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

is it worth getting the televue questar adaptor ?

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Zicherja

Zicherja

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2018

Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:27 AM

My new Questar has three Brandon eyepieces 24mm, 16mm, and 8mm.  Haven't had a chance to use them outside due to the garbage weather in the northeast over last week but have been playing indoors and am very happy with what I am seeing.

 

I also have a !0 inch dobsonian with several Ethos eyepieces and a Televue 6 mm Delos eyepiece. 

 

Since I already own these eyepieces, is it worth buying the 11/4 inch adaptor for the questar.  Will the ethos (13mm,  8mm) and  5mm Delite be compatible. I assume the 2 inch 21 mm Ethos will not be.  Will the Questar be able to focus? I have heard different things from different people in regards to not being able to bring the scope to focus with these eyepieces.  But figured I would get some opinions here.  

 

Thank you.

 

Jason


Edited by Zicherja, 14 May 2018 - 11:11 AM.


#2 JamesMStephens

JamesMStephens

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 764
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:38 AM

If you have the current model Questar e/p adapter it already accepts standard eyepieces.  If your telescope has an older style adapter that only accepts the threaded eyepieces I'd recommend getting a new Questar adapter that will accept both.

 

Jim


  • Erik Bakker likes this

#3 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:51 AM

I affirm what Jim has opined. I have both the Questar 1.25” adapter and the Televue. I just use the Questar adapter with three Televue eyepieces; the 32mm plossl, 18.2 Delite, and the 9mm DeLite. These are the only eyepieces I use, though I have the 24mm, 16mm, 12mm Questar brandons.


  • Erik Bakker likes this

#4 Zicherja

Zicherja

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2018

Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:59 AM

ok. it is a new Questar, so it probably does not need an adaptor. I'll check later.  

 

I'm curios how the 5 mm Delite compares to the 8 mm Brandon.


Edited by Zicherja, 14 May 2018 - 11:08 AM.


#5 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,750
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 14 May 2018 - 12:55 PM

Interesting stuff.

 

In my Questar 7, I repeatedly tried all my TeleVue eyepieces, ranging from Nagler, to Ethos to WideField to Plossl. While they all had their virtues, after a half an hour or so,  I always came back to the Brandons. I found them to bring out the best synergy from scope and eyepiece. And I also learned that 2 or 3 eyepieces are enough with the Questart and it's built-in Barlow. My favorites: 24, 16 and 12mm Brandons. I spend much more time observing than changing eyepieces with them. Never tried the 8mm or shorter F.L. Brandons, as I found the 12mm with Barlow delivered more than enough magnification in my Q7.


  • Matt Looby, Terra Nova, JMKarian and 2 others like this

#6 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 14 May 2018 - 01:43 PM

I use the 32mm Televue plossl for low power, because I like the 1.21 degree TFOV. I use the 18.2mm Delite and the 9mm Delite as my other two eyepieces, after polar aligning the scope with the 16mm brandon, because that’s the eyepiece I keep in the scope when it is stored. However, every time I switch from the Delites to the brandons, I’m amazed at how well the brandons perform. I use the Televues, because I don’t like unscrewing eyepieces to change. I really wish that Questar would come out with something like the QuickLock for its adapter. I use Baader ClickLocks with my other scopes, so I know how nice they are for changing eyepieces.



#7 Billydee

Billydee

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,662
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Winter Haven, FL

Posted 14 May 2018 - 02:17 PM

All Q3.5s made after 1995 do not need an adapter.  They will take the screw in Brandons and all other EPs.  The only problem is some of the non-Brandons will not focus in the finder.  If you need an adapter, I find the Questar one is better than the TV and it matches the normal Questar.

 

Bill


  • JHollJr, NC Startrekker and JamesMStephens like this

#8 Terra Nova

Terra Nova

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 21,948
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Under the Blue Moon of Kentucky

Posted 27 May 2018 - 12:06 PM

Interesting stuff.

 

In my Questar 7, I repeatedly tried all my TeleVue eyepieces, ranging from Nagler, to Ethos to WideField to Plossl. While they all had their virtues, after a half an hour or so,  I always came back to the Brandons. I found them to bring out the best synergy from scope and eyepiece. And I also learned that 2 or 3 eyepieces are enough with the Questart and it's built-in Barlow. My favorites: 24, 16 and 12mm Brandons. I spend much more time observing than changing eyepieces with them. Never tried the 8mm or shorter F.L. Brandons, as I found the 12mm with Barlow delivered more than enough magnification in my Q7.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have the 32mm, 24mm, 16mm, and 8mm thread-in Brandons andd also the Televue eyepiece adapter. I never use the adapter, and seldom use the 8mm except under the best seeing conditions. The 32mm is nice for wider fields but easily mynmost used are the 24mm and the 16mm. My Questar Standard is a 1985 and to the best of my guesstimatation  (lest I say, Questimation, :lol: ), the built-in Barlow in mine comes in at about 1.8X. I think there was a good deal of thought that went into Questar’s decision long ago to make the 24mm and the 16mm standard for the Standard. 


  • JHollJr, Erik Bakker, rcwolpert and 1 other like this

#9 Matt Looby

Matt Looby

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,332
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Lake Champlain Valley

Posted 03 June 2018 - 07:05 AM

As I recall the 1967 Q has a 1.6x barlow, 26 mm Kellner and 13 mm Koenig.  (Current  eyepieces = 12mm and 24mm Brandons)

 

I rarely use more than one eyepiece for each setting.  My favorite set up is the Kellner. 

 

 

50x-80x Kellner, 14x per inch is excellent for lunar and planetary work.  23x per inch is the telescope's sweet spot.. that's a near perfect power as the light to the eye is a large and useful 1.14 exit pupil diameter.

 

100x -160x Koenig, 28x per inch optimal for lunar and planetary under excellent seeing, 45x per inch is basically useless but good for rendering coarse features, then back down to a useful mag.



#10 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 03 June 2018 - 12:01 PM

As I recall the 1967 Q has a 1.6x barlow, 26 mm Kellner and 13 mm Koenig.  (Current  eyepieces = 12mm and 24mm Brandons)

 

I rarely use more than one eyepiece for each setting.  My favorite set up is the Kellner. 

 

 

50x-80x Kellner, 14x per inch is excellent for lunar and planetary work.  23x per inch is the telescope's sweet spot.. that's a near perfect power as the light to the eye is a large and useful 1.14 exit pupil diameter.

 

100x -160x Koenig, 28x per inch optimal for lunar and planetary under excellent seeing, 45x per inch is basically useless but good for rendering coarse features, then back down to a useful mag.

My internal barlow on my 1980 Questar 3.5 Standard was measured by Company Seven in 2016 as 1.9x. Last week I was able to get excellent views of Jupiter with the 12mm brandon at 107x and 203x with an exit pupil of .83mm and .44mm, respectively. The 9mm Delite with the barlow at 270x was way too much magnification even in above average seeing.


  • Matt Looby likes this

#11 rcwolpert

rcwolpert

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,587
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2012
  • Loc: South Hutchinson Island, Florida

Posted 03 June 2018 - 12:15 PM

I have the standard 24mm and 16mm Brandon’s for my 2013 Q. I’m thinking of adding either the 32mm or 12mm. Any feedback on which would be the most useful? I’m leaning towards the 12mm. 

Thanks!



#12 JMKarian

JMKarian

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Northwest Pennsylvania

Posted 03 June 2018 - 12:37 PM

As Noted - and my experience affirms - the K.I.S.S. adage is particularly apropos in Q’dom.  Here in NW PA, any extra time spent going thru an eyepiece collection would reduce ones success at peeking through the seemingly endless volley of cumulus clouds.

 

Last night was a spectacular exception - best non-winter night after 10:30 than I’ve seen in years!

Astro 7 + 32 Brandon + M13 - Wow!


  • JHollJr likes this

#13 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 03 June 2018 - 01:21 PM

I have the standard 24mm and 16mm Brandon’s for my 2013 Q. I’m thinking of adding either the 32mm or 12mm. Any feedback on which would be the most useful? I’m leaning towards the 12mm. 

Thanks!

I have the Televue 32mm plossl and the 12mm brandon and for my money I would get the 32mm plossl. It has a TFOV on 1.21 degrees, whereas the 32mm brandon has 1.13 TFOV. I doesn’t seem like a big difference, but it does make a difference. The 24mm brandon has TFOV of .82 degrees. You are not going to see refractor-like star fields with the 32mm, but the fields are far better than the 24mm. The 32mm plossl is my most used eyepiece. It give me magnifications of 40x and 76x, which are quite nice for finding objects. Then I move to the 16mm brandon if I need more magnification. I do use the 12mm brandon sometimes for planets, so there is a place for that eyepiece, too.



#14 Loren Gibson

Loren Gibson

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Northern Florida, USA

Posted 03 June 2018 - 04:26 PM

I have the standard 24mm and 16mm Brandon’s for my 2013 Q. I’m thinking of adding either the 32mm or 12mm. Any feedback on which would be the most useful? I’m leaning towards the 12mm. 

Thanks!

 

FWIW: I use my 12 far more than the 32, because of my observing preferences.

 

In the big scheme of things, the 32 mm isn't drastically different from the 24, at least for my use. The 32's field of view is slightly, but only slightly, wider: According to Vernonscope, current field stop diameters are 22 mm diameter for the 24 mm focal length, and 25 mm diameter for the 32 mm focal length. Magnification and exit pupil have somewhat larger changes between the two, obviously.

 

The 12 mm provides a very high power with the barlow, which the Questar's high quality optics can deliver if the seeing is good.

 

So, depending upon your observing preferences and conditions, you may appreciate the higher magnification ceiling that the 12 gives you, or you might prefer the larger exit pupil that the 32 provides.

 

Loren



#15 Kevin Barker

Kevin Barker

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 803
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Auckland, NZ

Posted 03 June 2018 - 06:01 PM

I use the Questar 1.25 adapter as I have a 1989 Q 3.5 ota.

I have the 32 mm Brandon which I hardly use. It has quite a narrow apparent field of view, but a lot of eye relief.

 

The contrast is excellent and I have mainly used it for bird spotting. But I rue not getting a 16 mm or 12 mm Brandon for astronomy.

For astronomy the high optical quality of Q3.5" scopes works best with high power, high contrast eyepieces.

 

My main eyepieces are the TV Delite 11 mm, TV Panoptic 19 mm and Plossl's 25, 20, and 11 mm. The Delite has such lovely eye relief and a wider apparent FOV but if the seeing is exceptional the Plossl's seem to deliver a little extra contrast. 

 

I would recommend you might be best to pick up the 12 mm Brandon over the 32. 

 

I think if I ended up splashing out for a 5 inch Q in the future I would definitely pick the 16 and 12 mm Brandons. 

 

I know folks say the Brandons are exceptional but I suspect the TV Plossl's are similar. Albeit with a little extra field of view and possibly slightly less eye relief. They are also a great deal cheaper.



#16 rcwolpert

rcwolpert

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,587
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2012
  • Loc: South Hutchinson Island, Florida

Posted 03 June 2018 - 08:13 PM

Thanks Justin, Loren and Kevin.  I think I'll go ahead with the purchase of the 12mm Brandon, and then get TV 32mm Plossl. I do like the TFOV of the TV eyepieces. I often use the 24mm and 19mm Panoptic and they seem to work really well.

 

- Bob



#17 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 04 June 2018 - 05:28 AM

Thanks Justin, Loren and Kevin.  I think I'll go ahead with the purchase of the 12mm Brandon, and then get TV 32mm Plossl. I do like the TFOV of the TV eyepieces. I often use the 24mm and 19mm Panoptic and they seem to work really well.

 

- Bob

Bob, you won’t be disappointed with the 12mm brandon. Last week when I was looking at Jupiter my 9mm Delite with the barlow at 270x was too much magnification. I didn’t have the 12mm with me on my deck, because I have an eyepiece case that I have configured for my most used eyepieces both with the Questar and with the ES102ED refractor. But I felt that the 12mm barlowed would hit the sweet spot, 203x, given the conditions, so I went into the house and got it. I keep it in a Questar aluminum canister available through Company Seven or Questar, so I had to unscrew the eyepiece from its canister. The 12mm was perfect for the seeing. Have fun and enjoy.


Edited by JHollJr, 04 June 2018 - 05:30 AM.

  • rcwolpert likes this

#18 rcwolpert

rcwolpert

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,587
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2012
  • Loc: South Hutchinson Island, Florida

Posted 04 June 2018 - 06:56 AM

Thanks, Justin. And you’ve given me a good idea. I think I’ll put together a mini case just for the eyepieces that I’ll use with my Questar. I have an extra metal case that should do the job nicely. 

 

- Bob


  • JHollJr likes this

#19 JHollJr

JHollJr

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,040
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:12 AM

Thanks, Justin. And you’ve given me a good idea. I think I’ll put together a mini case just for the eyepieces that I’ll use with my Questar. I have an extra metal case that should do the job nicely. 

 

- Bob

I have a diagonal for my refractor, my Powerguide III and cord, the 32mm plossl and two Delites for the Questar, and a 35mm Panoptic and Baader Hyperion Mark IV zoom and barlow for the refractor. These I normally take out with me, but if I need something else, it is never really far away.

 

0DD3C19D EE26 4D3B 980A F7ADF82024A0

  • rcwolpert likes this


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