Jump to content


Photo

Which 6" Achro to get??? *DELETED*

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 AlexxxAA

AlexxxAA

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Downey, CA

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:29 AM

Post deleted by AlexxxAA

#2 SeptemberEquinox

SeptemberEquinox

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2012

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:54 AM

I believe the skywatcher f/5 scope is a same scope as mine, from synta. I love my scope, it is sharp. You do get false colors on really bright objects, but it doesn't bother me much, why? Because details on the objects are sharp, just pretty fringing around it. I did order Baader Semi Apo to see if it can improve its sharpness. I can see m81 and m82 in a very light polluted area with this scope. If you are looking to buy 6" achromatic refractor, I'd vote on 6" f/5. And it only weights 16 pounds.

#3 SeptemberEquinox

SeptemberEquinox

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 315
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2012

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:22 PM

And I love the focuser that came with the scope.

#4 galaxyman

galaxyman

    Vendor - Have a Stellar Birthday

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2439
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Limerick, Pa

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:31 PM

Between both of these scopes the ES is the better scope. Probably better optics, better coatings (a little less reflective), much better focuser, and can be collimated whereas the 6" f/5 does not have an adjustable cell. A Celestron version 6" f/5 I checked was way out of collimation and was sent back to Celestron to deal with it. The scope is fine now with a happy owner.

The only drawback of the ES 6" f/6.5 that it is the bulkier scope, but it's certainly not overwhelming.


Karl
E.O.H.


Chesmont Astronomical Society - www.chesmontastro.org
Galaxy Log - http://www.youtube.c...65?feature=mhee
Glaxy Log Blog - http://galaxylog.blogspot.com/
HASB - http://www.haveastellarbirthday.com
Telekit (Swayze optics) 22" F/4.5 Dob
Homemade (Parks Optics) 12.5" F/4.8 Dob
TMB/APM 8" f/9 Refractor”The Beast”. One great DEEP SKY achro
ES 6" f/6.5 achro. Good one
Celestron Omni XLT 102 refractor.
Celestron 10x60mm Binos

#5 jbalsam

jbalsam

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 492
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Darnestown, MD

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:14 PM

EDIT: I know you said you're getting out of AP, but I'm going to leave this response for anyone else weighing a similar question who might be interested.

I have the ES AR152 and I love it. I got it used for around $600 from Gary Hand. I use it for astrophotography, and it's great. CA is definitely noticeable as star bloat when using a OSC camera, but with a filtered mono camera and refocusing between filters it's beautiful.

I did have a problem with the optics being pinched at one point (during cold weather), but loosening and re-seating the secondary lens set screws fixed that. Collimation is easy, and it holds it well.

I'm not much into observing, and I haven't compared it against anything else in that category so I can't give any objective info there. I've peered at a few bright nebula (Orion, ring, etc) and they're there. That's about all I know to say.

EDIT: I've used the AP CCDT67 telecompressor with this scope and it handles it very nicely (speeds it up to around F/4.4 if you get the spacing right). I use it to squeeze in large nebulas like the rosette, or bits of the heart/soul.

#6 Mike4242

Mike4242

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1088
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011
  • Loc: West Tennessee

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:47 PM

I own an AR152, but I can't speak to the other scope you mentioned. The AR152 build quality is top notch for a mass produced scope -- very impressive for it's price point. The main drawback of the AR152 for me, as you've already mentioned, is mounting it. I have mine mounted on a CG-5 which works fine for visual up to about 250x. You'll need a very light touch with the focuser at higher magnifications with a CG-5 class mount. It also requires 2 11lb. counterweights to balance in RA. I ended up purchasing an Orion Sky View Pro 16" extension for the mount which improved dampening times and also keeps the mount from hitting the tripod legs, but that comes with a cost of making the mount more unwieldy. I might eventually end up getting an Atlas for the scope.

I timed myself setting up the scope one night and it takes about 15 minutes and 4 trips to set up on my back patio. First I carry out the mount, then the counterweights, then the scope, and finally the accessories (power tank, EP case, and chair). If you have the capability to mount the scope and can deal with a little extra set up time, I think you would love the AR152.

The scope performs very well optically -- just be prepared to deal with CA on objects of about 3rd magnitude and brighter. On nights of poor seeing, I've seen CA on object down to about 3.5 or 4. This scope provides some breath taking wide field views though and I love using 2" eyepieces in it. Even my cheapo 38mm Q70 provides great view in this scope.

#7 AlexxxAA

AlexxxAA

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Downey, CA

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:40 PM

Thanks guys! Your input and experience helped a lot :)

#8 De Lorme

De Lorme

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 845
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2008

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:50 PM

I have the CR6" f/8 which is really great!. If you can look
at the optics before you buy, I would get a Ronchi Eyepiece
buy Easytester. Mine showed straight lines all the way accross with either 4 or 7 lines. Also Istar is coming out with the their Raycorr this spring for around $300.
Their saying that this will make your achro into a very very
good ED or perhaps even a Apo,depending how good your optics are to begin with. De Lorme

#9 De Lorme

De Lorme

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 845
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2008

Posted 14 March 2013 - 05:02 PM

Just thought you should know, I can get the Double Cluster
in the field of view using a Measde 32mm super plossi.
I have a CGEM{in a rool off roof} and I extend the legs all the way to the last 3" inches and it works great. The only time I have to get on my knee is when it's pointed staight up at zenith, which is seldom. Otherwise I use 2 different chairs. One for almost standing and the other just sitting.
De Lorme

#10 AlexxxAA

AlexxxAA

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Downey, CA

Posted 14 March 2013 - 07:07 PM

Wow that's awesome for an f/8 !!! So my 32mm should get a really nice wide view! :)

#11 bob midiri

bob midiri

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2004
  • Loc: pa 19320

Posted 15 March 2013 - 02:57 AM

with my CR6 and the Meade UWA 24mm I easily get both nM81 and 82 in same FOV, with a lot of sky around them. its a great combination

#12 dlapoint

dlapoint

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2003
  • Loc: Moncton NB Canada

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:24 AM

Go with an at 152, or es 152. You still get 6" of aperture and a compact body with nice features. Focuser etc.

#13 AlexxxAA

AlexxxAA

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Downey, CA

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:28 AM

Sounds good guys!
Already got the ES 152!
Waiting for first light this weekend. Either tonight or Sunday :)

#14 Mike4242

Mike4242

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1088
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011
  • Loc: West Tennessee

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:29 AM

Awesome! Looking forward to your first light report.

#15 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 15 March 2013 - 12:20 PM

I don't know if there are any differences between a new Skywatcher 6" f/8 and older dark blue tube ones.
There was also one marketed by Efstonscience and Celestron C6R.
They were all made by Synta and should have the same quality or lack of.

#16 AlexxxAA

AlexxxAA

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Downey, CA

Posted 16 March 2013 - 02:55 AM

So today was the day to test out the new AR152...
But like always... The "New Telescope Curse".
We've had clear nights here for like 2 weeks! But tonight the marine layer creeps in. And then the moon is coming up too. So I guess it's Moon and Jupiter observations for the next 2 weeks lol

#17 hottr6

hottr6

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2404
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2009
  • Loc: 7,500', Magdalena Mtns, NM

Posted 16 March 2013 - 09:35 AM

They were all made by Synta and should have the same quality or lack of.

APO-snobbery? Synta actually makes pretty good optics, and certainly at a price-point that makes good optics affordable by everyman. I believe good demonstrations of Synta's abilities are being able to make hugely enjoyable short-f/l achros for visual work and world-class quality MCTs.

Does Synta make EDs and triplets?

Shane in gray-zone NM

#18 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 16 March 2013 - 02:41 PM

Hardly.
Synta has quite a journey in increasing quality from the early 102mm achromats which could not form a point star to high end APOs today that is indeed world class.
Given the price point of their achromats, some are good and some are dogs, just like any other mass produced item.
If you think their MAKS are world class then I dare you compare them to the TEC or AP MAKS and write a review.

[
APO-snobbery? Synta actually makes pretty good optics, and certainly at a price-point that makes good optics affordable by everyman. I believe good demonstrations of Synta's abilities are being able to make hugely enjoyable short-f/l achros for visual work and world-class quality MCTs.

Does Synta make EDs and triplets?

Shane in gray-zone NM



#19 hottr6

hottr6

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2404
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2009
  • Loc: 7,500', Magdalena Mtns, NM

Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:37 AM

Given the price point of [Synta] achromats, some are good and some are dogs, just like any other mass produced item.
If you think [Synta] MAKS are world class then I dare you compare them to the TEC or AP MAKS and write a review.

Reading the reviews here at CN, I have found that most people are happy with their Synta achros, with poor quality ("dogs") being the exception rather than the rule.

I have also found that most people think highly of their Synta MCTs, and that they compare favorably with Rumak-Maks made in Russia. While maybe not at the pinnacle of TEC Maks, I'd say they still qualify as world-class.

#20 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 936
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

the skywatcher does not have the XLT high transmission coatings on them. Otherwise they seem to be similar to the OMNI 150R.

I also have a Celestron Omni, 150R, and love the optics. I use it for comet hunting and also for wide field views of space. Im working on the Herschel 400 with only this scope and its been coming along beautifully.

The HUGE plus to this scope vs the ES-152 is that this scope tips the scale at 16 pounds fully loaded and can easily be supported by my Vixen GP-DX mount, and give me wider fields of view this the 750mm FL vs the longer FL on the ES 152. The ES-152 is substantially heavier and requires a much beefier mount!

The optics are rock solid razor sharp right out to the edges even with a 41 pan. I replaced my focuser with a W/O 10:1 Crayford I had but never had a home for. Its an excellent refractor up to about 120x or so,
Of all the scopes i own, this one absolutely gets use the most.

http://www.cloudynig...5628163/page...

...Ralph

Attached Files



#21 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 936
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:00 PM

Between both of these scopes the ES is the better scope. Probably better optics, better coatings (a little less reflective), much better focuser, and can be collimated whereas the 6" f/5 does not have an adjustable cell. A Celestron version 6" f/5 I checked was way out of collimation and was sent back to Celestron to deal with it. The scope is fine now with a happy owner.

The only drawback of the ES 6" f/6.5 that it is the bulkier scope, but it's certainly not overwhelming.


Karl
E.O.H.


Chesmont Astronomical Society - www.chesmontastro.org
Galaxy Log - http://www.youtube.c...65?feature=mhee
Glaxy Log Blog - http://galaxylog.blogspot.com/
HASB - http://www.haveastellarbirthday.com
Telekit (Swayze optics) 22" F/4.5 Dob
Homemade (Parks Optics) 12.5" F/4.8 Dob
TMB/APM 8" f/9 Refractor”The Beast”. One great DEEP SKY achro
ES 6" f/6.5 achro. Good one
Celestron Omni XLT 102 refractor.
Celestron 10x60mm Binos


The ES is not a "better" scope than the Celestron 150R, That's just your opinion. It doesn't go as wide, so you cant see the entire Veil nebula in one field of view for example. It cant mount on a lighter mount like the Celestron CG-4 or CG-5's or even the premium small mounts like the Vixen GP-DX. The ES is much more expensive, so those on budget wouldn't say its better. Ive looked through both, and both have sharp excellent optics. One isn't better than the other, they both have their high points!

....Ralph

#22 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 18 March 2013 - 01:31 PM

Based on my own Synta scopes, the quality is good for the money but I have noticed shortcomings when pushed to their limits.
The older Vixen Japanese optics were quite a step up.

World class:
1. Ranking among the foremost in the world; of an international standard of excellence; of the highest order:

I can't fathom to think of Synta's MAKS as world class.
That is something akin to Questar or TEC or AP.
The Syntas do not use the finest glass quality or coatings and the mechanics are just OK, mounting the bracket to the tube is a no no. And the MAK127 is reported to have a smaller aperture of 118mm.
They are the main optic suppliers and excellent value for the money but like every other low cost item they have taken some shortcuts.
The quality is similar to a SCT of the same size.


Reading the reviews here at CN, I have found that most people are happy with their Synta achros, with poor quality ("dogs") being the exception rather than the rule.

I have also found that most people think highly of their Synta MCTs, and that they compare favorably with Rumak-Maks made in Russia. While maybe not at the pinnacle of TEC Maks, I'd say they still qualify as world-class.








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics