21 replies to this topic

[7331Peg]

Does anyone have any experience with the long focal length Antares 105mm refractors? I've looked for reviews of both the 1300 and 1500mm focal lengths, but have come up with nothing so far.
Thanks...........

John

[The Ardent]

I had the 1500 for a few months. I liked the idea, but it did not meet my expectations. It felt like a soda can compared to other refractors. The optics were ok and the scope looked good. I did not like the build or the focuser.

I was more impressed with a 1984 Celestron C80 I picked up cheap. Well built and decent optics.

Some alternatives to the Antares: 5" D&G or 6" Intes Mak. The D&G delivers quality and performance. The Mak is much easier to mount.

[clamchip]

I've often thought about a 105/1500, I'll be interested to see what appears here.

The C80 and the C102 (Vixen for Celestron) were fabulous.

Robert

[Bonco]

I've been extremely satisfied with my Antares 1500. The build is fine and the optics are great. Star images hold up even at mags over 500X (on occasion). Color control is good and only slight purple fringe on Venus, Vega, or other bright blue/white stars. It's a long OTA and needs a sufficient mount. I use a CG5 with a pier extention. Even so it is a bit wobblely and shorter scopes are much easier to use. I find it a nice addition to my other scopes and think the price was very reasonable. Here's a picture of it on a Unitron 3 inch mount. Sufficient mount but too short. Looks good tho.
Bill

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Joe Aguiar]

what do you mean its was like a soda can??

I guess not every scope is for everyone though. I have used & bought many many scopes & sold tons off that just did not fit my perference. Its wasn't the scope fault just did not fit me.

Joe

[7331Peg]

Nice looking scope and photo, Bill. I appreciate the commments on color on Vega and Venus. At that focal length, I really would be suprised to hear anything different, but it's great to know for sure. If and when I get one, I'll put it on a Losmandy G11, which should hold it pretty well.
What's that thing weigh? Sky Instruments seems to be a little sparse with details on their refractors.

John

[Bonco]

John,
I'm not sure of its weight. If my memory serves me I think it only about 11 lbs. The G11 should be fine as long as you have it perched on a tall pier or tripod. Cheers, Bill

[jrbarnett]

John:

Here's my experience with the Antares 105/1500 in a nutshell:

Fantastic optics; great polish, well-figured. Last night mine was loafing at 214x on double stars and on Jupiter under average to slightly above seeing. 50x per inch is pretty easy any night of the week. I've had decent results (very little breakdown) on the moon with a 4mm Orthoscopic (375x) on steady nights.

Decent optical tube construction but a bit behind the fine quality of the optics.

Nice light weight (about 10# fully dressed with rings and dovetail).

Significant moment arm, meaning that despite its feathery weight it can be demanding on the mount. CG5-GT is adequate for visual use so long as you use VSPs. I prefer an Atlas class mount (also with VSPs).

The GSO focuser is not so hot. Mine has lots of stiction. I actually need the fine focus feature even at f/15 to dial in precise focus at higher magnifications.

Transport is a PITA. The tube with its classy long dew shade is about 6-feet long. It just fits into the rear of a mid sized SUV at an angle.

Color correction is good for an achromat. I'm very sensitive to chromatic aberration and at anything above 150x I can detect it easily around bright targets. That said, even at >50x per inch I've never found it objectionable. No one would mistake this scope for an apochromat, however. Modern ED doublets are much better corrected for chromatic aberration than this scope.

The only reservation I have is one based on value. When I bought mine it cost only $650 including shipping, with rings and a finder. At that time an Orion 100ED was $900. Now the 105/1500 goes for more than $800 and the 100EDs can be had for under $600. Given that the 100EDs lack many of the draw backs of the very long, slightly colorful Antares, one really has to *want* a classic long tube refractor to justify it over a 100ED IMO.

Regards,

Jim

[7331Peg]

Jim,
Thanks a million for the info - very good stuff. I couldn't agree more on the GSO focuser. I bought a used Antares 1529 a month ago and have already replaced the focuser. I found that the Stellarvue two-speed would fit and it's a huge improvement. Their focuser is similar to the GSO, but much heavier and much smoother. I may use the other one for a paper weight.
Despite the cost, I may grab one of these things. Glad to hear the optics are that good.
Meanwhile, the skies are clear and the moon won't be up for while, so off to the great beyond.....
Clear skies and pin-point stars!

John

[Wilsonman]

I was considering one of these scopes, but the less than good reports about the focuser scared me away. I certainly like the looks of this scope!

[ken hubal]

My experiences with the Antares are nothing short of spectacular. The focuser on my unit worked fine right out of the box. The scope arrived from Sky Instruments in perfect condition.

[Bonco]

I ordered mine with the original rack and pinon focuser instead of the crayford. Looks more retro and works fine if not just a tad too stiff. However I have no problem getting sharp focus even at very high power. I haven't used a 105/1500 with a Crayford so I don't know which is best. Likely the slomo on the Crayford is helpful.
Cheers, Bill

[7331Peg]

Don't know if it's the luck of the draw with the focusers or what it is. The one I took off the Antares six inch was a couple of years old, so maybe the newer ones are more consistent. It had a horrible squeak, which I've since fixed, and the draw tube sagged very noticeably if the tension screw underneath wasn't tightened to the point that the movement started to bind. On the other hand, the first Stellarvue focuser I got worked very well. The second one needed about half an hour of work to get it as smooth as the first. Seems like things get out the door these days without being given a once over.

John

[astro_anthro]

The GSO/Antares focusers usually need some kind of adjusting before they work as intended. If you haven't already check out Pollux Chung's GSO focuser tuneup guide. I agree the Antares "Vixen-spec" scopes have great optics. I have the 105mm F/15's little brother, the 90mm F/11.1, and it never fails to impress. Clear skies, Tom

[jrbarnett]

After much frustration with my GSO focuser (and after having previously done Pollux's lubrication and adjustment suggestions) I became fed up with the stiction and completely disassembled the unit yesterday, including removal of all allen screws and countersunk screws. I cleaned and inspected all of the parts, but for the life of me couldn't determine what was causing the stiction issue. Exasperated, I re-assembled the focuser, figuring I would try and find a replacement. Much to my surprise, when reassembled the stiction was greatly reduced (almost gone, in fact). I have no idea what I inadvertently "adjusted" in the strip down process, but I'm certainly happier with the focuser now.

Regards,

Jim

[astro_anthro]

Glad to hear its working better for you now Jim. I think working on these GSO focusers is more art than science (more astrology than astronomy?). I'm considering upgrading to a Moonlite on my 90mm. I agree with your assessment of the 105mm as a good performer but somewhat overpriced. It's too bad Antares/Sky Instruments isn't more aggressive with their pricing. Slow achros may be niche products in these days of quality ED doublets, but the long focal-length OTA still has some appeal. Clear skies, Tom

[7331Peg]

Thanks for the link, Tom. I'll see if I can't salvage the GSO focuser - never know when it will come in handy as a backup.
Glad you got yours working, Jim. I've found that about half the time, just by taking something apart and putting it back together again, you can frequently improve performance.

John

[Avatar]

Hi Bill,

Your scope looks great. I can understand the problem with mounting one of these, despite the light weight, because of the length. Is there a point magnitude wise beyond which you find the movement of the scope somewhat of a problem, or just quite noticeable, when focusing?

Bruce

[ken hubal]

An effective way of dealing with the long tube length is to employ a Hargreaves Strut between the objective end of the tube and the counterweight shaft. This works very well for those with long f.l. scopes in areas where light breezes tend to occur. There should be data and photos available on the internet. The components for constructing one can be obtained from McMaster-Carr Supply Co.

[jrbarnett]

Here's a picture of mine riding on a Celestron CG5-GT Eq head atop a 48" Antares Pier. Note the Orion VSPs under the feet of the pier. This is a fairly effective setup, but I've since moved it to my Orion Atlas, which is even more stable with the long OTA. I have an adapter plate for mounting the Atlas head on the Antares Pier, but will need to drill some new holes in the Pier post to get it to match up.

Regards,

Jim

[7331Peg]

Well, I submitted to the inevitable today, and called Meridian and ordered the 105/1500. Looks like about a three week wait while Antares assembles a few of them. The good thing is I'm only about eight hours from Vancouver, BC, so once they ship, it will get here ....... quickly!
Thanks to Jim and Bonco for the pictures, even though I have to keep a towel handy to wipe the drool off the keyboard!

More pictures will follow ........................

John

[Bonco]

John,
Please give us some observing reports and your impressions. Hope you enjoy yours as much as I do mine. Cheers, Bonco