374 replies to this topic

[Kasmos]

I really don't need anything but at some point I would like to aquire a 3" long refractor. Preferably a Jaegers or a Edmund because I like their crude ATM looking character plus many of the older Japanese ones usually have a a narrow long .965" pull tube which I don't care for.

 

I do get tempted by anything unusual that pops up, but I won't bid one up like crazy just to have it.

[clamchip]

A  Coulter Odyssey 29 inch.

I wanna be drownded in stars.

 

Robert

[photiost]

I own a few telescopes so I really don't need anything, however if a 6in f/12 Astro Physics Super Planetary Refractor were to come along ....

 

Edit: Thank goodness a close friend already has one and I get to use it every so often.  

Edited by photiost, 24 December 2021 - 01:55 PM.

[sdedalus83]

I'm pretty content with what I have, but....

 

1. I've been looking for a 50mm f/10 SkyRover or equivalent.

PM me.

[Terra Nova]

Did your brother get the astro-bug from Sis?

 

-drl

Yep!

[CHASLX200]

None! I'm through collecting and paying high shipping costs!! I'm extremely happy with my vintage 80mm f15 Japanese refractor from the early 1970's so unless something unfortunate befalls this very fine scope, I won't be buying anything else!!

I just can't lick it and be done with it. I still want everything i see.  There are still so many scopes i want to try out. Never tried a 3.5" Questar or the Q 4 and 6 from OTI.  Then are are the rare and very pricey Newts from Japan made way back in the day that were so pretty to look at. Then we got the GOTO brand i would die to have.  I just have a lust for it all.  Then there is the Cave 16" F/8 Newt on the 2.5" mount i have always wanted. I know it's way too big but still gotta dream.

[CHASLX200]

This one is available and I am tempted.......So I continue to wish.  Goto 6".

 

Don

That for sure is a dream scope i would love to have.  Just kinda too big for my house and for me to set up.

[CHASLX200]

105mm Meade model 447 - the ultimate classic. Better than a Unitron! Or - Royal Astro 10" reflector. Then I could die happy, go "north", and see for myself.

 

Pretty happy with my few classics though. Universe has been kind to me.

 

-drl

That was total dream scope back around 1977 when i first got my Meade Catalog. Back in 1977 i never knew of SKY& TELE and clubs or stores that sold real scopes until the summer of 1977 i went to my first club meeting and taking all that new stuff in was crazy at age 14.  I looked in my first SKY& TELE and saw them ads and just went crazy.

 

My first starparty in later 77 and my first views with a C5 and 14 really made me hate my 60mm Sears.

[rcwolpert]

The only scopes that would tempt me would be a like new RV-6 and C9.25, both I have owned and loved in the past.

[CHASLX200]

The only scopes that would tempt me would be a like new RV-6 and C9.25, both I have owned and loved in the past.

I would take them also.  Never had a C11 so if a freaky sharp one popped up local on the fork mount i would jump.  Same for a newer C9.25. Had many Meade 10 and 12" SCT's.  I never hear much about the Meade 14" SCT so not sure if they were ever that good. I had a RV6 with drop dead optics but the mount was pretty bad, same for a Meade 826.

[RichA]

My days have really slowed down but there are still many scopes i would love to try out. Top on my list is another shot at a fork mounted C14 with freaky sharp optics. Mine was a total dud when i bought it in 1996.  So what is on your wish list to buy guys and gals?

The Leitz 5 inch apo I heard about  20 years ago and haven't since. 

[CHASLX200]

The Leitz 5 inch apo I heard about  20 years ago and haven't since. 

APO's reach a price point i won't touch.  I never saw all the craze over AP scopes and sellers asking way more than new prices when a Tak or other brand does just fine. Once i go past 3k for a 6" APO i hit a wall and don't go over it.  While i was fine with a new SW150ED at under 2k i could never get myself to spend 6 to 12k for a used AP. While i feel ok at buying a FS128 the FS152 i could never bring myself to buy.

 

Then i have the thinking at a super well made Newt or even most any old school Newt can come very close at 20 times less the cost.  The Meade 7" ED was my dream scope that turned into a nitmare.

[Bomber Bob]

APO's reach a price point i won't touch.  I never saw all the craze over AP scopes and sellers asking way more than new prices when a Tak or other brand does just fine. Once i go past 3k for a 6" APO i hit a wall and don't go over it.  While i was fine with a new SW150ED at under 2k i could never get myself to spend 6 to 12k for a used AP. While i feel ok at buying a FS128 the FS152 i could never bring myself to buy.

 

Then i have the thinking at a super well made Newt or even most any old school Newt can come very close at 20 times less the cost.  The Meade 7" ED was my dream scope that turned into a nitmare.

As I Scot, I agree.  But... the way my Tak FC-100 punches in 8+ seeing... a Tak 150mm would be... delirious for planetary.  Would I pay $13K for a new TOA-150B?  ONLY if I was off my meds... But, it sure would be a sweet view!

[RichA]

APO's reach a price point i won't touch.  I never saw all the craze over AP scopes and sellers asking way more than new prices when a Tak or other brand does just fine. Once i go past 3k for a 6" APO i hit a wall and don't go over it.  While i was fine with a new SW150ED at under 2k i could never get myself to spend 6 to 12k for a used AP. While i feel ok at buying a FS128 the FS152 i could never bring myself to buy.

 

Then i have the thinking at a super well made Newt or even most any old school Newt can come very close at 20 times less the cost.  The Meade 7" ED was my dream scope that turned into a nitmare.

Had the Leitz gone to market, its price would have made AP, TEC, Tak, etc., look cheap.  But they can do it, because they have the little red circular "Leica" badge. 

[Tenacious]

Everyone should own a Questar once! They are beautiful little scopes, wonders in mechanical workmanship, and wonderful optics to go along with it. The thing I find most about Questars is that people either use them all the time or use them very little. My brother for instance has a huge telescope collection including two four inch Unitrons (165 and 150) a 3 or 4? inch Goto, several Pentax apos, an 8” Trekkerscope, and the best SCT I’ve ever looked thru (a black C9.25 from the early 90s), a Quantum 4 and a Quantum 6, and yes a Questar. Of all of that and more, his Questar is his most used scope, followed by the C9.25. Myself on the other hand had a beautiful Questar for five years and used it five times. I just love my refractors! So everyone deserves to own a Questar at least once. It might just be your most used scope, or like me, you may seldom use it and decide it’s too much money invested in an astro-ornament. I sold mine and got back every penny I had invested in it. That’s the deal with a used Questar. If you take care of it, you can most always sell it for what you paid for it.

An interesting and surprising admission.  It seems that everyone in the forums drops on one knee when speaking about their Questars....    I've never looked through one.   I'd love to read of a shoot-out between a Questar and Royal Optical 76.2 f/15.7 or even a well figured and collimated 11TE-5.  I'm sure the Questar impresses with its mechanical precision, attention to ergonomic detail, general execution in a small package, and outstanding consistency in optical quality.    But does the observer really see more?   I think I know the outcome -> my failing is wanting to see it in writting.....

Edited by Tenacious, 23 December 2021 - 08:31 PM.

[CHASLX200]

As I Scot, I agree.  But... the way my Tak FC-100 punches in 8+ seeing... a Tak 150mm would be... delirious for planetary.  Would I pay $13K for a new TOA-150B?  ONLY if I was off my meds... But, it sure would be a sweet view!

I have the money now to buy a 150 TOA and was thinking about it a while back if i could find a used one and play with it and resell at no loss.  This is where shipping mucks things up.  I could never trust shipping any pricey scopes. But the TOA is not a classic.  If i could find a FS152 for 3k or less i would be all over it. I also would die for a older gray Tak NJP-160 mount.

 

I never see any old NJP's come up for sale.

[RichA]

As I Scot, I agree.  But... the way my Tak FC-100 punches in 8+ seeing... a Tak 150mm would be... delirious for planetary.  Would I pay $13K for a new TOA-150B?  ONLY if I was off my meds... But, it sure would be a sweet view!

Honestly, you won't better a 1990's AP for performance and some of the 5-6's come up for $4000-5000 now and then so $1000 per inch for a top-flight apo is fair.  The FS-125 was $5000 20 years ago new which is considerably more money now and frankly, it will not match an AP triplet from the  same era.  We all know a custom-made, long-focus 8 inch Newtonian will beat them both, but it has other "baggage" they don't have.

[CHASLX200]

An interesting and surprising admission.  It seems that everyone in the forums drops on one knee when speaking about their Questars....    I've never looked through one.   I'd love to read of a shoot-out between a Questar and Royal Optical 76.2 /f15.7 or even a well figured and collimated 11TE-5.  I'm sure the Questar impresses with its mechanical precision, attention to ergonomic detail, general execution in a small package, and outstanding consistency in optical quality.    But does the observer really see more?   I think I know the outcome -> my failing is wanting to see it in writting.....

I had a Q7 for a short time when we had a real winter and never was crazy about it. I hated i spent around 7k for it and could not sell it fast enough.  Scope was fuzzy in cold temps.  I am sure on my best nites it would have been fine. But $7k makes me hurt.

[CHASLX200]

Honestly, you won't better a 1990's AP for performance and some of the 5-6's come up for $4000-5000 now and then so $1000 per inch for a top-flight apo is fair.  The FS-125 was $5000 20 years ago new which is considerably more money now and frankly, it will not match an AP triplet from the  same era.  We all know a custom-made, long-focus 8 inch Newtonian will beat them both, but it has other "baggage" they don't have.

I bought a blue tube 6" F/9 AP for like $1500 or 1800 back in 1999 and even back then that was a good deal.  That was my only AP.

[Tenacious]

I agree with most of the wishes listed, but I should finish my projects:

 

...My ATM 10" f/6 Dob could track for a limited time if I built and put a poncet platform under it.

...the Celestar8 has restored very nicely with good modifications.  I should probably now call it a C8 (heavier fork, wedge & tripod).

...I have an excellent 6" f/8 Deep Space Hunter that could be married to a very sold 1950s GEM -> a classical Newtonian EQ

...the Tasco 10TE-5 is a joy to use -> original mount needs just a tiny bit more tweaking (or a Super Polaris).

...even my 60mm f/16.7 Frankenscope still inspires my imagination.

 

Lots of options here for most conditions and targets.   My cup flows over....

Edited by Tenacious, 24 December 2021 - 12:05 AM.

[Bomber Bob]

An interesting and surprising admission.  It seems that everyone in the forums drops on one knee when speaking about their Questars....    I've never looked through one.   I'd love to read of a shoot-out between a Questar and Royal Optical 76.2 f/15.7 or even a well figured and collimated 11TE-5.  I'm sure the Questar impresses with its mechanical precision, attention to ergonomic detail, general execution in a small package, and outstanding consistency in optical quality.    But does the observer really see more?   I think I know the outcome -> my failing is wanting to see it in writting.....

Okay, about 5 years ago, right after I got my 1958 Q3.5 Standard, I did a SxS with my 1964 Sears (AO) 76mm F16.  (This was before I learned that the Q can be collimated!)

 

At up to 50x / inch (about 150x), the 2 scopes were neck & neck on planetary.  At about 60x / inch (180x - 200x), the AO Refractor pulled ahead.  BUT... on deep-sky, the Q never failed to beat the AO.  So... which scope won?  Well, on versatility, the Q was the hands-down winner.  On the sub-test of planetary, the refractor won at the extremes of magnification.  IIRC, the original design concept for the Questar was a general-purpose every scope versus dominating a niche, so that concept succeeded.  And, then some.  To this day:  I haven't used any other 90mm scope that can match the Q for displaying some nebulae -- like The Dumbbell.  Why?  I really don't know.  It has to be tied-up with visual perception, the Q's inherent contrast & resolution, and other factors...  Because, some of my best views of The Ring were in my 1950s Edmund 4" F15 -- or my heavily-used (& loved!) 1971 RV-6.  Both are called "planetary nebulae" -- but visually they are in different categories...

 

You have to use a Q to really appreciate a Q.  It's not majik, it's just a very well engineered high-quality instrument.

 

IF you're debating buying a Q...  Honestly, I'd look at an AO, APL, or SYW 76x910 first.  Even more versatile, and eye-popping performance -- for a lot less money.  Or, the more common C80 / C80P (like mine) -- I won't part with this Vixen Gem until I absolutely have to!  Put a 4-slot eyepiece turret on a C80, and you have a Q -- and then some.  It'll be a larger & heavier rig than a Q on a Meade 884 tripod, but I don't think you'll care...

[icomet]

Oh, I don't know.

Maybe if I rummage around in this place for awhile, something might catch my eye.  

 

Clear Skies.

 

https://www.cloudyni...telescope-r3040

[Tenacious]

Okay, about 5 years ago, right after I got my 1958 Q3.5 Standard, I did a SxS with my 1964 Sears (AO) 76mm F16.  (This was before I learned that the Q can be collimated!)

 

At up to 50x / inch (about 150x), the 2 scopes were neck & neck on planetary.  At about 60x / inch (180x - 200x), the AO Refractor pulled ahead.  BUT... on deep-sky, the Q never failed to beat the AO.  So... which scope won?  Well, on versatility, the Q was the hands-down winner.  On the sub-test of planetary, the refractor won at the extremes of magnification.  IIRC, the original design concept for the Questar was a general-purpose every scope versus dominating a niche, so that concept succeeded.  And, then some.  To this day:  I haven't used any other 90mm scope that can match the Q for displaying some nebulae -- like The Dumbbell.  Why?  I really don't know.  It has to be tied-up with visual perception, the Q's inherent contrast & resolution, and other factors...  Because, some of my best views of The Ring were in my 1950s Edmund 4" F15 -- or my heavily-used (& loved!) 1971 RV-6.  Both are called "planetary nebulae" -- but visually they are in different categories...

 

You have to use a Q to really appreciate a Q.  It's not majik, it's just a very well engineered high-quality instrument.

 

IF you're debating buying a Q...  Honestly, I'd look at an AO, APL, or SYW 76x910 first.  Even more versatile, and eye-popping performance -- for a lot less money.  Or, the more common C80 / C80P (like mine) -- I won't part with this Vixen Gem until I absolutely have to!  Put a 4-slot eyepiece turret on a C80, and you have a Q -- and then some.  It'll be a larger & heavier rig than a Q on a Meade 884 tripod, but I don't think you'll care...

 

Taking a break from wrapping...

 

Thanks BB!  Your SxS is consistent with how I imagined they would compare.  On deep-sky, it makes sense that the Questar might pull ahead, having a bit more aperture and slightly faster focal ratio (15.8 vs 14.4).  Did you ever have need to tweak the Questar's collimation?

 

I don't have a line on a Questar.  Being somewhat frugal, I would probably use that kind of cash for some other purpose or project.  I certainly appreciate fine engineering though, in telescopes and many other categories, too....

[AstroKerr]

classics... just a few made in Japan, mostly-stayed-in-Japan reflectors in particular, a big foreign reflector, couple Casses... the Lowell Clark and two apertury oddballs for classic fracs. Not mentioning makes and models - just makes it harder to get them. 

Edited by AstroKerr, 24 December 2021 - 06:48 AM.

[CHASLX200]

Oh, I don't know.

Maybe if I rummage around in this place for awhile, something might catch my eye.  

 

Clear Skies.

 

https://www.cloudyni...telescope-r3040

That would be true heaven before death.