical performance on visual observing, not the mechanical performance (mount etc).

How did the 16" LB compare to other scopes you have used?

I wouldn't mind hearing about the visual results you achieved with this aperture, in regards to planetary observations, and also DSO's.

Did this aperture allow to to expand your search with those faint fuzzies? Can you give some descriptive examples on dome of the objects you observed.

I'm trying to get a bit of a feel for what to expect in regards to the visual observing with this size, compared to smaller apertures I have owned.

[bobson]

Looks like everyone on this forum is just about astrophotography :shrug:

Does anyone on this forum with over 6000 members have 16” LB and little time to share their experience?

Thanks in advance

[marki]

I am not sure who owns a 16" LB but take heart, most likely they have not seen this thread yet. Once they do you will be hard pressed to stop them answering :D.

Mark

PS: there are a large number of visual observers on this forum.

[lesbehrens]

hi. well i don't have a Meade light bridge but i do have a 16" gso. i think it is very great and preforms very well visually. why i got this scope was to view the horse head nebula. this is an object i have always wanted to see. my last 10"dob couldn't make this jump. when i had my first attempt at this object i was blown away that i could see right away. it still is faint you could make out where the horse head was but not in great detail. i could see a little detail too in the Neb too.
as to planets is OK. but you will need to use some filters as they are very bright. eg if u wanted to look at the moon i have seen more of the smaller creators than i thought i could see.the detail is great you can make out the Cliff edges and more roughness around the creators too.i am amazed i didn't see the flag on the moon. in a sence to u can compair your photos to what u can see.
i would recommend one.:thumbsup::eyepop::anaut::astro n:

[astronut]

Stephen,
I've had a 12"LB for over 3 years and if I had the time again, I would still buy it.
The views through it are brilliant, and it's an easy scope to setup, use and transport.
A friend in MAS has the 16", all the above info applies to it as well.
The three main differences are: 1. Larger & heavier (but still portable)
2. Images are brighter and the scope can see about 3/4 mag deeper.
3. It's double the price of the 12" (a definite minus)

The LB's are a very good value still and are the sort of scope that allows personal touches to be made by the owner, for your observing needs.:thumbsup:

[Kevnool]

Cant comment on the Meade 16` only have a 10`lightbrige, But the GSO 16` i can comment on in which the optics are great.

Poor ole lightbridge sits in the corner as an ornament.

Cheers Kev.

[bobson]

Finally :)

I was afraid this topic will end on the next page and most likely wouldn't be seen from 16" owners.

Mark, I am glad we have visual observers on this forum too.

Thanks Les and Kev,

Yours is GSO truss tube 16", how do you find it when observing objects near horizon? I know some people with LB complain that it loses collimation, drops a bit on wing nuts?


cheers

bob

[stephenb]

Thanks Bob for your prompting. I suspect I posted this thread at the wrong end of the weekend. Just needed a few days for it to filter through.

Kev and Les, thanks for your opinions, I did say LB but any commerical Dob with a GSO 16" was applicable.

I remeber looking at M42 in a 12" GSO a while back and was very impressed with the view, those whisps of nebula were stunning. Also at the Sombrero and the dust lane was quite prominant. (The first time I used an aperture of this size for a number of years). I would imagine a 16" is another step up again.

I'm glad we have some visual observers here.

[lesbehrens]

i to like looking at the M 42 it amazing though a 16"compared to my 10".
as to looking objects at the horizon my collimation does not get affected.

[Kevnool]

Bob my gso doesnt lose collimation even down low close to the horizon due to the fact that the gso 16 comes stock standard with 3 struts mine now has been modified with 6 struts to any movement that was there.

Without the mods i agree it was horendous to collimate because of the movement between the OTA and the UTA but i liked the design of the gso only because it will allow extra strut mods for stability.

Heres a link to the mods of the GSO 16
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=38034&highlight=makeover
Cheers Kev.

[Barrykgerdes]

OK
I saw this thread early and I have a lightbridge 16" Telescope
I did not comment because I have not really put it through its paces yet.
I have only had it out once to Bowen mountain (Crago) and visually it compares favourably to any other 16" telescope I have seen.
I used a laser collimator to set it up. and aligned the red dot finder on a land object.
Then I used it with the supplied 26mm QX wide angle 2" eyepiece.
I had no trouble locating and observing the usual visual objects.
I then looked at Saturn with a 9mm 4000 series 1.25" eyepiece. No problem.

I have now fitted a set of Magellan I setting circles but have not had a chance to try them out yet.

