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

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: charles genovese]
      #5874579 - 05/20/13 08:21 PM

Quote:

Hi JJK- wasn't knocking you- just responded based on some things that were said. Rollands Mak is a spectacular instrument I'm sure, but for 1/10 (or less) one could have a comperable Newt. BTW, my most used scope is a C8 with excellent optics (that has vent holes-note the large amount of ventillation on the AP Mak!)




Ok, thanks. I don't mind criticism, as long as it's accurate and constructive.

Roland's 10" Mak-Cass was "only" $10K new (I shudder at what it might fetch now). Are top-notch 10" f/5 Newtonians selling for less than $1K new? That'd be a lot of bang for the buck.

I've used C8s, C9.25s, and C11s. IMO, they're incredible bargains (and some day, I'd love to get a cherry-picked C14). However, none of them were as well made (optically & mechanically) as the AP, they didn't perform as well on lunar/planetary views, and are not as versatile (the AP can be used visually at much higher magnification).

With the AP Mak-Cass, I've seen extremely fine lunar features (e.g., the entire length of Rima Marius, not just the part drawn in Rukl's atlas). There's no way any SCT I've ever used could have performed that well (FWIW, an AP155 f/7 EDF failed to show the finest part of the Rima that night). I wish I had the Tak Mewlon 300CR back them. It would have been a very interesting and critical comparison.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: issdaol]
      #5874587 - 05/20/13 08:25 PM

Quote:

Hi JJK,

Good to hear favorable comparisons from someone that actually owns and uses both AP and Tak scopes.

It seems like a lot of people put one or the other down without ever having owned both referring to vague tests and statements that are never validated or produced.

So based on the OP topic the Mewlon would stand up well against the AP Mak even though it is not f5??




I think the Tak Mewlon 300CR performs extremely well. I'd recommend one to anyone whose seeing can support it, even if only occasionally.


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

Reged: 02/04/06

Loc: Madisonville Louisiana
Re: Roland's 10" Mak versus a 10" f/5 reflector new [Re: JJK]
      #5876886 - 05/21/13 08:35 PM

Minor correction- I pulled out the calculations and the field of 100% illumination for the 10" f/4.5 with th 2.6" diagonal and the focal plane 12" from the optical axis (6" from the tube or 4" of back focus from the focuser) is about .6" or 15mm, (not 5 as I wrote).

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


Extra information
17 registered and 25 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Cotts, Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 3087

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics