aoe 90x600 refractor

[ving]

just poking around for anyone who may have used this scope....

just wondering how bad the CA would be and any other faults.... it'd make a great grab and go for me (or anyone with a tight budget) if it proves to be a decent scope.....

any coments re this welcome.

[dhumpie]

You have a web link or a piccy? There are some pretty horrendous second tier chinese products going round at the moment, copies of the original Synta refractors so be aware :)

Darren

[ving]

heres a linky! http://www.aoe.com.au/refractors.html
and a piccie
http://www.aoe.com.au/AOE90SFSLarge.jpg

[[1ponders]]

While I have never looked through that particular scope being that short for a 90mm refractor I would imagine the CA would be pretty noticable. JM2CW :P

[ving]

the orion ST90 generally recieves good reviews while CA is apparent it is not annoyingly so. the ST90 by orion is also shorter (being f5). taking this into account it should (all things being equal) be beter for CA than the st90.
but if the glass and coatings arent as good i'd assume it might be worse on CA(?)

:P
of course there are probably many holes in this theory :(

[janoskiss]

At least there are no central obstructions in the theory. :P

What is bad CA and what isn't is a matter of personal preference, I guess, so there is only so much reviews can tell you. Stu's old 80mm f11 achro (another AOE scope) was not bad at all but still had some CA. But I wouldn't expect the shorter 90mm to be suitable for planets. Could be nice for wide-field, but then it's dark skies only. Probably better off with a pair of 20x80 binos. :shrug:

... or if you want more power, get a 4" Mak. Nice clear images, no CA. Lots of detail on Jupiter and Saturn. :D Widest it will go with the 1.25" EPs is about 1.25 degrees.

[cometcatcher]

It looks cute, even if it has CA. :P

[ving]

yeah cute is a buying point.... thanks kevin :P

i was thinking of a small mak. but the FL is a bit long for my liking.

[Starkler]

Go the vixen r130 f5 on a porta mount ( see existing thread ) ;)

no colour, convenient and bigger aperture.

[ving]

tell em the price son! :P

[cometcatcher]

What about a small 6 inch dob for a grab and go scope? My 6 inch f6 is in that category. Come to think of it isn't any dob grab and go? Even my 10 inch f4.5 sets up in no time, although the OTA is a bit heavy. But yer see more with it. Especially with the Nagler. :P

[ving]

i want zero cooldown time (or near it) and i want to be able to take it away with me as well as the family... i hae a 8" dob and its great as long as i dont mind a bit of cool down time and i dont want to take the family with me....

i want something that i can whip out of the bedroom for a imediate session and put away again in seconds. :)
the 90mm would be perfect if it proves to be of good construct and its optics reasonable too :)

[cometcatcher]

IC. Cooldown time isn't something we worry much about in the tropics. Only in the middle of winter.

Go on go and get the little refractor. You know you want to! :D

[ving]

yeah, i want to alright... just justifying it :P
I dont want something that is poorly made with bad optics tho :(

[Starkler]

For the one I suggested, between 600-700 bucks. Call for an IIS special price :D
Im buying this because 80mm just isnt enough for me.:shrug:

[cometcatcher]

That's twice the bucks of the one Ving was looking at.

I know, get the Televue 4 inch refractor. The quality will be superb I'm sure. ;) :D

[ving]

your not helping kevin! :P

so no one here has used a 90mm short tube achromat? gee... maybe i should just get it so i can tell people what its like...

whats the az3 mount like? sturdy? easy to use?

[Starkler]

The az3 wont reach zenith im told, and the alt axis isnt balanced meaning the higher the scope is pointed, the more out of balance the alt movement becomes. You might find it annoying, maybe not.

[ving]

well its that or the eq2d (I think it is), which is probably a bit wobbly.

[dhumpie]

I had a look at the web site and it seems like a decent achromat (and looks pretty well built as well). I have an Orion 80ST that I can push to 133x with little image breakdown and the CA is there but not totally obstrusive. The 102 f/5 however was horrendous above 100x. The 90 you are looking at should hit the middle ground. But if you do have a little more to spare I think Geoff's suggestion for the Vixen 130 on a Porta mount is a good idea....

Darren

[ving]

thanks darren. do kyou think that because it is f6.6 rather than f5 would help any?
also my chioce of mount are az3 and eq2d... what would be better? i am thinking az3 but as geoff said the alt isntballanced... which is the lesser of the 2 evils?

[Starkler]

I personally think the idea of an eq mount is contrary to the concept of grab-n-go due to the extra weight and fuss of counterweights. Its not like you'l be running such a scope at high powers and be needing tracking.

