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

What are the most UNDERRATED scopes out there?

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#51 Terra Nova

Terra Nova

    ISS

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 24,508
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: 39.07°N, 229m AMSL, USA

Posted 05 May 2021 - 09:40 PM

Another vote here for the Edmund 4” F15 refractor. The one I had was a great scope.


  • steve t, PawPaw and Bomber Bob like this

#52 Bowlerhat

Bowlerhat

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,228
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2019
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 May 2021 - 06:00 PM

I think the zeiss 50/540 is underrated compared to telementor. Can be obtained for cheap, a good quality zeiss, yet not so many..


  • steve t and Bomber Bob like this

#53 stevety

stevety

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018
  • Loc: San Ramon ca

Posted Yesterday, 11:15 AM

I have the orion eon 130mm refractor and i think these scope is underrated   i get great views and pictures with these telescope

 

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • hhhhhh.JPG


#54 mdowns

mdowns

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2,928
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Englewood,FL

Posted Yesterday, 12:22 PM

Folks let's remember this is the 'classics' forum.New scopes maybe great and underrated but don't belong in this thread.From the forum rules at the top of the page." The place to discuss older telescopes. Antiques, flea market finds, and scopes from grandpa's attic. From the 1780's to the mid-1990's - refractors, reflectors, and early SCT's. And this, 'Discussion of 25-year-old scopes still in production is OK but please don't post newer examples of those". 


  • steve t likes this

#55 rob1986

rob1986

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 365
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2020

Posted Yesterday, 12:34 PM

Folks let's remember this is the 'classics' forum.New scopes maybe great and underrated but don't belong in this thread.From the forum rules at the top of the page." The place to discuss older telescopes. Antiques, flea market finds, and scopes from grandpa's attic. From the 1780's to the mid-1990's - refractors, reflectors, and early SCT's. And this, 'Discussion of 25-year-old scopes still in production is OK but please don't post newer examples of those".

and what about 80mm f11s, 8 inch f5-8 and 6 inch f8 gem newts, and other classic designs that "serious" folk hardly consider?

at some point its a classic because of what it is, and because we've used the same design for a hundred or more years, regardlessof vintage.

and on that note, I've tried out my new c80 again, as a reflector guy I couldn't catch a hint of CA in or out of focus on antares last night, and beautiful defraction rings. a c80 of any vintage is a good scope.

Edited by rob1986, Yesterday, 03:11 PM.

  • steve t, Bonco2 and Bomber Bob like this

#56 luxo II

luxo II

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,571
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted Yesterday, 07:10 PM

If you saw CA with Antares, that would be a big issue - it’s orange-red anyway.

I still think the most underrated scopes are the 6”-12” longer newtonians, f/7 or so. Very rarely seen these days, but they can be excellent planet killers if the mirrors are good and it’s well built.

Edited by luxo II, Yesterday, 07:13 PM.

  • steve t likes this

#57 RichA

RichA

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,414
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted Today, 02:03 AM

Time for some positivity, not negativity! What are the most underrated scopes that you have come across? Mine have been the common little 4.5” (114mm) F8 reflectors that were common in the 1980s into the 2000s. I got this Meade Polaris 114mm F8 for 30 bucks some years ago. The mount was terrible, plus it was broken but it did supply some very nice counterweights and a great counterweight shaft. The tripod was rickety but the hub was useful. On to the OTA. It was great! The plastic focuser was plastic but it was usable and it didn’t require the focal extender that the Celestrons/Vixens needed. The secondary and primary were optically quite good. The primary cell and secondary spider were excellent (I liked them better than the ones on my Celestron/Vixen C4.5). And it has a seamed steel tube that was bigger around and provided better ventilation for cooling than my C4.5. It also had excellent hinged tube rings, and really nice end rings. And to top it off, it was on a Vixen-style rail. I cleaned it up, made a dew-shield/light-shield extender, added a Telrad and a better optical finder with a Vixen-style finder shoe, and on it and put it on my Vixen Porta mount. It was really a great little scope. Unfortunately, I had it at a time when I was in ‘the-telescope-of-the-month club’ so to speak- and had amassed way more scopes than I needed or could store and I sadly let it go, donating it to the Cincinnati Observatory’s scope sale at ScopeOut a few years ago. It’s one, very humble little scope that I have actually missed. It gave wonderful planetary views at 150X with a 6mm eyepiece, and nice fairly wide field views with a 28mm RKE (32X). I had some wonderful nights observing Jupiter, Saturn, the Pleiades, M31, M42 etc. with it. I miss that old Meade Polaris 114/F8 more than the C4.5 or the Edmund 4.25” F10 that I also had back then. Frankly it provided better views and was easier to use. All three are gone now but I will always have fond memories of that little old Meade.

The most underrated scopes are scopes from mundane scope lines that for some reason function excellently.  I had a Meade 80ETX, not generally recognized as anything more than a run of the mill 80mm f5 achromat, but the one I had was excellent, showed Jupiter almost like a decent 4 inch scope.  I stupidly sold it, then got another one, which wasn't near as good.  When telescopes come from a low or mid-level line, every so often, a "ringer" is produced that performs like a much higher grade of scope. 


  • steve t, Terra Nova and Bomber Bob like this

#58 RichA

RichA

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,414
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted Today, 02:11 AM

scopes that keeps coming to mind are some of the first scopes AP came out with.  The pre ED triplets.   Roland is a master at what he does.  The 6" AP I have tested better in DPAC than a new APM 6" ED.  I think that says a lot for a scope that was made in the 80's

Probably because he could spend weeks on the scopes whereas the APMs are likely built in hours.



#59 RichA

RichA

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,414
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted Today, 02:24 AM

If you saw CA with Antares, that would be a big issue - it’s orange-red anyway.

I still think the most underrated scopes are the 6”-12” longer newtonians, f/7 or so. Very rarely seen these days, but they can be excellent planet killers if the mirrors are good and it’s well built.

Antares can suffer from atmospheric diffraction owing to its low altitude depending on where it was viewed from and that can be mistaken for CA.



#60 luxo II

luxo II

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,571
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted Today, 02:59 AM

Ah sorry forgetting how you northerners see it…



#61 LukaszLu

LukaszLu

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2020
  • Loc: Poland

Posted Today, 06:07 AM

When telescopes come from a low or mid-level line, every so often, a "ringer" is produced that performs like a much higher grade of scope. 

It is similar with unseasoned wood - not all boards warp, some are as good as wood from several thousand years ago, mined in the Harz Mountains, used by luthiers to construct high-end instruments. Seasoned wood is more expensive, because maintaining a uniform standard costs money - the same as in the production of optics.

 

I believe that in this case it is difficult to talk about underrating - it is a matter of risk calculation.



#62 luxo II

luxo II

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,571
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted Today, 06:24 AM

Incorrect, it’s about rigorous quantitative testing of every scope to make sure that only those exceeding a defined (and guaranteed) pass criterion go out the door of the factory. Anything under that is reworked until it passes.

 

it’s quite clear Celestron/Meade never did/do that, but others do mainly the artisans - intes, questar, AP, TEC. That kind of quality takes time and it’s not free, though.

 

There are accounts of how Celestron “testing” works and it’s basically the mk1 eyeball “looks good that’s ok” test with no quantitative measurements. Not even a Ronchi, let alone DPAC and interferogram.


Edited by luxo II, Today, 06:31 AM.


#63 rob1986

rob1986

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 365
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2020

Posted Today, 06:37 AM

If you saw CA with Antares, that would be a big issue - it’s orange-red anyway.

I still think the most underrated scopes are the 6”-12” longer newtonians, f/7 or so. Very rarely seen these days, but they can be excellent planet killers if the mirrors are good and it’s well built.

you missed the n't

antares looked beautiful, no CA. sirius has ca, but I hear sirius gives high end scopes a run for their money too.

Edited by rob1986, Today, 06:37 AM.


#64 Eric P

Eric P

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2005

Posted Today, 09:23 AM

Most undervalued/underrated IMO are the JSO 5" SCTs.  Good lord the focusers on those units are perfection.




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