|
I Vote Maksutov No Contest !!
I vote for the Maksutov. Why?
Nice Long Focal Lengths usually between F10 and F15. People these days seem obsessed with Fast telescopes for photography which is fine but what is wrong with a Slow scope with NO coma at all unlike a SCT which has coma. Some SCT's claim to be Coma free but they cheat in the optical design. A true Schmidt Cassegrain is supposed to have coma. It's inherent in the design. A Maksutov is coma free by design and has no astigmatism. I think it is one of the best optical configurations ever conceived. I personally rate it even higher than a Ritchey Chretien, which is a bold statement but think about the advantages.
Smaller central obstruction
NO diffraction spikes.
No Coma
No astigmatiom
Perfectly Flat field (No field flattener required)
Closed tube (Thermally Stable)
1 disadvantage of a Mak is a smaller field of view but if you are a photographer you can always make a "mosaic" of smaller images stitched together to make a widefield image . Problem solved.
It also has a smaller central obstruction than a SCT. This has 2 advantages. 1) Less Diffraction 2) More Contrast. Add that to a longer focal length and you have a killer planetary telescope that will rival the best APO refractors out there because you also have the option of larger apertures but at a cost. Most Maksutovs are 90mm or 125mm in aperture. However bigger Maksutovs are available 8", 10", 12"
These are very expensive.
But Perfection always comes at a High Price.
My 2 cents
Kane
|