Telescope Reviews: M14 ACF vs standard C14

· 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

You are not logged in. [Login]

Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online
FAQ · Calendar

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)

Bill Barlow
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 12/03/07

Loc: Overland Park KS

M14 ACF vs standard C14
#5296645 - 06/30/12 04:52 PM

I wanted to ask if anyone has visually observed through both a Meade 14 ACF and a standard non-HD C14? Does one put up a better image than the other as far as contrast/brightness is concerned? Any other differences or similarities or personal preferences? Any feedback appreciated..thank you.

Bill

Post Extras:

gillmj24
Post Laureate

Reged: 12/06/05

Loc: PA

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: Bill Barlow]
#5297525 - 07/01/12 09:20 AM

I haven't seen the 14 but have directly compared other sizes. The edge and the acf both put up views better than a standard sct of either brand. If you are asking about edge vs acf however you are unlikely to get any unbiased review as things will just degenerate into another fingerpointing, meade vs celestron argument. In reality they are pretty close (edge and acf) visually. Either one has an advantage over either brand's standard sct. Not in brightness but the edge of the field will have sharper stars and therefore an overall more pleasing view.

The meade might be a heavier tube assembly however. You will need a good mount. I have seen C14s on losmandy G11 mounts (just at the mount's limit) but never a meade 14 on one.

Post Extras:

Rick Woods
Postmaster

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: gillmj24]
#5300742 - 07/03/12 02:28 PM

But, he asked about a Meade 14" ACF vs. a non-Edge C14. I'd like to see some informed opinions, too! (Not that I'll be making any changes in my setup)

All told, I'd expect the Meade to come out ahead; but the slightly smaller CO of the C14 might be a factor too. (All just speculation.)

Post Extras:

D_talley
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 07/07/05

Loc: Richmond VA

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: gillmj24]
#5300791 - 07/03/12 03:05 PM Attachment (71 downloads)

Quote:

I......The meade might be a heavier tube assembly however. You will need a good mount. I have seen C14s on losmandy G11 mounts (just at the mount's limit) but never a meade 14 on one.

Here is a photo of my Meade 14 on a G11 mount. Worked fine for visual and astro-photography.

Post Extras:

MRNUTTY
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 11/22/11

Loc: Mendon, MA

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: D_talley]
#5300864 - 07/03/12 03:58 PM

Man, that is some beast! and you have a AT12IN too! Dwight, watch your back, you're gonna hurt something like that :-) sure is purty though.

I bought a 10" ACF thinking the residual need to flatten the image for AP would be less than the cost of a Edge11. But, now I'm not sure what product would be appropriate for flattening the image.

Post Extras:

GeneT
Ely Kid

Reged: 11/07/08

Loc: South Texas

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: Rick Woods]
#5300956 - 07/03/12 05:10 PM

Quote:

the slightly smaller CO of the C14 might be a factor

For visual, I'd think it would; not for photography.

Post Extras:

Bill Barlow
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 12/03/07

Loc: Overland Park KS

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: D_talley]
#5300967 - 07/03/12 05:18 PM

Thanks Rick and Dwight for your feedback. I already own a nice C14 with excellent optics, but I have the chance to get a new M14 ACF at a good price. The M14, being at F/10 will have a slightly wider FOV and larger exit pupils on eyepieces, so fainter targets, like some Hickson or Arp galaxy clusters may be brighter?

The ACF optics are a plus, but the extra weight of the OTA is not. My new C14 weighs 56-57 pounds without any accessories (has the clover leaf rear cell and vents) and I see the M14 with a Losmandy rail weighs around 61-62 pounds. Dwight, is that about what your M14 OTA weighs? Also, is the clear aperture of the M14 a full 14" or is it a "metric" 14" at 350mm? My previous Meade 12" ACF had only 300mm of clear aperture. I measured my C14 and it has a full 14"/355-356mm.

So would like to do a comparison and see what one puts up the better visual images, especially of galaxies. Anymore feedback would be appreciated..thanks.

Bill

Post Extras:

Bill Barlow
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 12/03/07

Loc: Overland Park KS

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 *DELETED* *DELETED* new

[Re: D_talley]
#5300980 - 07/03/12 05:23 PM

Post deleted by nemo129 as it was a duplicate of the above.

Edited by nemo129 (07/03/12 09:14 PM)

Post Extras:

Rick Woods
Postmaster

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: Bill Barlow]
#5301008 - 07/03/12 05:41 PM

Bill,
I wouldn't sell the C14 until you can make the comparison yourself.
It looks to me like Dwight has the same OTA I have, which (I remember reading on Yahoo) is 65 lb. It's a real beast. The specs say it has 356mm clear aperture. (That's mine, which is 9 years old, and non-ACF.)

Dwight,
I don't envy you having to set that monster up every time. Any chance of an observatory/permanent setup? (It looks extremely cool, though.)

Gene,
The Meade has a 35% CO; the Celestron is 32%. I wonder if that really would make a noticable difference? I'd guess maybe, just barely, for someone with extremely good eyesight; certainly not for me!

Post Extras:

tonyt
sage

Reged: 09/02/09

Loc: Australia

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 *DELETED* new

[Re: Bill Barlow]
#5301135 - 07/03/12 07:17 PM

Post deleted by tonyt (didn't seem to be appreciated so I got rid of the post)

Edited by tonyt (07/04/12 06:47 PM)

Post Extras:

D_talley
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 07/07/05

Loc: Richmond VA

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: tonyt]
#5301332 - 07/03/12 09:58 PM

I just did a quick measurement and it is 14 inches clear aperture. The OTA does weigh in at 65 lbs. I have had that scope for several years. I am getting older and I have switched to using my 12 inch Meade scope. Much lighter. I need to sell the 14 inch. Also the AT12IN I have is faster for photography. (also lighter)

There is no way I can setup an observatory. I hope to when I retire and move west. I live in the city and have to drive an hour to get to a darker site.

