Hi Mewlon friends, after more than 20 years with AP 130 EDT on AP 400 mount I fullfilled my wish to add a Mewlon 210.
I use it about one year now, viewing mainly planets and moon.
Conditions here 53°North, mainly bad to medium seeing, good not often; planets for years now deep over the roofs of the city.
Under these conditions the AP does not show a steadier image than the Mewlon. My personal impression is: the main difference between the two scopes is, that the Mewlon shows details more obvious than AP 130 , more small details only, when the seeing goes to the better end. Even with the same magnification in both scopes, the objects seem to me to be greater, easier to observe in the Mewlon.
Viewing visually, the focusshift is not any problem. But with a planetary- cam you can hardly keep the planet on the chip due to shifting.
I mounted a moonlite-focuser and the objects remain centered, focusing works very, very well.
As I am not skilled in collimating a scope, I was glad, the Mewlon arrived nearly spot-on collimated. After half a year, the collimation was still unchanged, I tried to perfect it; I loosened 2 srews and fixed one with a tiny, tiny squeak under the controll of my cam and notebook. Now in my opinion it was spot- on.
Great help to do this, was a french observer, who posted a " Mewlon-Collimation - helping-method" with " false spiders" in a french astroforum, as the 3 collimation-srews are not in relation to the 4 spiders.
My AP CNC 400 mount from 1994 is still in best condition and balances the Mewlon very well. As the heavy of the scope is nearly centered on it, it never is necessary to rebalance while changing from monoviewing to binoviewing with TV Binoview. Doing this, is not possible with the refractor.
Now the situation is, that the AP is used in daylight mainly and the Mewlon during nights.
Thanks from Germany, Holger