[quote name="erik"] and due to simpler and easier to make design of a newt, there are less inherent things to go wrong. [/quote]
With all due respect, I disagree with this. So do experts such as Dickinson, Dyer, etc.
From Dickinson and Dyer`s, "The Backyard Astronomer`s Guide",
"Because of the unobstructed design, refractors have, theoretically, the least abberations of any optical system."
"It is easier to manufacture a high-quality surface on a lens than it is on a mirror. Therefore, the intrinsic optical quality is usually superior to that of the other optical designs."
Dickinson and Dyer listed these two things as just two of the many optical advantages of refractors!
Then there`s this from, "The Amateur Astronomer`s Handbook.",
"A refractor is undoubtedly more effective than a reflector of equal size; and it is a fact that more reflectors than refractors turn out to be optically defective."
[quote] newts can suffer problems, like coma in faster focal ratios, and they need to be collimated regularly, but these issues are a lot easier to correct, or in the case of coma, to live with.i'd rather notice a little coma on the edge of the FOV,than a bright purple halo that fuses double stars together. [/quote]
I respectfully disagree with all this also. I and most of our club members find it easier to live with what few minor issues refractors may have. The fact that they`re almost maintenance-free especially compared to newts has a lot to do with this. Here`s Dickinson and Dyer from, "The Backyard Astronomer`s Guide", again,
"Color-correction of the crown/flint doublet lens is excellent in f/10-f/11 achromats, and the telescope is portable in 80mm-90mm apertures, and they`re durable and virtually maintenance-free for decades."
As for coma and false color, our club`s tested our members and those who`ve attended our star parties on these two issues. We found that most people found the little seaguls flying around the edge of the fov much more objectionable than false color in our longer-focus achromats which many people didn`t even see and needed it pointed out to them. Even then, they barely noticed it and, therefore, found it much less objectionable than coma. And yes - all the newts were perfectly collimated and of good quality.
False color is quite insignificant in a longer-focus achromat and, for ALL practical purposes, not an issue at all in Apo refractors. And the longer that focal length is, the more insignificant false color becomes in longer-focus achromats!
[quote] you can spend another $75 on a filter that blocks some of that [/quote]
Nobody in our club even uses these in their longer focus achromats since the color-correction is so good and one has to hunt down the false color to even see it!
[quote] except the very top of the line models, suffer from chromatic abberation to some extent. [/quote]
...usually at levels that are either virtually impossible to see like in good Apos or almost impossible to see like in good longer-focus achromats.
[quote] an inexpensive, well collimated newt will provide nice views right out of the box [/quote]
...except that many newts aren`t collimated right out of the box...
[quote] and with a few modifications, it's easy to make them even better. [/quote]
...and I`m glad to see that this is exactly what you did! Isn`t it???
[quote] just my take on things. [/quote]
That`s quite alright!
This is America and you`re most certainly entitled to your opinions, etc.
Clear, STEADY Skies!