And an 8" SCT or 7" f/15 Mak will easily slay the 120mm apo's - all of them - on all scores. Even a close match for weight, and for lower cost.
There's a lot to be said for a 7-8" cassegrain over a refractor of smaller aperture. In many ways it is a shame that Celestron and Meade are being killed by the Chinese clones, and unable to come up with any significant innovation to survive.
And an 8" SCT or 7" f/15 Mak will easily slay the 120mm apo's - all of them - on all scores. Even a close match for weight, and for lower cost.
There's a lot to be said for a 7-8" cassegrain over a refractor of smaller aperture. In many ways it is a shame that Celestron and Meade are being killed by the Chinese clones, and unable to come up with any significant innovation to survive.
I can think of at least one score where the APO is ahead .....
Buy the 120ED. There are lots of very good tools for viewing these days and you need to find what YOU like. If you want quick views on a whim nothing that requires cool down will beat it. Time is in short supply and waiting at least an hour for a scope to cool on most occasions i observed soured it for me. Then there is no stress about lack of contrast and mirror alignment. I had an 8"SCT and 80mm ED set up one night and preferred the 80mm view until the SCT reached equilibrium. But even then the lack of contrast annoyed me. It was quickly sold.
Don't make my mistake and see if you can try the 120 first but don't let people talk you out of it. Many people are extremely happy with them.
Beats me why anyone even makes 120mm refractors anymore if they really are so obsolete ............
+1 - Precisely
We live in a market/industry driven world. If refractors are trumped by reflectors why does anyone make them anymore?
If the top tier refractors didn't demonstrate any significantly superior features in comparison to the mass produced Synta refractors why do companies such as Tak, TV and AP continue to exist let alone why anyone would buy them at triple or more the money?
Buy the 120ED. There are lots of very good tools for viewing these days and you need to find what YOU like. If you want quick views on a whim nothing that requires cool down will beat it. Time is in short supply and waiting at least an hour for a scope to cool on most occasions i observed soured it for me. Then there is no stress about lack of contrast and mirror alignment. I had an 8"SCT and 80mm ED set up one night and preferred the 80mm view until the SCT reached equilibrium. But even then the lack of contrast annoyed me. It was quickly sold.
Don't make my mistake and see if you can try the 120 first but don't let people talk you out of it. Many people are extremely happy with them.
+1 Yep
These are all the points I made in an earlier post when I listed variables 1-5
An implementation detail. There are Cassegrain designs with fixed mirrors (like the one I've got, or Peter's MK-65). The ones with moving mirrors can be retro-fitted with Crayford or R&P focusers.
Beats me why anyone even makes 120mm refractors anymore if they really are so obsolete
Maybe for the same reason jewellery is made (and bought), even though it has no practical utility. People like to show off, those things are status symbols.
Now, with refractors that's clearly not the whole story, because they do perform nicely. The question is, can one justify to spend an extra 100% in order to reap a 5% benefit? And if so, its that because the extra 5% are absolutely necessary for one's application of the scope, or is it more like wearing a diamond bracelet?
Maybe for the same reason jewellery is made (and bought), even though it has no practical utility. People like to show off, those things are status symbols.
Now, with refractors that's clearly not the whole story, because they do perform nicely. The question is, can one justify to spend an extra 100% in order to reap a 5% benefit? And if so, its that because the extra 5% are absolutely necessary for one's application of the scope, or is it more like wearing a diamond bracelet?
Cheers
Steffen.
Or maybe the difference is even more than a tiny 5% but you have to take the plunge into the big $$ first to appreciate this point
I like steffens jewellery analogy the best.I myself find it impossible to deny myself opportunity of showing off in a "fancy car".Some people also would like to re iterate or imply the fact that they would only use tak,tv or similar, and all else is beneath them. I think this can be
seen as just another common human failling.Is it just a pathetic and desperate need for attention that most of us possess.Who knows.
Ps:While this is gettin a bit phallic.Has anyone looked at a pic of the big Alvin Clark lately?
Oh I forgot.Its only an achro! Waste of time looking through it in my view. haw
The allure of refractors is irresistable. I have tried EVERY permutation and combination and flavour of telescope over the years, learned to HATE some, tolerate others, but I ALWAYS came back to refractors. I had aperture fever, I lost it again, thankfully! Aperture-schmaperture.
I cannot rave highly enough about my Vixen FL102S refractor, a scope sadly discontinued some time ago. It is a superlative instrument, with incredible contrast and clarity. It is the ONLY telescope out of MANY I have kept, and plan on keeping, including having owned Takahashi and others.
People told me I really shouldn't image DSO's through it at f/9... I proved them wrong. I also image with the dedicated focal reducer at f/6.4.
It is now THE only scope I own, but should have another refractor for travelling etc next week.
I had a few Skywatcher ED refractors - good bang for the buck. Not a fan of ED glass, but that is a personal thing, being a pure devotee of fluorite.
Point taken Matt. Refractors are gorgeous just to look at, especially antique ones Ive got one myself!. Not my intention to put anyones noses out of joint here. Just an attempt at levity.nothing more.We all have to poke fun at ourselves once in a while myself
included!cheers buddy.
I have yet to see anyone intimate what is suggested here. Everyone has their own reason for choosing a particular implement for observing, I bought my scope because I just love the colour of it !
Seriously though, I get just as much enjoyment from using the Berry & Mackay 3.5" F15 brass refractor, the views aren't as pristine as the Tak, the collimation is not as precise, the focuser takes a while to get used to, but looking through 140 year old optics has a magic all its own.
I can guess Jenny was not home when you took that photo on the table Matt
I managed to accidentally spray paint (should I say airborne aerosol particles better) the wife's leather shoes with epoxy white paint. Normal paint would have dried in the air before contacting the shoes (I did it in the driveway, and they floated inside the garage), but epoxy having such a long cure time does not.
I got it off with ballistol oil, but I was called all manner of derogatory names for the better part of an hour.
It was fascinating to see just how much DID get a misting of it! Goes to show...
Although I fully appreciate that the hobby of astronomy is a broad church and has a following catering to many different tastes I, for one at least, have never been interested in the "appearances" of the equipment (other than to assess condition when purchasing 2nd hand). For me a 'telescope' is something I look through to see the universe - not something I look at.
In this context my own experience has always been that the images always tend to be better with the more expensive refractors. I loved my first short-tube C-80 but when I purchased a Tak FS-60 it simply outperformed the C-80 and the same trend continued thereafter with gradually larger and larger refractors. Ultimately, the single most important rule of thumb with refractors based upon actually looking through them was that quality trumps quantity. There really wasn't any emotion to these experiences other than what can be seen in the eyepiece and not what is seen when looking at the telescope.