Telescope Reviews: Astro-Tech 60mm f/7 ED triplet, (w/ Pics now!!!).

The quad is "icky" for visual use.

More in this thread on the reason to pick one over the other:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5477603/page/1/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1

"For visual observing, the 65EDQ is fine at low powers, using a 1.25" diagonal. As mentioned elsewhere, a 2" diagonal does not work with all eyepieces (can't come to infinity focus with some eyepieces). One strike against the 65EDQ as a visual scope. For high magnifications, the field flattener lens in the focuser can prevent a Barlow from being inserted into the scope in front of the diagonal (some Barlows may be long enough to hit the field flattener). Another strike against the EDQ visually.

As a travel scope, a wash, except that the 60EDT comes with a fitted lockable hard case for traveling standard. The 65EDQ does not come with a case. Strike two and a half.

As an astrograph, the EDQ has a built-in flattener, the 60EDT does not. Take away a strike from the EDQ.

As a spotting scope, another wash. If all you want is a spotting scope, however, there are dedicated 60mm and 65mm spotting scopes with zoom eyepieces and built-in image erectors -- both of which would have to be bought with the 60EDT and 65EDQ to equal the terrestrial functionality of a pure spotting scope. Dedicated spotting scopes also tend to be at least water resistant and armored for rough daytime use. Neither the 60EDT or the 65EDQ are weather resistant or armored, so spotting scope use is possible if you don't traipse through woods a lot with your scope on a tripod over your shoulder getting slapped by tree branches and it doesn't rain while you're out. Spotting scope use would not be high on my list of uses for either, although I really like the terrestrial views with both.

As a nature photography scope, another wash, although I get the feeling from handling both that I would be able to fight off a grizzly with the 60EDT, whereas the 65EDQ would slow him down but not stop him. Also, with 90mm of focuser travel for the 60EDT, compared to 62mm with the 65EDQ, I believe that the 60EDT will focus closer than the 65EDQ (although I haven't measured the close focus of either, so take my comment with a grain or two of salt), which would incline me a little more towards the 60EDT as a nature scope. Maybe a quarter of a strike against the 65EDQ as a nature scope.

Total is one and three-quarter strikes against the 65EDQ astrograph as an all-purpose scopoe compared with the 60EDT. Not quite a strikeout, but leaning me towards the 60EDT if I wanted a small scope to do everything, and towards the 65EDQ if I primarily wanted a really good wide field astrograph."