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

#126 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 10 May 2016 - 04:58 PM

Not me. Kept my MN

 

I'd like to take a poll.  How many of you here have actually owned a MN and gotten rid of it in favor of a conventional Newt of the same size?



#127 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 15340
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 10 May 2016 - 05:10 PM

My hats off to Mak Newt people. You've grown attached to a design that pleases you. It's not like I do not understand that. I do. The Mak Newt got a lot of praise. Never owned one, but sure thinking about it.

 

As for a poll, there is or used to be a way to create a post that actually takes a poll with options buttons and click to see results. Have to (re)figure out how to do it. 



#128 Phil Barker

Phil Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 639
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2009
  • Loc: hokitika New Zealand

Posted 10 May 2016 - 07:30 PM

I think there is serious potential for a reasonable priced 6 inch f-7or8 mak newt come on skywatcher come up with a new scope.

if they can keep obstructed right down (under20%)and make them for around say 800 US I'm sure there would be a good market.

I have never observed through a mak newt yet donw plenty of mak cass's newts refractors apos etc and the mak newt really intrigues me.

#129 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13674
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Triton

Posted 10 May 2016 - 09:59 PM

My own thoughts on the MN scopes is the CO was always too big to justify leaving a long focus newt with a very small one.  All the reviews I've read on these great scopes have been phenomenal but for the cost, WEIGHT and bother.... it never had a selling point for me. If instead they managed these very small 15% CO'S and a short tube as well.... then I'd consider it.  Cant be though so ai waved it off.

 

 

Pete


  • Dwight J likes this

#130 tazer

tazer

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1882
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2011
  • Loc: The Pitts (NC)

Posted 11 May 2016 - 08:36 AM

As all things the mass produced scopes are a comprise. The MNs, in their current form, are geared more for imagers and wide field observers. They can do well for planetary (my ESLCH does) but they do best at well corrected wide fields.

 

A 15% CO in my MN wouldn't capture all the light from the primary, so at its f-ratio a 32% CO is necessary. A 10" f/5 MN would allow for a reasonable ~20% CO, but it'd be massively heavy. A 10" f/8 MN would allow for a 15% CO but then at f/8 you're probably not dealing with that much coma so the meniscus corrector isn't serving much of a purpose. They lose their advantage as aperture increases.

 

Personally, diffraction spikes aren't that big of a deal to me. My Vixen VMC has about a 35% CO _and_ diffraction spikes and Jupiter still looks amazing. Not as amazing as my friend's 20+" Dob, but significantly better than my MN. But then my MN puts up stunning widefield views. Seeing one half of the Veil Nebula with pinpoint stars across the FoV is an amazing sight.

 

Mark



#131 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5889
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 11 May 2016 - 09:43 AM

IMO, for F ratios of 6 and faster, the MN makes a whole lot of sense from a purely performance point of view.  At F 7 and slower a simple newt would do just fine and if you insist on having a piece of glass up front then a "simple" optical window makes a lot of sense as coma is reasonably well controlled at that speed.  

 

My APM MW MN86 has a very small central obstruction (~16-17% of the diameter) and is light weight...though very expensive even relative to the Intes MN86....though super cheap relative to a 7" triplet.

 

While I've never gone from a MN to a newt, of the same aperture, mine tend to co-exist.  For example, I've an excellent 8" F7.5 primary by R. Fagin that gives great views.  Funny though as I just realized I've had at least one MN with me all the time for the last 12 years and will probably continue to do so.  I guess that speaks to my admiration for this type of scope despite the price.

 

Jeff

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • MW MN86 secondary.jpg

  • Asbytec, tazer and solarviewer like this

#132 tazer

tazer

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1882
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2011
  • Loc: The Pitts (NC)

Posted 11 May 2016 - 10:25 AM

That's a beautiful scope! How much does it weigh? The APM site lists an MN86 as weighing 40lbs (with rings.)

 

Mark



#133 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5889
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 11 May 2016 - 12:00 PM

Mark, it depends on how I define its "standard configuration".  Its base configuration as APM offers it (rings and dovetail only) is about 26 pounds.  As I've it configured for my immediate observing (modified Cave rotating rings, dovetail, finder scopes, bino-viewer w/eyepieces and aft counterpoise weight system, which helps to balance the nose heavy scope and the off axis torque applied by the binoviewer), it tips the scale at ~36 or so pounds.  My Losmandy GM 8 actually does a decent job with it as long as I stiffen the tripod, though the G11 is much better as is my Mach 1.

