Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Announcements and News >> Discussion of CN Articles, Reviews, and Reports

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
MKV
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 01/20/11

Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: Olivier Biot]
      #5030259 - 01/21/12 11:45 AM

Warren, if your 10-inch Meade SC doesn't split 1.1 arsec doubles, sell it! The fact that your 10-inch Meade seems to have trouble with it doesn't mean 5-inch refractors are better than 10-inch reflectors, as newbies may come to believe by reading your article, even if that was not your intent. That is true only if the larger telescope is poorly made, or poorly maintained.

My experience with A. Jaegers' 5-inch and 6-inch f/5 objectives (no longer available) is very similar to yours (except they used to cost far, far less). The c.a. observed never appeared as bad as the theory presents it. But that is true of other aberrations as well. The 5-inch f/5 Jaegers lens photographically resolved M13, and visually with averted vision.

Your article is an affirmation that short-focus achromats can look good, are easy to transport and set up and give decent very views visually and photographically.

Mladen


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarrenM
member


Reged: 07/27/11

Loc: Clovis, Calif., USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: MKV]
      #5031408 - 01/21/12 11:51 PM

MKV:
I certainly hope my review didn't leave the impression that a 6" refractor is better than a 10" SCT or 10" reflector. That was not my intent. Each type of scope has it's own unique advantages. Even though my Meade 10" SCT is 25 years old, it is in better condition now than when I bought it new. I added computer controls and Bob's Knobs (for easy collumation). From Peterson Engineering I installed an upgraded focuser, to limit mirror shift, and a larger 2" visual back. This scope has performed well and still looks new. My two failed attempts to split Porrima with this scope were with it set up on a large paved parking lot (at Eastman Lake) about an hour after sunset after a hot day. There was still some heat radiating from the pavement that was affecting seeing on both of these ocassions. The theoritical resolution of a 10" SCT is around a 1/2 arc second but thats under ideal conditions, which doesn't happen very often. The night I split Porrima with my 6" CT152 refractor I was set up on grass in my front yard. A much better situation. If I had my 10" set up that night in my front yard I'm pretty sure it would have split Porrima also. Though not as easly as the 6" refractor did it. One thing I've learned since buying the CT152 is that no 10" SCT is going to produce the tiny pin point star images that a good 6" acromatic refractor can. When it comes to faint DSO's any good 10" will beat a 6" refractor because of its greater light gathering power. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding my review may have caused. Thanks for your interest.

Warren


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
davidpitre
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/10/05

Loc: Central Texas
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: MKV]
      #5032004 - 01/22/12 11:20 AM

Quote:


My experience with A. Jaegers' 5-inch and 6-inch f/5 objectives (no longer available) is very similar to yours (except they used to cost far, far less)




In 1960s Jaegers' catalogue a 6" f/10 in a cell ran $175. .
If we take the date as 1965, it is roughly $1250. today. That is for the objective and cell only. So we are paying somewhere around half the price for these 6" f/5 Chinese objectives as a Jeagers 6" f/10 cost around 45 years ago.
I don't know if Jaegers made a 6" f/5 at the time, but a 5" f/5 objective in cell cost $97.50 in the 1960s. That is around $700. today.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JS999R
super member


Reged: 12/07/11

Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: seeindoubles]
      #5034642 - 01/23/12 09:51 PM

After reading Ed Tings, Warrens and Larry's reviews, I'm trying to somehow bring a CT152 home without my wife knowing. This is going to take some time to figure out and I may have to sell my Vixen 102 to do it. Believe it or not I don't think she will notice the difference in size between the two. I've done this a couple times in the past with motorcycles, I'm sure I can pull it off with a telescope.

What is the best way to attach the finder scope mount? Are there screw holes available on the focuser like the GSO focusers? The total deal will be over a grand counting the finder and diagonal. No doubt I'll have to pick up a good wide field 2" for it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Robo-bob
sage


Reged: 05/02/05

Loc: Central Alberta
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: JS999R]
      #5034712 - 01/23/12 10:42 PM

Quote:

After reading Ed Tings, Warrens and Larry's reviews, I'm trying to somehow bring a CT152 home without my wife knowing. This is going to take some time to figure out and I may have to sell my Vixen 102 to do it. Believe it or not I don't think she will notice the difference in size between the two. I've done this a couple times in the past with motorcycles, I'm sure I can pull it off with a telescope.




You sir, are my new hero. All hail the god of marital harmoney. Seriously though, I am going to give this a try.

