Jump to content


Photo

Mewlon 210 vs. 9.25 Celestron

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Juno

Paul Juno

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010

Posted 23 February 2010 - 06:27 PM

Just curious guys ... I'm looking at getting a larger aperture scope pretty much for visual use and wonder whether or not you think the Tak is worth the extra money vs. a lower end Celestron scope. My grab and go is a TV85, imaging scope is a FSQ-106, and now looking for something a little bigger for pure visual use. Thanks for any input you guys have!

#2 HonoluluWalt

HonoluluWalt

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2009

Posted 23 February 2010 - 08:11 PM

Wow! My grab and go is a TV 85, and I eventually narrowed my choices for a larger aperture scope down to the C-9.25 and the Mewlon 210 (with the C-8, and the Intes Micro 703 also in contention). Thus, we must think alike.

In my opinion, the extra money was worth it and I chose the Mewlon 210. I am very, very happy with this scope. However, the C-9.25 has about an inch more aperture, so, in addition to saving lots of money, you would have a bit more aperture. On the other hand, there is no comparison in quality of build between the two scopes. There is nothing wrong with Celestron scopes. In fact, I found them quite nice. But the Takahashi scopes are absolutely beautiful.

As to the question of the quality of the view, I have nothing measurable that I can say about the two scopes. To me, it seemed like the skies looked a bit blacker in the Mewlon 210, and it seemed to have better contrast. But you have to take my opinions with a grain of salt because I am not that experienced, and I am writing this AFTER I made the purchase, so I am sure that, despite my effort to be objective, there is at least a subconscious desire to justify my buying decision by saying, "the scope I chose is the best."

I write here only to tell you that I love my Mewlon 210, I have no complaints about it, it exceeds my expectations, and that I would be surprised if anyone buying a Takahashi Mewlon 210 were to be disappointed. In my mind, the big issues regarding this scope will be: (1) will you be bothered by coma at the periphery of the field of view? I have yet to even notice it, but I am sure that it would be detectable by a more experienced observer; and (2) will you be bothered by the diffraction spikes that every DK scope and every Newtonian scope will exhibit on bright objects? In my case, I rarely even notice diffraction spikes in my scope, or in Newtonians.

For me, while I do not like to waste money, low price was not a priority and quality of build was. However, others might appreciate the excellent performance of a C-9.25 at a very reasonable price. Had I made this decision 20 years ago when money was tighter for me, I would have chosen the C-9.25 (but I probably would have eventually sold it and bought the Mewlon 210 in the end anyway).

In conclusion, my subjective opinion, supported by no actual data, is that I like the Mewlon 210 better for my particular needs, and yes, I think the extra cost is money well spent. I like the open tube design, and the quicker cool-down times and the dew-resistance it provides.

But if your objective is getting the most bang for the buck, and if you plan on keeping the scope for only a short time, then you might be happier with the C-9.25. I suspect that you would be happy with either scope.

#3 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20271
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 24 February 2010 - 12:55 AM

The Mewlon has a smaller central obstruction and no corrector. Less scatter, faster cooldown, and in most cases, likely better figured optics.

The C9.25 is cheaper, had greater light grasp, and, well, is cheaper...

Of course, you could afford almost two C11s (not mere C9.25s) for the price of one Mewlon 210. Come to think of it, I would choose a C11 over a C9.25. Probably the Mewlon over either, but with the C11 OTAs on sale for $1700 currently, it'd be close.

Regards,

Jim

#4 Traveler

Traveler

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 24 February 2010 - 01:54 AM

What about the mirror shift when focus, does the Mewlon do that job better than the C9.25? And what about the collimation?

The C9.25 is quite large IMO. Does anybody have a picture where we can see the volume difference (if there is) between the two?

When the Mewlon is at the same build quality level as for example a FS102 or Sky90, then i think I'm going to like the Mewlon very much.

But it is a F 11 system, a bit slow... Does anybody has experience with reducing the system (Optec MAXField reducer)?

Regards, Patrick

#5 hGmnwi

hGmnwi

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Shanghai, China

Posted 24 February 2010 - 06:01 AM

My Mewlon 210 was shipped directly from Japan to China by air. The collimation was dead on right out of the box. After several trips (100~500km per trip) the collimation holds quite well. I have not yet re-collimate the optics.
BTW, I have once opened the mirror cell to blow off the dust according to the manual. The collimation wasn't change as is said in the manual. But now I use a hair dryer set at cold to blow dust from the open side of the tube and that works.

As for build quality, I think every Tak is at the same level. BTW, I also own a FS-60C.

Mewlon does have image shift but that doesn't bother me much. When observing at 350x or higher the image shift is acceptable for me. But the original focuser knob is a little bit too tight (tighter than a sky-watcher sc8). Considering to add a feather touch focuser.

Hope this help and sorry for my Chn-English.:)

Huang

#6 chuckscap

chuckscap

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 580
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Colorado Springs, CO USA

Posted 24 February 2010 - 09:53 AM

Hi, since most Tak owners take VERY good care of their scopes I'd shop for a used one on the CN classifieds and Astromart. Typcially they go for around $1500 used.

Chuck

#7 Traveler

Traveler

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 24 February 2010 - 10:52 AM

thank you, huang, you helped indeed...i see image shift in the c 9.25 already with half of your mentioned magnification. besides that, the cooldown time of the celestron is in my opinon a problem which i can t live with.

p.s. english is also not my naitive language, but hey we all have astronomy and telescopes as the glue!

#8 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20271
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 24 February 2010 - 11:11 AM

The Mewlon 210 is also extremely large for its aperture (27.55" X 9.6").

The C9.25 by comparison is shorter (at 22" in length) and only slightly larger in diameter. At 20# the C9.25 is also only a tiny bit heavier (Mewlon 210 weighs ~18#).

There's no question that the Mewlon's fit and finish is better than the Celestron's. As for the focusing mechanism, the Tak's is a little better on average (Celestron scopes vary in this regard unit to unit) but still has some small amount of mirror shift. I suspect that is why the bigger Mewlons use a secondary focusing mechanism and a fixed primary.

My Mewlon arrived (new from OPT) way, way out of whack. Not only was the secondary misaligned, it was also decentered. A half hour with a screwdriver and Bob's Knobs has it back to usability. Whether or not it retains collimation with the Bob's Knobs remains to be seen, but given how much easier it is to adjust collimation with the Bob's Knobs than the stock allen screws, it's not a big deal in any case.

Regards,

Jim

#9 roadi

roadi

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Great Grey Spot "Denmark"

Posted 24 February 2010 - 12:51 PM

Of course, you could afford almost two C11s (not mere C9.25s) for the price of one Mewlon 210. Come to think of it, I would choose a C11 over a C9.25. Probably the Mewlon over either, but with the C11 OTAs on sale for $1700 currently, it'd be close.

Regards,

Jim


A C11 for the half of the prise of a mewlon 210! ohh dear..
I would go for the 3" of more aperture and have money left over for a very nice binoviewer and perhaps a couple of nice EP's too :question:

#10 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6756
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 24 February 2010 - 03:58 PM


But if your objective is getting the most bang for the buck, and if you plan on keeping the scope for only a short time, then you might be happier with the C-9.25. I suspect that you would be happy with either scope.


I own a Tak FS128 and sold my 9.25. I still have a chance to view through my old 9.25 from time to time (sold it to a club member) and it is excellent.

I think I'd go with the "Edge 9.25". It's not that I don't love Tak. I truly do. But the 9.25 is one of the finest tin cans to be put on the market in the past ten years. It's a steal for what it can do.

I wanted more aperture, and got the C14. Recently I acquired a ten inch f/6 Newtonian and the amount of hassle I am having putting it on a GEM (I'm nearly there though, just had to have some parts custom machined and so on) I kinda think this is a nutty thing to have bought. I fell for it because when i was a kid a 10" Newt on a GEM was the nec plus ultra. But it has occurred to me more than once that I'd be better off with a 9.25.

Field of view on the two scopes is equivalent. I imagine that if the Edge version has fastar it will be the "wide field" scope for photography.

regards
Greg N

Greg N

#11 HonoluluWalt

HonoluluWalt

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2009

Posted 24 February 2010 - 04:02 PM

Roadi,

This depends on how you are shopping. If one has a set amount of money that one wants to spend, then yes, that particular buyer could have the extra 2.73 inches of aperture and also have money left over if they were to buy the C-11 instead of the Mewlon 210. Under those circumstances, yes, I would agree with you.

However, if the OP has decided on a particular aperture or a certain weight because of storage space limitations or some other reason, then the comparable Celestron scope is the C-9.25 rather than the C-11. Then the question becomes, as the OP first mentioned: is the Mewlon 210 worth the extra expense of its relatively high price? In my case, I answered the question, "yes," but that answer was related to the fact that the extra expense was not a burden to me, and I was not saving for any other astronomy equipment, as I had most of what I needed already.

On the other hand, someone who could use the extra money saved by buying a Celestron scope to buy extra equipment (that they would have to forego buying if their budget for equipment is exhausted by paying for the Mewlon), they might reasonably buy the C-9.25 or the C-11. The question is, which are the more important factors for this particular OP.

(1) Is having extra aperture of a C-11 or C-9.25 and the concomitant boost in aperture-related performance more important? Do they have the extra storage space needed for a C-11 and do they already own a mount that can handle the extra weight in the case of the C-11?

(2) Is having having the extra money to spend on more astronomy equipment an important factor, or do they already own most of what they need?

(3) Are the benefits of owning a Takahashi, including, but not limited to, better contrast (possibly), having a scope with a superior quality of build (probably), and not having to worry as much about dew and cooling (which could possibly translate into extra observing time with a particular object) important, or are these factors outweighed by the factors above?.

If the OP is less motivated by the admittedly significant benefits of obtaining the more bang for the buck with Celestron scopes, and if the OP is more motivated by avoiding the large size/weight difference of the C-11, and if the OP is more motivated by obtaining the superior Takahashi quality of build, then choosing the Mewlon 210 might be reasonable despite the extra cost.

In other words, if the OP has decided on a certain sized scope and wants to know if buying the Mewlon 210 rather than the C-9.25 will be a waste of money, or if it will be money well spent, then the decision making process will be quite different than if the OP has a given amount of money he wants to spend on astronomy equipment and wants to know how to obtain the "best" visual observing set-up for that given amount of money. In such a case, the current C-11 price will be particularly attractive if he will still have additional purchasing requirements after obtaining the OTA.

Having said all of this, yes Roadi, you make a very good point. Only the OP can decide, because only the OP knows what his exact priorities are. I think a very good argument can be made for buying any of the three scopes (Mewlon 210, C-9.25, or C-11). However, assuming no space limitation, my bet is that most people would agree with you and go for the C-11 and the extra money (excluding people like me who simply do not have the extra space required for storage of a large scope like the C-11 and the large mount to carry it, and who would lose much of the money saved by buying the C-11 because of the need to buy a new mount capable of carrying it).

By the way Roadi, I have read many of your posts, and I have enjoyed reading all of them.

#12 Ennis

Ennis

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 853
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2006
  • Loc: The Outer Limits

Posted 24 February 2010 - 07:20 PM



But if your objective is getting the most bang for the buck, and if you plan on keeping the scope for only a short time, then you might be happier with the C-9.25. I suspect that you would be happy with either scope.


I own a Tak FS128 and sold my 9.25. I still have a chance to view through my old 9.25 from time to time (sold it to a club member) and it is excellent.

I think I'd go with the "Edge 9.25". It's not that I don't love Tak. I truly do. But the 9.25 is one of the finest tin cans to be put on the market in the past ten years. It's a steal for what it can do.

I wanted more aperture, and got the C14. Recently I acquired a ten inch f/6 Newtonian and the amount of hassle I am having putting it on a GEM (I'm nearly there though, just had to have some parts custom machined and so on) I kinda think this is a nutty thing to have bought. I fell for it because when i was a kid a 10" Newt on a GEM was the nec plus ultra. But it has occurred to me more than once that I'd be better off with a 9.25.

Field of view on the two scopes is equivalent. I imagine that if the Edge version has fastar it will be the "wide field" scope for photography.

regards
Greg N

Greg N


Hey, Greg,

How do the 9.25's images compare to your FS-128's images? Which scope gives you more smiles, more satisfaction?

Thank you.

Ennis

#13 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6756
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 24 February 2010 - 08:24 PM

The 9.25 planet performance outperforms the FS128.

Watching Comet C/2007 E2 Lovejoy move through Aquila in April 2007 in the FS128 was one of the most remarkable experiences of my life. The comet was visibly moving against the stars, easily viewed at low powers in the 5" with the dazzling sky background.

I sold the 9.25 and got the FS128 which could be sold again to buy three more 9.25s, so that's all I need to say. When I want aperture I use the C14. The 9.25 is excellent on planets but the C14 brings in more, especially color.

I'm moving into a mode right now where I'll have very good examples of the three principle designs in use (Newt, 5" fluorite doublet, SCT), I'm very lucky not to have to choose between them--so long as the cash holds out.

Greg N

#14 hGmnwi

hGmnwi

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Shanghai, China

Posted 24 February 2010 - 09:50 PM

I also like the finder scope of mewlon. When I put target at centre of the crosshair I can find it in my 200x to 300x eyepiece, always. Once collimated it never need adjustment despite it also serves as a handle of the scope.

Compare with my friend's SCT, this nice permanent attached finder scope/handle save me a lot of time in the field.

I custom made a aluminum case for the scope which is 32cm x 32cm x 75cm in dimension and I added a pair of wheels. Not small but quite light. I can handle it easily.

Huang

#15 roadi

roadi

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Great Grey Spot "Denmark"

Posted 25 February 2010 - 09:00 AM

Walt, You are right and I agree with what you say, and I think I made my decission on the mewlon 210 for many of the same reasons as you and many others did too, but a C11 OTA for half of the prise of a 8.25" (even though Takahshi) scope.. would in my world tip the scale toward the 2.75" larger C11. The most impresive and memorable view I had of the moon was through C11 with a Zeiss bino wich I doubt the considerably smaller mewlon could match no matter how excellent it might be in both optical and mechanical parts.

Looking through the C11, the faint planets Uranus and Neptune were a delight, clearly showing their green and blue colors wich is indeed harder for my eyes to detect in the smaller mewlon! So for the half of the prise of the µ210 and assuming the C11 are of same quallity as the one sample I looked through I'll have to admit I'll take the C11. The difrence in masses between them are not that huge.. 26.4 lb vs 17.6 lb, at least not to me, and I know of one person who had his C11 mounted on a Tak EM10 mount (my former) and doing photography! ;) but otherwise you are correct.. portability may also be something to be considered too.

#16 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6756
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 25 February 2010 - 11:24 AM

So for the half of the prise of the µ210 and assuming the C11 are of same quallity as the one sample I looked through I'll have to admit I'll take the C11.


whoa whoa whoa stop right there. How did you get a Greek character into your text?

Greg N

#17 Larloch

Larloch

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Hungary

Posted 25 February 2010 - 11:41 AM

whoa whoa whoa stop right there. How did you get a Greek character into your text?


Alt-0181 (µ) on Windows :) As for the topic, I think the M210 is more sharper, contrasty and portable (and I mean it is mass transport compatible) than the C9.25. About the length, for the SCT you'll need a dewshield sooner or later, which will adds to the overall length of the scope -- on the other side, the Mewlon needs a perfect collimation to show it's potential. IMHO, the C11 is in a completely different league, the M210 is no match against it.