 

But as the Chromacor is to achromats, the Paracor (and similar such devices) is to the fast newtonian.  My problem with a Paracor type of device is that it precludes bino-viewer use and still leaves the spider in place (unless you have an optical window...which 99.9% of newt owners don't).  For me, the big selling points for the MN are:

 

1. High level of correction.

2. Very low coma for the F stop

3. "Small" secondary

4. Bino-friendly

5. Reasonable weight when attention is paid to weight during its design

6. No diffraction effects from a secondary spider.

7. In larger sizes (7 inches and over) a bargain compared to a one inch smaller triplet refractor.

8. Sealed front end

9. Like other Maks, dew is not nearly the issue it is with an SCT

10. Great imaging scope (but I don't do that....yet)

 

For me disadvantages are:

 

1. Cost compared to conventional high quality newt of equal aperture.

2. A bit more weight compared to a conventional newt 

3. Sealed front end makes collimation a bit more tedious than a newt

4. Meniscus is an optical surface right up front you have to be mindful of

5. Meniscus does dew up. 

6. Typically small central obstruction may be an issue with imaging unless the scope was specifically set up for imaging

7. Lack of flexibility in optical configuration (read to mean I can't simply swap out the secondary for some other size).

8. Repeat number 1.

 

Jeff

Attached Thumbnails

  • MW MN86.jpg

Edited by Jeff B, 11 May 2016 - 12:02 PM.

  • denis0007dl likes this

#134 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 11 May 2016 - 12:07 PM

They give a similar image to a much larger NP 101. Wide fields and can take power well.

 

As all things the mass produced scopes are a comprise. The MNs, in their current form, are geared more for imagers and wide field observers. They can do well for planetary (my ESLCH does) but they do best at well corrected wide fields.

 

A 15% CO in my MN wouldn't capture all the light from the primary, so at its f-ratio a 32% CO is necessary. A 10" f/5 MN would allow for a reasonable ~20% CO, but it'd be massively heavy. A 10" f/8 MN would allow for a 15% CO but then at f/8 you're probably not dealing with that much coma so the meniscus corrector isn't serving much of a purpose. They lose their advantage as aperture increases.

 

Personally, diffraction spikes aren't that big of a deal to me. My Vixen VMC has about a 35% CO _and_ diffraction spikes and Jupiter still looks amazing. Not as amazing as my friend's 20+" Dob, but significantly better than my MN. But then my MN puts up stunning widefield views. Seeing one half of the Veil Nebula with pinpoint stars across the FoV is an amazing sight.

 

Mark



#135 tazer

tazer

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1882
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2011
  • Loc: The Pitts (NC)

Posted 11 May 2016 - 12:12 PM

#4 is a very good point. I would argue that #7 is a preference as it's purely cosmetic (after you factor in the spider to total obstruction.) I'd rather not have diffraction spikes but I do realize that they only show up on really bright stars and planets, and don't otherwise harm the view.

 

 

They give a similar image to a much larger NP 101. Wide fields and can take power well.

 

Isn't taking power well a function of aperture?

 

Mark



#136 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 11 May 2016 - 01:53 PM

Not always. A Mak Cass normally tends take mag very well. Some mid size fast Newts just don't seem to have the cojones when you try to ratchet them up (some not all). But if you have used an NP101 you'd understand what I'm trying to describe. The NP and the Mak Newts I've used seem to go from very wide fields to crazy power handling in times of good seeing.

Not challenging the laws of Physics but specific design capabilities.

 

#4 is a very good point. I would argue that #7 is a preference as it's purely cosmetic (after you factor in the spider to total obstruction.) I'd rather not have diffraction spikes but I do realize that they only show up on really bright stars and planets, and don't otherwise harm the view.

 

 

They give a similar image to a much larger NP 101. Wide fields and can take power well.

 

Isn't taking power well a function of aperture?

 

Mark



#137 JohnH

JohnH

    Gemini

  • ****-
  • Posts: 3009
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!

Posted 11 May 2016 - 11:38 PM

I'd like to take a poll.  How many of you here have actually owned a MN and gotten rid of it in favor of a conventional Newt of the same size?

Not me: I got a bigger one.



#138 David_Ritter

David_Ritter

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 11 May 2016 - 11:50 PM

Keeping mine. I have a smaller conventional Newtonian for visual use when the MN is busy imaging. If I get another Newt it will be a large huge dob. But I need a darker property first... and I'll probably still keep the MN for AP.


Edited by David_Ritter, 11 May 2016 - 11:52 PM.


#139 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 12 May 2016 - 12:58 AM

 

I'd like to take a poll.  How many of you here have actually owned a MN and gotten rid of it in favor of a conventional Newt of the same size?

Not me: I got a bigger one.

 

And I sold a fine C8 after getting one.



#140 bierbelly

bierbelly

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11544
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2004

Posted 16 May 2016 - 10:05 AM

My own thoughts on the MN scopes is the CO was always too big to justify leaving a long focus newt with a very small one.  All the reviews I've read on these great scopes have been phenomenal but for the cost, WEIGHT and bother.... it never had a selling point for me. If instead they managed these very small 15% CO'S and a short tube as well.... then I'd consider it.  Cant be though so ai waved it off.

 

 

Pete

As I pointed out in another thread, an MN weighs less than a refractor of similar diameter.  And while the Cass Cats weigh less, they just magnify too much due to the long focal lengths.  I can get magnification up to a usable limit with a barlow.  Bother? Not relative to a standard Newt.



#141 tazer

tazer

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1882
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2011
  • Loc: The Pitts (NC)

Posted 16 May 2016 - 11:56 AM

I gave up on a one-size-fits-all scope. I like my 3.2" APO for quick widefield setups, as a finder and for daytime wildlife. I like my 6" MN for quality widefield and mid-focal length work. And I like my VMC for planetary and mid-to-long focal length work. I can bring my MN to 300X on a good night, but I can bring my VMC to 500-600X on the same night. They're each good at the job they do and each one is compromised if I try to utilize it for a different purpose.

 

A 10" MN at f/5 would probably transcend those boundaries, but then it's not very portable.

 

Mark



#142 RAKing

RAKing

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8478
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 19 May 2016 - 08:36 AM

I'd like to take a poll.  How many of you here have actually owned a MN and gotten rid of it in favor of a conventional Newt of the same size?

 

I did not get rid of my Mak-Newt in favor of a conventional Newt of the same size; I had to let my MN go due to back surgery.

 

Now four years later, I am planning to get another one.  As I mentioned before, my 190 MN is the only scope I owned that could compare favorably with my TEC 140.  The ergonomics are different; the views are brighter and just as clear and crisp.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron


  • Tyson M likes this

#143 coopman

coopman

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5506
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2006
  • Loc: South Louisiana

Posted 20 May 2016 - 09:52 PM

I have an MN66 in my garage. It doesn't get out much though. It's just one of about 6 scopes that I own.

#144 DJJ

DJJ

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 24 May 2016

Posted 29 May 2016 - 09:00 AM

I have. A. Intes. Micro. MN 56 Mak newt. It's compact light and easy to move. A great little. PLAnetaty. And deep sky scope that. Can easily beat. A. Tak 102 refractor. On a steady night.  



#145 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9614
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Madoc, Ontario

Posted 29 May 2016 - 01:58 PM

I have. A. Intes. Micro. MN 56 Mak newt. It's compact light and easy to move. A great little. PLAnetaty. And deep sky scope that. Can easily beat. A. Tak 102 refractor. On a steady night.  

 

You're posting from your phone?

 

Dave



#146 DJJ

DJJ

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 24 May 2016

Posted 29 May 2016 - 02:08 PM

I have to get to. Home computer to send the photos. Thanks. Dave



#147 eyepiecedropper

eyepiecedropper

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Miltenberg, Germany

Posted 29 May 2016 - 02:24 PM

Intes MN76 deluxe Sital, Lambda/8 systemwide from Mr. Ludes + MN56.

Sorry to say that, most powerful planetary scope is the Flextube 14". Side by side 3 weeks ago the 14" showed 4 delicate Jup. festoons in a row whereas the MN showed only hints of the same festoons. The brightness of the 14" made the picture a lot more....vibrant.

 

BTW: For the guys which are plagued by bad seeing, try start observing at dusk. This is by far the best time at least for me.

 

Martin


  • gene 4181 likes this

#148 DJJ

DJJ

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 24 May 2016

Posted 29 May 2016 - 02:49 PM

Martin you also. Have. A Mn 56.  It's. Just.  A. 5f/6. But I really enjoy this scope. Very compact. Lightweight. Abd. I have gone to 305x. Many times on Jupiter and Saturn. Abd they were still. Sharp no softening.  But of course. A little. Dimmer. At. 305.  These Mak newts. In my opinion. Is. Just. One step behind the apo refractors. On Planetary. Detail 



#149 Drew57

Drew57

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Minnesota

Posted 29 May 2016 - 11:31 PM

I'd like to take a poll.  How many of you here have actually owned a MN and gotten rid of it in favor of a conventional Newt of the same size?

 

After recently looking at planets, I'd sure like a nice APO, but I'm keeping my Mak-Newt. It excels at the wide-field endeavors that I wanted to start off with in astronomy.



#150 gene 4181

gene 4181

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4768
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013
  • Loc: n.e. ohio

Posted 01 June 2016 - 09:18 AM

Intes MN76 deluxe Sital, Lambda/8 systemwide from Mr. Ludes + MN56.

Sorry to say that, most powerful planetary scope is the Flextube 14". Side by side 3 weeks ago the 14" showed 4 delicate Jup. festoons in a row whereas the MN showed only hints of the same festoons. The brightness of the 14" made the picture a lot more....vibrant.

 

BTW: For the guys which are plagued by bad seeing, try start observing at dusk. This is by far the best time at least for me.

 

Martin

That viewing planetary detail  RIGHT at dusk,  my best times here too. 




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