153 replies to this topic

[ATM57]

I find the standard components of the scope to be just fine. The standard rings, for me, are more than adequate, causing me no problems with high power imaging. I did have to add some felt to the rings to prevent slippage of the scope. This was a very minor modification. I also "hand honed" the flat on the focuser tube to prevent slippage while holding my slightly heavy 2” APM prism diagonal and 2" eyepiece combo. For my needs the focuser is quite smooth and stable. It has a nice "weighted" feel enabling the precise focusing needed at the high magnifications this scope is capable of running (crisp at 375X +).

 

As "proof of the pudding," the Jupiter pic (full size) was shot with an inexpensive Svbony SV305 camera w/GSO 2" Barlow mounted in front of a APM prism diagonal in "fair" seeing. My total scope investment (camera and mount included) was about what people are paying for the DX model. Smilin' all the way to the bank

 

I would have never dreamed I could get away with this level of high performance, with such a comparatively small investment, 10 or 20 years ago!

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

[CounterWeight]

That’s like saying there’s no need to pay for a Corvette when a Camaro will do 90% of what the Corvette does. Of course there’s no need to pay for a Camaro when a Chevy SS will do 90% of what the Camaro does. And there’s no point in paying for a Chevy SS when a Malibu will do 90% of what the Chevy SS does.

 

So all the Corvette buyers must be absolutely crazy paying the price for a Corvette when they could have saved a ton of money. Unless, of course, "ultimate performance" and "not" cost savings was their top priority.

 

Bob

What about The Shelby Cobra?

[CounterWeight]

I feel it is well established that the Evostar 150 is an excellent buy for the money given there are experienced observers who are very happy with it.  I'm also not asking about whether or not it is a good buy in relation to high-end scopes.  I'm quite convinced that it is based on what I've read.

 

What I'm asking about is di Cicco's statement that for visual it is equivalent to the finest refractors, if that is a fair statement to give to consumers.

 

Every once in a while someone will write about a mythical scope.  Daniel did it above about a soul touching view from a Ziess from the 1920s.  I remember another thread about an Astro-Tech 130mm F6 that "amazes".  So what is that mojo?  And can I buy one today?

 

Because I can't reconcile the above things I've read here.  Either the Evostar IS the equivalent of high end scopes for visual, or di Cicco can't tell the difference at the eyepiece between the lowest priced 6 inch "APO" on the market and, for example, a TEC or a Tak, scopes that use Fluorite or FPL-53 or whatever.  And I wonder how many other experienced observers want to sign on and say they wouldn't be able to tell either.

For me, I've only owned the TEC apo160ed, took great images, great for visual but because it was 'ed' there was debate if it was really a high end scope.  I remember debating with with many who had never actually looked through one!  To much confirmation bias with expensive scopes (I've owned some of smaller aperture) and I think for visual a lot of the spec debating without looking through one just plain counterproductive.

 

It takes me a long time to really evaluate any scope, I like to take a full observing year when possible.  Too many variations, moon, seeing, atm conditions, planet placement, and then considering the object catalog realistically within reach from where I observe ... use at whatever exit pupil for the conditions...

 

I've been very pleased with the SW150 doublet scope!  Extremely impressed except for moon (edge) at low power, and that no deal breaker here as it does so very well on so many other objects.  It is big, I'm using a CGX mount for visual, no imaging.  This last year observing again severely hampered by typical PNW weather and smoke from forest fires (this seems a regular nuisance last several years... remember the great eclipse?, anyway moving along), some fires very nearby in 2020... but they don't need to be close as smoke from hundreds miles away can degrade seeing as well.

 

Before the APM 152ed and then this scope, anything with this visual quality in a doublet at the prices being asked was a fantasy, here I divorce 'cheap' from 'inexpensive'.

 

I would certainly recommend one to any visual observer that can field and mount it without reservations.  If they actually look through one and then decide they want to spend whatever x times the price for a high end triplet, more power to them. That option has always been available.  These scopes are pretty new to the scene and were not an option. This is the golden age so far in my lifetime.

[CHASLX200]

For me, I've only owned the TEC apo160ed, took great images, great for visual but because it was 'ed' there was debate if it was really a high end scope.  I remember debating with with many who had never actually looked through one!  To much confirmation bias with expensive scopes (I've owned some of smaller aperture) and I think for visual a lot of the spec debating without looking through one just plain counterproductive.

 

It takes me a long time to really evaluate any scope, I like to take a full observing year when possible.  Too many variations, moon, seeing, atm conditions, planet placement, and then considering the object catalog realistically within reach from where I observe ... use at whatever exit pupil for the conditions...

 

I've been very pleased with the SW150 doublet scope!  Extremely impressed except for moon (edge) at low power, and that no deal breaker here as it does so very well on so many other objects.  It is big, I'm using a CGX mount for visual, no imaging.  This last year observing again severely hampered by typical PNW weather and smoke from forest fires (this seems a regular nuisance last several years... remember the great eclipse?, anyway moving along), some fires very nearby in 2020... but they don't need to be close as smoke from hundreds miles away can degrade seeing as well.

 

Before the APM 152ed and then this scope, anything with this visual quality in a doublet at the prices being asked was a fantasy, here I divorce 'cheap' from 'inexpensive'.

 

I would certainly recommend one to any visual observer that can field and mount it without reservations.  If they actually look through one and then decide they want to spend whatever x times the price for a high end triplet, more power to them. That option has always been available.  These scopes are pretty new to the scene and were not an option. This is the golden age so far in my lifetime.

Thanks to the SW150ED and APM 152ED that was the only way i was even gonna get a 6" scope other than a cheaper Achro for much less money. No way would i ever pay AP or Tak prices for a 6". I did have a 6" blue tube AP back in 1999 but only paid like $1500 or $1800 for it.  Just a few years later that scope went up in price big time after i had long sold it.