Jump to content


Photo

Worst telescope ever

  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#1 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:19 AM

Let's see how many we can come up with :lol: :lol:

My vote the Dynamax SCT's and the B&L 4" Mak.

#2 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8118
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: bellevue ne.

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:37 AM

We might as well lock up this thread sooner than later. :smirk: Mike :gotpopcorn: :help:

#3 bob midiri

bob midiri

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2004
  • Loc: pa 19320

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:38 AM

That is hard to top!!! I remember 25 to 30 years ago how the "Department store" IMPORTED 60mm refractor were some of the worst scopes ever, never recommend them to a kid, poor eyepieces, wobbly mounts, etc....now we collect them and rave about them...funny world

#4 grendel

grendel

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1466
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:41 AM

skywatcher 114mm - despite good views, when the chrome plating on the teeth of the focuser rack wore off - the teeth on the plastic rack all broke.
Grendel

#5 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:44 AM

I also had some Coulter Dobs that were great for low power views and not much more.

#6 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4748
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:48 AM

Let's see how many we can come up with :lol: :lol:

My vote the Dynamax SCT's and the B&L 4" Mak.


Have You personally owned both of those? or are you just being a Lemming and following the Criterion bashing crowd?
I have both and they are both very good optically.

#7 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:53 AM

Black Vernonscope 80mm wide field "Apo":roflmao:refractor, first advertised for astronomy, later for birding. (Have never understood that thing coming from the same company as the 16 and 24mm Brandons supplied with the Q3.5...)

Chris

#8 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:53 AM

I have owned both. Maybe I had the cream of the crop of bad ones. I almost hugged and kissed the people that bought them from me. I had a 6" and 8" Dynamax and both were just down right awful. Had the B&L 4000 and tried every trick in the book to make it perform better. Please take note that I do not give up easily. I love a challenge. However, I do know when enough is enough.

#9 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:56 AM

I had one of the Brandons. Thanks for reminding me of another time I want to forget :foreheadslap:

#10 bremms

bremms

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2012
  • Loc: SC

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:00 AM

I've seen a few C8's that were real dogs. A friend had an SP C8 in 87 That I had her get exchanged. I collimated the secondary, but no use it was really a bad scope. The second one was OK but still not great.
Coulter 13.1.. not good at anything over 75x if that.. Funny the 10.1 that had a decent mirror. MUCH better than the 13.1. This was in 86, a friend had the 10.1 for about 6 months and decided to get the 13.1. We set the scope up, I collimated it as best I could and it just sucked. Coulter gave him a song and dance about seeing and he ended up using it as is.

#11 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:04 AM

Of course I had a few SCT's I want to forget also. However, they were mostly the Meade's. Most of the Celestrons I had I liked. Of course they were all the orange celestrons. Have the C14, C11 and C8 and do enjoy them from time to time. Have had the Meade 8" 10" and 12" and they all made me work to obtain the best image and then it still was not the equal of what the Celestrons were able to provide

#12 DAVIDG

DAVIDG

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4881
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Hockessin, De

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:18 AM

I highly recommend that Classic Scope owners learn to test optics. It is not difficult and you'll quickly understand if your optics are truely good or bad and if there is an easy fix to the problem.
I have seen a number of vintage telescope that have an element or the complete objective installed backwards. I have seen excellent primary mirrors teamed up with a diagonal that when tested has an optical figure that looks like a Prinkles potate chip. I have seen pinched optics and strained optics that when properly mounted have excellent figures. What is even worse is that I been told by the owners of some of these scopes that the images are wonderful and the optical quality is superior because it is a Cave, Criterion, Celestron, Clark, Brashear, Unitron, OTI, Tinsley etc etc. Don't get taken in by brand names. When I fixed the problem their jaws dropped at the quality of images they have been missing, sometimes for many many years !

- Dave

#13 Dave M

Dave M

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8219
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2004
  • Loc: Ohio

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:23 AM

Let's see how many we can come up with :lol: :lol:

My vote the Dynamax SCT's and the B&L 4" Mak.



Have You personally owned both of those? or are you just being a Lemming and following the Criterion bashing crowd?
I have both and they are both very good optically.


Never had one and I`m Not bashing it, but I cant say i`ve ever seen one positive review on it. Just sayin..

#14 moynihan

moynihan

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2315
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:26 AM

Black Vernonscope 80mm wide field "Apo"...

The one from the Halley's Comet time. I called mine a Multichromatic or the chromogasmic :roflmao:

#15 snork

snork

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 514
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:35 AM

My vote is for the Coulter 13.1. It does ok on DSO's but struggles with planets. I really dislike the draw tube focuser :mad:
I've never looked thru the Dynamax's but the optical description by the seller of this Dynamax 6 lends some credence to the notion of poor optics. Yet it still sold for over $300??
http://www.ebay.com/...rts-Needs-So...

#16 Bob Myler

Bob Myler

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: St Louis, MO

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:38 AM

Black Vernonscope 80mm wide field "Apo"...

The one from the Halley's Comet time. I called mine a Multichromatic or the chromogasmic :roflmao:


Sadly, the words to describe mine are not fit to print here... :ohgeeze:

#17 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4748
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:38 AM

I'm surprised more people don't mention the early Meade SCT's from 1980 - 1986. I never looked through a very good one. That was about 12 of them. owned 3 till I gave up on Meade until the LX-6..that was superb.
mostly SA. but even the worst 8" SCT or DOB is better than
the shaky 60mm refractors. I bought one of the Meade Jupiter
60mm refractors and it has a Plastic lens. utterly useless..
The Moon looked milky, took it back.. the store said they were running 60% returns on them.. And for someone who doesn't know what a scope image should look like.. thats BAD! I traded it for a DS 4.5" it was a bit better not much

#18 actionhac

actionhac

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4355
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:04 PM

The only thing I was ever totally disgusted over was a few of Meade's plastic focusers.
My DS90 and a Starfinder dob I once owned. I consider myself pretty mechanical but those focusers were unusable and there was nothing that could be done to them to make them usable.
Otherwise they were good scopes. Meade know's how to make a mirror that is for certain.
The f11 DS90 has a good lens, multi-coated and a nicely constructed tube with plenty of baffles. The plastic cell is a let down but doesn't seem to affect the operation, nothing like the focuser my word.

Robert

#19 bob midiri

bob midiri

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2004
  • Loc: pa 19320

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:19 PM

Coulters were meant to be very "affordable transportable" Light buckets only, and for that I think they did a lot of good for amateur astronomy!! In my mind they accomplished that goal.

#20 Jeff Phinney

Jeff Phinney

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2013
  • Loc: CA

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:22 PM


Sadly, the words to describe mine are not fit to print here... :ohgeeze:


Since acronyms seem to be very popular in theses forums, I would think "POS" would be an acceptable substitute. We shall see.......

#21 Masvingo

Masvingo

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Ayrshire, Scotland

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:29 PM

Mine seems to be a good one and has virtually none of the usual SCT image shift, unlike my orange tube C5.

I think it is true to say that quality was more variable with the D8 than with Celestrons. From what I've read Criterion did not match the secondaries to the corrector unlike Celestron who refined the figure of the secondary to compensate for any irregularity in the corrector and this may account for the greater variability but I don't know for sure.

They also seem to benefit from fettling, getting the corrector and secondary centred and the primary squared up - see for example, Andy Taylor's post in Cats and Casses, "Dynamax 8 - from a pigs ear to a silken purse... " And cool down time can be longer than an orange tube.

Apologies for pretty much repeating myself, I had done a posting in the Craigslist and other ads thread before I saw this thread.

James

#22 actionhac

actionhac

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4355
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:30 PM

Back in the 40's you would send your hard earned $1.95 and you received this kit:

Attached Files



#23 actionhac

actionhac

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4355
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:34 PM

Well I spent one of my hard earned days off building a telescope for it and I was very unhappy.

Attached Files



#24 Masvingo

Masvingo

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Ayrshire, Scotland

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:34 PM

By all accounts the Cosmotron SCT didi not give the folks at Questar any sleepless nights! :lol:

#25 magic612

magic612

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2008

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:40 PM

Worst telescope ever? Well, I can only speak for what I've seen, and realize this is the classics forum, but for me it has been every Bird-Jones type of reflector I've ever had the displeasure of looking through (and there have been a number of them, from various manufacturers). I've never seen a truly sharp image in one of them (yet). Perhaps Bird Jones reflectors exist that do, but I'm still waiting for that to happen.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics