Quote:
Originally Posted by astro1965
thanks guys for the info,I am strictly a visual observer and tend to view lunar/planets more,but I also like to look at globs and nebulae from time to time.I have read that the f15 ratio on these SW 180 make them sharper and have more contrast for lunar/planets,than refractors.Read that on cloudynights somewhere,any experiences or thoughts on that?
|
There is truth to those statements. The 180mm Mak tends to have more resolving power then most refractors as very few are above >152mm in diameter. The long focal length makes getting high magnification easier with your eyepieces (assuming the atmosphere supports it). Not the ideal nebula telescope however. You want large exit pupils for nebula's but my 150mm Mak does alright. Planets,luna,bright globs, double stars, star clusters, possibly planetary nebula. Anything thing with a high concentration of its light in a small area is ideal for the Maks.
On thing you need to think about is mounting either device. 6" refractors are large long things. The 180 Mak by comparison is compact and relatively easy to mount. That being said the 6" refractor would probably be a lighter instrument - especially being only a doublet.
Also no chromatic aberration with the Mak - or at least nothing visually appreciable. There will certainly be some in the 6" since we now know its a FPL-51 objective and not FPL-53 like its little brother the 120ED.
Of course the price difference is substantial too. Refractors are pretty much the "worst"(lack of a better word) value for money per inch of any telescope design.
Here's the kicker though. If price was not a consideration, despite everything I said. Id get the refractor.
