|
I'm sort of with Clive here. I have had the Vixen, a couple in fact, and never had the Meade. The newer ACF are getting very good reviews however.
The one thing that I would not enjoy with the Meade is the excessively long (for me) focal length, and the only real way to tame this is the reducer, which is as bad as a corrector on the refractor argument.
The VC200L at 1800 is about as long as I need, but like others found the blocky stars, and spider vanes not for me.
The focuser on the Vixens left me cold as well, and no, right now there isn't really an after-market alternative, although there is the odd murmur of one soon. The problem (I know I pulled it all apart to see if I could do it) is the front section of the focuser draw-tube has the correction lens system built in, and this would need to be done with whatever replaces it.
In the end I settled on a Maksutov, so I still have the potential for dew, and it is heavy, but for visual as well as imaging I am liking it. Each to their own, all are good.
In respect of the thrust of the original post, Mick I reckon you could be happy with either or any, and really it is fun to try differing scopes, settling on one that suits after trying a few. The one thing that is apparent from your sig is the longer focal lengths, for galaxies etc, and the two scopes you mention will do that admirably, each with their own benefits and disadvantages.
Gary
|