Brian L
super member
Reged: 11/17/08
Posts: 116
Loc: The garden paradise of Pittsbu...
|
|
The first real scope I ever looked through was a Questar 3.5 back in the early '70s...and I've wanted one ever since. I've owned a lot of scopes in the past four decades, but I always look back to that little Questar that got me started in this decades ago. I feel that I should own one just to close some imaginary circle...my oldest child is just getting to the age that I was when I first saw Saturn through that Questar. For those of you out there that have or have owned one, how do the optics stand up to a modern high-end apo refractor like a TV85 or SV90? My interest is not pure nostalgia.
--------------------
WO FLT-110 f/6.5, TEC optics
Losmandy G-11 Gemini
Meade 10" LX200 GPS/UHTC
Questar 3.5" Standard
Vixen VMC-110L
Canon 450D, unmodified
Assortment of TV Panoptic, TV Radian, Vixen LVW, and WO eyepieces
|
Jimmy2K63
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/26/09
Posts: 1188
Loc: Kentucky
|
|
I have never owned one but used to borrow a Questar from our local college many years back and all I can say is it is one sweet little telescope. That's one company that can never claim false advertising, but the price.......
--------------------
http://astronomyguy63.blogspot.com/
LXD75 SN6-UHTC
Cave Astrola 10" f/5
Garrett 15x70/FarSight
Canon XS (1000D)
|
Happy-Idiot
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/06/06
Posts: 2802
Loc: 3rd Rock
|
|
Brian welcome to cloudy nights. HERE is a forum based on Questars. They have some very knowledgeable folk over there. Good luck. 
--------------------
Brian
A small scope that gets used often is a better investment than a big scope that stays in the closet.
Unitrons, you spend more time looking at them than you do through them.
|
rmollise
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/06/07
Posts: 4564
|
|
Quote:
The first real scope I ever looked through was a Questar 3.5 back in the early '70s...and I've wanted one ever since. I've owned a lot of scopes in the past four decades, but I always look back to that little Questar that got me started in this decades ago. I feel that I should own one just to close some imaginary circle...my oldest child is just getting to the age that I was when I first saw Saturn through that Questar. For those of you out there that have or have owned one, how do the optics stand up to a modern high-end apo refractor like a TV85 or SV90? My interest is not pure nostalgia.
They stand up well...but...
A modern APO is, of course, much more versatile with its fast focal ratio. One is good for imaging, guiding, wide-field observing, planetary observing. A Q3.5 is really only for looking.
...but sometimes that is enough. 
--------------------
Uncle Rod
Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT
Available now!
|
Jae
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/13/06
Posts: 559
Loc: near Boston
|
|
<A Q3.5 is really only for looking.>
Looking at or looking through ? 
I think both......and there in lies the beauty
I had it set up to look at and admire when not looking through but then I didn't want it to get bumped or collect any dust so back in the case it went...
I'll have to a compare to a TV85 if the weather ever clears but I always thought that considering the original vintage of Questars, a fairer comparison was was versus 3" long focus refractor. When I last compared a Towa 80mm f/15 to a BB coated Q on the moon, the Towa did very well. Maybe a slightly more pleasing image for me but the Q was brighter, had even more contrast but the image was a bit less steady at that time. Perhaps needed a bit more cool down or seeing was was somehow affecting it. Either way they were both superb images. The Q was of course by comparison, super compact, portable and everything that made it so impactful back in the day.
The newer compact APO's are just that newer technology - advancements - so not a real fair comparison in my mind. To be continued.....
--------------------
Jae
|
DAVIDG
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/02/04
Posts: 1985
Loc: Hockessin, De
|
|
I have access to one of the very early model Questars made in the 1950's. This one has the metal spot on the outside surface of the corrector, which was done to get around the Perkin Elmer patient. It is a very nice telescope and very nice to use but it is still only has 3.5" of aperture. Even with the very good optics that a Questar has, my classic RV-6 beats it hands down. I also own Meade ETX 90-RA that gives the same quality of image for much less price.
But the reason why most own Questar is because it is a Questar and if I found one a good price I would buy it too !
On the Questar web site is information for how to decode the serial numbers so you can determine exactly what your buying. Questar also does a very good job in restoring them but that comes with a Questar price tag. Good luck in your search.
- Dave
--------------------
Homemade 'scopes 8"f/7,6" f/5", 6"f/4, 4.25" Schief. 60mm Coronagraph,60mm H-alpha system, 4.25" White-light Solar Newtonian,solar spectroscope, 4.5" f/16 Schupmann Medial refractor, 14 Stellafane awards 7 in optics
Engineering = Taking what you have and making what you need.
|
rmollise
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/06/07
Posts: 4564
|
|
Quote:
The newer compact APO's are just that newer technology - advancements - so not a real fair comparison in my mind. To be continued.....
If you'll reread the original poster's question, he didn't ask for a "fair" comparison, but how the Questar stands up against a modern APO.
--------------------
Uncle Rod
Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT
Available now!
|
Jae
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/13/06
Posts: 559
Loc: near Boston
|
|
Quote:
If you'll reread the original poster's question, he didn't ask for a "fair" comparison, but how the Questar stands up against a modern APO.
You're right ! In that case, I stand by my reply - it's not a fair comparison i.e it doesn't stand up against a modern APO.
But don't take my word for it - search the Q forum comments and you'll find: "90mm Stowaway blows it out of the water" per Joe Bergeron, etc.
--------------------
Jae
|
Bonco
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/17/06
Posts: 2297
Loc: Florida
|
|
If I were in a better financial position I'd offer on the current one advertised on AM for $1300. The pictures look good. The scope lives in Florida.
Bill
--------------------
RV6
Meade 2045
6 inch f/4 RFT R. Fagin Optics
TV Genesis
2.4 inch Lafayette Equitorial
3 inch Polarex/Unitron Equitorial
10 inch Zhumell
PST 40mm Solar scope
4 inch F/15 Antares
2.4 inch Unitron Equitorial
Tasco 10K 80mm/1200mm
Towa 339 Restored
|
Brian L
super member
Reged: 11/17/08
Posts: 116
Loc: The garden paradise of Pittsbu...
|
|
Thanks for the helpful comments. I've read that the questar optics test at 1/10 to 1/15 wave, which if it is true is a pretty high standard that is not likely to disappoint.
--------------------
WO FLT-110 f/6.5, TEC optics
Losmandy G-11 Gemini
Meade 10" LX200 GPS/UHTC
Questar 3.5" Standard
Vixen VMC-110L
Canon 450D, unmodified
Assortment of TV Panoptic, TV Radian, Vixen LVW, and WO eyepieces
|
actionhac
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/09/08
Posts: 732
Loc: WA
|
|
Cave mirrors in the early, Cumberland in the later, make a difference to a shopper?
I had this tidbit in my memory banks, saw the post.
Robert
|
mustgobigger
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/07
Posts: 2421
|
|
cave made mirrors for questar?
--------------------
RV-6
Meade 826
Meade 880 Deluxe
Unitron's 114,128,140,142,150,152,155,160
4" Jaegertron
4.5" A.E f/14 Refractor
4" f/15 Edmund's Refractor
|
RLTYS
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/04
Posts: 2144
Loc: New York (Long Island)
|
|
Brian
Years ago I had the oppertunity to observe thru a Questar owned by the late George Lovi (contributor to S&T and one of the writers of Uranametria 2000). All I can say is it was an excellent instrument. If I could buy one I would, a true classic.
Rich (RLTYS)
--------------------
10" F4.8 Refl.
4" F5 Refr. (Genesis)
3" F4 Celestron FirstScope
50mm F12 Refr. (Tasco #6TE-5)
12x63 and 10x50 Binoculars.
"I want to do more then just look."
|
SATMAN
sage
Reged: 12/02/07
Posts: 276
Loc: NJ 39.7 lat., -74.3 long
|
|
I have a Questar 3.5 which I bought new in 2007 and a Tristand for , I also have a vintage Brandon 94 APO, both in my opinion are equal in image quality, I do prefer to use the Questar for planetary observation (Visual) due to its longer focal length, On deep sky with the smaller apertures that I use the Brandon has a slighter edge do to its larger objective and larger field of view (f-7 as opposed to to f-14 for the Questar) the Brandon is not a slouch on the planets either it just has a lower range of magnification. I think Both telescopes complement each other.
The Brandon is used as a more Grab and Go I have it now on a Quarter Half Hitch mount and as soon as I get the Tripod ( shipped separately) I will post a first light report using my newly acquired Ethos eyepieces.
 
--------------------
CELESTRON/VIXEN C102 GP REFRACTOR
CELESTRON SUPER C8 PLUS
VIXEN 90 CUSTOM REFRACTOR ALTAZ. MOUNT
QUESTAR 3.5 STANDARD POWER GUIDE II ON TRISTAND
CORONADO PST DOUBLE STACKED
BRANDON 94mm f/7 ON VIXEN POLARIS MOUNT
VIXEN PORTA MOUNT, QUARTER HALF HITCH MOUNT
BRANDON EYEPIECE SET (circa 1986) 8,12,16,24,32, 2.4X DAKIN BARLOW
VARIOUS NAGLERS 3-6 ZOOM,7,9,11,13,16,24PANOPTIC
ETHOS 6mm, 10mm
ZEISS 10X40B/GA T*P* BINOCULARS
Edited by SATMAN (10/25/09 12:03 PM)
|
akman1955
sage
Reged: 09/07/09
Posts: 362
Loc: Alaska, USA
|
|
Hey satman..Lets see photo's of questar as i might be getting one, john
|
rmollise
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/06/07
Posts: 4564
|
|
Quote:
You're right ! In that case, I stand by my reply - it's not a fair comparison i.e it doesn't stand up against a modern APO.
He asks for a comparison...that's what he got. Needless to say, this reply of yours has confused me a wee bit (not that that's hard to do), and I think I'll just call it a day on this thread. 
--------------------
Uncle Rod
Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT
Available now!
|
rmollise
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/06/07
Posts: 4564
|
|
Quote:
Cave mirrors in the early, Cumberland in the later, make a difference to a shopper?
I had this tidbit in my memory banks, saw the post.
Robert
You're exactly right...the Cave optics were only used in the 1958 scopes and earlier AFAIK, however, so it wouldn't be overly likely you'd run across one...and as far as I know, the Cave optics were good too. Part of Questar's recipe for success has always been their QA program.
--------------------
Uncle Rod
Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT
Available now!
Edited by rmollise (10/25/09 03:09 PM)
|
astro140
newbie
Reged: 01/28/08
Posts: 2
|
|
Brian,
I agree what has been posted so far, but as no one has expressed exactly what differences to expect between a Questar and high-end APO, so I thought I would chime in. I have both a Questar and a TeleVue 85. As expressed by others, there is the obvious f/ ratio differences (field of view). Planets are nice in both scopes. The differences are seen in certain deep space objects. For instance, M13 at similar magnifications show essentially no resolved stars with the Questar versus many with the TV-85 using say a TeleVue Panoptic eyepiece. I was quite surprised when I first saw this, since the Questar is the larger scope (albeit the central obstruction). M13 in the Questar has a granular appearance. If one uses high end eyepieces (for example, Astro-Physics Superplanetary or TMB Monocentric), one can resolve some stars with the Questar. These results I suspect are the result of the light transmission characteristics of the eyepieces (I am in no way criticizing Panoptics...they are a favorite of mine). On deep space objects the Questar performs more like a 3-inch refractor (others may disagree, but I will be interested to hear their comments). Both scopes do quite well on double stars. Hope this helps.
Steve
|
Brian L
super member
Reged: 11/17/08
Posts: 116
Loc: The garden paradise of Pittsbu...
|
|
Okay... I pulled the trigger and bought one. It's a '67 standard model with the older Erfle eyepieces. Not sure whether or not the eyepiece barrel is compatible with the later Brandon design-- I seem to remember that the barrel is wider with these scopes. I guess I'll find out. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against my TEC 110 on the targets that the Questar excels at.
--------------------
WO FLT-110 f/6.5, TEC optics
Losmandy G-11 Gemini
Meade 10" LX200 GPS/UHTC
Questar 3.5" Standard
Vixen VMC-110L
Canon 450D, unmodified
Assortment of TV Panoptic, TV Radian, Vixen LVW, and WO eyepieces
|
Erik Bakker
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 532
Loc: Haren, The Netherlands, Europe
|
|
Hi Brian,
Congrats! The Q excels not at any particular object but at the TOTAL VIEWING EXPERIENCE.
