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

Where are the Mak-Newt people?

  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

#1 glend

glend

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1875
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2014

Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:53 AM

I have a wonderful Skywatcher MN190 Mak-Newt, but they seem to be orphans on Cloudy Nights. Where do they hang out?


  • Charlespl likes this

#2 skyaddict

skyaddict

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Dublin, Ireland

Posted 19 May 2015 - 05:07 AM

Where do they hang out? Outside!! under the night sky, enjoying their high contrast views of the Moon and planets every clear night :) 

clear skies

 Kevin


  • KeithC, rjbokleman, orogenicman and 1 other like this

#3 Waxing Gibbous

Waxing Gibbous

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 758
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Victoria, Australia

Posted 19 May 2015 - 06:06 AM

Probably all in hospital for hernia and back operations. :grin:


  • Paul Hyndman, KeithC, Colin exraaf and 4 others like this

#4 opticsguy

opticsguy

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Washington State

Posted 19 May 2015 - 06:31 AM

My Mak/newt is very happy, often used "hand-held"  with wide FOV.  Hand-held meaning sitting with the OTA in my lap.

And  a new home made mount coming on-board in a week.



#5 RAKing

RAKing

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8343
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 19 May 2015 - 07:18 AM

I have a wonderful Skywatcher MN190 Mak-Newt, but they seem to be orphans on Cloudy Nights. Where do they hang out?

 

That is a good question. I had the Orion version of the MN190 and it was a wonderful scope. It had a wider field and better contrast than an 8 inch SCT, it did not need a Paracorr like my f/5 Newtonian, and it was the closest that I will ever get to a 7 inch apochromatic refractor at a fraction of the cost.

 

The only reason I let it go was because I did have back surgery - Ugh, thanks for the reminder, Waxing Gibbous. :(  :lol:  

 

But I told Kevin LeGore at NEAF last month that as soon as the SW MN190 shows up at US dealers, I will buy another one.

 

Mak-Newts are still the best-kept secret in astronomy, IMHO.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron


  • Richard Whalen, Waxing Gibbous, Star Ship and 2 others like this

#6 starman876

starman876

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19033
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 19 May 2015 - 07:53 AM

we use them for a while and then sell them.  Have had three. 



#7 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23580
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 19 May 2015 - 09:11 AM

It is not a popular design.   

 

I did not say it wasn't a good design.  It is just not a popular design.

 

The more people that own something, the more you see it talked about on CN, and with SCTs, a lot of the time what they talk about is why it couldn't be better, or have a smaller obstruction, or wider field, or so on and so on, and how they have tired to cheat geometry to side-step these problems.

 

And then there are people that figure it out.  If those seem to make the SCT so horrible, they buy something else..  Maybe it is a standard Newt, Maybe Mak Newt, or Schmidt Newt.

 

But not enough of them do that so the SCT must be doing something right and they stand by them.  And since there are soooooo many of them, most of the dialog on the Cat and Cass forum is about them.  And what people hate about them.. LOL!


Edited by Eddgie, 19 May 2015 - 09:14 AM.

  • Jan Owen, Sarkikos, Bomber Bob and 1 other like this

#8 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23580
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 19 May 2015 - 09:16 AM

And by the way, I have owned two MNs.  I liked them for many reasons, but at the same time, I did not like them for the size, weight, and observing position.

 

Gee, three things that the SCT excels at..  Hmmm.

 

There are always compromises in a telescope purchase.


  • Sarkikos likes this

#9 jm510227

jm510227

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Tulsa, OK

Posted 19 May 2015 - 11:37 AM

I have an MN86.

 

MNers are at the gym doing upper body strength exercises.

 

Jim Miller/Tulsa



#10 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3224
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 19 May 2015 - 12:17 PM

Been here all along.  Yup, heavy and contrasty.  Makes Apo refractor owners tremble in their boots.  And you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands.  I have been fortunate to have one (Cerevolo 8"F5) for 15 years.  It's heavy overbuilt chassis means that I never have to collimate it.  I run the fan when the scope is in use; there are vents around the miniscus cell to take care of tube currents.  It delivers all that an 8" telescope can taking all the magnification the atmosphere will allow...520X so far.  My only quibble is the helical focuser.  Crayfords were just starting to appear when this scope was made in the early 90's and Peter likely would have used them.  I like the object to stay put during fine focusing.  Scanning up and down the Milky Way reveals the flat field tack sharp edge to edge.  


  • Richard Whalen, John Gauvreau, A6Q6 and 2 others like this

#11 gene 4181

gene 4181

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013
  • Loc: n.e. ohio

Posted 19 May 2015 - 12:29 PM

 I have a lomo 102 mak newt, f 5.5, 561mm with an integral 30mm finder doublet at 271mm. , supposedly 1/6 lambda. nice scope, very nice fov . good planetary and moon, widest fields of view , but only a 1.25 in. focuser.  on a equal or better night , a Chinese 6in or 8in. dob would be better.  but the build quality of this thing is second to none.


  • catboat likes this

#12 TG

TG

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2265
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Latitude 47

Posted 19 May 2015 - 12:54 PM

I have an MN86.

 

MNers are at the gym doing upper body strength exercises.

 

Jim Miller/Tulsa

:lol:

I don't need to do that. I get the workout from carrying my 160mm f/5.5 MN on its Celestron Avx mount, counterweights and all.



#13 Richard Whalen

Richard Whalen

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2598
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:49 PM

Been here all along.  Yup, heavy and contrasty.  Makes Apo refractor owners tremble in their boots.  And you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands.  I have been fortunate to have one (Cerevolo 8"F5) for 15 years.  It's heavy overbuilt chassis means that I never have to collimate it.  I run the fan when the scope is in use; there are vents around the miniscus cell to take care of tube currents.  It delivers all that an 8" telescope can taking all the magnification the atmosphere will allow...520X so far.  My only quibble is the helical focuser.  Crayfords were just starting to appear when this scope was made in the early 90's and Peter likely would have used them.  I like the object to stay put during fine focusing.  Scanning up and down the Milky Way reveals the flat field tack sharp edge to edge.  

 

Hi Dwight,

 

I could be wrong but I think Peter used those focusers for their low profile, allowed the use of a smaller secondary mirror. Not my favorite focuser either, but worth it for the high contrast views that HD145 had. I had mine on a Super Polaris mount, if they had the VX mount back then i would have kept it. While the observing position could be awkward at times, nothing that rotating rings couldn't fix. Of all the scopes I've owned and sold over the years, probably the one I regret selling the most.



#14 Jim7728

Jim7728

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9087
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Stoop Landing Observatory, NYC

Posted 19 May 2015 - 04:23 PM

 

Makes Apo refractor owners tremble in their boots.

 

My MN-66 compares well visually to my NP-127 for 1/4 of the cost.

 

MN-66cz.jpg

 

No back aches in a alt/az setup.

 

I wish Skywatcher would make a f/6 or f/8  version of their 190mm MN.

 

Dang imaging market... :mad:  :lol:


Edited by Jim7728, 19 May 2015 - 06:35 PM.

  • Exnihilo, Colin exraaf, workingspliff and 1 other like this

#15 starman876

starman876

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19033
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 19 May 2015 - 06:05 PM

People buy SCT's because there is so much advertising to promote them. Plain and simple.  MN do not get much advertising. Mostly by word of mouth.  If the only bad thing you hear about MN's is the fact that they are heavy, they must be a darn good scope.   I have had plenty of heavy scopes and that never stopped me from using them.    Any of you ever try and use a C14 or a Meade 12" on the forks and picked it up to put on the tripod.  Come on folks, get real.  Weight has nothing to do with it.  If that was the case you would all be using 60mm refactors on Alt Az mounts. 

 

The Mak Newt is a darn good scope and provides images that many SCT owners only hoped they could obtain.    I once missed a good deal on a 10" Mak newt and will always be sorry I did. 

 

There is one more thing.  SCT and Mak users like the fact the focuser is on the back of the scope.  Lets them think they are using a refractor. :lol:


Edited by starman876, 19 May 2015 - 06:07 PM.

  • RAKing, Dwight J, Bomber Bob and 2 others like this

#16 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3224
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 19 May 2015 - 07:45 PM

 

Been here all along.  Yup, heavy and contrasty.  Makes Apo refractor owners tremble in their boots.  And you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands.  I have been fortunate to have one (Cerevolo 8"F5) for 15 years.  It's heavy overbuilt chassis means that I never have to collimate it.  I run the fan when the scope is in use; there are vents around the miniscus cell to take care of tube currents.  It delivers all that an 8" telescope can taking all the magnification the atmosphere will allow...520X so far.  My only quibble is the helical focuser.  Crayfords were just starting to appear when this scope was made in the early 90's and Peter likely would have used them.  I like the object to stay put during fine focusing.  Scanning up and down the Milky Way reveals the flat field tack sharp edge to edge.  

 

Hi Dwight,

 

I could be wrong but I think Peter used those focusers for their low profile, allowed the use of a smaller secondary mirror. Not my favorite focuser either, but worth it for the high contrast views that HD145 had. I had mine on a Super Polaris mount, if they had the VX mount back then i would have kept it. While the observing position could be awkward at times, nothing that rotating rings couldn't fix. Of all the scopes I've owned and sold over the years, probably the one I regret selling the most.

 

Hi Richard:  it surely does require a very low profile focuser. I could not get a DSLR to focus even with a Barlow.  Mine has rotating rings and requires a heavy duty mount.  Originally I used a hernia model Meade Research Series Mount.  


  • Richard Whalen likes this

#17 Waxing Gibbous

Waxing Gibbous

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 758
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Victoria, Australia

Posted 19 May 2015 - 08:51 PM

 

I have a wonderful Skywatcher MN190 Mak-Newt, but they seem to be orphans on Cloudy Nights. Where do they hang out?

 

That is a good question. I had the Orion version of the MN190 and it was a wonderful scope. It had a wider field and better contrast than an 8 inch SCT, it did not need a Paracorr like my f/5 Newtonian, and it was the closest that I will ever get to a 7 inch apochromatic refractor at a fraction of the cost.

 

The only reason I let it go was because I did have back surgery - Ugh, thanks for the reminder, Waxing Gibbous. :(  :lol:  

 

But I told Kevin LeGore at NEAF last month that as soon as the SW MN190 shows up at US dealers, I will buy another one.

 

Mak-Newts are still the best-kept secret in astronomy, IMHO.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron

 

I hope people don't think I'm 'dissing' mak-newts.  They're great scopes, but I too, have had back surgery (3!) and need an engine hoist to lift anything heavier than a 4" scope above my waist.  :(


  • Colin exraaf likes this

#18 microstar

microstar

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1468
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2008
  • Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Posted 19 May 2015 - 09:25 PM

I've been using my SW MN190 for about 5 years now - almost exclusively for imaging from a backyard observatory. Great scope, reasonably fast at f/5.3, rarely needs collimation, and being in the observatory means no cool down or back problems. No plans to get rid of it!
...Keith


  • rjbokleman likes this

#19 Richard Whalen

Richard Whalen

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2598
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 19 May 2015 - 10:57 PM

My HD145 was fairly light, no heavier than my 4.3" apo if I remember right. I think they don't need to be heavy, that came from the overbuilt Russian scopes that were built like a tank.



#20 RAKing

RAKing

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8343
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 20 May 2015 - 06:35 AM

 

 

I have a wonderful Skywatcher MN190 Mak-Newt, but they seem to be orphans on Cloudy Nights. Where do they hang out?

 

That is a good question. I had the Orion version of the MN190 and it was a wonderful scope. It had a wider field and better contrast than an 8 inch SCT, it did not need a Paracorr like my f/5 Newtonian, and it was the closest that I will ever get to a 7 inch apochromatic refractor at a fraction of the cost.

 

The only reason I let it go was because I did have back surgery - Ugh, thanks for the reminder, Waxing Gibbous. :(  :lol:  

 

But I told Kevin LeGore at NEAF last month that as soon as the SW MN190 shows up at US dealers, I will buy another one.

 

Mak-Newts are still the best-kept secret in astronomy, IMHO.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron

 

I hope people don't think I'm 'dissing' mak-newts.  They're great scopes, but I too, have had back surgery (3!) and need an engine hoist to lift anything heavier than a 4" scope above my waist.  :(

 

 

I'm right there with you, WG. I went through operations #2 and #3 last October and was on a strict "no lifting" regimen for quite a few months. Fortunately, my back has responded well to these latest operations and I am now able to use my wonderful TEC 140 on the Mach 1.

 

I do hope to get another Mak-Newt soon. It was the one scope that successfully competed with the TEC 140 four years ago and is the one I really miss.

 

Best of luck with your health!

 

Ron

 

O-190MNa122010.JPG


  • Waxing Gibbous, Colin exraaf and denis0007dl like this

#21 JohnH

JohnH

    Mercury-Atlas

  • ****-
  • Posts: 2919
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!

Posted 20 May 2015 - 08:34 AM

A lot of people own these and if their worst flaw is weight, without mention of optical quality, I would say we're doing pretty good.

 

As for position, add some rotating rings.


  • Dan Williams likes this

#22 catboat

catboat

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2009
  • Loc: Maine

Posted 20 May 2015 - 11:02 AM

 I have a lomo 102 mak newt, f 5.5, 561mm with an integral 30mm finder doublet at 271mm. , supposedly 1/6 lambda. nice scope, very nice fov . good planetary and moon, widest fields of view , but only a 1.25 in. focuser.  on a equal or better night , a Chinese 6in or 8in. dob would be better.  but the build quality of this thing is second to none.

 

Very true.  A build quality second to none.  The CO will make people gasp -- 40%  :shocked:  -- and the internal finder (which accounts for the 40% CO) may not be as much benefit as the designers intended, but of the many scopes I own this is the most fun to use.  Grab-and-go heaven.

 

 

Lomo Astele MN 102.jpg



#23 gene 4181

gene 4181

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013
  • Loc: n.e. ohio

Posted 20 May 2015 - 11:27 AM

  i had a bunch of 80mm and 102 refractors, triplets, ed 's. the lomo remains. flat field, no coma or field curvature.  the lomo came to me from apogee , Sheldon Faworski.  the whole kit, mount, gso equatorial, the scope, dew shield, certification papers in Russian, the photo visual back too for 419$.  one of the best deals at that time, if i wouldn't have read that entry in the backyard astronomer's guide, i might have missed out on this little gem. i don't crow about it at 102mm's of aperture , but  the build quality is there to justify the real price of around the 1000 dollars they were intended to sell for.  is it the equal of a takahashi 102 or a apm 105, i doubt it, but its a niche scope that i'll have till , you know.


  • catboat likes this

#24 glend

glend

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1875
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2014

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:39 PM

Thanks for the replies folks. I didn't realise they were not being sold in the US, I'm in Australia. Weight isn't a problem as it sits on the pier in my obs but goes dark skies once a month on the NEQ6. After struggling with a 127mm iStar f12 for a few years the MN190 is easy to handle.

#25 gene 4181

gene 4181

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013
  • Loc: n.e. ohio

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:57 PM

 the skywatcher is available now at Band H photo video, N.Y. for 1500 bucks, 190mm.




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