Jump to content


Photo

1981 Meade 2080 8" SCT. optics , GOOD ? or BAD ?

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 TOM KIEHL

TOM KIEHL

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012
  • Loc: N.E. Ohio

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:35 PM

I have heard Pro's and Con's about this scopes optics. Can anyone give me there play on this scope? :question:

#2 Dave M

Dave M

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8261
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2004
  • Loc: Ohio

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:10 AM

You havnt star tested that yet :lol:

#3 TOM KIEHL

TOM KIEHL

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012
  • Loc: N.E. Ohio

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:19 AM

NOOOOO !!!! Have you looked outside lately :bigshock: , Ya know we do live in OHIO :nonono:,, Havent seen stars in weeks :cloudy: :cloudy: :coldday:

#4 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3517
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:18 PM

Don't count on it being great.

Chas

#5 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 01:52 PM

Did you say Meade? :lol: :lol:

#6 amicus sidera

amicus sidera

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4227
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011
  • Loc: East of the Sun, West of the Moon...

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:17 PM

I've looked through a good number of Meade SCT's of that vintage, and think that they have an undeservedly poor reputation. While the optics were variable to a degree, with one or two exceptions all that I've encountered had quite satisfactory optics... mechanically, they were all very good, indeed.

That said, always purchase subject to star test; it's the only sure way to avoid the purchase of a substandard example.

#7 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:31 PM

I agree. They had a wide range from bad to good optics. Heaven knows I have had enough of the bad ones. I kept trying to find a good one. Not sure if I ever did. In most the optics are what I call very soft. You would get a decent image to a point, but never any really sharp detail. I would align the optics on a star until perfection and the rings in and out of focus would show a really good alignment. However, I do not think that the smoothness of the mirror surface was really that good hence the soft images.

#8 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3517
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 22 March 2013 - 05:11 PM

The Meade SCT's like the LX200's in the later 90's seemed to have very good optics. I have owned around 20 of the older Meade SCT's from around 1982 to 1987 and none of them were stand out's.

Chas

#9 Glen A W

Glen A W

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2008
  • Loc: USA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 05:28 PM

Just try it out and see how it does. Celestrons from the time are a better idea - though they had their problems going into the mid-80s. These are easy scopes to deal with so you just have to see if you like it as an overall package. Glen

#10 TOM KIEHL

TOM KIEHL

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012
  • Loc: N.E. Ohio

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:25 PM

Just came in from outside with the 2080 ,, good but not great ,did a star test and calimation, views got alot better..seeing fair, great detail on the moon at 200x and 100x nice and sharp , Jup. was fair at same x's , that wedge has got to GO!!!! old style with micrometer style adjustments for the lat. sure has alot of shake, and mirror flop was out of hand ,I hate SCT's for that, Guess I'll have to get a rear cell focuser... But enough WHINING already :bawling: I think I'll keep her.. It's better than my 2080 LX3 :shrug:Glad i got a clear, well half ways clear night to test and colimate ,, first clear night in weeks.. :jump:

#11 Dave M

Dave M

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8261
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2004
  • Loc: Ohio

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:54 PM

That wedge probably explains why all the astrophotography accessories were all in like new condition.

#12 TOM KIEHL

TOM KIEHL

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012
  • Loc: N.E. Ohio

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:59 PM

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT,,,, I'll have to keep an eye out for a super wedge or swap wedge's with that LX3

#13 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4829
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 24 March 2013 - 10:43 PM

I have yet to look through a pre 1986 Meade that was as good as a Celestron of the same vintage..
Yet it seems Dynamax's get ALL the Bashing.
I have a 1976 DX6" Dynamax that has very good optics.
In most Meades I have looked through Stars in focus looked like bloated little fuzz balls, without a nice airy disk and defraction ring.
I'm sure there are good ones. I just havent looked through one, I have viewed with, owned or serviced about 25 of them.
They seemed to be...well...just OK.
LX3 is where they really began getting their optics good.
They have ALWAYS had a very good build quality as far as mechanics.