Enjoy and clear skies,
Erik
--------------------
Visual astronomer, main instruments:
Fully mounted Questar 7 P-BB
Celestron C 102F f/8.8 fluorite
Vixen FL 70S f/8 fluorite
Celestron C 55F f/8 fluorite
Sets of Zeiss, TeleVue and Brandon eyepieces
Zeiss 7x50 Marine B/GA
Zeiss TM german equatorial
Gitzo 224 with Manfrotto 501 fluid head
Unitron alt-az mount
|
Brian L
super member
Reged: 11/17/08
Posts: 116
Loc: The garden paradise of Pittsbu...
|
|
I thought I'd just throw this out there:
Despite conventional wisdom that fast focal lengths don't do as well on planetary targets, I can always make out more detail on the disk of Jupiter and rings of Saturn using my 110 mm f/6.5 APO refractor than my 10" f/10 SCT at roughly the same magnification. I think that other factors like tube currents, imprecise collimation, etc. mitigate the advantages of the long focal length and larger aperture. Clearly the diffraction limit of the 10" SCT should be capable of resolving more detail than the 110 mm refractor. But, even side by side I've never found that to be the case.
--------------------
WO FLT-110 f/6.5, TEC optics
Losmandy G-11 Gemini
Meade 10" LX200 GPS/UHTC
Questar 3.5" Standard
Vixen VMC-110L
Canon 450D, unmodified
Assortment of TV Panoptic, TV Radian, Vixen LVW, and WO eyepieces
|
Bonco
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/17/06
Posts: 2297
Loc: Florida
|
|
I had similar results with my original C8 f10 purchased in the 70's. My 6 inch RV6 f8 was more contrasty and sharper by an obvious margin showing better planetary detail. Theoretically this should not be true. So it begs the question, Why? My guess is poor quality control on the C8.
Bill
--------------------
RV6
Meade 2045
6 inch f/4 RFT R. Fagin Optics
TV Genesis
2.4 inch Lafayette Equitorial
3 inch Polarex/Unitron Equitorial
10 inch Zhumell
PST 40mm Solar scope
4 inch F/15 Antares
2.4 inch Unitron Equitorial
Tasco 10K 80mm/1200mm
Towa 339 Restored
|
actionhac
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/09/08
Posts: 732
Loc: WA
|
|
I had just about thrown in the towel on SCT's when one night when everything was just perfect (for the SCT), I could not believe my eyes. My LX200EMC 10" 2500mmfl showed me why these things cost so much.
It was mind blowing. Then I started getting silly and put in my shortest fl ep on Jupiter. At 658X I could still make out bands and the planet was gigantic.
I have not been able to repeat this performance but I know what the scope is capable of.
If this was my only scope I would make a point of finding out exactly what this thing needs to perform properly. I think is black majik mon.
Robert
|
Brian L
super member
Reged: 11/17/08
Posts: 116
Loc: The garden paradise of Pittsbu...
|
|
I too have had one or two of those zen experiences with my SCT, where the right combination of ambient temperature, humidity, and air turbulence yielded uncharacteristically sharp (but ephemeral) views. I've never figured out the secret formula...probably because its far easier to roll out the refractor and start observing in a few minutes.
--------------------
WO FLT-110 f/6.5, TEC optics
Losmandy G-11 Gemini
Meade 10" LX200 GPS/UHTC
Questar 3.5" Standard
Vixen VMC-110L
Canon 450D, unmodified
Assortment of TV Panoptic, TV Radian, Vixen LVW, and WO eyepieces
|
rmollise
Post Laureate
Reged: 07/06/07
Posts: 4564
|
|
Quote:
I had just about thrown in the towel on SCT's when one night when everything was just perfect (for the SCT), I could not believe my eyes. My LX200EMC 10" 2500mmfl showed me why these things cost so much.
Robert
"Cost so much"?! SCTs are dirt cheap and have been for a while considering what ya get. That's been one of Meade's and Celestron's ongoing problems. 
--------------------
Uncle Rod
Rod's New Book:
Choosing and Using a New CAT
Available now!
|
Brian L
super member
Reged: 11/17/08
Posts: 116
Loc: The garden paradise of Pittsbu...
|
|
If companies like AstroTech have figured out how to make 8-10" RC optics with quartz primaries for less than $1,500, it could be the beginning of the end for the SCT. I've been seriously considering hanging up my SCT for one of those AT8RC's.
--------------------
WO FLT-110 f/6.5, TEC optics
Losmandy G-11 Gemini
Meade 10" LX200 GPS/UHTC
Questar 3.5" Standard
Vixen VMC-110L
Canon 450D, unmodified
Assortment of TV Panoptic, TV Radian, Vixen LVW, and WO eyepieces
|
Clive Gibbons
Mostly Harmless
Reged: 05/26/05
Posts: 13421
Loc: Oort Cloud
|
|
Quote:
Okay... I pulled the trigger and bought one. It's a '67 standard model with the older Erfle eyepieces. Not sure whether or not the eyepiece barrel is compatible with the later Brandon design-- I seem to remember that the barrel is wider with these scopes. I guess I'll find out. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against my TEC 110 on the targets that the Questar excels at.
Hi Brian.
Congrats on your vintage Q purchase. 
The "40x" ocular is a 3 element Konig design and the "80x" ocular is a 5 element Erfle.
To use the later Questar Brandon eyepieces in your scope, you'll need a different adapter.
Hope the ol' Q works out well for you.
My '62 vintage model is still chugging along and provides excellent views.
--------------------
A few telescopes of dubious value.
Understanding wife, two curious cats and one sadly departed.
"Semper ubi sub ubi"
|
gschnelk
member
Reged: 12/11/08
Posts: 16
|
|
To All
I bought a Questar several years ago. I could go on for hours (as we all can) but allow me to say this: I really wanted a small aperture refractor but could not find a mount that met my criteria of very light weight with the functions I required. I did not want a scope that would just sit and look pretty and that's what would have happened if I acquired an
excellent tube with something like a GM-8 mount. I would say "Maybe tomorrow night." I have a bad back so cannot lift 30 to 80 pounds without several weeks of pain. If I have to disassemble - same response. So... I bought a Questar. A final note: The Questar ia delightful in many respects and disappointing to me in a few respects.
Gary
|
Erik Bakker
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/10/06
Posts: 532
Loc: Haren, The Netherlands, Europe
|
|
Quote:
I thought I'd just throw this out there:
Despite conventional wisdom that fast focal lengths don't do as well on planetary targets, I can always make out more detail on the disk of Jupiter and rings of Saturn using my 110 mm f/6.5 APO refractor than my 10" f/10 SCT at roughly the same magnification. I think that other factors like tube currents, imprecise collimation, etc. mitigate the advantages of the long focal length and larger aperture. Clearly the diffraction limit of the 10" SCT should be capable of resolving more detail than the 110 mm refractor. But, even side by side I've never found that to be the case.
That 10" of yours must have not-so-good optics. My Q7 dwarfs my Astro-Physics 130mm f/6 on everything except widefields.
Clear skies,
Erik
--------------------
Visual astronomer, main instruments:
Fully mounted Questar 7 P-BB
Celestron C 102F f/8.8 fluorite
Vixen FL 70S f/8 fluorite
Celestron C 55F f/8 fluorite
Sets of Zeiss, TeleVue and Brandon eyepieces
Zeiss 7x50 Marine B/GA
Zeiss TM german equatorial
Gitzo 224 with Manfrotto 501 fluid head
Unitron alt-az mount
|
Brian L
super member
Reged: 11/17/08
Posts: 116
Loc: The garden paradise of Pittsbu...
|
|
Erik-
That's what I thought, but I did a lot of star testing with an artificial star and there were not any obvious optical defects. Collimation is good.
I am not saying that the 10" is bad- I've looked through other people's SCT's and the high magnification views aren't any better. I think the limiting factors for both scopes under usual observing conditions here in W. PA are atmospheric. It's just that the 4" TEC optics seem to perform better under those conditions.
--------------------
WO FLT-110 f/6.5, TEC optics
Losmandy G-11 Gemini
Meade 10" LX200 GPS/UHTC
Questar 3.5" Standard
Vixen VMC-110L
Canon 450D, unmodified
Assortment of TV Panoptic, TV Radian, Vixen LVW, and WO eyepieces
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
