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

Meade LX85 6" MAK OTA ONLY - Help Needed

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 mmalik

mmalik

    DSLR camera modifications

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9566
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 13 September 2019 - 05:31 PM

I am not sure if this has already been discussed and/or to how much depth; I am wondering if you all can provide some feedback into LX85 6" MAK OTA ONLY... from Meade as to how good it is for visual observing, high-end 2" eyepiece (Tele Vue, etc.) adapting, build quality, adaptability to alt/az mounts, etc. I have owned ETX-125 in the past and wondering how comparable it is to that standard/quality. I just need a utilitarian kind of scope that I could use for occasional grab and go visual observing and showing others a view of the sky.

 

 

Please also comment how it compares to LX85 6" ACF OTA ONLY...; should I rather get ACF instead of MAK in the same size? What are pluses/minuses to each?

 

 

Another question I have is would it fit and mount properly to Vixen Optics Porta II Alt-Azimuth Mount...; if you can comment on that particular mount and/or any other Alt-Az mount that will be best suited to this scope.

 

 

I come from astrophotography (AP) background and could offer you some assistance in that regard in return for your favor on my request above. Please read here... and post your questions regarding AP in the same thread and I'll be happy to help. Regards and thanks in advance!

 

 

Note: DSLR/MILC cooling discussion here...; please post your cooling questions there.

 

 

Own image

Attached Thumbnails

  • LX65_6.jpg

Edited by mmalik, 13 September 2019 - 05:36 PM.


#2 macdonjh

macdonjh

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4206
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2006

Posted 13 September 2019 - 05:58 PM

Either scope will be just fine for visual. 

 

Either scope will be just fine with Tele Vue eye pieces, but both will also be fine with less ambitious eye piece designs because of their slow focal ratios.  Much of what you pay for in premium eye pieces is good correction over a wide field in fast optical systems.  The Maksutov is supplied with a 2" diagonal, but you'll have to buy a 2" diagonal for the Schmidt Cassegrain (according to the links you provided).

 

Both have a Vixen-style dovetail so will mount just fine on most alt-az mounts.

 

As to whether either is the right scope for you...  That depends on what you want to look at and how you want to see it.  If you like seeing wide swaths of the Milky Way and sweeping the sky, you'd likely be happier with a small refractor or a Newtonian.  Either of these makes a good general purpose scope, though.  Just know the true field of view will be 3/4o with the Maksutov and 0.9o with the SCT (both with the supplied 26mm Super Plossl, other designs can provide more).  That is plenty of field for almost any single object in the sky, but too narrow for many pairs to trios of objects (e.g. Double Cluster, Leo Trio, etc).

 

I have generally preferred Celestron, but borrowed a standard 10" Meade SCT for a few days.  Fit and finish was good, it was built like a tank as advertised, and heavier than it needed to be which is consistent with Meade's reputation.  It also provided sharp views of the few things I looked at in the short time I had it.


  • mmalik likes this

#3 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4359
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 14 September 2019 - 11:19 AM

I doubt too many have compared both these 6” Meade scopes side by side.  I once owned the ACF version but it was the LX600 version, same optics but different color on the tube.  The scope put up very sharp images, even on the brighter planets even though it’s CO was close to 45%.  If it were me I would probably go with the MAK as it has a smaller CO.

 

Bill


  • mmalik likes this

#4 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5693
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 14 September 2019 - 04:43 PM

The modern Maks have a wider baffle tube than the Celestron 6”, allowing wider FOV before vignetting. So you actually can go wider with the slower scope. Not sure about baffle on Meade. The Mak will be heavier and stress the mount more. Mak will likely hold collimation better with fixed secondary.

Scott

Edited by SeattleScott, 14 September 2019 - 04:43 PM.

  • mmalik likes this

#5 mmalik

mmalik

    DSLR camera modifications

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9566
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 14 September 2019 - 06:41 PM

Thanks everyone!

 

 

Since you bring up collimation, what are the chances a 6" SCT may lose collimation with regular use? While MAK has fixed secondary and smaller CO, two advantages I see with 6" SCT are bit faster optics (f/10) and bit shorter FL (...wider FOV).

 

 

I do have a question about the mount for the same size scope (6" MAK or 6" SCT); although I mention Vixen Optics Porta II Alt-Azimuth Mount in my first post, I am mainly looking for a very utilitarian kind of alt/az mount that I could just manually maneuver, point and track with knobs. If I understand correctly, I wouldn't be able a to freely maneuver Vixen, correct? In other words, will I need to use knobs (on Vixen) all the time even for large sweeps across the sky? I'll post this question in mounts forum as well, but wanted your take on it if anyone may know. In short, is there such a mount that allows free maneuvering of this kind (...for a 6" scope)? Regards


Edited by mmalik, 14 September 2019 - 07:31 PM.


#6 Brollen

Brollen

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 407
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Maryland, USA

Posted 14 September 2019 - 06:59 PM

Thanks everyone!

 

 

Since you bring up collimation, what are the chances a 6" SCT may lose collimation with regular use? While MAK has fixed secondary and smaller CO, two advantages I see with 6" SCT are bit faster optics (f/10) and bit smaller FL (...wider FOV).

 

 

I do have a question about the mount for the same size scope (6" MAK or 6" SCT); although I mention Vixen Optics Porta II Alt-Azimuth Mount in my first post, I am mainly looking for a very utilitarian kind of alt/az mount that I could just manually maneuver, point and track with knobs. If I understand correctly, I wouldn't be able a to freely maneuver Vixen, correct? In other word, will I need to use knobs (on Vixen) all the time even for large sweeps across the sky? I'll post this question in mounts forum as well, but wanted your take on it if anyone may know. In short, is there such a mount that allows free maneuvering of this kind (...for a 6" scope)? Regards

I have the 6" Meade ACF and it rides acceptably on my Porta II. Though a bit heavier as noted, dampening times are acceptable due to its compactness - I believe it is shorter than the 6" MCT - on the mount. The optics on it are very sharp when well acclimated. It has held collimation since I got it a few years back (I did set it then) using the standard screws.

 

With the Vixen, you can swing it up/down, left/right independent of using the knobs, but I'm not sure you would find it satisfactory if that is the type of movement you prefer. You could look at the Stellarvue M2C mount which would be up to holding either 6" SCT or MCT.


Edited by Brollen, 14 September 2019 - 07:00 PM.

  • mmalik likes this

#7 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5693
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 14 September 2019 - 07:24 PM

I think the more appropriate question is what are the chances of the SCT not losing collimation. Granted they can hold collimation for years. But most people seem to tweak it every year or two. Most likely the Mak will eventually need collimation too, but it will probably hold collimation considerably longer.

Remember that a key reason I got a 6” Mak instead of a 6” SCT was the better wide field capability of the MAK. Sounds like Meade has a couple different models, one with a 31mm baffle, but most Maks these days are still a little wider. So the SCT won’t necessarily go wider. Further research required.

The SCT would be more stable on the mounts you suggest.

Scott

#8 mmalik

mmalik

    DSLR camera modifications

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 9566
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 14 September 2019 - 09:58 PM

Thanks!

 

 

Another question I have is about the thread on the back of 6" MAK; is it SCT? I intend to use Tele Vue Everbrite 90° Star Diagonal Schmidt-Cassegrain Kit (2")... with 6" MAK, hence the question. Regards


Edited by mmalik, 14 September 2019 - 09:59 PM.


#9 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5693
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 15 September 2019 - 08:58 AM

Should research the baffle size on the SCT too. The Celestron has a small baffle so few people mess with a 2” diagonal. Sounds like the Meade might have a larger baffle tube.

Scott


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