Post Extras:

Bill Barlow
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 12/03/07

Loc: Overland Park KS

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: D_talley]
#5301727 - 07/04/12 03:47 AM

Thanks Rick and Dwight. I wonder why the newer M14 ACF OTA's with the Losmandy mounting rail only weigh 61-62 pounds while your somewhat older M14's weigh 65 pounds?

Still undecided if I will go ahead and get the M14 ACF as not sure the f/10 M14 with a 10% larger TFOV and slightly larger exit pupils (about 10% larger in each eyepiece) will make any noticeable difference at the eyepiece when compared to a C14 at f/11. I wouldn't sell the C14 until I can compare the two for a while, mostly observing galaxies like the Hercules and Coma clusters or the faint Seyferts Sextet.

My main desire to get the M14 would be to see if the ACF optics and f/10 focal ratio would produce slightly brighter images of Arp and Hickson galaxy groups when using 40mm down to 12-16mm eyepieces. Will think about it a bit longer.

Bill

Post Extras:

Rick Woods
Postmaster

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: D_talley]
#5302498 - 07/04/12 03:43 PM

Quote:

I just did a quick measurement and it is 14 inches clear aperture. The OTA does weigh in at 65 lbs. I have had that scope for several years. I am getting older and I have switched to using my 12 inch Meade scope. Much lighter. I need to sell the 14 inch. Also the AT12IN I have is faster for photography. (also lighter)

There is no way I can setup an observatory. I hope to when I retire and move west. I live in the city and have to drive an hour to get to a darker site.

Then just pack the 14" away until you retire and build the observatory. Us old guys need all the aperture we can get.

Post Extras:

Bill Barlow
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 12/03/07

Loc: Overland Park KS

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: D_talley]
#5302579 - 07/04/12 04:29 PM

Dwight, does your M14 OTA weigh 65 pounds because you have two Losmandy mounting rails attached to it? They each weigh about 4-4.5 pounds, so that would add a little extra weight. Nice setup, by the way.

I am thinking of not getting the M14 because of the additional weight over my C14, but am thinking that when I can't handle the C14 anymore, the M12 would be a nice option. I am almost 58, so lifting and setting up/ taking down the C14 will end someday.

Bill

Post Extras:

D_talley
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 07/07/05

Loc: Richmond VA

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: Bill Barlow]
#5302854 - 07/04/12 07:59 PM Attachment (35 downloads)

I keep it in it's case most of the time. I hope to have a place to setup an observatory. Who knows when.

The 65 lbs is without a mounting rail. As you can see in the photo I have 63 lbs of weights on the mount. I have removed the guide scope and rail on top and use my SBIG ST2000 or the Hyperstar which does not need guiding.

The weight difference between the Meade 14 an the Meade 12 lets me use the setup below. TEC 140 and Meade 12 on G11 mount with weight to spare.

Post Extras:

gillmj24
Post Laureate

Reged: 12/06/05

Loc: PA

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: D_talley]
#5302886 - 07/04/12 08:31 PM

Wow thanks for sharing the pics. The 14 can reach farther than the 12 obviously, but I would bet having the "smaller" SCT and the 140 apo side by side is more fun to use than the single 14"

Post Extras:

Bill Barlow
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 12/03/07

Loc: Overland Park KS

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: D_talley]
#5302917 - 07/04/12 09:05 PM

Thanks, Dwight, for the feedback and picture..you have some very nice equipment. They must give you some excellent views of the heavens.
Wow, 65 pounds bare..I wonder if other folks scales are off a bit since their M14's weigh less with the Losmandy rail attached. Maybe Meade made the newer tubes lighter somehow?

One last question, do you notice a big difference between the views of fainter objects like distant galaxies comparing the M12 vs. the M14? Thanks again..

Bill

Post Extras:

D_talley
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 07/07/05

Loc: Richmond VA

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: Bill Barlow]
#5302942 - 07/04/12 09:35 PM

Quote:

.......

One last question, do you notice a big difference between the views of fainter objects like distant galaxies comparing the M12 vs. the M14? Thanks again..

Bill

I am strictly into astro-photography and don't look through them, sad to say.

Post Extras:

David Pavlich
Transmographied

Reged: 05/18/05

Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: Bill Barlow]
#5303559 - 07/05/12 10:58 AM

Hey Bill...one thing you might think about is that the new Meade OTAs are substantially lighter than the older LX200s. With the new focusing mechanism, Meade removed the mirror lock...big weight reduction.

David

Post Extras:

Bill Barlow
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 12/03/07

Loc: Overland Park KS

Re: M14 ACF vs standard C14 new

[Re: David Pavlich]
#5304073 - 07/05/12 05:17 PM

Hi David...

When you say the newer Meade OTA's, are you referring to the recently released f/8 scopes? Given their larger CO's, they might not be as good for visual observing as their f/10 cousins. I think someone said that his new f/8 M14 OTA weighed 56 pounds, including a mounting rail. Something to think about, I guess..thanks..

Bill

Post Extras:

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)

Extra information

21 registered and 21 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator: Cotts, Starman27

Print Thread

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

Thread views: 2206

Jump to

CN Forums

Home

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics