Jump to content


Photo

Astro-telescopes 152nmm

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#1 thesubwaypusher

thesubwaypusher

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2004
  • Loc: New York City

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:01 AM

Did anyone make the investment to get a Feathertouch for their best kept secret in amateur astronomy (the AT 152?) I contacted Starlight Instruments to see which of their units would fit, but just thought I would see if anyone has done it and which one they bought.

The Stellarvue is nice, but the scope is a bit too good for it, I feel.

Thanks, Chris

#2 XyrcesFenol

XyrcesFenol

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2011

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:38 PM

I think I recall reading that you sold your AT152 due to bad egde performance, have you bought a new one?

#3 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20502
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 09 May 2013 - 03:22 PM

Nah, the good-but-not-great focuser perfectly matches the good-but-not-great scope, I think. The SV focuser is lightyears better than the unit that comes on it standard from Kunming, so in a way the Astrotelescopes iteration already has an upgraded focuser. A FT would be overkill IMO since this is hardly an imaging rig.

- Jim

#4 thesubwaypusher

thesubwaypusher

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2004
  • Loc: New York City

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:19 PM

I think I recall reading that you sold your AT152 due to bad egde performance, have you bought a new one?


Hi:

It is true that the edge performance with the 21mm Ethos was bad (only with bright stars in the field,) but with such a cheap large instrument that does everything else so well, (primarily binos with a really nice field) it was kind of just a mere annoyance. No, the reason I sold it to Hans was because I stumbled onto a great deal on AM on a TOA-130 and for a time, tried to convince myself that it was more enjoyable than the AT - simply because it is supposed to be. Of course, the Tak had better contrast, but overall, I fancy the AT more. Here's a subsequent post explaining that fiasco and answering your, "Didn't you sell that scope" question:

Oh! Hi Hans- I hope my old telescope is serving you well. Since I sold it to you, I have gone through a TOA-130, and an FSQ-106, neither of which I find more appealing than the 152. Isn't that strange? There is a charm about that scope that made me buy a new one a couple of weeks ago. When HOO said it was on its way (next day-I don't know how they do that) I was holding my breath in the hopes that this sample would be as good as the one I sold you. I had a chance to go out to Long Island this week and was very happy to find that the unit was in fact as good as yours. With so many horror stories on how that scope arrives in less than in tact and less than new condition, I can't ask for more than that. In fact, I had to send the first one (the one before yours) back for a bunch of problems.

Isn't it weird that the goofy stubby tube, the carrying handle, the focuser, and especially the good balance of that telescope can actually make someone prefer it over fine instruments like the Taks? (Okay, the insane contrast probably has something to do with it) But I find that there is something about the mere doublet that lets in so much light that the imperfect correction and false color (not bad really) can win out over finer, but dimmer, and sometimes much dimmer views. In fact, I sat with the AT for many hours the other night and didn't come across color once at 43X. I sold both Taks and am now perfectly happy with the 152 - albeit feeling a bit dumb at the same time. Live and learn, I guess.

I mentioned before that the AT-152 is one of the best kept secrets in AA. If I were HOO, I would be standing outside the store with these boxes, selling them like hotcakes. Okay, maybe not the store, but definitely NEAF! One is just never going to get a deal like this. In fact, anyone who is looking for a grab and go refractor, and we read this all the time, should definitely bite the bullet and accept that fact that carrying a bit more weight can get you a 152 that will show A LOT more than ANY tiny refractor. And the beauty is that if you drop it, lose it, dent it, or have it roll away, it's not a big deal because it was only a grand. One could then say, Yeah, but $1000 is a lot of money. Not for a six-inch refractor, it's not!

SIX INCH-REFRACTOR FOR A GRAND! COME AND GET YOUR SIX-INCH REFRACTOR FOR ONLY A GRAND! I'm serious, I would be doing that!

AND the scope is very binoviewer friendly!!!

Thanks, Chris

#5 thesubwaypusher

thesubwaypusher

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2004
  • Loc: New York City

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:36 PM

Nah, the good-but-not-great focuser perfectly matches the good-but-not-great scope, I think. The SV focuser is lightyears better than the unit that comes on it standard from Kunming, so in a way the Astrotelescopes iteration already has an upgraded focuser. A FT would be overkill IMO since this is hardly an imaging rig.

- Jim


Hi Jim:

I never responded to your critique of your 152 because I didn't want to let on that you may have gotten a lemon. But since you STILL :grin: insist on calling it a good-but-not-great scope...

Seriously, Hans loves his, everyone loves theirs, and I love my new one. So it's either you received a lemon, or you are having too-high expectations for this telescope. OR, the fact that you own (if my memory serves me correctly-and I can't see your signature at the moment,) a TEC 140, and you are just used to such perfection that it affects your objectivity regarding the AT.

The Feathertouch would be a great addition to a scope that I intend to keep (OMG, here he goes again) and I actually do use it, and only it, for A/P with my 40D. I actually get better images with it than I did with both FSQs. (calm down)
This, because I rarely take the images off the 40D. So on that little screen that I use to enjoy the pics, everything looks great at 30 seconds -to one minute exposures. That little screen masks any imperfections that this magical 6-inch refractor conveys. So for me, the AT is an imaging rig, and the Feathertouch would be a nice addition, even if it does cost 3/4 the price of the scope itself.

Hope your Subie's running well!

Thanks, Chris

#6 stewarttt

stewarttt

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Monticello, Florida

Posted 08 June 2013 - 09:11 AM

Hi,
What binoviewer and diagonal were you using with the AT 152?

#7 Starhawk

Starhawk

    Space Ranger

  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 08 June 2013 - 10:08 AM

You just need to track down an AP 130 EDFGT. You know you want one...

-Rich

#8 doctordub

doctordub

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1465
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2006
  • Loc: New Rochelle, New York

Posted 08 June 2013 - 09:52 PM

Chris, you should look into the Chromacor II on AM auction.
http://www.astromart...auction_id=8909
I use my TV Binovue and Chromacor with my AT152 at over 300X on the Moon Jupiter and Saturn.
CS

#9 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1399
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:42 PM

Of course a 6" SCT costs $799 or $719 on sale, has no CA, and is grab and go. Oh, and that includes a goto mount. And 6" reflectors are dirt cheap by comparison. Not saying the 6" AT is a bad value. There is something to be said for unobstructed aperture, perfect collimation, and fast cool down. And the build quality is very nice. It just isn't for everyone. My 6" scope can travel with me on an airplane for example. It really boils down to what features are most important to someone.

#10 Mentor

Mentor

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 09 June 2013 - 10:57 PM

Did I read that right? You sold your AT 152, subsequently owned both a TOA-130, and an FSQ-106, and then got rid of the Taks in favour of another AT 152?

Wow, I would not have expected that. I am trying to think up some analogies, but they all seem too absurd. What were the reasons for your preference of the AT over the TOA-130? I see that you picked up the TOA used. Was there something wrong with the sample you obtained?

#11 Mentor

Mentor

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:04 PM

OR, the fact that you own (if my memory serves me correctly-and I can't see your signature at the moment,) a TEC 140, and you are just used to such perfection that it affects your objectivity regarding the AT.


The TEC 140 is so perfect that Jim cannot be objective about the value of the AT 152, but somehow the TOA 130 did not have the same impact on you? This makes no sense to me.

It just goes to show you, there are scopes out there ideal for everyone, and ideal for everyone's intended use. You seem to enjoy low-power binoviewing. I can see the Taks not doing as well as the AT in that application.

#12 De Lorme

De Lorme

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2008

Posted 10 June 2013 - 10:27 AM

IS the AT better than ES? De Lorme

#13 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1399
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:12 AM

My understanding is the AT has better build quality and generally more favorable reviews. The ES is cheaper and includes accessories that the AT does not. My impression is the AT is a little better performer while the ES is a little better value, but I didn't end up getting either scope. That was just my conclusion from my research.

#14 Edwin

Edwin

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: 16 May 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:44 AM

@ De Lorne,

http://scopereviews.com/page1y.html

#15 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20502
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:43 PM

I'll put it this way. If you could get a TOA 130 and Astrotelescopes 152 for the same price, no one would choose the 152.

In fact, the 152 isn't even a very good value in the 6" achromat world; a C6R has less false color and costs just half the price (or about the same with a good GOTO EQ mount included).

To me, its saving grace is the nicer focuser. :shrug:

- Jim

#16 De Lorme

De Lorme

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2008

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:48 PM

Thanks Edwin for turning me on to the AT vs, ES review.
On Jupitor and the Moon does the false color{on either} go across the face of them?{thus covering up detail that you would see in a longer F/L} Thanks for answering.
De Lorme

#17 galaxyman

galaxyman

    Vendor - Have a Stellar Birthday

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2445
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Limerick, Pa

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:49 PM

Not all, for I would want the aperture for the vast majority of objects, unless if you're imaging those same objects. A very good review of the TOA 130 on Astromart, the owner does state he noticed that a 6" achro provided brighter images.

It is also quite possible that the AT152 has better overall optics then a C6R, and the review (Ting's) does mention the excellent optical quality of the AT152. I seen a couple C6R's with good optics, and one that was not good at all, with eyepiece images (DSO) breaking down pretty badly at just over 200x.

I did own a Skywatcher 6" f/8 (same as the Celestron) whose optics were fair, but my current ES152 does have better optics.

As for the two 6" achros (AT and ES). We did have a member own a AT 6" (sold it to help buy a "fully loaded" 18" dob).

One night a couple years ago we had both 6" refractors together, and I must say the AT 6" was quite impressive. My particular ES 6" optically is quite good, but there's something about that AT 6".

I probably would not sell the ES 6" for the AT 6", for I have my eye on APM's 6" f/8 ED, which would be my FINAL 6" refractor :smirk:

Variety is the spice of life, and no different in the astro world...that's for certain :grin:


Karl
E.O.H.


Chesmont Astronomical Society - www.chesmontastro.org
Galaxy Log - http://www.youtube.c...65?feature=mhee
Galaxy 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

#18 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 4372
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 13 June 2013 - 12:22 AM

Every time I read a report about this scope, I want to order one.
Then I remember the famous words of the most interesting astronomer in the world when he described the chromatic aberration.
"Oodles and oodles"
Those infamous words sort of remind me of a phrase incorrectly attributed to Dr. Sagan...... Shortened link



#19 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 740
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: In a galaxy far far away...

Posted 13 June 2013 - 01:00 AM

Don't look at planets! This scope is meant for DSO. No colors there! If used as intended, it is an admirable performer.

I had an excellent specimen which I passed on since I got my Dob. The only downside was the weight of the tube. It is reminiscent of a pig actually.

I do miss a large-ish refractor so I am contemplating something in 5". Teleskop Express has a 130/780 carbon fiber triplet that weights a "mere" 18 pounds and APM a 152/1200 doublet apo that has the same weight...

#20 galaxyman

galaxyman

    Vendor - Have a Stellar Birthday

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2445
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Limerick, Pa

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:33 AM

Every time I read a report about this scope, I want to order one.
Then I remember the famous words of the most interesting astronomer in the world when he described the chromatic aberration.
"Oodles and oodles"
Those infamous words sort of remind me of a phrase incorrectly attributed to Dr. Sagan...... Link


Then again you have "other" reviews of these types of scopes. Interesting :cool:

Many of the observations using mid-sized scopes in the video series is with the 6" f/6.5 achro. In fact the June video has my daughter using her 5" f/6.5 achro for observation of the galaxy Ngc 5248, plus a sketch of the galaxy.


http://www.cloudynig...hp?item_id=2171

http://www.cloudynig...hp?item_id=2690

http://www.cloudynig...hp?item_id=2051


Karl
E.O.H.


Chesmont Astronomical Society - www.chesmontastro.org
Galaxy Log - http://www.youtube.c...65?feature=mhee
Galaxy 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

#21 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 4372
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:01 PM

[quote name="nicknacknock"]Don't look at planets! This scope is meant for DSO. [quote]

Agreed. Any fast achromat is a specialized instrument designed for low power wide field views. But let's be honest, anyone that owns a 6 inch refractor is going to point it at a planet or two at some point. It's just human nature, like buying an F-10 SCT and wanting wider field views. :lol:

Steve

#22 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 4372
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:08 PM

It is reminiscent of a pig actually.


LOL, As the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think they are kind of neat looking.
I have a 110mm ED that is made by the same optical house, and I think it's really well built.
Not Televue or Astro Physics, but very good quality for the price I paid for it.

#23 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 4372
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:32 PM

Then again you have "other" reviews of these types of scopes. Interesting :cool:

Many of the observations using mid-sized scopes in the video series is with the 6" f/6.5 achro.


Karl
E.O.H.




They are all good reports Karl, and If If I did not already own a 6 inch F-6.5 I'd be all over the AT152.
Judging by the user reports I suspect that the optics in the AT152 are probably better than my F-6.5
Speaking of that, my F-6.5 is labeled as an Antares, but I believe it to be the same as your F-6.5.
The curious thing about it, is that when I first purchased it with the Asian sourced tube just like the ES, and Astro Zap versions the optics showed very little false color,
and nice concentric rings inside and outside of focus.
I upgraded the tube to the Antares sliding dew shield version, by swapping out the optics from the Asian sourced tube into the new Antares tube,
and low and behold the c/a increased as well as spherical aberration.
I was careful to mark the lenses to make sure they were properly orientated, but it performed worse than in the original tube.
I suspect that the long focuser draw tube on the original Asian made tube actually stops down the aperture and reduces the aberrations.

Steve

#24 galaxyman

galaxyman

    Vendor - Have a Stellar Birthday

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2445
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Limerick, Pa

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:59 PM

Hi Steve

Funny, I also owned an Antares 6" f/6.5 (2nd generation).

Two differences between that Antares and my current ES is of course the focuser being much better on the ES, but also the optical coatings.

My Antares was multi-coated, whereas the ES is fully multi-coated, and very good coatings to boot. Only coatings I've seen better is on my APM 8" f/9.

I will admit though, it was remembering how well the Antares performed that I went back to an 6" f/6.5, though as I previously stated the new APM 6" f/8 ED is beckoning:cool:



Karl
E.O.H.


Chesmont Astronomical Society - www.chesmontastro.org
Galaxy Log - http://www.youtube.c...65?feature=mhee
Galaxy 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

#25 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20502
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 14 June 2013 - 09:48 PM

$399 for a C6 OTA, actually. $799 gets you a GOTO mount too. Keeping it apples and apples; the Astrotelescopes is an OTA only offering - no mount.

- Jim






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics