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

New telescope: Bresser Messier AR-102 f/4.5

  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

#276 DIMITRIS K.

DIMITRIS K.

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Athens, Greece

Posted 01 April 2018 - 01:01 AM

Hi all
I have been looking for this scope for a while, but I had other commitments first and I searched the net to see any 'expert

amateur's ' view and found this interesting thread and I was pleased to be confirmed I was choosing correctly 'for the money' I had!

Well, I finally purchased it [I am in UK] and I have to say the optics are not bad at all, but I am not an 'expert', so do not take my observations as sure!

;p]

Anyway, talking in general the only good thing is the optics for the price as for the rest it is all plastic!

The whole finder and thumbscrews are plastic and I mean 'plastic' not nylon - in fact the screws do not even fit the finder rings

- even if I try to force them a bit.
Also the screws that are for the finder 'aluminium' [yes!] saddle do not fit too ... at all and I had to use some of mine that

actually are nylon - you see the difference as nylon is silicone white colour while plastic is almost Ivory! The nylon ones fit gracefully.

I have not use its finder and used the one that came with the E.S. AR152 I have, which is metal and not plastic.

I also tried to fit a standard Finder saddle - the most used one and I would call standard [at least in the UK] and I could not fit it,

even the one I have has wide adaptable holes as the tube holes are too far apart and on angular position - even after I filed one

saddle, I could not still fit it.

Therefore I am now using the AR152 finder, but ... I am now waiting for a 400mm x 4" x 1" boxed aluminium bar and will fit a couple

of finder saddles on the sides and a vice type of clamp for any telescopes using the standard vixen dovetail ~43mm [if I

remember well].

I already did a timber version of it and works fine.

The reason I wanted to fit the standard finder saddle, is because all I have uses that and I also wanted to fit my TS60 to use it as

a guider.
But this way [with the bar] is better because I will have up to 4 telescopes on it and I might actually also fit 2x vice clamps so I

could fit the AR102sx and my old ST80 [cheap scopes] together and the TS60 on one side or the other - as I will fit 2x standard

finder scope saddles on wither side depending on what I wish to do, also because where I am - not only is light polluted, but I

also have a narrow view and need to move the TS60 left or right ... ha ha ha hahaaaa

Anyway, just to show you what this little AR102SX can do here is The Moon.
 

Not bad at all - I am actually surprised in part - by using the 0.8x flattener I get down to F3.6 and that helped 'a lot' my Altair

178c camera - what a match.

What do you think?

Clear Skies [in Northern UK? I wish!]
MauroI

I have replaced all the accessories that came with this telescope. The viewfinder with the bresser 50mm one, the star diagonal with a skywatcher dielectric and, of course, I don’t use the eyepiece included except  as a door stop! If you buy that telescope, you must have in mind that you must spend another 150€ to buy some good quality accessories and then you have a descent quality fast and grab and go telescope.


Edited by DIMITRIS K., 01 April 2018 - 03:57 PM.

  • nirvanix and rogeriomagellan like this

#277 Maurolico

Maurolico

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 331
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017

Posted 02 April 2018 - 04:14 PM

...

I also tried to fit a standard Finder saddle - the most used one and I would call standard [at least in the UK] and I could not fit it,

even the one I have has wide adaptable holes as the tube holes are too far apart and on angular position - even after I filed one

saddle, I could not still fit it.

Therefore I am now using the AR152 finder, but ... I am now waiting for a 400mm x 4" x 1" boxed aluminium bar and will fit a couple

of finder saddles on the sides and a vice type of clamp for any telescopes using the standard vixen dovetail ~43mm [if I

remember well].

I already did a timber version of it and works fine.

The reason I wanted to fit the standard finder saddle, is because all I have uses that and I also wanted to fit my TS60 to use it as

a guider.
...

You need this saddle for non Bresser/ES finderscopes. It fits perfectly the 2 holes. I've seen it in use with a RDF. 



#278 Maurolico

Maurolico

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 331
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017

Posted 02 April 2018 - 05:06 PM

I asked my friend who has that scope for further informations now. You need two mods also.

1) a strip of rubber, possibly cut off from car's air camera, to put between the saddle and the scope's body;

2) shorter screws, possibly stainless steel countersunk screws.

These two mods solves the fact that the new saddle has a tiny thickness between the holes and the body beneath and therefore in using the same screws these will hit the bottom of the bores before tighting the saddle. The rubber will make thickness while avoiding scratches, if also the aestetics is of concern. I can assure that RDF on it I've seen was rock steady.



#279 Maurolico

Maurolico

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 331
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017

Posted 02 April 2018 - 05:51 PM

...

I don’t use the eyepiece included except  as a door stop!

...

I thought the same thing untilI tested that 26mm EP as part of our AR127 outreach scope against its equivalent 26mm Meade which was along the SCT 14" ACF. The Bresser is better. On the first I belived the Meade was dirty by the time, so I did a clean up to the 2 main lenses. Nope, the Bresser was still better, way more field filled with pin point stars. Maybe a good sample vs. bad sample, maybe not.


Edited by Maurolico, 02 April 2018 - 06:06 PM.

  • rogeriomagellan likes this

#280 DIMITRIS K.

DIMITRIS K.

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Athens, Greece

Posted 02 April 2018 - 11:18 PM

I thought the same thing untilI tested that 26mm EP as part of our AR127 outreach scope against its equivalent 26mm Meade which was along the SCT 14" ACF. The Bresser is better. On the first I belived the Meade was dirty by the time, so I did a clean up to the 2 main lenses. Nope, the Bresser was still better, way more field filled with pin point stars. Maybe a good sample vs. bad sample, maybe not.

I don't have any experience with Meade eyepieces, so maybe there is a worse eyepiece than Bresser!! lol.gif  My comparison was made with the (entry level) skywatcher 25mm plosl. Skywatcher had better contrast less reflections and  less edge distorsion. I made the test on my 12" Dobsonian. 



#281 DIMITRIS K.

DIMITRIS K.

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Athens, Greece

Posted 14 May 2018 - 11:53 PM

My first EAA photos with this telescope, using Sharpcap's live stack. No post prosessing, what  you see is what you get! As an f/4.5, i believe that is ideal for EAA and CA isn't so terrible!

Attached Thumbnails

  • Stack_16bits_13frames_109s.jpg
  • Stack_16bits_22frames_88s.jpg

  • Sarkikos, eros312, DHEB and 4 others like this

#282 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,350
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 18 November 2018 - 04:17 PM

Yes, this scope might be great for NV use, but for visual, the real issue will be the field curvature.

 

Even at f/5, a 102mm doublet will not be sharp across the field using modern ultra-wide field type eyepieces at low power.

 

The full joy of a RFT observing (in my own opinion, which only really means it might matter to me more than to the OP and most others) is seeing a big field with a huge number of stars that are sharp across that field.   With a 102mm f/5, I could not achieve this goal, and of course at f/4.5, the curvature would be even worse.

 

Now that only matters if the observer values (or does not value) off axis performance, but having used scopes like the Televue 101 family members were stars can be sharp across well over a 4 degress true field size, my own sense of aesthetics would keep me from getting one of these.

Now as a NV scope, where the field is only 17.7mm, it might be very exiting to use, but once again, using afocally with something like a 55mm Plossl, I have my doubt that the field would be all that sharp at the edge.   But it might sqeek by for that particular application.   

 

Using conventional eyepieces though, the field curvature would to me be far more of a concern that the CA.  For RFT use, the CA is not really going to be an issue if even one element is ED.   It will likely still be a barker for planets, but RFT is RFT and CA is not going to be that important for that application. 


  • Sarkikos, Joe1950 and rogeriomagellan like this

#283 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,159
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Lake County Illinois

Posted 02 December 2018 - 10:04 PM

Hopefully I will soon be able to disagree with you??? I just ordered the APM 9 element flat field 30mm eyepiece for my 100mm F4.5 RFT.  I'll post test results soon.  


  • rogeriomagellan likes this

#284 Gavster

Gavster

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 724
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014

Posted 02 December 2018 - 11:45 PM

I got this scope for NV use due to the fast f ratio.
I tried the 55mm plossl afocally and the FC was very bad. I sent the scope straight back for a refund. For fast fr I now use a Tak Epsilon 130d.

#285 quilty

quilty

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2019

Posted 17 October 2019 - 07:21 AM

To continue this thread, if possible
I’m having this short refractor for some months now. Unlike some former testers I find nothing is frail or cheap on this device except the finder mount and the eyepiece fixing screw in a plastic diagonal. Bresser should sort that out or provide better. The diagonal itsef is ok for any visual observation. The same applies to the 26mm eyepiece. Apart from the small 52° FOV imaging is exellent. The Hexafoc focusser is very good and takes heavier equipment easily, just a speed reduction can make sense considering the short focal length. The 102/460xs is a lightweight, will be supported by fotographic tripods and is designed for such use on a fast azimutal mount. You’ll hardly find another refractor of similar dimensions for a price near this. Visually the refractor is a great joy providing a bright and brillant vision with good contrast  as long as you won’t  exceed magnifications about 50x. At 30x you already can notice colur aberrations in blue and purple but up to 50x you can notice or ignore them the same. Exceeding 70x vision is subdued increasingly by the telescope’s unability to focus the whole spectrum at a time and contrast regarding the moon is reduced considerably at 77x. Difference in focal length for Blue and Green is about 0.5mm. Color or contrast filters aren’t expected to help too much for when they work best they’ll exclude a huge amount of the light. For any fast spotting, terrestic observations, planespotting and deep-sky watching at low magnifications, considering price, size and weight the 102/460xs seems beyond competition, but it is NO small one-for all-telescope for its poor imaging power at high magnifications. Anyway a great completion to long focal length telescopes, maybe instead of extra long, heavy and expensive 2-inch eyepieces. And a good beginner’s toy and example for pros and conts of any short achromatic refractor.
Impressing to see what pictures can be produced with this tiny, affordable device.
Quilty


  • Sarkikos and DHEB like this

#286 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 31,045
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 17 October 2019 - 09:55 AM

I've had one of the AR 102 f/4.5 for a few months.  The field curvature is pretty bad.  My eyes have virtually no accommodation for focus, so if there is FC, I will see it.  But the FC is correctable with a TS Flat 2.  Now I see a flat field from edge to edge.  

 

Forget about the CA.  This is a fast achro, best used for wide low-power fields.  The field flattener transforms the scope. 

 

I replaced the proprietary finder base with a Synta-style from Baader.  All this scope needs is a GLP as a finder.

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 17 October 2019 - 09:58 AM.

  • DHEB and Tyson M like this

#287 junomike

junomike

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 17,521
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 17 October 2019 - 04:53 PM

Wow, I picked up a Bresser 104mm F4.5 and found it simply......amazing!

The FOV  is greater than my WO88 and It's also lighter!  FC is not an Issue for me at all.

A fellow viewing friend said it best......It puts up Binocular views (5°) but with greater detail.

 

I added a "Finder shoe to mine and it rides on my AT12 and Orion xx16g as a Finder/Uber RFT. 


  • Sarkikos, DHEB and Tyson M like this

#288 quilty

quilty

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2019

Posted 19 October 2019 - 05:10 AM

If you need a finder at all at those low magnifications, a simple 1/2 inch alloy tube as long as the scope is does the job




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