Jump to content


Photo

SV105 vs SV115

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11 replies to this topic

#1 noah way

noah way

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 486
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2009

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:43 PM

OPT has the Stellarvue SV105 APO Triplet (Ohara FPL-53, 2” Feather Touch reverse Crayford) for $2295 and is listing the SV115EDT (Ohara FPL-51, 3" Crayford) for $2195.

How would you rate the two against each other, and which would you pick - aperture rules?

#2 Herenomore

Herenomore

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2004

Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:21 PM

I don't think SV has shipped any 115EDT's and this post from the SV group probably speaks to that:

http://tech.groups.y.../message/104938

Anyway, while the 115 will give you (on paper) ~20% light gain over the 105, the 105 has better optics (I'm assuming that to be true b/c of the FPL53 element), a better focuser, and is lighter/shorter.

#3 RTLR 12

RTLR 12

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4581
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008

Posted 13 January 2010 - 04:48 PM

OPT has an SV115EDT on their sales floor. It is one that Vic brought down from Auburn for the TACO event at OPT in November. I had a chance to look through this scope an was very impressed with the views. I didn't do a side by side comparison,but even Vic said he was building them too good.

AS far as the focuser goes It's not a Feather Touch, but it's pretty good, a the 115 only weighs 1# more than the 105.

Stan

#4 Don Allen

Don Allen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2005

Posted 13 January 2010 - 07:54 PM


I would say that if you are a visual user, the 115EDT would be the better choice...using it for AP...the 105T.

#5 Phil Frederick

Phil Frederick

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005

Posted 14 January 2010 - 12:07 PM

Awhile back I was debating between the 105T and the 115EDT. I spoke with Vic and he explained that the 105 was better corrected with better contrast but that the 115 would go a bit deeper--but not alot. And I'm strictly visual.

I got the 115EDT. This was a very nice scope but, for me, it was a little on the large/heavy side especially with the 3" focuser (not a FT BTW). So I exchanged it for the 105T. WOW! This scope offers the best corrected, highest contrast and most color-free views I've had with any scope I've owned (not saying there aren't some better but it's the best I've experienced).

I wish I could have A-B'd the two scopes directly but that wasn't possible. My subjective opinion however is that the 105T is better. The views are better (not a lot). It's more portable. And to my eye, I don't think I could really see the small magnitude gain that the 115 would have given me.

All that said, they are both very nice scopes but for me, the 105T is a better choice.

Phil

#6 Clive Gibbons

Clive Gibbons

    Mostly Harmless

  • *****
  • Posts: 16724
  • Joined: 26 May 2005

Posted 14 January 2010 - 12:58 PM

I would say that if you are a visual user, the 115EDT would be the better choice...using it for AP...the 105T.


+1 :ubetcha:

#7 bdawg6381

bdawg6381

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 456
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008

Posted 14 January 2010 - 01:26 PM

Having looked through niether... I would get the 105T based on my past experiences with feathertouch focusers and viewing through "very well corrected" and "true apo" telescopes

#8 Don Allen

Don Allen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2005

Posted 14 January 2010 - 01:50 PM

Phil,

From your post the 105T clearly had the WOW factor which the 115EDT did not. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on that a bit as I am sure there are many readers who are thinking along the same lines you were or even between the 115T and the 130 EDT. Thanks.

#9 Phil Frederick

Phil Frederick

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005

Posted 14 January 2010 - 06:08 PM

From your post the 105T clearly had the WOW factor which the 115EDT did not. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on that a bit as I am sure there are many readers who are thinking along the same lines you were or even between the 115T and the 130 EDT. Thanks.



:lol: Oh-oh! I guess I better qualify what I'm about to say. First of all I wouldn't consider myself a highly experienced observer even though I've been at this for a number of years (living in the Great Pacific Northwest doesn't give you many quality observing sessions especially from my downtown Seattle location). Secondly, I know that all of us want to justify our purchases in our own mind and we can easily see things that are or are not there!

I think the main thing that struck me was in viewing Luna thru the 105, the contrast and detail appeared so sharp, it was like I was in a space ship cruising above the terminator. It almost looked 3D. Though this is a subjective experience, when I looked at Luna the month before with the 115EDT, I don't recall having the same feeling although the views were still very good. It could very well have been the atmospheric conditions were better when I viewed with the 105. And also as Vic notes, the contrast is a bit higher on the 105 and maybe this is part of what I was seeing. And maybe since I've owned a whole herd of ED scopes over the years I was just experiencing 'excessive exuberance' at the thought of having my first true 4" apo!

I like the size of the 105 better and I like the FT focuser better than the 3" on the 115. But I really don't want to overstate the optical differences between these scopes or mislead anyone. As I said in my previous post, I wasn't able to directly A-B these scopes and my viewing with both is quite limited at this point.

It would be really neat to see a comparative review of these scopes from a good viewing site and by someone who is eminently qualified to see the subtle differences between them.

#10 Clive Gibbons

Clive Gibbons

    Mostly Harmless

  • *****
  • Posts: 16724
  • Joined: 26 May 2005

Posted 15 January 2010 - 08:54 AM

One nice thing about the 115-- you can install a 105mm aperture mask over the front if the seeing isn't cooperating or you'd like the contrast and correction to nudge up a little. Comparing that view to the SV105 might be worthwhile.
Then, when you're after fainter objects or trying to split the tightest doubles, revert back to the full 115mm aperture.

I've tried a similar experiment with my S-W ED120.
Dropping down to 110mm results in essentially perfect correction. Really "textbook" looking images. But, opening out to 120mm does deliver some extra optical "punch" without degrading the quality of image in any significant way... which is why I use the scope at full aperture 99% of the time.

#11 Don Allen

Don Allen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2005

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:51 AM

Good idea Clive...so do you use glue or scotch tape to attached the mask to the lens? :lol:

#12 Clive Gibbons

Clive Gibbons

    Mostly Harmless

  • *****
  • Posts: 16724
  • Joined: 26 May 2005

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:06 PM

Good idea Clive...so do you use glue or scotch tape to attached the mask to the lens? :lol:


Something more hi-tech-- a plastic aperture mask that press-fits into the dewcap. :waytogo:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics