601 replies to this topic

[Oldfracguy]

Since it has been some time now that the AT80EDL has been discontinued, I would like to share with AT80EDL fans that I recently was able to pick up a clone of the AT80EDL from another CN member.  The scope is an Altair Astro Starwave 80 ED-R:

 

 

 

When I received it I found the optics to be superb, just like those of the Astro-Tech ATxxxEDL series scopes.  However, the fine focus knob was acting up with a 2" diagonal and a heavy 2" wide-angle eyepiece and the scope pointing upward at a high angle.  Fortunately, the Starwave 80ED-R has the exact same black-colored dual-speed rack-and-pinion focuser as the ATxxxEDL scopes with which I am familiar, so I was able to get inside and make an adjustment.  Now the focuser will hold up a heavy load:

 

 

and with me yanking on the diagonal, the drawtube did not slip, and the fine focus knob raised and lowered the load with smoothness and precision.  A link to how to make that internal adjustment is here:

 

https://www.cloudyni.../#entry13684224

Edited by Oldfracguy, 24 October 2024 - 05:28 PM.

[Nightskyman]

I am using a Skywatcher AZ5 tripod with this scope. How does anyone feel about if, when,
and how often you would use the pier extension? If you use it, would you keep it on all
the time?

[Oldfracguy]

I am using a Skywatcher AZ5 tripod with this scope. How does anyone feel about if, when,
and how often you would use the pier extension? If you use it, would you keep it on all
the time?

With an AT80EDL, you could use the Pier Extension if you wanted to.  That will eliminate having to extend the AZ5 tripod legs out all the way every outing in order to sit comfortably and look at targets that are high up near the Zenith.  Of course, if you are pretty tall, you may need the Pier Extension even with the tripod legs extended out so you can sit as straight up as possible when observing targets near the Zenith.

[wrvond]

I am using a Skywatcher AZ5 tripod with this scope. How does anyone feel about if, when,
and how often you would use the pier extension? If you use it, would you keep it on all
the time?

My 80EDL is mounted on a Losmandy GM-8 with pier extension. I leave it on 24/7 because it allows me to keep the tripod legs retracted and makes access to the eyepiece and polar alignment scope easier.

[Nightskyman]

I know that using a 2x Barlow doesn’t increase the actual focal length of the telescope but will make the effective focal length double. Since this scope has a focal ratio of F/7, when using a 2x Barlow, does the increase of the effective focal length cause this scope to also behave as a slower focal ratio as well and as a result provide more lunar and planetary detail like that of a slower telescope otherwise would?

[rnyboy]

Hi Nightskyman.  It certainly will.  Like you say, it doesn't change the native focal length of the telescope but the addition of the new 2x Barlow effectively creates a new scope having twice the focal length of the native scope with the same aperture.  So, an object in the image will appear to be twice the size but it will have only 1/4 the brightness.  If imaging it will take four times longer to acquire the same signal at the same exposure and gain settings.  It will be better for lunar details as well as for the brighter planets under the same viewing conditions.

[Nightskyman]

Hi Nightskyman.  It certainly will.  Like you say, it doesn't change the native focal length of the telescope but the addition of the new 2x Barlow effectively creates a new scope having twice the focal length of the native scope with the same aperture.  So, an object in the image will appear to be twice the size but it will have only 1/4 the brightness.  If imaging it will take four times longer to acquire the same signal at the same exposure and gain settings.  It will be better for lunar details as well as for the brighter planets under the same viewing conditions.

Just curious, I thought maybe and hoped that would be the answer but it raises this question for me. Why would someone buy a slower telescope if simply using a Barlow with faster scope would provide the best of both worlds so to speak? If you had a slower telescope, is there an accessory to use that would cause its effective focal length to be faster?

[arg0s]

Just curious, I thought maybe and hoped that would be the answer but it raises this question for me. Why would someone buy a slower telescope if simply using a Barlow with faster scope would provide the best of both worlds so to speak? If you had a slower telescope, is there an accessory to use that would cause its effective focal length to be faster?

Q2: That accessory would be a focal reducer. The usefulness of a reducer will depend on the telescope and its design, you can only "zoom out" so much without introducing vignetting. "Zooming in" generally provides more utility.

 

Q1: Your general instinct that a faster scope should be more desirable is generally correct, but its more complicated than that. The key insight is that the native focal ratio and optical design still impacts optical aberrations like chromatic aberration. Otherwise, the F/12 refractors of ye olden days wouldn't exist, as surely telescope shops would've just sold F/6 fracs with a 2x barlow if they could. Now that aberrations are decently controlled at F/6 for even relatively inexpensive scopes, you don't see all that many F/12's anymore.

[Nightskyman]

I’m not sure if I’m getting it correct, but with this scope the native focal length is 560mm and aperture is 80mm. With  a 2x Barlow the effective focal length is 1120mm and still 80mm aperture, that much I understand. Will the planetary and lunar details be as good as a telescope with a native focal length of 1120mm and 80mm aperture? If not, what would be the difference or how would they compare and why?

[Oldfracguy]

I’m not sure if I’m getting it correct, but with this scope the native focal length is 560mm and aperture is 80mm. With  a 2x Barlow the effective focal length is 1120mm and still 80mm aperture, that much I understand. Will the planetary and lunar details be as good as a telescope with a native focal length of 1120mm and 80mm aperture? If not, what would be the difference or how would they compare and why?

A 2x Barlow only changes the shape of the light cone entering the eyepiece.  It flattens it out, making it appear as if it originated from a longer focal length scope.  Eyepieces like it when the incoming light rays are as parallel as possible, which helps to reduce the optical aberrations inherent in simpler eyepieces like Plossls and Orthoscopics that don't work as well in scopes with smaller focal ratios.

 

On the other hand, a native high focal ratio scope like this 102mm f/11 provides extremely sharp views of the planets and the lunar surface:

 

 

 

I was able to see better detail on Jupiter with this scope (the FPL-53 APO version) than with a larger, but "faster" AT115EDT f/7.  The other difference you will see in a scope of the same aperture but longer focal length (higher focal ratio) is that the stars across the field of view look more in focus, more "pinpointy", using simpler eyepieces than in the shorter focal length scope.  Of course, now there are advanced (and more expensive) eyepieces that are very good performers in faster scopes, and using one of those in a faster 80mm f/7 refractor will allow the stars all across the field of view to look more in focus, but that eyepiece will not correct for the inherent field curvature of the shorter focal length scope.  That is another advantage of these longer focal length refractors.  The effects of field curvature are greatly reduced with these slower refractors.  However, if you interest in mainly viewing the planets and other targets at high magnifications, field curvature really doesn't enter into the conversation.  It only makes its presence felt using 2" eyepieces for wide-angle viewing.

Edited by Oldfracguy, 22 March 2025 - 06:21 PM.

[arg0s]

I’m not sure if I’m getting it correct, but with this scope the native focal length is 560mm and aperture is 80mm. With  a 2x Barlow the effective focal length is 1120mm and still 80mm aperture, that much I understand. Will the planetary and lunar details be as good as a telescope with a native focal length of 1120mm and 80mm aperture? If not, what would be the difference or how would they compare and why?

In a well corrected scope like the 80EDL, yes, the performance is going to be similar, unless the barlow is very cheap and has optical defects. It's worth noting you don't need a barlow, depending on the state of your eyepiece collection; a 3mm eyepiece (560/3=~186) is greater than the general rule for maximum useful magnification (80*2=160) for your telescope. You may be able to push it farther, but with diminishing returns.

Edited by arg0s, 22 March 2025 - 07:20 PM.

[Nightskyman]

I know there was only a handful of these telescopes made and I am asking those who’ve purchased one, do you still have it? If you kept it up to now, why did you keep it and what do you primarily use it for? If you don’t have it anymore, why did you get rid of it and did you replace it with another scope and if so, which one? In either case, what type of observing do you feel it is or was best used for?

[Oldfracguy]

I know there was only a handful of these telescopes made and I am asking those who’ve purchased one, do you still have it? If you kept it up to now, why did you keep it and what do you primarily use it for? If you don’t have it anymore, why did you get rid of it and did you replace it with another scope and if so, which one? In either case, what type of observing do you feel it is or was best used for?

Last year I had a virtual clone of the AT80EDL, an Altair Starwave 80 ED-R:

 

 

 

Optically, this was the best-performing 80mm refractor I have ever had.  The only reason I sold it was to fund the purchase of a larger aperture scope with equally excellent optics.  The one I have now is the Altair Starwave 102 ED-R:

 

 

 

I use these scopes for observing about everything, ranging from the planets, the lunar surface, double stars and star clusters.  On the rare occasion I get to venture away from town under dark skies, I take with me some 2" nebula filters: an O-III and a Narrowband.  I use these to observe spread-out DSO targets like the Veil and North American nebulae.  They are also useful either screwed into the input side of a 2" diagonal or the M48-threaded input side of the 1.25" eyepiece adaptor supplied with the Astro-Tech ATxxxEDx refractors to use with 1.25" eyepieces on smaller nebula like M8 in Sagittarius.

 

Of course, there are many other types of scopes with larger apertures that will do a better job on all of those observing targets mentioned, but the 80-102mm f/7 ED refractors are the most convenient for me to use on a mount that I can carry around the yard, and fold up in one piece to pack in the car for a trip under dark skies.

Edited by Oldfracguy, 23 March 2025 - 12:38 PM.

[arg0s]

I know there was only a handful of these telescopes made and I am asking those who’ve purchased one, do you still have it? If you kept it up to now, why did you keep it and what do you primarily use it for? If you don’t have it anymore, why did you get rid of it and did you replace it with another scope and if so, which one? In either case, what type of observing do you feel it is or was best used for?

The 80EDL was discontinued before I had even regained an interest in small telescopes; however, I picked up the 72EDII a few months ago, which is comparable, just slightly wider field and with slightly less light grasp than the 80EDL. In a world where 80EDL's were still sold new, there's a good chance I'd have gotten that instead.

 

The 72 is extremely competitive with my other small telescopes; it has the purest views of them all, and basically zero thermal acclimation time. Mechanically fantastic. I rarely bother looking at open clusters with anything else. I don't bother with bad seeing with anything else. The only times its beaten are when I'm doing something specialized where I need more aperture within my weight class, like using a fast reflector for finding faint DSO's, or using a Mak to push magnification on solar system objects.

 

How are you feeling about your 80EDL, by the way? Any issues with your scope? Anything else you want it to do?

[wrvond]

I know there was only a handful of these telescopes made and I am asking those who’ve purchased one, do you still have it? If you kept it up to now, why did you keep it and what do you primarily use it for? If you don’t have it anymore, why did you get rid of it and did you replace it with another scope and if so, which one? In either case, what type of observing do you feel it is or was best used for?

Yes, I still have mine and won't give it up. I also have the AT102 EDL, the AT125 EDL and the AT150 EDL. Quite frankly the 102 and 125 are my least used of the lineup.

I use the 80 for solar - either with my Baader Herschel wedge or my Daystar Quark. I use it for lunar observing as well. The scope is outstanding in both cases. I also use it for casual space oriented photography with my Nikon D5300 DSLR.

The AT80 EDL is mounted on a Losmandy GM-8 with 492 digital drive which provides all the tracking I need for the targets I use this scope on.

 

[balcon3]

I know there was only a handful of these telescopes made and I am asking those who’ve purchased one, do you still have it? If you kept it up to now, why did you keep it and what do you primarily use it for? If you don’t have it anymore, why did you get rid of it and did you replace it with another scope and if so, which one? In either case, what type of observing do you feel it is or was best used for?

I have an TS80EDL, which is the same telescope as the AT but sold by Telescope-Express in Germany. I bought it new 2+ years ago and I still have it. It was my first refractor, bought to complement my 6 inch f/8 reflector. The optics are excellent but I found myself wanting a bit more aperture. Last year I bought a Takahashi FC100DL for a very good price, and ever since I use the Tak much more than the 80EDL. The 100mm aperture shows significantly more than the 80mm scope. And because the Tak is so light, it is basically the same weight as the 80EDL. The Tak is longer at 740mm FL instead of 560mm for the 80EDL, so it needs a bit sturdier mount, but minimally so. The Tak rides beautifully on my Vixen APZ Alt Az mount. I have kept the 80EDL because of its compact size. It can fit in a backpack-style camera case and I can just sling it over my shoulders and take it anywhere, including on a plane. But for everyday home use I prefer 100mm.  

 

One other thing about the 80EDL. I have gotten the feeling that the star colors are a bit muted. This is not a rigorous statement since I don't have another 80mm scope to compare it to. But star colors stand out less than in the 100mm Tak at the same mag or exit pupil. I have the same feeling when I use a Lanthanum-containing eyepiece in the Tak. So I am thinking that there is something about Lanthanum glass that, while it helps with chromatic aberration, may be doing something to the colors in a way that I notice. I think a few others have mentioned something similar. Because of this, and because I really enjoy seeing star colors, I am shying away from Lanthanum-containing glass in scopes or eyepieces even if it means having to settle for a bit of CA or getting a scope with a slightly longer focal length.

[Nightskyman]

The 80EDL was discontinued before I had even regained an interest in small telescopes; however, I picked up the 72EDII a few months ago, which is

 

How are you feeling about your 80EDL, by the way? Any issues with your scope? Anything else you want it to do?

My story is as follows, I am completely new to astronomy and at 60, a bit late to the game. I started looking for my first scope about 2 years ago. I did ask a lot of questions from vendors who sold them, unfortunately I didn’t ask the right ones and didn’t get what I feel in hindsight were the best answers. I’m embarrassed to say but I ordered a $299 maksutov cassegrain but canceled the order as I changed my mind about it being the right choice. I then ordered a $499 70mm Celestron star sense explorer but returned it also because so many in the forum convinced me that I should get a larger reflector rather than a refractor. So I bought an 8” Celestron dobsonian star sense explorer for $899 but after several months of usage, I determined it was not the right choice for me for several reasons. Even though I only observe from my suburban neighborhood back yard, having had a stroke a few years ago, it was too much effort to drag it out, wait an hour for cool down, after an hour or so of observing take it back in for the night. I then sold it. Then, I spent months in this forum asking questions, now in a position to ask better questions and being better able to think for myself what type of scope was best for me. Even though the majority tried to convince me that an 8” dobsonian reflector was still the best choice for any beginner, I felt a refractor would be a better choice for me and my circumstances, needs, and interest. Studying refractors, I stumbled upon the AT80 EDL and it seemed to be not a good choice but a great choice and at the sale price of $699 a bargain. I occasionally wonder if the AT102 EDL would have been better but the 80mm is physically easy enough for me to take outside and with little to no cooldown needed, I am up and running and can more time viewing because of that. I have it mounted on a Skywatcher AZ5 tripod for $425 which is a perfect match and is both sturdy, steady, and stable. After adding a diagonal, 2x barlow, and 6 basic quality eye pieces and a few accessories, I was finally able to enjoy myself and at an all in price of around $1500. For a beginner without any experience to compare, this telescope far exceeds my expectations and while easy to use provides the most pleasant and sharp views. As for how I feel with my very limited knowledge among so many of you seasoned astronomers, I couldn’t be any more pleased with this scope. I have yet to have any issues with this scope but I am struggling a bit in regards to which finder scope would work best for me. I currently have an SvBony 6x30. As far as what to do, I’m still just getting my feet wet. My interest lies more so with double stars, clusters, lunar, and planets. I have been pleasantly surprised at the detail I see on Jupiter and I still am in awe viewing Saturn and it’s amazing rings. Don’t misunderstand me, I realize with an 80mm f/7 refractor I am not seeing nearly as much detail on planets as I would with a larger scope but for now, it is a perfect match for me. At some point down the road, I likely will get a larger scope, maybe the AT102 EDL! I hope I didn’t bore you with my journey to get to this point but I thought it may help to understand why I feel the way I do. Among so many others, I owe a great debt of thanks to Oldfracguy, and another contributor who has since passed away a little while back. By the way, I should also mention that I am strictly a visual observer.

Edited by Nightskyman, 23 March 2025 - 04:53 PM.

[Oldfracguy]

I have an TS80EDL, which is the same telescope as the AT but sold by Telescope-Express in Germany. I bought it new 2+ years ago and I still have it. It was my first refractor, bought to complement my 6 inch f/8 reflector. The optics are excellent but I found myself wanting a bit more aperture. Last year I bought a Takahashi FC100DL for a very good price, and ever since I use the Tak much more than the 80EDL. The 100mm aperture shows significantly more than the 80mm scope. And because the Tak is so light, it is basically the same weight as the 80EDL. The Tak is longer at 740mm FL instead of 560mm for the 80EDL, so it needs a bit sturdier mount, but minimally so. The Tak rides beautifully on my Vixen APZ Alt Az mount. I have kept the 80EDL because of its compact size. It can fit in a backpack-style camera case and I can just sling it over my shoulders and take it anywhere, including on a plane. But for everyday home use I prefer 100mm.  

 

One other thing about the 80EDL. I have gotten the feeling that the star colors are a bit muted. This is not a rigorous statement since I don't have another 80mm scope to compare it to. But star colors stand out less than in the 100mm Tak at the same mag or exit pupil. I have the same feeling when I use a Lanthanum-containing eyepiece in the Tak. So I am thinking that there is something about Lanthanum glass that, while it helps with chromatic aberration, may be doing something to the colors in a way that I notice. I think a few others have mentioned something similar. Because of this, and because I really enjoy seeing star colors, I am shying away from Lanthanum-containing glass in scopes or eyepieces even if it means having to settle for a bit of CA or getting a scope with a slightly longer focal length.

It's refreshing to hear that other people notice the same thing I have with these EDL-type scopes.  One scope that will render true star colors, as well as being CA-free, is the AT115EDT.  I've had a few of those, but never the smaller AT80EDT, which I am pretty sure will perform the same way.  These scopes don't incorporate a Lanthanum glass element, only a "regular ED" FK-61 center element, yet are consistently (the AT115EDT at least) better corrected for Spherical Aberration than the vast majority of the ED Doublets I've owned, including that same TS Photoline 80mm f/7:

 

 

 

Being better corrected for Spherical Aberration means that the light rays converging on the focal plane enter and exit at almost the same point.  You can tell by doing a simple star test using an eyepiece with a focal length in millimeters that is one size smaller that the focal ratio of the telescope.  For these f/7 refractors I use a 6mm Fujiyama Orthoscopic.  When the diffraction patterns on either side of focus look close to the same, with clearly identifiable, well-separated concentric diffraction rings on both sides, that indicates good correction for Spherical Aberration.  Whai I normally see with these ED Doublets is that the inward defocus (Intrafocal) diffraction pattern looks very good, just like you see in the books.  The outward defocus (extrafocal) diffraction pattern looks muddled and smeary, with indistinct diffarction rings on the outermost region, and a smeary blob in the center.   That is an indication of undercorrection. 

 

How does this affect the scope's performance?  OK, I had an AT125EDL about this time last year, and (another) AT115EDT in the Fall and through the end of the year.  I like to see if I can see the E and F stars in the Trapezium in M42, and have done so with the AT125EDL, with the F star appearing intermittently with averted vision.  The AT115EDT I had last Fall was very well corrected, with virtually symmetric diffraction patterns on either side of focus.  I could see not only the E star, but also the F star with direct vision.  My old eyes aren't the greatest, and being able to see both the E and F stars with anything smaller than a C8 constitutes a real achievement in my book.

Edited by Oldfracguy, 23 March 2025 - 07:05 PM.

[Nightskyman]

With this specific telescope, if you could only have three eye pieces, what focal length would they be and why? When you do get a fourth eye piece eventually, what focal length would it be and why? I’m not looking for a specific brand simply the focal length.

[wrvond]

With this specific telescope, if you could only have three eye pieces, what focal length would they be and why? When you do get a fourth eye piece eventually, what focal length would it be and why? I’m not looking for a specific brand simply the focal length.

I'm a maximum magnification kind of guy - always have been. I start out low but always work up to the maximum magnification the seeing will support with the best view. 

I find I use the 11, 7 and 3.5mm Naglers the most.

 

If you got a 2x Barlow, you could go with a 7, 11 and 16mm Nagler instead.

[Oldfracguy]

With this specific telescope, if you could only have three eye pieces, what focal length would they be and why? When you do get a fourth eye piece eventually, what focal length would it be and why? I’m not looking for a specific brand simply the focal length.

Your AT80EDL is an outstanding scope, and can easily go above the typical 50x per inch of aperture, or 2x per millimeter of aperture, magnification recommendation.  However, I think at least one of your three eyepieces to have on hand should be one with a focal length of around 3.5 mm.  That will provide an Exit Pupil of 0.5 mm and a magnification of 160x in your AT80EDL.  On most nights you can achieve that high of a magnification with your scope, and will be able to see things like double stars, the planets when they are visible, and the surface of the Moon with good clarity from a semi-urban, light-polluted setting.  The high-end 3.5mm eyepiece I can think of would be the Tele Vue 3.5mm Nagler Type 6.  I use that in reflectors with faster focal rations.  Don’t tell anybody, but my 3.2mm Dual ED eyepiece (Astro-Tech 3.2mm Paradigm) eyepiece is almost as good as the Nagler 3.5mm Type 6 in f/7 and slower refractors, but with a slightly smaller TFOV.  That really is not a problem when you have a mount with position controls to keep the target in the middle of the field of view.

 

Another eyepiece I would suggest would be one that provides a True Field of View (TFOV) of around 2°.  That is enough to frame almost all the open clusters like the Pleiades and M44, the Beehive Cluster (Praesepe) visible right overhead in Cancer right now.  One eyepiece I have that I use a lot in the 80mm f/7 ED refractors is the 18mm UFF that is sold under a variety of names like the APM 18mm UFF and the Celestron Ultima Edge 18mm UFF.  That eyepiece provides a little over a 2° TFOV in an AT80EDL.

 

Finally, it has been reported that the best views of the planets comes with an Exit Pupil of between 0.7 and 0.8 mm.  That represents a good compromise between magnification and image clarity.  With the AT80EDT that would mean an eyepiece with a focal length between 4.9 to 5.6 mm.  A good 5mm focal length eyepiece like the Astro-Tech 5mm Paradigm, that will yield an Exit Pupil of 0.7 mm, would be a very good choice.  Of course, there are other 5mm eyepieces like the Tele Vue 5mm DeLite, Nagler 5mm Type 6, and Pentax 5mm XW, etc., but those are fairly expensive.  If your finances permit, any of those would be an excellent choice.  Besides being about optimum for viewing the planets, a 5mm 60° AFOV like the Astro-Tech Dual ED Paradigm will provide a TFOV of 0.5° which is very good for observing many open clusters that span 20’ to 40’ arcminutes.

Those three eyepiece recommendations are based on the assumption that your viewing will be done primarily from an urban setting.  If you go have the opportunity to get out under dark skies, one eyepiece I love to stick in an 80mm f/7 ED refractor is the TS ED35, a 2” 35mm 69° AFOV clone of the old TMB Paragon 35mm eyepiece.  TS still sells them:

 

https://www.teleskop...ent-design-2334

 

Mine weighs only 350 grams, and provides a TFOV of 4.3° in an 80mm f/7 scope with a 5mm Exit Pupil.  I use this eyepiece quite a bit on the rare occasions I get out under dark skies, especially with 2” Narrowband and O-III nebula filters.

Edited by Oldfracguy, 05 April 2025 - 01:00 PM.

[Nightskyman]

I recently added the pedestal to my setup, is there any disadvantage or advantage to leave it this way? I leave everything setup between observation sessions in my unheated garage so I can easily just grab and go out to my backyard. Should I leave the dew shield always extended and why or why not? Finally, when done for the evening, when I bring it in, do I put the dust cap on right away or after some period of time (and why). I also cover my setup with a bed sheet and then a grill cover, is this ok? Sorry for the silly basic and beginner questions.

 

[Oldfracguy]

That is a very nice setup for Grab-and-Go, especially if you garage door is wide enough to carry the entire setup outside with the tripod legs extended like they are.  

 

The only comment I can make is about the dew shield.  What I usually do when I'm done for the night is to push the dew shield all the way back (fully retracted).  If there is no moisture visible on the objective glass then I just use a bulb blower like this one:

 

https://www.highpoin...s-cleaning-bulb

 

and puff off any dust particles from the glass.  I do the same with my eyepieces as long as they are clear and dry.  Then I pull the dew shield back out all the way and put the metal dust cap back on.  Leaving the scope parked in the vertical position like your lower picture is a good idea, but only if the objective glass is clean and moisture-free.  Also, keeping the scope and other optical accessories in your unheated garage is great since they won't be subjected to sudden temperature changes when you put the stuff away at the end of your observing sessions.

 

However, if I see and moisture (dew or frost) on the objective then I place the scope in the horizontal position with the dew shield fully retracted and do not put the metal dust cap on, and do not use a wipe or other cloth to clean off the moisture from the objective glass.  I just let it dry naturally, but you can use that bulb blower or a towel to fan air the objective to hasten the evaporation process.  I also leave any eyepieces in the horizontal position on a table or bench to allow any moisture to evaporate.  Other folks who live in humid areas and/or cold areas where dew and frost is a normal occurence may add some tips,please.

Edited by Oldfracguy, 10 April 2025 - 06:02 PM.

[balcon3]

I recently added the pedestal to my setup, is there any disadvantage or advantage to leave it this way? I leave everything setup between observation sessions in my unheated garage so I can easily just grab and go out to my backyard. Should I leave the dew shield always extended and why or why not? Finally, when done for the evening, when I bring it in, do I put the dust cap on right away or after some period of time (and why). I also cover my setup with a bed sheet and then a grill cover, is this ok? Sorry for the silly basic and beginner questions.

 

Why did you add the pedestal? In general, using.a pedestal will be less stable than reaching the same height by extending the tripod legs. Most people use a pedestal to prevent the eyepiece end of the telescope from hitting the tripod legs. With the 80EDL this has never been a problem for me because the scope is relatively short. The other reason for using a pedestal would be if you observe standing and your tripod doesn’t reach high enough without the pedestal. But in general, I would use a pedestal only if you have to.

[wrvond]

After many years of refractors with fixed dew shields, I tend to leave my retractable shields extended unless I need it retracted, such as carrying the 150EDL through a doorway. I guess there is a remote possibility that if you slide the shield back and forth often enough it might loosen up, but even if it did it's an easy fix. Put it where ever you want it. Keep it half way if you prefer, it's all up to you. 

I keep my AT80 EDL on a GM-8 mount with a 12 inch pier extension. I don't care for extending tripod legs if I don't have to. Oddly enough I have never, ever once had a rig feel unstable or try to fall over or display increased vibration at the focuser. If the way you put your rig together works for you then that's the way it should be. If you find something isn't working the way you want, change it up, until then enjoy!