Jump to content


Photo

PST or Lunt

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 luukieboy2

luukieboy2

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 01 May 2010

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:08 AM

Heey guys,

We've got some great wheather, with a lot of sun. 7-8-9 march where really nice days for watching the sun in white light. But I'm looking for something that can't be seen with white light. Do you know what I mean :jump: I want a H-alpha telescope. Being a student, I've got a tight budget. So that leaves me with the 35mm lunt or the 40mm PST. What would you choice?

Your help is appreciated,
Greetings from the sunny Netherlands,

#2 brianb11213

brianb11213

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2009
  • Loc: 55.215N 6.554W

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:21 AM

the 35mm lunt or the 40mm PST. What would you choice?

Not a lot of difference IMO.


#3 luukieboy2

luukieboy2

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 01 May 2010

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:35 AM

I'm sorry for that, will change post immediatly.

#4 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33790
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:45 PM

I've owned and/or used many of the popular Ha systems, including the two you mention. I'm a fan of full aperture etalons so I'd choose the Lunt 35mm if I were buying today, though I currently own a PST. The Lunt also specs a significantly tighter bandwidth which is a big help on surface detail, though at 35-40mm you'll probably be using it mostly on proms..

#5 Phil Wheeler

Phil Wheeler

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2005
  • Loc: 3 miles WNW of Celestron

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:44 PM

I'd go with the Lunt. All other things being equal, the Lunt is a newer design and has better build quality.

Phil

#6 la200o

la200o

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1519
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2008
  • Loc: SE Michigan, USA

Posted 21 March 2011 - 02:15 PM

Haven't tried the Lunt. I find the PST to be a remarkable instrument for the price and I think the build quality is good, tho' not in the same class as my SM 90 (which is what one would expect).

Bill

#7 Naturlich

Naturlich

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Dukinfield, Cheshire, UK

Posted 21 March 2011 - 03:07 PM

tbh I couldn't give a personal comparision since I've never looked through a PST. The LS35 is good visually, better on proms than surface detail, but actually good for viewing active regions on the surface if you give your eye time to adjust, thats when the LS35 starts to supprise you.

Imaging with the Lunt isn't too difficult either if thats what you would like to do and yields more detial than your eye can pick up.

The Deluxe model is a better purchase than the basic model, but solar disk size and image quality is pretty much identical except for the smaller FOV of the basic (which I personally find too small).

I read alot of reviews before buying the Lunt, just about all put it ahead of the PST, but as said, I have no personal experience with a PST.

Nat

#8 Phil Wheeler

Phil Wheeler

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2005
  • Loc: 3 miles WNW of Celestron

Posted 21 March 2011 - 04:08 PM

Haven't tried the Lunt. I find the PST to be a remarkable instrument for the price and I think the build quality is good, tho' not in the same class as my SM 90 (which is what one would expect).


To be more specific, I think the PST focuser is worse than bad .. and imaging with a PST takes more trouble than it should. The 5 mm Blocking Filter is also limiting. Sure it's usable, and when first released it was a fantastic way to get into H-a. But the Lunt 35 is a better choice today.

#9 la200o

la200o

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1519
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2008
  • Loc: SE Michigan, USA

Posted 21 March 2011 - 08:01 PM

Haven't tried the Lunt. I find the PST to be a remarkable instrument for the price and I think the build quality is good, tho' not in the same class as my SM 90 (which is what one would expect).


To be more specific, I think the PST focuser is worse than bad .. and imaging with a PST takes more trouble than it should. The 5 mm Blocking Filter is also limiting. Sure it's usable, and when first released it was a fantastic way to get into H-a. But the Lunt 35 is a better choice today.


I don't image, so can't address that.

But. . . The PST focuser is simple and very precise. The BF is not at all limiting for visual. The optics of the scope seem quite good and I cannot imagine seeing more detail either on the surface or on the limb with a scope in this class, whoever the manufacturer. I'd think any improvement with the Lunt would be a matter of individual differences.

Maybe you had a bad one; the PST is still a fine choice.

Clear skies,

Bill

#10 brianb11213

brianb11213

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2009
  • Loc: 55.215N 6.554W

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:57 AM

The PST focuser is simple and very precise. The BF is not at all limiting for visual.

Yes. OTOH the rotating helical focuser on the Lunt 35 is not the easiest to work with if you have a diagonal mounted, and it makes orientation of a camera difficult.

Like I said above, there's not a lot to choose (between "good" examples) - swings & roundabouts - personal preferences will have a lot to do with which you prefer. Just beg, borrow, steal (or, if the worst comes to the worst, buy ;) ) one or the other & enjoy using it.

#11 earl@hapb.net

earl@hapb.net

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 544
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Garland, TX

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:17 AM

I use a PST for all my imaging. No problems getting it to focus and no trouble at all. You can't go wrong with either scope so if you are on a budget get the one that make sense for you. Look in the swap section of the forum and see if a h-a is for sale. That is probably the cheapest way of getting into h-a on a student budget.

#12 Phil Wheeler

Phil Wheeler

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2005
  • Loc: 3 miles WNW of Celestron

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:49 AM

So that leaves me with the 35mm lunt or the 40mm PST. What would you choice?


I ran across this comparison, which may be useful (and is pretty neutral in its conclusion).

http://stargazerslou...p/t-104723.html

I've never used an LS35. My negative comments on the PST are from having used one and finding it a bit "fussy" (e.g., focusing knob moves an internal prism and it also shifts the image). But the LS35 likely has its own problems (the helical focuser being one of them).

I suspect either scope would be a good entry point -- and I've seen some very nice images captured with each.

#13 Montana

Montana

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3654
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Cheshire, UK

Posted 22 March 2011 - 07:18 AM

I love my PST, I have never used a Lunt 35 so I couldn't compare but I don't think you would be disappointed with either. Certainly imaging is very easy with the PST if you use a webcam. I have never had a problem with the focuser, it is so delicate and precise and makes imaging a dream. I think the choice is yours.

Regards
Alexandra

#14 luukieboy2

luukieboy2

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 01 May 2010

Posted 22 March 2011 - 07:56 AM

Thanks everyone, it is confusing to notice that both PST and Lunt produce'good' and 'bad' telescopes. You are just have to be lucky, if you want a good h-alpha telescope. But I think I've made my decision. It is gonna be a 35mm Lunt, probably gonna by it directly from Lunt, 499 Dollar --> 350 Euro's. In the Netherlands they cost 690 Euro --> 980 Dollars. I will ship them to a family in the USA. Can somebody explain me this price difference? Thanks a lot,

#15 brianb11213

brianb11213

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2009
  • Loc: 55.215N 6.554W

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:43 AM

Can somebody explain me this price difference?

No. I suspect someone is profiteering.

#16 Naturlich

Naturlich

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Dukinfield, Cheshire, UK

Posted 22 March 2011 - 09:02 AM

Good luck with your choice of scope luukie :)

If I may make a suggestion, pay the extra and get the deluxe version, I know you will enjoy the view and day to day use much more.

Nat

#17 Fogboundturtle

Fogboundturtle

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 20 May 2009
  • Loc: Burnaby, BC

Posted 22 March 2011 - 09:07 AM

Just to add to this discussion : The wait time for an Lunt 35mm is currently 8 months according to Lunt.

#18 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 22 March 2011 - 09:10 AM

At this point in time go for Lunt

I have PST - at that time Lunt did not exist.
I have a Lunt CaK - based on that I would go for Lunt Ha

#19 la200o

la200o

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1519
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2008
  • Loc: SE Michigan, USA

Posted 22 March 2011 - 09:14 AM

Just to add to this discussion : The wait time for an Lunt 35mm is currently 8 months according to Lunt.


OPT lists the base model as in stock.

Bill

#20 Montana

Montana

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3654
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Cheshire, UK

Posted 22 March 2011 - 10:06 AM

Enjoy your little Lunt I am sure you will have years of fun and pleasure marveling at our lovely sun!

As to the price difference, that is what really upset me and put me off Lunt. I asked that exact question and received no comment back, so I buy another brand, that's the way it goes.

Regards
Alexandra

#21 luukieboy2

luukieboy2

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 01 May 2010

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:23 AM

I'll will write Lunt and Meade a e-mail about the price difference between Europe and the USA.

#22 Montana

Montana

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3654
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Cheshire, UK

Posted 22 March 2011 - 01:39 PM

You'll not get a response, I didn't, they are "profiteering" as Brian puts it, and that just makes me mad.

Regards
Alexandra

#23 stephenramsden

stephenramsden

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2007

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:36 PM

No offense here but European products of high quality are routinely twice as expensive here in the US as well. This is a simple matter of cost of doing business and I can assure you from long term professional interactions that no one at Lunt is profiteering. That is simply a ridiculous accusation. A company would want to sell as many oroducts as possible.

#24 brianb11213

brianb11213

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2009
  • Loc: 55.215N 6.554W

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:47 PM

no one at Lunt is profiteering. That is simply a ridiculous accusation.

Ah, but my theory is that the importers profiteer by converting dollars to euros (or pounds) at parity & then the wholesalers & retailers add their profit margins ...

#25 Montana

Montana

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3654
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Cheshire, UK

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:27 PM

I noticed this problem recently, if you buy a 100mm DS filter from Lunt USA it costs $5,394 + $4,895. If you buy the exact same product from Lunt Europe it costs $4,500 extra (this was a calculation based on currency exchange rates at the time (January), I also haven't done similar testing on other brands). That ain't shipping and it isn't dollar= pound. But that's no problem, I just buy another brand and they loose a sale.

Alexandra






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics