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

Tec 140 vrs 160

  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 Jsquared

Jsquared

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Duncan, Ok

Posted 23 February 2020 - 12:44 PM

I’m getting a new scope for retirement to supplement my fc100 tak. My first thought is a Tec 160. Looks like this ups the ante on weight and portability though and I’m wondering if I should just “settle” for a 140. I’d like to dual mount the scopes on a Goto az mount. Visual use only
 

my questions

how much more a pain is the 160 to use

am I really going to miss that much going to a 140 instead of 160

any ideas on a Goto Az dual mount

should I abandon my quest and cheap out and buy a mewlon 210 with cool down and mirror flop

should I bank the savings and put it toward an obsession to see dim galaxies :-)

 

thx

 

Jeff

 


  • Tyson M likes this

#2 sunnyday

sunnyday

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,798
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2019
  • Loc: behind you.

Posted 23 February 2020 - 12:50 PM

to answer your question, I don't know howe, but what I did  to find out, I went to my astronomy club and I asked. I have all the answers.
but I am sure that here someone will be able to answer you,
at the  time I did not know about cn.


  • ShaulaB likes this

#3 Mark Strollo

Mark Strollo

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2006
  • Loc: New England

Posted 23 February 2020 - 01:44 PM

A member of our club (TAAS in CT) sold his 140 and bought a 160.  He loved both scopes, but sold the 160 due to the size/weight.  He uses a G11.  He is looking for another 140. 


  • George Blahun Jr and Jsquared like this

#4 PowerM3

PowerM3

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2010

Posted 23 February 2020 - 01:59 PM

I own a TEC 140 and have never looked through a 160. I do also own a Meade 178ED. What I can tell you is that I'm always baffled by the price difference people are willing to pay for the larger TEC increments(or other APO's over a certain size). The reality is that its still only 20mm... A 12" cheap dob will still show you a much deeper view on galaxies at higher powers. At low power from a dark sky site you will be quite surprised what the TEC 140 will show you from a dark sky. 

 

I actually just came back from a two night trip to a dark sky campground in central Oregon where I had the TEC 140/ Explore Scientific 3" 30mm 100* eyepiece that I was using exclusively(its a new EP to me). The view of DSO's was not as detailed with this setup at 30x as it is through my 16" premium dob at higher power but I was able to see spiral detail in a bunch of bright galaxies and the eyes in m97! 

 

Having said all the above, if you are physically fit enough to handle the few extra lb of the 160 and have the funds for it why not just do it? You only live once and your not going to take your plush savings account with you to the next life;)

 

http://www.avt-astro...y-astro-getaway


Edited by PowerM3, 23 February 2020 - 02:00 PM.

  • DeanS, turtle86, psandelle and 1 other like this

#5 havasman

havasman

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,193
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 23 February 2020 - 02:00 PM

I’m getting a new scope for retirement to supplement my fc100 tak. My first thought is a Tec 160. Looks like this ups the ante on weight and portability though and I’m wondering if I should just “settle” for a 140. I’d like to dual mount the scopes on a Goto az mount. Visual use only
 

my questions

should I bank the savings and put it toward an obsession to see dim galaxies :-)

 

thx

 

Jeff

It all depends on what kind of observing you plan to do. If you're going to be observing "dim galaxies" (or any galaxies and/or DSO's really) then for the $12500 you'd spend on a fine TEC160 you could get a much more capable 14 or 16" New Moon hybrid Dob with premium mirror, Nexus DSC and ServoCat that will allow you to reach out much more effectively. You can likely get in cheaper with a similar aperture Obsession too but you'll give up some features.

 

Either a big refractor or medium-large Dob will present peripheral issues you'll have to deal with. But for a visual astronomer interested in DSO's and galaxies the capabilities of larger aperture that come with a fine Dob offer huge advantages. For instance, I had my 16" Starmaster out 2/20 and observed H-II regions in M51 and NGC2903, the irregular galaxy pair NGC2366/2363 and the huge H-II region/starburst complex in N2366 and then observed a group of tiny galaxies around PGC26951 that lie 460 to 700 Mn LY away. Those objects are unlikely to be well seen via even the finest 160mm scope.


