Haven't tried the Vixen 140, but I do own a SW Startravel 150mm f/5. It is an excellent telescope for what it was designed to do, which is DSOs and wide field views. I've seen the first quarter Moon with it once, and the CA was NOT what I see in the posted picture above. As far as CF goes, my Radians show none and my Pentax XLs very little.
I agree 100% with the findings of the best review (check link below) ever written on this topic. The views, pictures and simulations presented here are by far more realistic than the photon sensitive camera used in the previous pictures. Let alone the fact that this is a DSO scope, not a planetary one.
Excellent review! Very, very accurate IMO.
I think I will field the 6" f/5.9 at our upcoming dark sky camp out at the end of October. I haven't had it under truly dark skies yet; just suburban skies. It'll be a nice complement, I think for a larger Dob.
Chances are you'll be impressed with the performance of the 6". However,what worries me is that you might start comparing it to your TEC, which happens to be one of the best telescopes ever produced.
See Jim, your eyes are accustomed to experiencing pristine views through the TEC, so I dunno how hard you are going to try to remain objective and somewhat lenient in your assessment that you are dealing with a fast achro and not an apo. .
I suggest you not take the TEC along with you, and report your AT impressions as if you have never seen through a 6" telescope before. I don't think it (TEC vs AT) will matter much for DSO, but still....
I've owned the Astrotelescopes for almost 2 years, actually, and used it many times. Here are my initial comments:
Given that my first "real" telescope was a 6" f/8 which I used exclusively for about 16 years and have used a C6 on and off for the last four years, it isn't possible to view the AT as if I'd never looked through another 6-incher. But I actually consider that to be an advantage rather than disadvantage in drawing conclusions and offering opinions and advice on the AT. It avoids the "gee whiz" kind of context-less praise you see from a first time user, and provides readers with reference points for deciding whether or not they are likely to enjoy the scope, virtues and vices included.
I continue to believe that a C6 with a Celestron FF/FR attached is a better option than the AT for most users. Similar wide field capability, trading CA for a little edge of field light fall-off with wide true field eyepieces, and boatloads cheaper and easier to mount and transport than the big achromat.
But I sold the C6 and still have the AT. Go figure.
Edited by jrbarnett, 29 August 2014 - 01:47 PM.