Barry

[astronut]

One other thing..........if the 16" is a little too big too handle.
I can recommend an 0111/UHC filter on a 12", it certainly brings out greater detail on all nebulas, than without!!:thumbsup:
I've done a side by side comparison with a 16" without a filter and my 12" with a filter and the view is a lot better in the 12"!!
The 16" will shine above the 12" with Galaxies and of course the dimmer DSO's.
Don't forget that most of the commercial 16" Dobs are made by GSO (Taiwan).
The Flexitube Skywatcher & Solid tube dobs are the exception, they're manufactured by Saxon (mainland China)
Which ever size or brand that you choose, a great telescope is the end result.
Of course the wallet and what lies within is also a big consideration.:thumbsup::lol:

[bobson]

John,

I have 12" Bintel Dob, thinking about 16" :)
This filter 0111/UHC, would Bintel OIII Filter $89 (1.25") be any good or I need more expensive to look at? I wish it was 2" though. Astronomic has astronomic prices :(

Kev,

Thats some nice mods you've done, or maybe I should say totally redone :)

cheers

bob

[sheeny]

I'd like to comment, but I've only had my 16" Lightbridge for 1 day and one night:P. ATM I only have 1 EP that'll fit until I get a 1.25" to 2" adapter, and that is a damaged EP that Houghy gave me. It has chemical damage to the coating on the eye end of the EP and produces glare haloes around bright stars:sadeyes:. So, my views so far, I feel would not do it justice.

That said, I can say that I was able to view the Jewel Box during twilight with brilliant colour in the stars. Views of Jupiter with a near full moon coming up below it showed the two equatorial bands far easier than any 8" scope I've used, but unfortunately the detail was mushy probably due to low altitude and perhaps some effects from the damaged coatings on the EP. Omega Centauri was spectacular as always and probably the object least apparently affected by glare from the EP.

I think the 16" has a lot of potential, considering last night was far from ideal conditions (moon shine + a crook EP). I'll be happy to comment further later when I have some better EPs and conditions.;)

Al.

[bobson]

Al,

Its very strange but I remember looking at Jupiter last year just when Sun goes down, still day and you have to know where it is to find it. And it looked much better than during night observation. Much more detail and contrast. Than I found some article on Cloudy Nights about it, they played with artificial lights to get better contrast for planets. Also in that report they said that plossls are the best for planets.

With 16" one guy said Jupiter appears "washed out" a bit. Maybe some sort of filters would improve it, don't know.

bob

[Kevnool]

Bob orthoscpics are the best for planetary observations.
Cheers Kev.

[astronut]

Hi Bob,
The Bintel filter will do a good job. Try that before you spend the extra money for a bigger scope.
All dobs are a work in progress. I don't think there's one dob on IIS that hasn't been tweaked somehow!!:lol:
Please don't get me wrong a 16" will ALWAYS show more than a 12" with all things being equal.
The 16" with a 0111/UHC will see more than the 12" with the same equipment.
As I said before size, weight and price are the BIG considerations.:thumbsup:

[toryglen-boy]

shouldnt that be Synta?

:shrug:


i am thinking about jumping to the 16" from my 12", but then again the 20" is due in January, and that would be better


:thumbsup:

[astronut]

[QUOTE=toryglen-boy;477024]shouldnt that be Synta?

:shrug:


I stand corrected, Synta it is.:thumbsup:

[bobson]

Kev,

Read this, its from CloudyNights about planetary eyepieces. I agree with you that orthos should be planetary eyepieces but this guys say plossls. Also they explain about observing planets under light and why we see them better this way.

61869

toryglen-boy,

Is it true 20" is due in January? I read some things on this forum but...
I wonder how much is it going to be?

cheers

bob

[peterbat]

I've been using an LB16 for a couple of years now, and am still impressed by the views every time I get it out. Collimation can be a bit of a problem, but adding a set of Bob's knobs to the secondary made it a lot easier to tweak from time to time in an evening, and a laser collimation tool speeds up the process as well.
Using the fan to cool the primary for at least 30 minutes improves results quite a bit.
I took the tubes apart and had the rings and trusses powder coated mat black, and as I'm in inner suburban Melbourne I have a shroud, and a padded extension to the secondary cage - this helps block stray light, and also cuts down dew problems.
To make it easier to fit through doorways, and in the back of my car, I've cut down the circular plate on the base.
The eyepiece that comes with it, (QX 26mm) can give good views, but coma is obvious around the edges. I bought a 13mm Teleview Ethos, and the views are spectacular! This is the eyepiece that I use most of the time.
Now that I've added an Argo Navis I am in 7th heaven. :D Given the constraints of a very polluted sky, I'm seeing much more than I ever did with my 10 inch.
As Astronut says, every scope is a work in progress...
Would I buy this telescope again, given all the tinkering I've done to get it to just the way I want it? Absolutely.
I'm going to be up at the Border Stargaze. If you happened to be coming also I'd be happy for you to see just what this scope can do.

Peter

[garin]

I've had my 16" Lightbridge for around year and I love it. Apart from being a bit large to move around (I still use my 10" around home).
We had a mini Messier marathon here in Perth a while ago and it really worked well, in fact the problem that slowed me down was I could see so many galaxies in the Virgo & Coma clusters, picking the correct object was the problem.

I didn't particularly like the included red-dot finder and have replace dthis with a Telrad (which I swap between scopes) and I couldn't really use it until I fitted a shroud - this wasn't due to stray light but due to my paranoia of dropping an eyepiece onto the main mirror will changing eyepieces.

The Altitude brake is mediocre and you need to make some kind of counterbalance weight arrangement to balance the scope, particulary when using heavier eyepieces.

I do get a bit of collimation shift from horizontal to upright position which I'm trying to nail the cause - I hear this is not uncommon. I have purchased a laser collimator that will allow me to easily check/fix the collimation during the viewing session.

I have also heard a number of people stating that the optics aren't upto the Obsession standards, this may well be true but taking into account that I paid AU$2195 brand new there is a massive difference in price.
I have fitted an Argo Navis now and have found this great and certainly optimises my observing time.

All in all it's not perfect but with few inexpensive modifications you can have a large apeture scope that's a joy to use.

Let me know if there are any more specific questions you would like answered.

[Don Pensack]

After collimating a friend's with Catseye collimation tools, I went back during the evening to look at the scope. Truly excellent optics--the equal of some premium scopes I'd looked through.
Add a Paracorr, and his scope was good enough to justify rebuilding with first class materials. It owed nothing to the premium mirror crowd.
I was, to say the least, surprised.
I don't know if it was typical, but I would expect a primary mirror of that quality to cost more than his complete scope.
A true bargain, I think.
Now the mechanicals? Well, let's just say the telescope is made to a price.

[stephenb]

Thanks to you all, as I said, I'm not interested in the mechanical side of the scope, but more regarding what I can expect to see with a 16" aperture, given this will be the largest aperture I have owned. I now have on order an SDM 16" and I'm looking forward to collecting it in the coming weeks. First light will be a hoot!

[JimmyH155]

I have a 12" LB and am thrilled with it. Remember, guys, the 16" has 218 square inches of aperture, whereas the 12" has 113 square inches - thats nearly twice more light gathering in the 16" THATS why youses will see that flag on the Moon:D
For me, an old codger, the 12" is the limit for carrying. I would find the 16" just too heavy and probably do myself a mischief with it:eyepop:

[Satchmo]

There's not much difference between a 12" and 16" until you take them out to a dark sky.

[stephenb]

Are you referring to the weight, Mark?

[Satchmo]

With a bright suburban background, the view don't look too much different between a 12" and 16" . For example If the spiral arms or faint outer extensions of a galaxy are fainter than the local sky background, no amount of aperture will make them more visible. Larger apertures drag in sky glow as well as star light: the old adage `garbage in , garbage out' holds with telescopes too. If the seeing is very good the larger scope with good optics can reveal more planetary datail.

[Starkler]

One time at the club site, I wanted to do a side-by-side between the views in my 15" and a 16" LB. I was getting excellent high power views of saturn in good seeing at around midnight, some 4 hrs after set up.. I wandered over to the LB for a peek and saturn was a boiling bubbling mess.

These scopes with their 2" thick mirrors housed in such a way theres no airflow around the mirror could really benefit from forced air cooling. I'd say its mandatory or it will never perform like it should.

[Calibos]

Couldn't agree more Geoff. I'll be implementing an innovative boundary layer fan system in mine to complement the main cooling fan at the rear. Also insulating the inside of the tube to prevent tube currents.

As you can imagine its a much more difficult proposition on a round metal mirror tub with only 1" to spare around the mirror especially if you don't want to be drilling lots of holes in your tube, than it is on a Premium or ATM with a big square Mirror box.

Thats why I had to get all innovative on the Lightbridges @ss :D

[Satchmo]

Issues of the high expansion material aside , the `commercial' grade annealing on the cheap mirrors does not guarantee any stability of the figure , in the present or the future. But I think the market understands that you get what you pay for. There are no 'free lunches' in optics. They do a job at a price point and are very successful.

[Archy]

I also get collimation shift from horizontal to upright position. The cause on my scope is a shift of a truss in the lower truss clamp.