#14 TOM KIEHL

TOM KIEHL

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012
  • Loc: N.E. Ohio

Posted 24 March 2013 - 11:24 PM

Unless you get an LX3 like mine with the silvered optics :mad:

#15 Svezda

Svezda

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 25 March 2013 - 02:20 AM

I agree. They had a wide range from bad to good optics. Heaven knows I have had enough of the bad ones. I kept trying to find a good one. Not sure if I ever did. In most the optics are what I call very soft. You would get a decent image to a point, but never any really sharp detail. I would align the optics on a star until perfection and the rings in and out of focus would show a really good alignment. However, I do not think that the smoothness of the mirror surface was really that good hence the soft images.

I absolutely agree with you. I myself have called the Meade SCT optics in general 'soft' - it's the best description I can come up with to describe the appearance of star images and planetary detail with the Meade SCTs. Same with a much later (1990's) 16" Meade SCT owned by a friend in our local astro club.

I bought a second 10" OTA to replace a complete fork mounted version which I traded for an old Byers 812 mount (I got the better part of that deal) and put the new OTA on the Byers. It has similae optics but going from flimsy and shaky and full of play in every part to rock solid with the 812 mount was like night and day. I think part of the problem (I wrote to Meade with a very long and detailed analysis, according to me, not a mechanical engineer but had been a fairly experienced amateur for more than a decade at the time) was that the fork mount and wedge for the 10" OTA was not scaled up from the 8" mount - it really wasn't at all adequate for the much larger and heavier 10" tube assembly. Also, trying to move the fork mount in small increments to find objects was quite difficult because the tube is incredibly front-heavy. Serious weight is necessary at the rear to balance that OTA and it was quite awkward to use the fork mount, in my opinion (of course locating objects as far north as M81/82 was very frustrating due to the near impossibility of getting ones head in position to use a finder or observe through the main eyepiece).

#16 bremms

bremms

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2777
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2012
  • Loc: SC

Posted 25 March 2013 - 01:19 PM

I only used one early 2080.. and yes it was not very good. My friend's SP C8 was not too bad and gave it a good whuppin' Funny thing is, one of the best SCT's I looked through was a later B&L Criterion 8000. Everyone said how bad they were. This one was very good. Go figure, so to speak... Only looked through one early Meade.

#17 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15799
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 25 March 2013 - 02:18 PM

I have heard Pro's and Con's about this scopes optics. Can anyone give me there play on this scope? :question:


Not bad. Better than a Criterion, not as good as a C8. Certainly useable. B-U-T...with Orange Tube C8s being readily available, there's not much incentive to get a 2080 unless one falls into your hands for practically nothing. ;)

#18 TOM KIEHL

TOM KIEHL

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012
  • Loc: N.E. Ohio

Posted 25 March 2013 - 02:36 PM

Thanks UNC , Read your book buy the way,Choosin' and Usin' a SCT , GOOD read..and thats what happened, "it fell into my hands for practically nothing"... :shrug: :thanx:

#19 amicus sidera

amicus sidera

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4227
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011
  • Loc: East of the Sun, West of the Moon...

Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:46 PM

Certainly there were bad and mediocre 2080's of that era in toto, but Celestron SCT's weren't all sweetness and light, either. I saw more C8's of that period with zonal irregularities than I did 2080's with noticeable SA, for example. Most examples of both brands gave acceptable performance, in my experience; ones of either brand with poor optics were sent back to the factory if the owner realized that they had a problem, but unfortunately many didn't know enough to make that determination.

You pays your money, and you takes your chances... ;)

#20 Geo.

Geo.

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3042
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:38 PM

Unless you get an LX3 like mine with the silvered optics :mad:


That's a $25 dollar fix. Send the secondary out for a recoat. My guy just stripped and enhance recoated a couple for $50. The primary is standard Al SiO and Mg.

Meades from this period are pretty comparable to the Celestrons. The Meades actually had smoother optics due to the hand figuring of secondaries at Celestron. Of course the hand work made for marginlly better optics. Figure that the Meade scope sold for something like $4-5K in real dollars and enjoy your bargain.

#21 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15799
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 30 March 2013 - 04:33 PM

:goodjob:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics