Thoughts on the 16" Lightbridge from any owners

stephenb (Stephen) · #1 07-08-2009, 07:50 PM

I put the following questions out to any current and previous owners of Meade Lightbridge 16" Dobs. I am purely interested in the optical performance on visual observing, not the mechanical performance (mount etc).

How did the 16" LB compare to other scopes you have used?

I wouldn't mind hearing about the visual results you achieved with this aperture, in regards to planetary observations, and also DSO's.

Did this aperture allow to to expand your search with those faint fuzzies? Can you give some descriptive examples on dome of the objects you observed.

I'm trying to get a bit of a feel for what to expect in regards to the visual observing with this size, compared to smaller apertures I have owned.

bobson (Bob) · #2 09-08-2009, 10:57 AM

Looks like everyone on this forum is just about astrophotography

Does anyone on this forum with over 6000 members have 16” LB and little time to share their experience?

Thanks in advance

marki · #3 09-08-2009, 11:07 AM

I am not sure who owns a 16" LB but take heart, most likely they have not seen this thread yet. Once they do you will be hard pressed to stop them answering

.

Mark

PS: there are a large number of visual observers on this forum.

lesbehrens (Les) · #4 09-08-2009, 11:21 AM

hi. well i don't have a Meade light bridge but i do have a 16" gso. i think it is very great and preforms very well visually. why i got this scope was to view the horse head nebula. this is an object i have always wanted to see. my last 10"dob couldn't make this jump. when i had my first attempt at this object i was blown away that i could see right away. it still is faint you could make out where the horse head was but not in great detail. i could see a little detail too in the Neb too.
as to planets is OK. but you will need to use some filters as they are very bright. eg if u wanted to look at the moon i have seen more of the smaller creators than i thought i could see.the detail is great you can make out the Cliff edges and more roughness around the creators too.i am amazed i didn't see the flag on the moon. in a sence to u can compair your photos to what u can see.
i would recommend one.

:astro n:

astronut (John) · #5 09-08-2009, 11:42 AM

Stephen,
I've had a 12"LB for over 3 years and if I had the time again, I would still buy it.
The views through it are brilliant, and it's an easy scope to setup, use and transport.
A friend in MAS has the 16", all the above info applies to it as well.
The three main differences are: 1. Larger & heavier (but still portable)
2. Images are brighter and the scope can see about 3/4 mag deeper.
3. It's double the price of the 12" (a definite minus)

The LB's are a very good value still and are the sort of scope that allows personal touches to be made by the owner, for your observing needs.

Kevnool (Kev) · #6 09-08-2009, 11:59 AM

Cant comment on the Meade 16` only have a 10`lightbrige, But the GSO 16` i can comment on in which the optics are great.

Poor ole lightbridge sits in the corner as an ornament.

Cheers Kev.

bobson (Bob) · #7 09-08-2009, 11:59 AM

Finally

I was afraid this topic will end on the next page and most likely wouldn't be seen from 16" owners.

Mark, I am glad we have visual observers on this forum too.

Thanks Les and Kev,

Yours is GSO truss tube 16", how do you find it when observing objects near horizon? I know some people with LB complain that it loses collimation, drops a bit on wing nuts?

cheers

bob

stephenb (Stephen) · #8 09-08-2009, 12:25 PM

Thanks Bob for your prompting. I suspect I posted this thread at the wrong end of the weekend. Just needed a few days for it to filter through.

Kev and Les, thanks for your opinions, I did say LB but any commerical Dob with a GSO 16" was applicable.

I remeber looking at M42 in a 12" GSO a while back and was very impressed with the view, those whisps of nebula were stunning. Also at the Sombrero and the dust lane was quite prominant. (The first time I used an aperture of this size for a number of years). I would imagine a 16" is another step up again.

I'm glad we have some visual observers here.

lesbehrens (Les) · #9 09-08-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenluceskies

Thanks Bob for your prompting. I suspect I posted this thread at the wrong end of the weekend. Just needed a few days for it to filter through.

Kev and Les, thanks for your opinions, I did say LB but any commerical Dob with a GSO 16" was applicable.

I remeber looking at M42 in a 12" GSO a while back and was very impressed with the view, those whisps of nebula were stunning. Also at the Sombrero and the dust lane was quite prominant. (The first time I used an aperture of this size for a number of years). I would imagine a 16" is another step up again.

I'm glad we have some visual observers here.

i to like looking at the M 42 it amazing though a 16"compared to my 10".
as to looking objects at the horizon my collimation does not get affected.

Kevnool (Kev) · #10 09-08-2009, 12:37 PM

Bob my gso doesnt lose collimation even down low close to the horizon due to the fact that the gso 16 comes stock standard with 3 struts mine now has been modified with 6 struts to any movement that was there.

Without the mods i agree it was horendous to collimate because of the movement between the OTA and the UTA but i liked the design of the gso only because it will allow extra strut mods for stability.

Heres a link to the mods of the GSO 16
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...light=makeover
Cheers Kev.

Barrykgerdes · #11 09-08-2009, 12:44 PM

OK
I saw this thread early and I have a lightbridge 16" Telescope
I did not comment because I have not really put it through its paces yet.
I have only had it out once to Bowen mountain (Crago) and visually it compares favourably to any other 16" telescope I have seen.
I used a laser collimator to set it up. and aligned the red dot finder on a land object.
Then I used it with the supplied 26mm QX wide angle 2" eyepiece.
I had no trouble locating and observing the usual visual objects.
I then looked at Saturn with a 9mm 4000 series 1.25" eyepiece. No problem.

I have now fitted a set of Magellan I setting circles but have not had a chance to try them out yet.

Barry

astronut (John) · #12 09-08-2009, 12:45 PM

One other thing..........if the 16" is a little too big too handle.
I can recommend an 0111/UHC filter on a 12", it certainly brings out greater detail on all nebulas, than without!!

I've done a side by side comparison with a 16" without a filter and my 12" with a filter and the view is a lot better in the 12"!!
The 16" will shine above the 12" with Galaxies and of course the dimmer DSO's.
Don't forget that most of the commercial 16" Dobs are made by GSO (Taiwan).
The Flexitube Skywatcher & Solid tube dobs are the exception, they're manufactured by Saxon (mainland China)
Which ever size or brand that you choose, a great telescope is the end result.
Of course the wallet and what lies within is also a big consideration.

bobson (Bob) · #13 09-08-2009, 01:14 PM

John,

I have 12" Bintel Dob, thinking about 16"

This filter 0111/UHC, would Bintel OIII Filter $89 (1.25") be any good or I need more expensive to look at? I wish it was 2" though. Astronomic has astronomic prices

Kev,

Thats some nice mods you've done, or maybe I should say totally redone

cheers

bob

sheeny (Al) · #14 09-08-2009, 01:20 PM

I'd like to comment, but I've only had my 16" Lightbridge for 1 day and one night

. ATM I only have 1 EP that'll fit until I get a 1.25" to 2" adapter, and that is a damaged EP that Houghy gave me. It has chemical damage to the coating on the eye end of the EP and produces glare haloes around bright stars

. So, my views so far, I feel would not do it justice.

That said, I can say that I was able to view the Jewel Box during twilight with brilliant colour in the stars. Views of Jupiter with a near full moon coming up below it showed the two equatorial bands far easier than any 8" scope I've used, but unfortunately the detail was mushy probably due to low altitude and perhaps some effects from the damaged coatings on the EP. Omega Centauri was spectacular as always and probably the object least apparently affected by glare from the EP.

I think the 16" has a lot of potential, considering last night was far from ideal conditions (moon shine + a crook EP). I'll be happy to comment further later when I have some better EPs and conditions.

Al.

bobson (Bob) · #15 09-08-2009, 01:33 PM

Al,

Its very strange but I remember looking at Jupiter last year just when Sun goes down, still day and you have to know where it is to find it. And it looked much better than during night observation. Much more detail and contrast. Than I found some article on Cloudy Nights about it, they played with artificial lights to get better contrast for planets. Also in that report they said that plossls are the best for planets.

With 16" one guy said Jupiter appears "washed out" a bit. Maybe some sort of filters would improve it, don't know.

bob

Kevnool (Kev) · #16 09-08-2009, 02:49 PM

Bob orthoscpics are the best for planetary observations.
Cheers Kev.

astronut (John) · #17 09-08-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobson

John,

I have 12" Bintel Dob, thinking about 16"

This filter 0111/UHC, would Bintel OIII Filter $89 (1.25") be any good or I need more expensive to look at? I wish it was 2" though. Astronomic has astronomic prices

Kev,

Thats some nice mods you've done, or maybe I should say totally redone

cheers

bob

Hi Bob,
The Bintel filter will do a good job. Try that before you spend the extra money for a bigger scope.
All dobs are a work in progress. I don't think there's one dob on IIS that hasn't been tweaked somehow!!

Please don't get me wrong a 16" will ALWAYS show more than a 12" with all things being equal.
The 16" with a 0111/UHC will see more than the 12" with the same equipment.
As I said before size, weight and price are the BIG considerations.

toryglen-boy (Duncan) · #18 10-08-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astronut

The Flexitube Skywatcher & Solid tube dobs are the exception, they're manufactured by Saxon (mainland China)
Which ever size or brand that you choose, a great telescope is the end result.
Of course the wallet and what lies within is also a big consideration.

shouldnt that be Synta?

i am thinking about jumping to the 16" from my 12", but then again the 20" is due in January, and that would be better

astronut (John) · #19 10-08-2009, 01:48 PM

[QUOTE=toryglen-boy;477024]shouldnt that be Synta?

I stand corrected, Synta it is.

bobson (Bob) · #20 10-08-2009, 07:08 PM

Kev,

Read this, its from CloudyNights about planetary eyepieces. I agree with you that orthos should be planetary eyepieces but this guys say plossls. Also they explain about observing planets under light and why we see them better this way.

planetaryeyepieces.pdf

toryglen-boy,

Is it true 20" is due in January? I read some things on this forum but...
I wonder how much is it going to be?

cheers

bob