Edited by havasman, 23 February 2020 - 02:09 PM.

  • EverlastingSky, turtle86, psandelle and 5 others like this

#6 payner

payner

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,097
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2007
  • Loc: Bluegrass & Cumberland Valley Regions, Kentucky

Posted 23 February 2020 - 02:16 PM

 

should I abandon my quest and cheap out and buy a mewlon 210 with cool down and mirror flop

 

thx

 

Jeff

One thing I'll say is there's no mirror flop that I know of with the Mewlon 210; there may be a bit of mirror shift in focusing that model, and Mewlon 180. I'm a refractor and Mewlon user and appreciate both designs. I will say, if aperture is important for your observing, say primarily solar system observing, the Mewlon 210, or even better 250CRS, will show one contrast and features a smaller refractor will not. Key: collimation (of which they hold well) and proper thermal management (the 250CRS, and 300CRS, have this consideration covered in the design/technology).

This is however, the refractor forum ... guess I better hightail it out. >g<
 


  • psandelle likes this

#7 bobhen

bobhen

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,284
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 23 February 2020 - 02:27 PM

You can eliminate focus shift in a Mewlon with an after-market rear focuser.
Cool down will take more time and more planning with the Mewlon and the Mewlon will be fussier with seeing.

 

A nice motorized combination alt/az and GEM is the Orion Atlas PRO AZ/EQ.

 

Here is something to consider. A TEC 140 is around 7K and a 160 is around 13K. You could get a TEC 140 and an Image Intensifier for 4K and still be under the sale price of a TEC 160 by 2K!

 

An image intensifier and TEC 140 combination will show you many more deep sky objects than the TEC 160 used alone: Just one example. That combination will easily show you the Horsehead Nebula in real time and in heavy light pollution. I just used my Image Intensifier (an NVD Micro) and a Takahashi TSA 120 for some wonderful views of the Horsehead and Flame Nebulas last night from the Philadelphia suburbs!

 

The TEC 160 will edge out the 140 on lunar planetary but it will be pretty close on most nights and the 140 really won’t leave you wanting. Also consider that, as we get older, telescopes get heavier!

 

Bob


  • DeanS, psandelle and Jsquared like this

#8 k5apl

k5apl

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,166
  • Joined: 19 May 2006
  • Loc: Arkansas

Posted 23 February 2020 - 02:35 PM

I have owned both telescopes.  I first owned the TEC140 and then moved up to the

TEC160FL.  I used the Losmandy G11, and the DM-6 mounts.  My impressions were

based on several years of experience with both telescopes.

Pain to use-  Not a pain for me but in a ScopeGuard case it is heavy.  I should have opted

                     for rollers on the case.  The 140 was lighter and easier to handle, but the

                     160 was a lightweight triplet compared to others.  You need to be able to

                     lift 30 lbs or so, IMO.  Not a pain for me, just more effort,

Miss 140-     I NEVER missed the 140 after getting the 160

GoTo Az-      Never had a need to mount another scope beside the 160.  Occasionally I

                    set up my 130 refractor or my 102mm refractor on a Celestron CG5 ASGT

                    at the same time, especially at Star Parties.

Mewlon 210-  Pretty much limited to visual, with long fl for narrow field compared to versatility of the 160 for visual high

                      power,, low power wide field, astrophotography etc.  The good news is that the 210 has a manual focuser

                      instead of motorised like the 300.  My choice would be the 160.

Obsession-  Nice telescope, whole different ballgame.  Your decision for your interests.

 

Yes, I did see a nice jump in performance with the 160 over the 140.  I see/saw less of a jump viewing with the 180 over the 160.  YMMV.  I live in an area where I need to travel to find really good skies.  The 160 always travelled well.

My DM-6 had encoders so I was the GoTo motor.  It was a sweet combination.  I recently sold my 160 because of

my advancing age and inability to get away to view.  I do miss the wonderful views, but the new owner is very happy.

 

Hope this helps


  • psandelle, havasman, Tyson M and 1 other like this

#9 Stewc14

Stewc14

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Pueblo West colorado

Posted 23 February 2020 - 02:37 PM

Basically boils down to what you will use and what you can lift. Larger scopes need a couple guys and 3 once in a while. I
Have all sizes of refractors, dobs RC,s,scts Dalkirks and such. 1 friend and I can pack, unpack and set up a 228mm refractor in just over an hour. I have a van I use to move the 228 to a more remote area. At home I just roll it out. I would get the 160.there is enough difference in the view I think
  • psandelle and Jsquared like this

#10 Heywood

Heywood

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,309
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2009

Posted 23 February 2020 - 03:04 PM

I once owned a TEC160FL-sized refractor (about 27 pounds), and I found that it was definitely, unequivocally too heavy to move around safely and comfortably, and lift up onto the mount.  Moving it around was always a bit scary.  ("Oh my gosh, am I going to damage my $10,000 apo???")  I gave up on the idea of any refractor weighing more than, say, 22 pounds.  If I were in your situation, I would get the 140 and not look back.  A 160 won't show much more, anyway, and it will be a lot more expensive, if that matters to you.  Others will disagree, of course.  

 

Heywood


Edited by Heywood, 23 February 2020 - 07:48 PM.

  • Tyson M and Jsquared like this

#11 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 32,401
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 23 February 2020 - 05:50 PM

If you end up getting a TEC 140, I can assure you that you're not "settling" for anything.  I've never used a 160, but I do know that guy from whom I bought my 140 has said that he really likes his 160 (which he bought to replace the 140), but misses the portability of the 140.  My TEC 140 is the largest refractor that I ever want to own, but to me represents the perfect combination of portability, aperture, and price.  And if I really need more aperture, I can always use my (much less expensive) 8" SCT or 12" dob.


  • k5apl, EverlastingSky, turtle86 and 3 others like this

#12 Haydon

Haydon

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 206
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2009

Posted 23 February 2020 - 07:42 PM

A couple of other things to consider between the two sizes are stability and tripod height.  Between the two, the 140 will handle shakes, bumps and vibrations better.  With respect to mount height, the 160 will require the mount to be a little higher than the 140 in order to have the eyepiece at the desired viewing height.  So, not only does the 160 require heavier lifting, it also requires lifting it higher than you would the 140 while mounting.  


  • k5apl likes this

#13 DeanS

DeanS

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,536
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Central Kentucky

Posted 23 February 2020 - 08:04 PM

There is a wow factor with the 160 but it is not night a day difference over the 140.  However I plan on keeping mine until I can't safely mount it.  I have an AP130GTX for my last refractor when that time comes and it is much easier to handle.   When I had both a 140 and the 130 I could not decide between them which I would keep.  Luckily the 160 came along and solved that problem ;)

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • family1a.jpg
  • family2A.jpg

  • Paul G, peleuba, Scott in NC and 19 others like this

#14 Destrehan Dave

Destrehan Dave

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Destrehan, LA

Posted 23 February 2020 - 08:39 PM

I had a 160... loved it.

What was in its viewing capabilities was superb.

I did get a little PO’d when an 8” edge went just a little deeper.

But for open and globulars clusters double Stars (the pup was obvious on good nights) and lunar / planetary, it was awesome.

But a TEC140 is truly a ‘goldilocks’ scope. Get you one, and add a DOB for some deep sky.

Heck you can get a C11 or used C14 with your leftover change.

Just my fiddycents; YMMV.

DD

#15 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,561
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 23 February 2020 - 09:07 PM

I’m getting a new scope for retirement to supplement my fc100 tak. My first thought is a Tec 160. Looks like this ups the ante on weight and portability though and I’m wondering if I should just “settle” for a 140. I’d like to dual mount the scopes on a Goto az mount. Visual use only
 

my questions

how much more a pain is the 160 to use

am I really going to miss that much going to a 140 instead of 160

any ideas on a Goto Az dual mount

should I abandon my quest and cheap out and buy a mewlon 210 with cool down and mirror flop

should I bank the savings and put it toward an obsession to see dim galaxies :-)

 

thx

 

Jeff

 

To my mind, Dobs and apos complement each other very well, as they have their different strengths and weaknesses.  My 18” Dob excels at DSO’s, while my NP 101 is great for wide field viewing.  Last night I saw a wealth of detail in M51, M82 and Thor’s Helmet in my 18”, but I sure didn’t bother trying to look at the Beehive or Pleiades with it. 

 

The TEC 160 is a wonderful scope, but costs about twice as much as the TEC 140 and is a bit less wieldy.  Plus, the money saved by getting a TEC 140 could go towards a nice 12-14” premium Dob and you could have the best of both worlds.  Just another option to consider...


  • Paul G, Scott in NC, DeanS and 4 others like this

#16 coopman

coopman

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,435
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2006
  • Loc: South Louisiana

Posted 23 February 2020 - 09:17 PM

Also, think about what condition you are in, and what you can safely lift. It's not going to get any better as you age, as much as we all hate to admit it.
  • Scott in NC likes this

#17 Jsquared

Jsquared

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Duncan, Ok

Posted 23 February 2020 - 09:17 PM

To my mind, Dobs and apos complement each other very well, as they have their different strengths and weaknesses. My 18” Dob excels at DSO’s, while my NP 101 is great for wide field viewing. Last night I saw a wealth of detail in M51, M82 and Thor’s Helmet in my 18”, but I sure didn’t bother trying to look at the Beehive or Pleiades with it.

The TEC 160 is a wonderful scope, but costs about twice as much as the TEC 140 and is a bit less wieldy. Plus, the money saved by getting a TEC 140 could go towards a nice 12-14” premium Dob and you could have the best of both worlds. Just another option to consider...


That’s what I’ve ultimately decided to do. Sent Tec an email to order a 140 and then as I get more experience order a obsession 15” UC with heaviest component 45 lbs and eyepiece height not requiring stool.

Many thanks to everyone who responded. U rule.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Scott in NC, turtle86, eros312 and 3 others like this

#18 Tyson M

Tyson M

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,759
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 23 February 2020 - 09:55 PM

To my mind, Dobs and apos complement each other very well, as they have their different strengths and weaknesses.  My 18” Dob excels at DSO’s, while my NP 101 is great for wide field viewing.  Last night I saw a wealth of detail in M51, M82 and Thor’s Helmet in my 18”, but I sure didn’t bother trying to look at the Beehive or Pleiades with it. 

 

The TEC 160 is a wonderful scope, but costs about twice as much as the TEC 140 and is a bit less wieldy.  Plus, the money saved by getting a TEC 140 could go towards a nice 12-14” premium Dob and you could have the best of both worlds.  Just another option to consider...

+1 on this



#19 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,313
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 23 February 2020 - 11:08 PM

Well... the 15UC isn’t all that an a bag of chips. I had one. Great scope. But... Unless things have changed he is still using a 2” mirror. It is also not as easy to move that 45 lbs around as you age. If you are locked in to a Dob look at the New Moon series with the thinner mirror.

 

If you are not locked on to only getting a Dob think about a Mewlon 250CRS. The $6,000 you save by getting the 140 instead of the 160 (which is bigger and heavier than you think) leaves you only needing to spend $2,000 more for the 250. And there is zero mirror flop in the Mewlon’s. There may be some mirror shift in the 210 but no flop and the 250’s primary is fixed with the secondary using a DC motor for focus so no shift there at all. I have owned the 210 and stupidly sold it. I will be buying it again shortly. I currently own the 250CRS. Both are fantastic. And you see a lot in both. 
 

If you want near perfect color correction and no chance of oil leak get the Takahashi TOA-130. It is the same price as the TEC but is air spaced and uses two FPL-53 elements instead of one Fluorite one and all three elements are very well figured and matched. The 130 and 250 work very well together. I use both currently.

 

One last thought. Depending on your age and your health in the future a Takahashi TSA-120 and Mewlon 210 also work really well together and you get almost the same color correction in the 120 as the 130. Plus they are a lot lighter which means more longevity in use as you age.

 

I compared my 120 and 130 to a pre-Fluorite 140 I bought with the intent of selling whatever had the lesser quality color correction. I sold the TEC.  


  • Erik Bakker likes this

#20 PowerM3

PowerM3

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2010

Posted 23 February 2020 - 11:18 PM

That’s what I’ve ultimately decided to do. Sent Tec an email to order a 140 and then as I get more experience order a obsession 15” UC with heaviest component 45 lbs and eyepiece height not requiring stool.

Many thanks to everyone who responded. U rule.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Very, very good choice!!



#21 Jsquared

Jsquared

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Duncan, Ok

Posted 24 February 2020 - 12:02 AM

Well... the 15UC isn’t all that an a bag of chips. I had one. Great scope. But... Unless things have changed he is still using a 2” mirror. It is also not as easy to move that 45 lbs around as you age. If you are locked in to a Dob look at the New Moon series with the thinner mirror.

If you are not locked on to only getting a Dob think about a Mewlon 250CRS. The $6,000 you save by getting the 140 instead of the 160 (which is bigger and heavier than you think) leaves you only needing to spend $2,000 more for the 250. And there is zero mirror flop in the Mewlon’s. There may be some mirror shift in the 210 but no flop and the 250’s primary is fixed with the secondary using a DC motor for focus so no shift there at all. I have owned the 210 and stupidly sold it. I will be buying it again shortly. I currently own the 250CRS. Both are fantastic. And you see a lot in both.

If you want near perfect color correction and no chance of oil leak get the Takahashi TOA-130. It is the same price as the TEC but is air spaced and uses two FPL-53 elements instead of one Fluorite one and all three elements are very well figured and matched. The 130 and 250 work very well together. I use both currently.

One last thought. Depending on your age and your health in the future a Takahashi TSA-120 and Mewlon 210 also work really well together and you get almost the same color correction in the 120 as the 130. Plus they are a lot lighter which means more longevity in use as you age.

I compared my 120 and 130 to a pre-Fluorite 140 I bought with the intent of selling whatever had the lesser quality color correction. I sold the TEC.


All good points. I’m not worried bout oil leaks. The 250 has appeal but I think I will wait a couple of years and really learn how to use my 140.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#22 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,389
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 24 February 2020 - 12:36 AM

My 2 cents is that it's a question of figuring out your usage pattern and preferences and go from there.

 

Refractors do not scale at all well, as Dean's picture shows very well. 

 

I knew the 140 is relatively large, but I'm surprised by how much of a bump in size it is over the A-P 130.

 

For me the biggest refractor I'd want would be in the 120-130 region. After that I prefer to swap over to a reflector of some sort.

 

It's not the hassle of lugging them around (when I had a 6" F8, it was about as much trouble as my 16" Dob), it's that in the grand scheme of things even an 160mm is a relatively small scope as far as light gathering goes. Sure, it's a beautiful thing, but I'd rather spread across different designs for the benefits of the complementarity.

 

Of course, other people will see it differently based on their preferences, but it's how I would decide. If 160 is the biggest size you are comfortable using, then that's the way to go. For me it just falls lower down the size scale.


  • turtle86 likes this

#23 donadani

donadani

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,066
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 24 February 2020 - 12:55 AM

The 140 is point 10kg including rings and plate and is a very compact design - so I find it much easier to move around compared to any 6" scope I ever owned - however the name is. It´s maybe not that perfect color corrected but gives 10mm more light over any AP and Tak 5" apo... and for visual it never dissapointed myself. 

 

Size/weight/apperture/correction ratio of the 140ED (or FL) is a very special thing.


Edited by donadani, 24 February 2020 - 12:56 AM.

  • R_Huntzberry likes this

#24 peleuba

peleuba

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,408
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2004
  • Loc: North of Baltimore, MD

Posted 24 February 2020 - 09:43 AM

my questions

how much more a pain is the 160 to use

am I really going to miss that much going to a 140 instead of 160

any ideas on a Goto Az dual mount

should I abandon my quest and cheap out and buy a mewlon 210 with cool down and mirror flop

should I bank the savings and put it toward an obsession to see dim galaxies :-)

 

 

I first owned a TEC160ED and then a TEC160FL.  My largest mount is a Losmandy G11 and the the longer TEC160ED did not ride well on the G11.  I spoke to Yuri about the issue and was very lucky that he agreed to take the 160ED back as credit toward a 160FL on the next run.  The 160FL was shorter and it turned out to be a better match to my G11/Berleback planet.  

 

Twice a year for 5 or 6 years I would meet a friend from NJ at Cherry Springs in north central PA.  He had a TEC140ED and I had the TEC160FL.  During each of these trips we would compare the 160FL to the 140ED over the course of several days.  He always commented how great the images of the planets and brighter deep sky objects were through the 160FL - and, for sure, they were quite good.  Me, I was simply amazed at how close the two telescope were in actual performance.  Yes, images are slightly brighter in the 160FL, but to me, both showed similar detail.  I do remember planetary colors being more vibrant in the 160FL.  But for my money the TEC140 is hard to beat.

 

To your questions:

 

(1)  The TEC160 will require a step up in mount size compared to the 140.  A good example is the 140 will ride on a GM8 and the 160 really needs a G11.

 

(2)  See above - you won't miss the aperture.  

 

(3)  No ideas about a goto Alt-Azimuth style mount.  I think you'll be extremely limited if goto, tracking ALT-AZ and dual scope capability are requirements.  These scopes do need tracking and an EQ is the path of least resistance to this.  The 140 could ride on a Vixen GPDX or Losmandy GM8 and a host of other imported mid-size mounts.  But if you really need dual scope capability, you need to move up to the next class in mount capacity.

 

(4)  Mewlon vs a 140mm APO...   This speaks to more about observing style.  Only you can determine that.  There is upside (and downside) to each option.  All telescopes are compromises.

 

(5)  No, not an Obsession.  Better designs out there these days.  But a TEC140 and a larger dob (12.5" + ) is a terrific idea.


Edited by peleuba, 24 February 2020 - 10:22 AM.

  • turtle86, Jeff B, denis0007dl and 1 other like this

#25 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,561
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 24 February 2020 - 10:19 AM

My 2 cents is that it's a question of figuring out your usage pattern and preferences and go from there.

 

Refractors do not scale at all well, as Dean's picture shows very well. 

 

I knew the 140 is relatively large, but I'm surprised by how much of a bump in size it is over the A-P 130.

 

For me the biggest refractor I'd want would be in the 120-130 region. After that I prefer to swap over to a reflector of some sort.

 

It's not the hassle of lugging them around (when I had a 6" F8, it was about as much trouble as my 16" Dob), it's that in the grand scheme of things even an 160mm is a relatively small scope as far as light gathering goes. Sure, it's a beautiful thing, but I'd rather spread across different designs for the benefits of the complementarity.

 

Of course, other people will see it differently based on their preferences, but it's how I would decide. If 160 is the biggest size you are comfortable using, then that's the way to go. For me it just falls lower down the size scale.

 

My own AP 130 GT seems hefty and substantial, yet it is dwarfed by the TEC 160 in Dean's picture. Refractors are wonderful instruments, but they really don't scale well at all, as they get very big and expensive in a hurry.  Here's what you get when you go to 250:

 

https://www.telescop...e/tec-apo250vt/

 

The picture of Yuri holding it over his shoulder is epic...


  • areyoukiddingme 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