|
Oh that's easy. The 132 without a doubt. No comparison.
I have had a Vixen R200SS F4. Very very widefield, needs a proper coma corrector, fussy and hard to collimate. Fat diffraction spikes. Cheap and nasty focuser. Overall a poor build quality. Not an impressive scope at all. Having said that I have seen good images from them if the owners perservered though the setup and handling of them.
The WO 132 is more of a premium APO. APO images are usually more popular because they are sharper, usually no or less coma, no diffraction spikes, simpler to use, less problem with tube currents and cooldowns and smaller and more colourful stars. The 132 I imaging is considerably heavier and may require a larger mount. It is less likely to be wind affected compared to the large tubed Newt.
Newts mean the imaging gear is hanging off the side of the tube. This means unless it is well made flexure with heavier gear will be a problem.
Even the venerable Tak 180ED F2.8 Epsilon gave inferior images to the FSQ106ED even if a bit faster at F2.8. Star sizes are larger and therefore the image is less appealling. You don't hear much about that scope anymore but it was all the rage when it first came out.
I think though Newts come into their own in the larger apertures or the more high quality ones like the Orion Optics AG or ASA's when they work.
Greg.
|