The az3 is serviceable but it is a cheap mount and there are comprimises, still for the purpose of grab-n-go its going to be much better than an eq IMO.
The az3 is worth about $170, but the next step up in alt-az mounts is the Vixen porta at about $400, or buying a Hercules or Microstar head for a photo/video tripod at around $300.

[janoskiss]

AZ3, definitely. You can always rig up a counterweight if that is a problem. I'm pretty sure it will reach zenith, but the tripod legs might get in the way (so you'd have to pick up the tripod and rotate it). Stu would know for sure. He has his 4" Tak on an AZ3.

Geoff, AZ3 is down to $129 now, so it's very cheap indeed. It's a great mount for the price IMO.

[ving]

thanks guys :D

[Starkler]

Ving old cow I should relate to you my experience with the ed80 after being used to viewing through a 10" dob.

In short I was quite dissapointed in how little I could see, especially from my home location which suffers from light pollution. Bright dso's like eta carina were very dim and uninspiring after what I was used to seeing. By the time you bump up the mag to mitigate the effects of light pollution, the little refractor runs out of light.

Small refractors are nice in dark skies, especially for rich field views, but where there is LP they suck IMO :( If I had of known I wouldnt have bought it.

[janoskiss]

My experience with the ED80 is pretty much the same as Geoff's, which is why I sold it. I also thought I'd use it for widefield at dark sites, but on those occasions I always have the Dob as well, and the lure of aperture wins every time.

[ving]

yeah.... i know.... jsut trying to fool myself i guess...

maybe i shoud spend up on EPs instead :(

but then i have the prob of family or telescope....

[janoskiss]

[QUOTE=ving]
And the problem is ...? :lol:

I'm going to order a focal reducer (a binoviewer 0.6x "OCA" actually) for my 4" baby Mak to see if I can get wider true FOV with that scope. If it works as advertised, it will make the scope very versatile.

Btw. I was just at Ted's camera store. They had an AZ3 on display with a plastic scope. It does go to zenith, but you need to have the scope between tripod legs.

[Starkler]

Toys...toys....

Have you got a telrad or rigel yet? ;)

[cometcatcher]

Get a Nagler instead Ving. :)

[ving]

i have used one... not really a fan.

kevin, as per usual you are great help :rolleyes:
:P

[cometcatcher]

Hehheh sorry! I agree with the others though on aperture. There's no substitute when it comes to deep sky. A 90mm is quite small. It's only a step up from a 60mm. The only time a little refractor like that may be better than a larger scope is with a wide field eyepiece and something large like comets. In fact my best views of comets have been through small refractors. On high power though, they suck! The images are dim and colourful. Bring back any memories? (60mm wobbleotronic refractor?)

[ving]

well yeah, but that was like f/15 or sumpin... yeah i know...

[acropolite]

I have an AZ3 and if the friction is set correctly it's OK with an ED80 on. With placement to avoid the tripod legs, it will reach the zenith. For widefield and planetary the 90 would be OK, my 80 certainly is, I'm impressed with views of Jupiter with the ED80 so far, although I haven't had the chance to try at higher mags than 92x (13mm barlowed). I have read that the ED80 holds up well at higher mags, so I presume that the 90mm would as well. The CA is the unknown factor. From your existing home viewing site, I think you would find the 90mm refractor disappointing compared to your dob, but if you wanted something for a quick peek at the planets, or the moon, or for widefield views it may be worth a look. :confuse3:

[cometcatcher]

But the ED80 is a different animal - Apochromat vrs cheap Chinese Achromat. There's room for a world of difference.

My grab and go scope is a 6 inch f6 dob. It's ugly to look at but produces nice images. I think Ving wants a scope to look AT not look THROUGH! Lol. :P

[dhumpie]

Hey Ving,

Sorry for not replying earlier. Did not get a chance to get on the net on the weekend. Anyway if you ask me, I think the slight difference in focal length will equate to better CA control...and that will go a long way for planetary images. As to which mount....hmmmm...I agree with what Geoff has said about the EQ's and they defeat the purpose of grab and go. I have read reports (Star Ware by Harrington) that the AZ3 mounts are pretty solid for their price (better damping times that those spindly EQ1's and 2's). The problem is going to be balance issues when you are pointing at celestial objects. My guess is that the scopes are going to "creep" to the verticle position unless you crank the tightening knobs down.

Darren

[ving]

thanks darren...
still in the thinking stage.... refractor vs webcam vs low power ep....