#18 roadi

roadi

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Great Grey Spot "Denmark"

Posted 25 February 2010 - 12:03 PM

whoa whoa whoa stop right there. How did you get a Greek character into your text?


Alt-0181 (µ) on Windows :) As for the topic, I think the M210 is more sharper, contrasty and portable (and I mean it is mass transport compatible) than the C9.25. About the length, for the SCT you'll need a dewshield sooner or later, which will adds to the overall length of the scope -- on the other side, the Mewlon needs a perfect collimation to show it's potential. IMHO, the C11 is in a completely different league, the M210 is no match against it.


Or: Alt-M :cool:

C11, Baader mkV binoviewer, a pair of 24mm panoptics, all this for maybe a litle more than a bare mewlon 210 OTA, and your ready to fly :bow:

Now back to the real world at least for me, here in Europe the C11 OTA cost 10% more than a mewlon 210!!

#19 HonoluluWalt

HonoluluWalt

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2009

Posted 25 February 2010 - 02:23 PM

Yes, of course, an 8.27" scope cannot compete with an 11" under ordinary conditions. And if there were no weight or size considerations and if I already owned a mount that would handle the weight of the C-11, of course I would choose it, particularly for half the price.

But I think that, somewhere, somehow, my point was missed. In my case (and there may be others in the same situation), if someone were to give me a C-11 OTA for free, the only things I could do with it would be to: (a) rent a storage closet and keep it there, unused; (b) sell it; or © buy a new mount that could handle the weight and buy a new condo unit (or even better, a new house) that has the space to store a large mount and large scope, and hire someone to lift the scope for me, due to my doctor's medical advice that I lift nothing heavier than 20 pounds. I could not even use a C-11 unless I were to take all of these somewhat impractical actions.

My point here is that, sometimes there is more to choosing a scope than deciding which scope offers the best performance to cost ratio. Sometimes the limitation is not cost, but size and weight. So, in my case, as much as I would love to own a C-11 (or a 12" Newtonian), as a practical matter, there is no way that I could use it, even if it was given to me free of cost.

I do not know if the OP's situation is the same as mine, but I just wanted to address the possibility that he chose to compare the Mewlon 210 and the Celestron C-9.25, not because he thought that those two scopes were the best scopes for the money, but because, like me, size limitations might be more of a factor than cost. I do not know if this is true. Only the OP knows his motives for considering these two scopes. I only wanted to point out the possibility that he may have limitations related to size and weight similar to the limitations that I faced when deciding what 8" to 9" class scope to buy.

An analysis of "what scope will provide the best visual image to someone with $4,000 to spend" is entirely different than an analysis of "what scope will provide the best visual image for someone whose scope cannot exceed 20 pounds" (or whose scope and mount, combined, cannot exceed certain physical dimensions).

Having said this, yes, I agree, buying a C-11 for half the price of a Mewlon 210 would be a fine choice for someone who has no size or weight limitations, and who already owns a mount that will handle an OTA the weight of a C-11.

#20 DaemonGPF

DaemonGPF

    Redonkulous

  • *****
  • Posts: 8201
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Aurora Colorado

Posted 25 February 2010 - 10:29 PM

So for the half of the prise of the µ210 and assuming the C11 are of same quallity as the one sample I looked through I'll have to admit I'll take the C11.


whoa whoa whoa stop right there. How did you get a Greek character into your text?

Greg N


Go to your start menu, select run, type in Charmap. It will give you the commands to trigger any of the special characters.

#21 MrKrink

MrKrink

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Lawndale NC, USA

Posted 26 February 2010 - 10:49 AM

So for the half of the prise of the µ210 and assuming the C11 are of same quallity as the one sample I looked through I'll have to admit I'll take the C11.



whoa whoa whoa stop right there. How did you get a Greek character into your text?

Greg N


Go to your start menu, select run, type in Charmap. It will give you the commands to trigger any of the special characters.



WOW, learn something new everyday!! :jump:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics