JustinJ
member
Reged: 08/07/08
Posts: 69
Loc: Central Pennsylvania
|
|
I have been using a Telrad finder on my telescope. I want to supplement this with a good finderscope. I noticed that the Stellarvue F50 gets good reviews. I noticed that they also sell a slighter bigger finderscope the F60. Has anyone compared the sharpness in both of these finderscopes? Is the F50 sharper then the F60?
I am looking for a finderscope that will match the "Sky & Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas" maps. It does not have to match exactly but enough to observe patterns. My 10" scopes shows a lot of stars. I can usually judge them in the atlas but a finderscope would make it easier. I have Sky Atlas 2000.0 also but find that I bring out the Pocket Atlas with me most of the time.
Is there another comparable finder around 100.00 dollar level? I noticed Zhummel has a finder available.
Thanks,
Justin
--------------------
Discovery PDHQ 10 f6
Edited by JustinJ (09/04/08 11:46 PM)
|
kfred
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 2005
Loc: Dayton, Ohio
|
|
The Stellarvue F50/F60 finderscopes are about the best out their. While I have not compared the sharpness of the F50/F60; I went with an the F50, as a stand alone scope.
Also, Orion Telescopes has an nice 9x50 for under $100.
Fred
--------------------
River Cam - Cambridge England
|
Fiske
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/14/04
Posts: 2057
Loc: Missouri / United States
|
|
Justin:
You won't be disappointed with the F50. The Orion finder isn't really in the same class. Stellarvue's website states the F60 is not as sharp near the edges, something to consider.
--------------------
Fiske Miles
Nikon 8x42 LX / 12x50 SE Binos
Mini Borg 60ED, TV-101, AT80Ach, XT-8, C11/CI-700, 22-Inch Dob
Way too many Nagler eyepieces
http://www.fiskemiles.blogspot.com/
www.fiskemiles.com
|
KWB
Postmaster
Reged: 09/30/06
Posts: 7635
Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.1646Meters
|
|
IMO the SV F50 is the most cost effect finderscope on the market. I wished I had mine back. This image shows it in it's test phase as in being used as a "mini" telescope.
--------------------
Kenny
"When dealing with a mystery,choose the most unlikely of the likely possibilities"-Sherlock Holmes
|
Downward Bound
Adrenaline Junkie
Reged: 03/29/06
Posts: 2135
Loc: Seattle
|
|
I have the F50 and I am completely satisfied with it. For me, I don't see any need to go up to the F60 and I have heard the same comment that Fiske makes, that the F50 is sharper on edge - but I have never compared them.
--------------------
Bill
'flector: Vixen R200SS, Webster 22" f/3.6 (on order)
'fractors: TV-85, NP-127, PST-2X
Orion 15x63, Minox 10x52 HG, GO 22x85 HD
Sphinx, Telepod, EZ Touch, G-11 (waiting)
|
FirstSight
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/26/05
Posts: 2517
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
|
I have the F60. It's a very nice finderscope, but at f/3.75, it really pushes the capabilities of the supplied 23mm plossl-type eyepiece to the limits, and as a result, toward the edges stars get quite a bit blurry/bloated/streaky. And so, you can sometimes only clearly distinguish which objects are DSOs vs aberrated stars in the innermost 60% of the diameter. However, you can nevertheless accurately discern general star patterns in the finderscope to compare with star charts across nearly the entire 5 degrees true field of view this finderscope is capable of showing.
I'm going to experiment with replacing the supplied eyepiece with a variety of different sixty to sixty-eight degree 1.25" format eyepieces, to see if a better-corrected eyepiece can take care of the edge problems caused by the steep light cone - but need to balance that against not going too overboard in expense toward upgrading a scope whose purpose is to be a navigational tool, and not to be a primary celestial viewing instrument.
I'd positively recommend this finderscope, with the above noted caveat.
--------------------
Chris M., aka "First Sight"
Orion XT12i Dob with Moonlite CR-2 focuser
WO Megrez 90 refractor on UniStar Light mount
Nikon 10x50 Binoculars
|
Chimaera
member
Reged: 09/09/07
Posts: 37
Loc: Toronto, Canada
|
|
This is what Vic says about his finderscopes. The F50 may be a little sharper, but that may be immaterial for the purpose of a finderscope. The F60 is a little heavier, but with more aperture, it goes deeper and still has a good FOV. I have the F60 and it is an excellent finderscope. Have not compared it directly with an F50 though.
|
spaceghost
super member
Reged: 01/04/07
Posts: 139
Loc: Olathe, KS
|
|
With my F50, I can see all the stars in the S&T pocket sky atlas. With my F80, I see quite a few more stars than what are plotted in the atlas, which sometimes is confusing, but usually I can tell which stars are the plotted ones because they are brighter.
Both the F50 and F80 are fantastic. I use the F50 on my 5" and the F80 on my 12.5".
--------------------
Justin
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 1812
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
I have both finderscopes. The F50 is definitely a bit sharper and in particular has a sharper edge. But of course the F60 has slightly better light-gathering power. If one is using this strictly as a finderscope, the softer edge on the 60 is just not an issue.
You are not going to go wrong with either finder. I have the Pulse-illuminator - highly recommended - makes a fabulous finder.
Personally, I would go for the F60 - the physical difference is minimal, but the slightly better light-gathering power of the F60 is a plus for finding objects and enough to push the decision in that direction.
OTOH, if you intend to use the F50-60 as a standalone wide-field observing scope, I might opt for the F50 for the better edge if you want to look at luna, etc., but otherwise, I think the F60's light-gathering might well be enough to hold the decision...
--------------------
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2061
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
F50 has a wider TFOV which for me makes it a better finder than the F60. It goes plenty deep enough to see my mag 8+ atlas's stars, which really is its only function.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
Jeff Morgan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/28/03
Posts: 1533
Loc: Prescott, AZ
|
|
Quote:
I have the F50 and I am completely satisfied with it. For me, I don't see any need to go up to the F60 and I have heard the same comment that Fiske makes, that the F50 is sharper on edge - but I have never compared them.
As an F50 owner, I am extremely pleased with it. However, given its focal ratio and supplied eyepiece, it is not sharp in the same manner as a good APO. Therefore, I would be hesitant to go with the shorter F60. If I was concerned about fainter stars for star hopping (which I am not) I would go directly to the 80 mm model.
--------------------
Jeff Morgan
Prescott, AZ
Wile E. Coyote School of Telescope Making
|
JustinJ
member
Reged: 08/07/08
Posts: 69
Loc: Central Pennsylvania
|
|
It sounds like the F50 will be the right finderscope. I just need it to view star patterns in my star charts and pocket atlas. The Telrad is nice but has its limitations. Both of these together will be an excellent combination.
I will keep the F80 in mind, if I every upgrade to a bigger telescope. I can see where it would help. I still get lost sometimes with all the stars in my 10" scope. Just the other night I spent 30 minutes looking for something. That is when I decided I needed a finderscope.
--------------------
Discovery PDHQ 10 f6
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2061
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
No need for a bigger finder on a bigger scope, unless the big scope has a very limited max TFOV. IMO, the F50 and other finders like it are pretty much optimal for any amateur scope. The F80 is good if equipped with the 2" diag and EP, but not really better as a finder. For common easy objects, you might see them in the finder, but for more difficult objects, the finder only gets you pointing in the right direction with respect the atlas's stars that frame the object in the finder's FOV.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
spaceghost
super member
Reged: 01/04/07
Posts: 139
Loc: Olathe, KS
|
|
I don't agree that there is no need for a bigger finder. In my F80 a lot of the star clusters and globulars just pop right up when I'm trying to find them, I can often wander in the general direction and move around till they show up. No need for the atlas unless I'm in new and difficult territory. With the F50 from my suburban location the clusters are not as visible and I must use the atlas more.
--------------------
Justin
|
JustinJ
member
Reged: 08/07/08
Posts: 69
Loc: Central Pennsylvania
|
|
I wanted to tell everyone thanks for your replies and help. I have a F50 on order, it should arrive by Thursday. I am looking forward to using it.
Justin
--------------------
Discovery PDHQ 10 f6
|
Peter Argenziano
Watcher of the Skies
Reged: 11/11/03
Posts: 2813
|
|
For those who are using the Stellarvue F50 finder:
I am thinking about adding one to a 14.5" Starmaster. What components did you order to be able to mount it on the UTA? Which ring set? Did you have to order a separate dovetail base?
TIA
Peter
--------------------
Peter
14.5" Starmaster
I hail from the explosive jetsam of a multitude of high-mass stars that died more than 5 billion years ago.
|
FirstSight
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/26/05
Posts: 2517
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Quote:
For those who are using the Stellarvue F50 finder:
I am thinking about adding one to a 14.5" Starmaster. What components did you order to be able to mount it on the UTA? Which ring set? Did you have to order a separate dovetail base?
I have the Stellarvue F60 finderscope, which uses identical mounting hardware as for the F50. To mount it, I used:
1) Stellarvue Finderscope rings on dovetail stalk ($49) - item #R50D.
2) My pre-existing Orion dovetail shoe for the stock Orion 9x50 RACI finder. This works ok, but the fit is not as effortlessly snug as would be ideal - I had to clamp down the bolts extra-hard with the stalk held firmly toward one edge of the shoe to get it to stay rigidly and securely in place. BETTER in retrospect would have been to spend and extra $19 and buy Stellarvue's dovetail shoe (item #FBA) specifically made for stellavue finderscope bases, which Stellarvue says will fit any flat or curve surface over 3 1/2 inches in diameter.
See, http://www.stellarvue.com/f50.html
--------------------
Chris M., aka "First Sight"
Orion XT12i Dob with Moonlite CR-2 focuser
WO Megrez 90 refractor on UniStar Light mount
Nikon 10x50 Binoculars
|
Hal Pollner
Reged: 08/30/05
Posts: 6223
Loc: Southern California Desert
|
|
I use nothing but high quality 60mm and 80mm RACI finderscopes on my Dobs & SCT's...StellarVue, Lumicon, etc.
Sharpness is never a consideration with me in regard to a finder. Why does a finder have to be sharp? The telescope's main optics and its oculars have to be sharp, but not the Finderscope!
Big, inexpensive RACI finders are the ones to get!
The aforementioned finders are sharp, however, if that's important to you.
Here's a shot of the 80mm Lumicon RACI on my 12.5" Discovery PDHQ: (I must confess that it IS sharp, however...)
HAL
Edited by Don W (09/11/08 03:47 PM)
|
FirstSight
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/26/05
Posts: 2517
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Quote:
(I must confess that it IS sharp, however...)
HAL
Hal:
Um...what antececent does "sharp" refer to - the lady to your right in the picture, or the finderscope? You sly dog! We haven't heard from you in awhile.
--------------------
Chris M., aka "First Sight"
Orion XT12i Dob with Moonlite CR-2 focuser
WO Megrez 90 refractor on UniStar Light mount
Nikon 10x50 Binoculars
|
Hal Pollner
Reged: 08/30/05
Posts: 6223
Loc: Southern California Desert
|
|
--------------------
Edited by Hal Pollner (09/11/08 11:34 AM)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 