Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Astro-Tech AT102ED

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
13 replies to this topic

#1 asaint

asaint

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,094
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2003

Posted 08 October 2008 - 09:46 AM

AT102ED

#2 RapidEye

RapidEye

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2004

Posted 08 October 2008 - 11:14 AM

I

#3 LivingNDixie

LivingNDixie

    TSP Chowhound

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 19,274
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2003

Posted 08 October 2008 - 11:55 AM

With all the action about these 102ED scopes, I was really glad to see this review.

A better title might have been Observing with an AT102ED.

#4 timmbottoni

timmbottoni

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,243
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2005

Posted 08 October 2008 - 01:13 PM

I enjoyed reading the review. I like to read reviews from people who are not "optical experts" but have everyday experience with these products. I enjoy most reviews, but I think this is a very typical combination that many users who haven't won the lottery are going to look at and consider.

Thanks!

Timm

#5 timmbottoni

timmbottoni

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,243
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2005

Posted 08 October 2008 - 01:19 PM

Hi,

No flaming here - I just try to remember that not everyone is great at writing and I would rather see reviews from people who actually have the gear and use the gear, even if not perfectly written, than the comments some folks provide that are simply repeats of things they have read posted on the Internet.

My suggestion for those who haven't already done so, is to give review writing a try! It's fun, it's not easy, and it requires a lot of time proof reading to get goodly writeen Einglish without typoos :foreheadslap:

Timm

I'm no English professor, and I'm quite certain I'm going to get flamed for this (go ahead, it doesn't change the facts of my post) but this is a very poorly written review. It is inconsistent, drones on and on, and really needs to be vetted by an editor....



#6 Mark Costello

Mark Costello

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,551
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2005

Posted 08 October 2008 - 03:49 PM

One thing I like about this review is that the reviewer waited until he had made many observations including repeat observations before writing it. That gives more substance to his review findings.

#7 Dylan Gladstone

Dylan Gladstone

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 992
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2007

Posted 09 October 2008 - 10:13 AM

It sounds like a great scope, and I really don't want to hear anymore about that $600 eyepiece that I have to get. ;)

I think if someone offers to let me take a look through an Ethos, I should "just say no".

"Come on buddy...the first look's free..."

#8 ned_l

ned_l

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2007

Posted 09 October 2008 - 03:36 PM

Nice review, did I read it wrong, or did the reviewer state the he was using a SV102 ED for the first light stuff? I was a little confused and not sure if this was a typo or that he changed scopes.

Still a very nice report and I agree with the others, it is nice to see multiple targets mentioned over different nights. Keep 'em coming.

#9 nirvanix

nirvanix

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,122
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007

Posted 09 October 2008 - 06:01 PM

Nice review - honest, simple, but thorough. Could do with a touch of a spelling/grammar checking though ;).

I have the WO version of this scope mounted on a Vixen Portamount. It's a good setup for me. These 102EDs provide excellent performance at an unastronomical :grin: price.
They're not perfect, but neither am I! I can live with that.

I use it with a WO UWAN 16mm, which I consider to be a great eyepiece for $230. Not sure if I'd ever buck up the extra money for an Ethos.

#10 Astrogranny

Astrogranny

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2006

Posted 10 October 2008 - 09:13 AM

I'm confused about which scope was actually used for the review. There's a lot of talk about the AT102ED, but then there's a statement that the SV102ED (presumably Stellarvue) was used for first light and second light says that the same equipment was used.

Since not all 102ED scopes are the same, which one was used?

#11 timmbottoni

timmbottoni

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,243
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2005

Posted 13 October 2008 - 09:27 PM

I think that was a typo - but maybe the author will reply here

Timm

I'm confused about which scope was actually used for the review. There's a lot of talk about the AT102ED, but then there's a statement that the SV102ED (presumably Stellarvue) was used for first light and second light says that the same equipment was used.

Since not all 102ED scopes are the same, which one was used?



#12 Scott Beith

Scott Beith

    SRF

  • *****
  • Posts: 47,585
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2003

Posted 14 October 2008 - 10:13 AM

Seemed like a typo to me.

#13 LivingNDixie

LivingNDixie

    TSP Chowhound

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 19,274
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2003

Posted 14 October 2008 - 11:15 AM

Typo

#14 iluxo

iluxo

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 331
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2008

Posted 28 October 2008 - 07:41 AM

I have the Orion 102ED f/7 on the Orion version of this mount... however for eyepieces I went with Vixen - NLVW30, LVW 22, 13 and 8mm and thinking about either the 5mm or 3.5mm (200X). I'm fairly sure it's the same optics as the OP has, just rebranded.

Yes I agree the objective is surprisingly sharp and free of secondary spectrum despite being f/7. It is also remarkably tolerant of rather average seeing, which will degrade SCT's and Maksutovs rather more. For me it is a an ideal travel scope and keeps the family very happy when we go for a weekend away somewhere dark.

As for the mount, I think its not as good as he suggests. This scope is about the upper limit that it can comfortably take and yes, it's OK at powers up to 75X but past 100X it becomes too hard to control smoothly. A 127mm refractor might be OK. While it superficially looks solid, internally all is not what it seems after pulling mine apart - the mount relies on a set of three 4-40 grubscrews to hold it together in two places where there is a thin 3mm aluminium wall to hold these grubscrews, and on mine the aluminium walls are tearing already around these screws. A heavier scope like my 180mm Maksutov is not safe on it.

This mount also lacks any provisions for encoders (eg. to suit Argo Navis).

Personally I'm considering stepping up to at least the Stellarvue M6 or possibly the DM6 from Tom Peters http://www.discmounts.com/.I - I only found these after I had bought my mount.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics