Jump to content


Photo

Refractor for imaging

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Hosey

Phil Hosey

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2008
  • Loc: LaGrange, GA

Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:03 AM

I'm looking for a refractor mostly for imaging, preferably something around the 700-800mm FL range. I had an AT111 and sold it not to long ago (bad idea), but these are not in stock right now. My budget is 2k for the OTA (I have everything else I need). I really want something comparable to the AT111. I've been considering the Meade series 6000 115mm, it appears to be very similar optically (from the specs anyway) to the AT111, it uses a similar type of glass. The AT111 was actually good enough for me regarding CA in my images, certainly better than the ES 127 EDT I tried a while back. The other scope I've considered is the AT106, but the focal length is a bit shorter than what I was looking for, although it appears to have the better glass type and faster f/ratio. I looked at some older posts regarding the AT106 and it appears there used to be a 'LE' version that was about $500 less, but now they only have the $2k version with the 2.7" focuser (same as the one on the AT111 which I found to be kind of 'meh'.)

So, the Meade seems somewhat close to the AT111, but more expensive (but available), and the AT106 edges out optically for the same price but doesn't fit my FL requirement.

I've been following the used market for a couple weeks and I did miss a deal on an AT111 because I was indecisive, but it seems to be really slow right now. I've also been recently burned so I'm going to stick with new I suppose. Are there other scopes I whould be looking at that I may have missed?

#2 Phil Hosey

Phil Hosey

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2008
  • Loc: LaGrange, GA

Posted 23 March 2013 - 01:31 PM

Well, I ended up placing an order for a Meade series 6000 130mm ED triplet. Highpoint had the demo used at the Meade booth from NEAF at $500 off the new price so I got that one. Should be here by the end of the week.

#3 Brad Greig

Brad Greig

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2010
  • Loc: SE Texas

Posted 23 March 2013 - 03:02 PM

Enjoy it! Let us know how you like it!

#4 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27218
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:01 PM

Didn't get here quick enough. :grin: My suggestion would have been a used William Optics 110 Flourite triplet. I've seen a lot of them for well under 2K and they do make very nice imaging scopes.

Having said that, I'm looking forward to your first galaxy with that new 5" monster seeing that the galaxy season is upon us! ;)

David

#5 Phil Hosey

Phil Hosey

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2008
  • Loc: LaGrange, GA

Posted 24 March 2013 - 05:24 AM

Didn't get here quick enough. :grin: My suggestion would have been a used William Optics 110 Flourite triplet. I've seen a lot of them for well under 2K and they do make very nice imaging scopes.

Having said that, I'm looking forward to your first galaxy with that new 5" monster seeing that the galaxy season is upon us! ;)

David


David,
Actually I had pretty much settled on a new William Optics FLT 110 when accidentally found the deal on the Meade 130 for the same price. I don't know realisticly how much better galaxies would image in a 5" vs a 4" APO, but with my T2i, the 130 gives me .97 arcsec/pixel which is nearly at the limit of resolving power for the scope. That will work for the most of the larger galaxies, but the smaller ones will look better framed if I crop.

#6 timmbottoni

timmbottoni

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1714
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2005
  • Loc: W Chicago suburbs, IL USA

Posted 24 March 2013 - 08:07 PM

I'm really loving my William Optics GTF 102 5 element model. It was designed with a built in flattener for AP, and has a fantastic focuser now.

Timm

#7 Gary BEAL

Gary BEAL

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Joined: 10 May 2003
  • Loc: New Zealand

Posted 24 March 2013 - 08:29 PM

Can the built in flattener models be reduced Timm?
I was an early adopter of the all original GT-81, but didn't bond with what I considered to be a below average focuser and sold it.
When I saw they were getting into the built in flattener versions, the ability to reduce was my biggest question. A least with the original I could reduce it with the TRF2008, and flatten it with the AT2FF, both worked very very well. If the focuser was up to snuff I'd still have it. The optics were quite nice.
Can you reduce them, have you tried it?
Gary

#8 timmbottoni

timmbottoni

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1714
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2005
  • Loc: W Chicago suburbs, IL USA

Posted 24 March 2013 - 09:16 PM

Can the built in flattener models be reduced Timm?
I was an early adopter of the all original GT-81, but didn't bond with what I considered to be a below average focuser and sold it.
When I saw they were getting into the built in flattener versions, the ability to reduce was my biggest question. A least with the original I could reduce it with the TRF2008, and flatten it with the AT2FF, both worked very very well. If the focuser was up to snuff I'd still have it. The optics were quite nice.
Can you reduce them, have you tried it?
Gary


What do you mean, Can I reduce them?

The flattener is inside the tube, does that help in understanding?

Timm

#9 Phil Hosey

Phil Hosey

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2008
  • Loc: LaGrange, GA

Posted 25 March 2013 - 05:05 AM

I'm thinking you would need a reducer only as the flattening has already occured. So your standard .8x reducer/flatteners would probably introduce too much reverse field curvature?

#10 timmbottoni

timmbottoni

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1714
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2005
  • Loc: W Chicago suburbs, IL USA

Posted 25 March 2013 - 01:09 PM

Oh, I understand now.

Since the flattener is in the middle of the tube, I don't think that there would be a way to reduce the focal length unless someone makes a reducer that isn't also a flattener.

#11 PatHolland

PatHolland

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Clever, Missouri

Posted 25 March 2013 - 02:47 PM

Aren't the Antares 2" reducers "just reducers" and not flatteners? They are relatively inexpensive too. I own the .5X and .7X and have the WO GTF 102. I'll have to try it sometime.

#12 timmbottoni

timmbottoni

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1714
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2005
  • Loc: W Chicago suburbs, IL USA

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:34 AM

That would be interesting, yes please post results if you try them






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics