118 replies to this topic

[JimP]

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?

[Jeff B]

The TEC 200 APO because refractors look soooooooo cool.

[Scott Beith]

The TEC 200 APO because refractors look soooooooo cool.

yep

[Jon Isaacs]

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?

Can you actually buy a 10 AP Mak? Last time I looked on Astromart, it had been a few years since one was offered.

Jon

[JimP]

Buying is not the question. Let's say neither would sell for more than the other. You walk into a store and can walk out with one, no charge. Which would it be?

[rfic1]

Jim,
What would the main use of the telescope be used for. I think if the telescope was used primarily for visual planetary and planetary photography I would choose the Mak. If into wider field AP the the obvious choice would be the TEC 200fl with a FF. In regards to planetary viewing have you ever compared a 8" TEC Mak to your TEC 200FL just to get a idea how closely or far apart the views are?

[JimP]

Visual and planetary imaging. I have never compared the scope to any other.

[John Boudreau]

Visual and planetary imaging. I have never compared the scope to any other.

Then I'd go with the AP Mak. It would be corrected for a wider range of wavelength, in fact virtually perfect across the board in what's required for planetary imaging. And since it's native f-ratio f14.6 vs. the f8 of the TEC200FL, it would have a greater CFZ (focus sweet-spot). Throw in the fact that you'd have a slight resolution advantage along with a slightly brighter image with the AP, it would beat the 200FL in planetary imaging.

Now for my own choice of the two, I'd take the TEC200FL. I love refractors, and I've looked through one of these beasts a few times as a friend of mine has owned one for a few years. But for planetary imaging, I'm currently working on the mechanicals of a 14.5" f18 D-K.

[vahe]

Visual or imaging?

I am visual only with prime interest in lunar planetary, with that in mind I would go for TEC200FL.

If imaging was my main interest I would consider TEC200FL for widefield DSO imaging, for planetary imaging neither choices makes sense, the good old C14 would outperform both of these jewels hands down, no contest here.

Vahe

[Max Lattanzi]

Jim,

While asking this, you are certainly aware that Roland keeps in his own observatory a 10” Mak and a 180EDT side by side. I recall him stating more than once that, only when seeing is approaching Pik 9, thus *very seldom*, his Mak delivers slightly better planetary performances than the nearby Apo. As soon as the air starts moving a bit, the Mak lies behind (his words). That’s the reason why he has been always keeping the 180EDT.

This is also the reason for him to plan a 7” or 8” refractor for planetary use in his forthcoming Astronomical Resort in Hawaii, as you certainly know. And he has certainly no problems whatsoever in buying/making for himself a Mak as big as he likes.

Incidentally -- and here I am making reference to a parallel thread -- he is not planing to use any C-14 either; although I am very confident he would have zero problems in refiguring one so as to reach a lambda/10-12 correction at the eyepiece.

So, if I were to enter into that shop, I would do exactly as Roland, and walk away with the 200 apo. Even if the price was X times as much.

As I tried to share a few months ago, in my post of the C-11 vs 6” apo, my life and my nights, if not priceless, are certainly worth more than that. And they never come back.

But you’ve experienced that in your own flesh already...

Cheers,
-- Max

[jmiele]

The refractor will present better more often than the Mak. I could come up with other questions given my knowledge of your other instruments, however, you are asking the choice between these two only. No further context supplied, the TEC200FL will give you better views based on environmental affects, more than the few times the Mak will beat it. So the TEC is the better option.

Not a bad problem to have Jim. Given that you have (potentially) this choice to make I would be glad to take the other (either) if you have a seller. Please PM me if such is possible.

Joe

[rfic1]

Well as much as I would like to walk out of that store with the TEC 200 FL I think the smart choice would be the AP 10" Mak given the intended purpose. I personally like to use longer focal length eyepieces to achieve desired magnification for planetary viewing. Yes there are barlows but I am a purist and do not like them much. In IDEAL conditions I would expect the 10" Mak to outperform the 8". As far as astrophotography I think planetary images using 10" instruments have been more impressive than those I have seen using 8" refractors. I would also think the longer focal length would be more favorable for planetary astrophotography. Not to mention 2" more aperture. I'm no expect by any means. Just my thoughts.

[JimP]

Visual or imaging?

I am visual only with prime interest in lunar planetary, with that in mind I would go for TEC200FL.

If imaging was my main interest I would consider TEC200FL for widefield DSO imaging, for planetary imaging neither choices makes sense, the good old C14 would outperform both of these jewels hands down, no contest here.

Vahe

Well, I would have to image with what I have, and since I would never let either a TEC200 fl or an AP 10" Mak sit while I dithered with a C14, my planetary imaging would be with one of these two. Period. So, these are the two choices and only these are in consideration here.

Jim

[Aquatone]

Visual or imaging?

I am visual only with prime interest in lunar planetary, with that in mind I would go for TEC200FL. If imaging was my main interest I would consider TEC200FL for widefield DSO imaging, for planetary imaging neither choices makes sense, the good old C14 would outperform both of these jewels hands down, no contest here.

Vahe

I would somewhat disagree. As a current owner of an AP 10" Maksutov that replaced an AP180 F/9 refractor this is a decision I have already made. For planetary imaging the 10" is superb on planets both visually and for imaging, and I have not observed any significant out performance compared with any C14 that I am familiar with.

For its size, the AP 10" Maksutov's very small central obstruction in 10" of aperture delivers refractor-like images. However due to its very long focal length it is a specialized telescope best suited for compact objects at very high magnification. (My most commonly used eyepieces are in the 21mm to 31 mm range and I often go out to 48mm) Widefield is not its forte.

Another important factor for me is that the 10" Maksutov is extremely compact and more easily portable in the field whereas a 200mm refractor is an unwieldy canon. (And a C14 is not that portable either) Here is my standard portable rig:

Chris

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[idealistic]

Theres a reason D. Peach lugs those heavy C14s all the way to Barbados during opposition. For imaging the extra 4" will win.

As to the op, its a tough one. For imaging Id go with the AP, for visual, the TEC. Letting go of that TEC is dicey, 8" chunks of fluorite are going the way of the dodo.

[johnnyha]

Do you want to look through a perfect mirror with a tiny obstruction, or through unobstructed, perfect crystal? I know what I would walk out with in a heartbeat - TEC200FL.

[rfic1]

I would agree that chances of a high quality 10" MAK being introduced are more likely than a 8" fluorite.

[JJK]

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?

Jim, I've had an AP 10" f/14.6 Mak-Cass for nearly a decade. It is the most refractor-like compound telescope I've ever looked through, and it's going to the grave with me. Although I haven't tested them side-by-side, the Mak-Cass appears to outperform my AP180 f/9 EDT, which is a superb planetary/lunar telescope. I can't comment on the TEC 200, because I've never used one.

In its first light on a cold January 5 night here in MD (about 22 miles NW of the White House), it performed very well. I observed a Greek letter "tau"-shaped albedo feature on Ganymede.

I've observed the central star in M57 from here (and at the BFSP), but that required the DSO to be nearly overhead and about 1000x, which the scope can handle because of its smooth optics.

I've also observed the _entire_ length of Rima Marius. I had roughly sketched the feature, but was perplexed because Rukl's atlas suggested it was shorter than I had indicated. However, at the rear of that book, Rukl mentions that Rima Marius is indeed longer, and the extended section is sufficiently narrow that I was quite surprised I could even see it.

Jupiter and Saturn look quite impressive through this scope. The detail and color saturation are superb. I haven't yet caught a glimpse of Mimas because I haven't added an occulting bar to an EP and was too busy during Saturn's on-plane ring period to bag that moon. Binoviewing these planets and the Moon is a real pleasure.

The thermal performance of the scope is impressive. Thus, if the seeing appears to be bad, I am reasonably confident that's due to atmospheric effects. The scope is also well baffled.

You obviously understand that the AP Mak-Cass won't provide very wide fields, but you likely have or can purchase other instruments that fit that niche. The Mak-Cass is also is "only" 10" of aperture, and big light buckets will outperform it visually on real faint fuzzies (I also have an Obsession 25" Newt).

My favorite view of M42 has been with the AP Mak-Cass and a Leitz 30 mm 88* AFOV EP. This showcase object looks like a stunning piece of art. The gossamer wings are thundercloud purple, the heart of the nebula has thin threads in it and has a lovely range of colors (the obvious green and blue plus pastel orange, rose and yellow), and the E & F stars are easily separated from their companions with lots of dark space. In addition, the other stars (nearly a dozen) in the heart of the nebula look like tiny rubies (I can only see about three of those stars with my AP155 f/7). I would love to see how much deeper M42 will look at a dark site.

In addition to visual work, I hope to use the scope for imaging globs, etc.

[JJK]

Theres a reason D. Peach lugs those heavy C14s all the way to Barbados during opposition. For imaging the extra 4" will win.

As to the op, its a tough one. For imaging Id go with the AP, for visual, the TEC. Letting go of that TEC is dicey, 8" chunks of fluorite are going the way of the dodo.

He also doesn't have an AP Mak-Cass.

[vahe]

Chris,

Looking at the photo of your toys I see that you have a Rob Miller Tripod, which model is yours?
Last month I ordered a Tri36M, expecting it sometimes in mid July, is yours M or H?

Vahe

[JJK]

Do you want to look through a perfect mirror with a tiny obstruction, or through unobstructed, perfect crystal? I know what I would walk out with in a heartbeat - TEC200FL.

Have you ever looked through an AP Mak-Cass? I have one and decided to get it after looking through Roland's 8" and 10" prototypes. I have absolutely no regrets. The AP Mak-Cass is a superb lunar/planetary/globular instrument.

[David Pavlich]

You need to toss in the mount for this exercise. I would think a 10" AP Mak would work visually on an Atlas. I wouldn't even consider putting a 200mm TEC on anything less than a G11 and even that is pushing it.

David

[ValeryD]

All is depends of your seeing and your patience in hunting for the best seeing moments during average nights. If your seeing conditions are mostly good (6 and above, out of 10) and you are patient enough waiting moments of image steadiness, then go with 10" AP MCT. It will show you more details on planets during excellent seeing and during moments of excellent seeing in average nights. It also will show you more colorful planets.

In a past I frequently have compared my 10" Mak with the very same optics and very similar mechanics (and cooling system) as the AP's one and my 7" Fluorite triplet and 7" Fluorite doublet. There were no any case when I saw less details in 10" Mak than in 7" APO. But during very good and excellent seeing, the 10" outperformed the 7" hands down in wealth of small delicate details. The gap was so wide, that 8" APO also will sink in it.

[Sgt]

Did Aries make the optics for the AP mak?

[Aquatone]

Chris,

Looking at the photo of your toys I see that you have a Rob Miller Tripod, which model is yours? Last month I ordered a Tri36M, expecting it sometimes in mid July, is yours M or H?

Vahe

Yes the tripod is a Rob Miller Tri36M which is compatible with my AP1200 that you can see in the picture. (I think the Tri36H is optimized for a Paramount) I can't praise this tripod highly enough in the way it combines rigidity and light weight portability - I can literally lift it with one finger. For the long focal length AP 10" Maksutov, the Tri36L tripod and AP1200 makes a portable and yet extremely rigid assembly that I can assemble/disassemble in 5-10 minutes maximum. Even if I whack the telescope hard, the motion dampens instantly. To address an earlier point raised about mounting these instruments, another advantage of the 10" Maksutov is that it does not have the very long movement arm of a 200mm refractor. Unless you have looked through this mounting configuration visually it is hard to convey how rock solid rigid it is especially at extremely high magnifications.

Chris