Old Meade DS-16 or 12'' Meade LX90?

[robz (Robert)]

Hi guys, after a 25 year absence from amateur astronomy, I have an opportunity to purchase a Meade DS-16 from way back or spend a lot more money and get a 12'' Meade LX90.

I know these are two entirely different instruments, but I was curious if anyone could comment on the quality of the optics for Planetary viewing mainly, with some future planetary photography in mind.

I know what the 16inch can do in the DSO department, but have no idea what planetary viewing capabilty at higher powers would be?
Are the DS-16 optics up to the task, or is it just wishful thinking?

Your thoughts and impressions, experiences are most welcome.

Cheers,
Rob.

[DavidTrap (David)]

The new ACF optics are incredible.

However, if you want to pursue serious Deep Sky photography, the LX90 mount isn't up to it. Probably OK for planetary stuff - although I never tried that with my LX-90 8inch.

DT

[DavidU (Dave)]

Trevor (Quark) uses a Meade 16" newt to image Jupiter & Saturn with incredible results. I would love a DS 16 BUT it is one huge heavy instrument.

[pgc hunter]

THose 16" Meades seem to be a hit and miss. Some had excellent mirrors while others were reported to be lemons. Also there are some stability issues with the spider, atleast with the dob version-I'm assuming the EQ model is identical, due to too thin vanes being stressed by the weight of the secondary, causing some vibration/movement. Also, I wouldn't trust those straps to hold that beast of a tube

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

THose 16" Meades seem to be a hit and miss. Some had excellent mirrors while others were reported to be lemons. Also there are some stability issues with the spider, atleast with the dob version-I'm assuming the EQ model is identical, due to too thin vanes being stressed by the weight of the secondary, causing some vibration/movement. Also, I wouldn't trust those straps to hold that beast of a tube

Hi Rob,

The spider issue can be fixed, , as can the coupling between the tube and mount. Can you have a good test of the mirror before purchasing the 16"?

From what I know, what is important with Planetary imaging is the focal length. The larger diameter apeture will give better resolution. The good thing here is that if the mirror of the 16" IS a good one, coupled with good quality barlows you will have outstanding capacity for planetary imaging which a smaller diameter instrument just can't give. No buts.

The boon here is that the 16" is an extraordinary DSO, as you already know.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

The Meade DS16 is f4.5?, seems wrong for planetary?. I think the 12" f10 ACF would be much more suitable, mine was great. The stock mount aint great, but for fast exposure planetary, would it matter?.

[robz (Robert)]

Well guys, thanks for alll the replies

Unfortunately, I'm none the wiser though.

I've seen Trevor's planetary images and have joined his site. The images ARE mind boggling.........but he has the equipment , mods and know how plus an obviously ''GOOD MIRROR''.

When I put the question to the seller of the DS-16 on how the planets look through the scope, the question was bypassed and the DSO only experience substituted.
By the way, this is not the equatorial cardboard tube version.......it's the optical tube components converted in to a open truss DOB !
As I will be looking at this scope during the day(most likely as the seller is situated in a heavily light polluted area) it may be difficult to judge it's high power performance on DSO or PLANETARY??

The seller has already stated that the scope comes without eyepieces(he has a few huge Naglers apparently) and may quite likely not have a high power eyepiece or barlow to try on a distant object

I'm beginning to think that by the time I have the mirror realuminised (90% reflectivity apparently), buy a couple of good quality eyepieces AND see if there is a way to motorise the mount...............it's probably pointless??

[Blue Skies (Jacquie)]

It would probably be ok on the planets due to the large aperture, which would compensate for the relatively short focal length (but still long in mm terms) BUT because you want to image and its in dob form now, you might want to rethink. To confuse you more, there are people with large dobs fitted with a ServoCat that do some imaging. Anything it possible, it might depend on how technically savvy you are as to what you're capable of rigging up. It is interesting to note that the best planetary imagers in Australia all use Newtonians, as far as I'm aware, but they've also been tweaked to perfection!

The comment about the 16" mirrors being "hit and miss" would also be my experience. Some are great, some are mediocre. A quick look-see test with the seller probably wont help, as you'd need to make sure you had perfect collimation and good seeing conditions to tell - I think you'd only know if you got a good one or not after a few observing sessions.

On the Meade LX series, the comment about the LX90 mounts not being up to heavy duty work is about right, although I've seen plenty of examples of people pushing them beyond that! You just need to be aware that they are on the down side of sturdy and can only carry so much weight. An LX200 is pretty solid mount-wise, but very heavy! Its really not portable unless you've got plenty of muscle and is best left permanently mounted.

[robz (Robert)]

Well, when you weigh up what has to be done and what has to be purchased to be even able to use this scope, let alone evaluate it's performance, I think it's a dead end..................too many variables despite the large aperature attraction