134 replies to this topic

[starman876]

those long slow refractors give you that velvet black back ground that just makes stars pop.

[oldmanastro]

Long slow scopes are better for deep sky in my book. My 4" F/15 Unitron just had a way of showing deep sky objects like no other scope.  Super contrast and a dark sky back ground made M13 come alive.  Sure don't need fast optics for good deep sky unless it is very low power wide field sweeping for very big objects.

This was the telescope that John Mallas chose for his Sky Survey. All the visual observations of the Messier objects found in his book, The Messier Album, were done with a Unitron 4". His drawings show the amount of detail that he could capture with this telescope. I have observed the Messier objects with my own 4" Carton refractor. Long focus refractors are indeed excellent for deep sky objects.

[clamchip]

I built this one with Jaegers parts and a Carton Optical 4 inch f/15 lens.

It's really nice and my yard is usually only 1 arcsecond so a perfect match.

Robert

 

[PawPaw]

Whenever I look at a planet with my Edmund 8" I always say Super!  So it must be a Super Planetary.

 

Cheers

 

Don

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[gnabgib]

I built my first 4-1/4 Kutter Schief back in 1971.  Definitely a "planet killer".  When I exhibited at RTMC Roland came over, took a long look and commented "perfect just perfect".  I lost that scope in 1991 in the Oakland hills fire!  (lost our home also!)   A few years ago I came across an ad here on CN selling a Lichtenknecker 5 inch Schief.  Made the purchase and have been happy ever since.  So my vote is for these instruments.  Unique, affordable, and will definitely cause strange looks!

 

Kevin

[highfnum]

from bonco2

"Had a wonderful 6 inch f/8 Astro Physics triplet. Loved it in every way. BUT after a side by side view of Jupiter with it and a RV6,  I saw the view was superior in the RV6."

 

wow never thought i hear that!

i have rv6

did this  shot of mars you can see mons (bright  spot) yes RV6 is good 

but to be compared with high end  refractor like AP sheesh!

 

 

 

 

 

[starman876]

from bonco2

"Had a wonderful 6 inch f/8 Astro Physics triplet. Loved it in every way. BUT after a side by side view of Jupiter with it and a RV6,  I saw the view was superior in the RV6."

 

wow never thought i hear that!

i have rv6

did this  shot of mars you can see mons (bright  spot) yes RV6 is good 

but to be compared with high end  refractor like AP sheesh!

Capture 10_18_2020 10_19_29 PMrv6.jpg

rv-6.jpg

Maybe have been an exceptional RV6 or a poorly collimated AP.  

[CHASLX200]

from bonco2

"Had a wonderful 6 inch f/8 Astro Physics triplet. Loved it in every way. BUT after a side by side view of Jupiter with it and a RV6,  I saw the view was superior in the RV6."

 

wow never thought i hear that!

i have rv6

did this  shot of mars you can see mons (bright  spot) yes RV6 is good 

but to be compared with high end  refractor like AP sheesh!

Capture 10_18_2020 10_19_29 PMrv6.jpg

rv-6.jpg

I had his RV6 and it was just as good as two 6" ED's i had.  Even sharper than a super sharp 826.

[starman876]

I had his RV6 and it was just as good as two 6" ED's i had.  Even sharper than a super sharp 826.

the simpler the optics the better the results can be if they are a perfect sphere.  

[Jeff B]

There is no denying that large refractors are expensive.  But then there is something magical about a large refractor that is hard to beat.  

Guilty on both counts.

 

Besides giving exceptional solar system object views, large refractors can give amazing deep sky views, and, I feel, are completely underrated for that. 

 

Jeff

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[highfnum]

lovely set up Jeff B  very clean looking

BTW my rv6 is blushing from all the compliments

 

Edited by highfnum, 11 February 2021 - 06:31 AM.

[highfnum]

what is an 826?

[CHASLX200]

what is an 826?

Meade 8" F/6 Newt from around 1979 to 1983.

[jcruse64]

Sweet setup, Jeff!!

[highfnum]

jeff what is make on that scope?

[Jeff B]

lovely set up Jeff B  very clean looking

BTW my rv6 is blushing from all the compliments

rv6blush.jpg

Thanks.

 

Be careful though, about your RV-6 blushing as it will be accused of CA in the red and, thus, its wonderful views will be completely discounted, disparaged and dismissed by some of the "experts" here. 

 

Jeff

[Jeff B]

jeff what is make on that scope?

Jeff B Optical.  

[highfnum]

you ground  lenses?

[Bomber Bob]

what is an 826?

 

Mine is on a Meade StarFinder EQ.

[starman876]

Meade 826 Restore S01 - Lumicon 125 HF.jpg

 

Mine is on a Meade StarFinder EQ.

does that scope have some sort of skin problem?

[Bomber Bob]

does that scope have some sort of skin problem?

Previous owner gave it a new skin:  Black, dark gray, & light gray speckles on white Contact Paper...  It's pretty in person with the gray & black 80mm RFT + gray & black mount/pedestal.

[DAVIDG]

from bonco2

"Had a wonderful 6 inch f/8 Astro Physics triplet. Loved it in every way. BUT after a side by side view of Jupiter with it and a RV6,  I saw the view was superior in the RV6."

 

wow never thought i hear that!

i have rv6

did this  shot of mars you can see mons (bright  spot) yes RV6 is good 

but to be compared with high end  refractor like AP sheesh!

Capture 10_18_2020 10_19_29 PMrv6.jpg

rv-6.jpg

 When you look at the theoretical  performance of 6" f/8 Newtonian vs a 6" f/10 APO, guess,what , the Newtonian has a better performance. So when made correctly  you will get extremely good planetary image. The problem is that many times the optics are subpar so they get a bad reputation.  The APO gives a better image not because of the optical design but most likely  the optics are better figured .  You  also have to factor in the emotional factor that expensive refractors add into the judgment of the image quality vs a true results. 

  I saw this first hand many times. A typical example was that we  have a  4.5" Clark refractor at Mt Cuba Observatory. For many years people ranted and raved about the great image. Said it was the best they ever saw.  It is Clark so it has to be amazing. Right ? A simple star test showed  the lens had issues. It was taken to D&G Optics back in the early 90's and tested. The figure was bad  no surprise too me.   D&G refigured it and it was mention in a couple of their Ads in Sky and Tel at the time. Now it gives a very nice image. It was the emotional factor that was distorting the true about the image quality. 

  The bottom line is many optical designs can be excellent planetary scopes , but to be one they must have very well figured optics. 

 

                        - Dave 

Edited by DAVIDG, 11 February 2021 - 02:58 PM.

[Jeff B]

you ground  lenses?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, 

 

No.  I've neither the skill and, more importantly, the patience, for such a task.

 

The objective is a D&G Optical 11" F12 (F12.3 actually) achromat.  Sadly, it seems Barry is no longer making lenses and tube assemblies for us consumers anymore. 

 

The tube assembly was tinkered together by me about 11 years ago from bits and parts I had or scrounged on the net.  The current mounting (there has been a considerable evolution in mounts for this scope) is a Parallax 250 Observatory Series mount with an Astro-Physics control system.  As you see it, it is now housed in an observatory, for private and public use, that is dedicated to my late wife.  

 

It is capable of, and has provided, some stunning solar system views, seeing and thermal conditions permitting.  I also have a suite of Chromacor color correctors that I employ with it along with a similar suite of aperture stops to help improve the color performance of the system and better match the aperture to the prevailing seeing conditions.  

 

My most satisfying ATM project really.

 

Jeff

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Bomber Bob]

The bottom line is many optical designs can be excellent planetary scopes , but to be one they must have very well figured optics.

 

The flip side of the I paid $1000 per inch of aperture so my new APO must out-perform my other scopes, is what I've experienced buying used & very cheap reflectors:  How good can a $150 Newt be??

 

I found out the first time I turned my 1971 RV-6 to Saturn.  I was in such a rush, I hadn't even cleaned the scope first.  I was stunned by the views!  No problem justifying the improvements; and, when you spent so little on the old reflector, it's easier (to me) to spend more $$$ improving its performance.  Ditto for the equally cheap 1980s Meade 826.  I've spent about 3x its original cost on making it an even better old reflector.  With no regrets at all.

 

But... there were times when my $3000 2017 APM 152ED showed more fine details on Jupiter than my 826 -- both scopes at 400x.  Was that bit of extra performance worth 10x the price?  Yes!  The Planets aren't around that much, so getting the best views possible during those brief periods was priceless to me...  Were the differences due to the APM's superior optics?  I don't think so.  Jupiter & Saturn were LOW this season.  Mars was much higher in the sky, and my 826, RV-6, and Tinsley 6 Cass all performed very well at up to 60x per inch.  I'm no Reflector Expert, but I think that puts all 3 in the Super Planetary category.

[highfnum]

wow 11inch  refractor that's a beast

what does ota weigh?