Back on topic, has anyone had a chance to compare this scope with one of the older Antares 6" Achros? Just wondering how the CA would compare. Anyone?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarrenM
member


Reged: 07/27/11

Loc: Clovis, Calif., USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: JS999R]
      #5034798 - 01/24/12 12:10 AM

JS999R:
I had a good laugh reading your post. I'm not to optimistic that you can fool your wife into not noticing the difference in size between a CT152 and a Vixen 102. If you look at the pictures in my review the Celestron mounted on top of the CT152 is a 102! The size difference is HUGE! But if you fooled her with motorcycles in the past, maybe you can pull it off. Please let us know, one way or the other, in a future post. I would love to know.

As far as mounting a finder scope goes you should have no trouble. The CT152 3" focuser has two threaded holes on both the upper right side and upper left side. You can use these holes to install a standard shoe which will accept a finder scope bracket for a 50mm finder scope. Good luck on getting the scope.

Warren


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cyclop_si
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 03/13/08

Loc: Slovenia
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: JS999R]
      #5034924 - 01/24/12 03:17 AM

Quote:

After reading Ed Tings, Warrens and Larry's reviews, I'm trying to somehow bring a CT152 home without my wife knowing. This is going to take some time to figure out and I may have to sell my Vixen 102 to do it. Believe it or not I don't think she will notice the difference in size between the two. I've done this a couple times in the past with motorcycles, I'm sure I can pull it off with a telescope.





I am sure you will manage with this trick. She is successful using same trick with her shoes as well....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
davidpitre
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/10/05

Loc: Central Texas
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: JS999R]
      #5035055 - 01/24/12 08:04 AM

Quote:

After reading Ed Tings, Warrens and Larry's reviews, I'm trying to somehow bring a CT152 home without my wife knowing. This is going to take some time to figure out and I may have to sell my Vixen 102 to do it. Believe it or not I don't think she will notice the difference in size between the two. I've done this a couple times in the past with motorcycles, I'm sure I can pull it off with a telescope.





I believe it from similar experiences.
Some tips from a pro:
Save cash and buy a USPS money order. No records to account for. Then have it shipped for pick-up at the central UPS service center or a buddy's house.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Ogiba
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/14/02

Loc: NJ USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: WarrenM]
      #5036189 - 01/24/12 08:44 PM

Quote:

Russ: To answer your question the 3" focuser has two advantages over the 2" focuser that I wanted. The larger diameter draw tube allows the focuser to be racked in farther into the telescope with out intercepting the light cone comming from the objective lens. The draw tube on my telescope is 4" long and will bring any eyepiece to focus, including a bino-viewer. The 2" draw tube is much shorter and requires an extension tube to be added to bring some eyepieces to focus. The 2nd advantage is payload capacity. the 3" has an 8.8 pound capacity. The 2" has around a 4.5 pound capacity. There is one other factor. Appearence. The 3" focuser looks great on this scope!! Warren




Hi Warren,

I plan on getting the CT152 this spring and use it with my Denk II binoviewer. I seen that Larry Carlino mentioned his scope "has significant “in-focus” to accommodate a binoviewer " so does the 3" focuser also have significant in-focus like the 2" focuser ?

Joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
davidpitre
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/10/05

Loc: Central Texas
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: Joe Ogiba]
      #5036352 - 01/24/12 10:44 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Russ: To answer your question the 3" focuser has two advantages over the 2" focuser that I wanted. The larger diameter draw tube allows the focuser to be racked in farther into the telescope with out intercepting the light cone comming from the objective lens. The draw tube on my telescope is 4" long and will bring any eyepiece to focus, including a bino-viewer. The 2" draw tube is much shorter and requires an extension tube to be added to bring some eyepieces to focus. The 2nd advantage is payload capacity. the 3" has an 8.8 pound capacity. The 2" has around a 4.5 pound capacity. There is one other factor. Appearence. The 3" focuser looks great on this scope!! Warren




Hi Warren,

I plan on getting the CT152 this spring and use it with my Denk II binoviewer. I seen that Larry Carlino mentioned his scope "has significant “in-focus” to accommodate a binoviewer " so does the 3" focuser also have significant in-focus like the 2" focuser ?

Joe




Yes. The 3" focuser has a lot of spare in-focus. As he stated, it should bring most bino-viewers to focus.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarrenM
member


Reged: 07/27/11

Loc: Clovis, Calif., USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: davidpitre]
      #5036442 - 01/24/12 11:53 PM

To: Joe Ogiba
Hi Joe,

David Pitre's answer to your question above is correct. Both the AT152 and the CT152 have enough in focus to bring most bino viewers to focus. The nice thing about the 3" focuser is that its 4" long draw tube can be racked all the way in without interfering with the light cone comming from the objective lens. Yet, it can still be racked out far enough to bring any eyepiece to focus. The 2" focuser has to be shorter to avoid interfering with the light cone when racked in. However, it can't be racked out far enough to bring some eyepieces to focus unless an extension tube is added. Another advantage of the 3" focuser is its greater payload capicity of 8.8 pounds. This will come in handy when your using a heavy bino viewer with two eyepieces.

