New Refractor Advice

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by AlexN

That is fantastic that you were able to talk to the owner of the company when they sent you a defective product. No matter how slight, or how easily fixed this defect was, your method of pointing out the companies excellence was to first say "I bought a stellarvue scope that had something wrong with it.."

Takahashi, TEC, TMB, Astro-Physics owners.. Hands up if there was something wrong with your scope when it was delivered?

As the owner of a new Astro-Physics refractor as well I can tell you that the quality difference between my SV and AP scopes is marginal at best. Both are built to very high standards, and both have superb optics. The suspected defect in my SV90, as I pointed out, was merely a piece of paint that had come loose during the 20,000 kilometers shipping the product went through, and was easily removed.

[TrevorW]

I thru in the idea of Stellarvue only because for the price they are a good scope.

Personally if I had the money my choice for a refractor would be an A & M 152mm f/8

http://www.astrotech.it/it/prodotti/a&m/a&mapo.htm

If money is not an issue and you are prepared to import try A&M

Takahashi are a nice scope but personally as with Borg I don't like the proprietary set up for accessories and focusers etc

[supanova (Wayne)]

Greg and Alex,I completely agree,and I don't know anyone that would disagree that Takahashi make beautiful telescopes,and certainly the FSQ series give beautiful flat fields,and I think anyone that has seen images taken by some of the better Astrophotographers using them would agree they can be stunning,that has never been my point.My point was that there are many genuine Apos out there that in the right hands will provide images at least as good.Everyone has their own personal likes and dislikes.People find different different things appealing and annoying ie Flat fields,chromatic aberation etc.Unfortunately,in Australia we are limited to a large degree to the general availability of just a few brands that are imported here,and most people only get to see and feel the quality or lack of in some cases of these few brands.We all get to see on the internet and read in magazines about other,maybe more exotic brands,as not everyone is prepared to part with a lot of money to an overseas company or individual and hoping you have the product arrive or arrive as advertised in condition and performance.
Alex,unfortunately,I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying about Stellarvue telescopes.I am aware that Vic used LZOS optics in certain model telescopes only,that is why I mentioned the SV105 F6.2,and the SV80L & SV80S,because these all had the optics supplied directly by Thomas Back to Vic Maris when they were in a working relationship together,with both building their own tubes to fit the optics.I am also aware that just like TMB,Stellarvue now use optics from another source.What I am interested in is a comment regarding the fit and fitment of TMB scopes being of a higher quality than Stellarvue.Maybe the 105/650 CNC model is superior,but I think that this telescope is probably built better than any other refractor built before or since,apart from the focuser!!!!TMB in their other scopes tended to use tubes made by Vixen and a multitude of other manufacturers.Stellarvue tubes are made inhouse and individually inspected for defects,and the dew shield comes with a screw on metal dust cap,and not just a push on cap or cheap plastic end cap.And having now owned one for a while,and having seen first hand most of the top brand scopes,I can say that fit and finish on the Stellarvue is as good as any,and better than most.And please don't mention WO in the same breath either performance wise or build quality wise,because they are not in the same class.But I must admit that I haven't personally been able to lay my hands on a TEC 140,but am willing to take the risk and just go on its reputation,and this will more than likely be my next scope to add to the collection.As I don't think I can afford a 127mm dual flourite triplet Stellarvue!
But back to the original question regarding an 80mm refractor for wide field use with a DSLR,I still stand by what I said regarding the SV80L and probably more so the SV80S having faster optics,more suited to short images taken with a DSLR.And with the change you would have left over from not buying the FSQ85,you could buy any field flattener and accessories and probably buy a nice new camera as well.And any report you will find on these scopes will reiterate how well they perform,and there are numerous images taken by people like John Talbot and Tony Hallas that will demonstrate just how well they perform as a photographic platform.And once again,I don't for one second doubt how well the Tak will perform,but at what difference in cost???

[TrevorW]

Did I mention that my SV80ED fell a metre and a bit, onto concrete the other night the only damage was some paint chipped off the dew shield.

My heart stopped for a moment when it happened

[AlexN]

Originally Posted by supanova

Greg and Alex,I completely agree,and I don't know anyone that would disagree...but at what difference in cost???

Sorry for snipping down the quote, but I figure its better than reposting the whole thing...

Firstly - Magnificent post.. Very well written and full of great, accurate information..

Secondly, I do not mean again to say that the SV scopes aren't a great option. Clearly they are... the 80S and 80L are both amazing scopes.. I've been interested in the SV105 in the past, however I think I'll go for the Astrotech Engineering 105 if I manage to afford one..

I suppose, the best way to say what I've been trying to say (rather inadequately I might add) is, If money is not in question, the Tak/TEC/TMB (and other manufacturers using TMB designed lenses, TMB built lenses etc. there are many) and Astrophysics are the best options...

Yes, the premium you pay for one of these scopes, that may only have marginally better performance and quality when compared to some of the top end WO/SV scopes, is high.. But as with everything.. getting to 90% of total potential is cheap, its that final 10% that costs mega-bucks...

Take building a street drag racing car...
My VL Turbo I built a few years back cost me $22,000 to get it to run a 10.84sec quater mile... According to my mate (who was a mechanic and my guide at the time) to get the car running under 10seconds would take another $20k at least... Top fuel drag cars talk about figures like $100,000 to get 1/10th of a second faster... This philosophy holds true for almost everything...