Warren


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Ogiba
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/14/02

Loc: NJ USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: WarrenM]
      #5036783 - 01/25/12 09:40 AM

Hi Warren,

Thanks for that info, I will be ordering it with Woodland Hills Telescopes like you did in about a month.

Joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
zawijava
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 10/06/07

Loc: Wells, Maine 04090
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: JS999R]
      #5038756 - 01/26/12 10:36 AM

Quote:

After reading Ed Tings, Warrens and Larry's reviews, I'm trying to somehow bring a CT152 home without my wife knowing. This is going to take some time to figure out and I may have to sell my Vixen 102 to do it. Believe it or not I don't think she will notice the difference in size between the two. I've done this a couple times in the past with motorcycles, I'm sure I can pull it off with a telescope.




Who's fooling who ......she likely notices everything


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Ogiba
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/14/02

Loc: NJ USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: zawijava]
      #5039103 - 01/26/12 01:42 PM

BTW anyone know if Ed Tings CT152 review is online ? I looked on his website and did not see it.
Read the full review (PDF) by Terence Dickinson (Editor in Chief) in SkyNews Magazine here


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarrenM
member


Reged: 07/27/11

Loc: Clovis, Calif., USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: Joe Ogiba]
      #5039160 - 01/26/12 02:08 PM

Joe:
To read Ed Tings review of the AT152 go to scopereviews.com. On the home page scroll down to review #P-26 and click on it. This is actually a head to head review of the AT152 and the Explore Scientific ES152 with pictures.

Warren


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
northernontario
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 07/01/09

Loc: Porcupine, Ontario Canada
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: seeindoubles]
      #5039687 - 01/26/12 06:48 PM

Good stuff Warren.

I read this awhile back and would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the focuser lubrication tip.

I too found it rather sticky and noisy. Your quick fix works like a charm.

jake


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Ogiba
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/14/02

Loc: NJ USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor [Re: WarrenM]
      #5039826 - 01/26/12 07:53 PM

Quote:

Joe:
To read Ed Tings review of the AT152 go to scopereviews.com. On the home page scroll down to review #P-26 and click on it. This is actually a head to head review of the AT152 and the Explore Scientific ES152 with pictures.

Warren



Thanks Warren, I see it looks like the AT152 that is sold by Hands on Optics . BTW they have an upgraded version with Stellarvue 2.5" Rack and Pinion dual speed focuser .

Joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarrenM
member


Reged: 07/27/11

Loc: Clovis, Calif., USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor [Re: northernontario]
      #5039837 - 01/26/12 08:00 PM

Thanks Jake.
Glad I could be of some help.

Warren


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JS999R
super member


Reged: 12/07/11

Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor [Re: WarrenM]
      #5061528 - 02/08/12 03:10 AM

I'm getting closer to my objective of saving up enough to buy the CT152 (thats if I don't change my mind and just buy a big yard cannon DOB). The nice thing is I don't have to sell my Vixen 102 to do it. But now that puts a damper on my strategy to switch scopes as part of my cover to bring the new scope home, so its work in progress. As a partial cover story to my wife, I've been selling off a few motorcycle parts and she is aware of that, I make sure she knows this and also inflate the selling figure by at least 100%. She doesn't have a problem seeing this as a separate financial issue, so what I make off the sales is mine. If and when I do buy another telescope, I'll tell her it's used and the seller was desparate to sell. Worn out story, but it still works like negative campaign ads do. If the CT152 costs approx $1,000, I'll tell my wife it cost $425. At this stage of my plan I'm in good shape in terms of the psychology preparation. I've started dropping hints that I'm looking at a potential "smokin" deal on a telescope and have deferred the question well enough, "why do you need two of them?" Actually I think this might be easier than I anticipated because it doesn't have anything to do with buying another motorcycle. The days of secret 1099s and keeping a third bike at a buddies house are over. I never felt that guilty about not being truthful, but I don't miss the stress of keeping the bonus bucks 1099 situation a secret for a couple years. I did what I had to do to pursue my hobbies, without them life would be boring, right?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarrenM
member


Reged: 07/27/11

Loc: Clovis, Calif., USA
Re: Canadian Telescopes 152 F-5.9 Acromatic Refractor new [Re: JS999R]
      #5062462 - 02/08/12 03:31 PM

JS999R:
You sure are a resourceful person when it comes to pursuing your hobbies. I'm glad to here your not going to try to fool your wife into thinking a CT152 is a Vixen 102. That would have been tough to pull off. I think your knew plan has a much better chance of success. Your definitely right about one thing. Life would be boring if a guy couldn't have one or two hobbies. I hope you get your scope.

Warren


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  droid 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 20192

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics