92 replies to this topic

[starman876]

I have had a lot of scopes.  Some have been freaky sharp and also provided amazing detail on what I was viewing.  Others were simply mush dogs that would never provide a really sharp image.     How many of you have had the same experience?

[NinePlanets]

I think we all have! 

 

There is a particular, locally well-known maker of exceptional mirrors. Without knowing the source beforehand, I have guessed this maker's mirrors multiple times. Ditto makes of binoculars and refractors.

[DouglasPaul]

When I think of mush dogs, this comes to mind...https://assets.simpl...9985466cebe.jpg

[icomet]

I'm a freaky sharp classic, but have never mushed the Iditarod.  

 

Clear Skies. 

[bobhen]

My 8" Criterion Dynamax SCT wasn't a total mush dog but it was definitely soft. Deep sky was good and the moon was okay to about 250x. But Jupiter only ever showed a few bands and no surface detail. These all had rough correctors. 

 

The cure for the DX8 was the scope that I replaced it with, an Astro-Physics, 1989, 152mm F9 triplet apo. Freaky sharp it was. Jupiter showed a wealth of detail, with as many as 15 belts and zones and low contrast details within the bright zones.

 

All of my "freak sharp" telescopes have been apo refractors, except for one. A 15" F5 Tectron Dobsonion with a Galaxy mirror. That mirror had a perfect star test.

 

No SCTs, or value-priced Maks or achromats that I have owned or observed with would I call freaky sharp.   

 

Bob

[Terra Nova]

Yes, I’ve heard about them many, many times over the years.

 

[CHASLX200]

I have had a lot of scopes.  Some have been freaky sharp and also provided amazing detail on what I was viewing.  Others were simply mush dogs that would never provide a really sharp image.     How many of you have had the same experience?

Way tooo many times.  They all vary berry. But 826's avg way better than SCT's. Easy to do the math.

[CHASLX200]

My 8" Criterion Dynamax SCT wasn't a total mush dog but it was definitely soft. Deep sky was good and the moon was okay to about 250x. But Jupiter only ever showed a few bands and no surface detail. These all had rough correctors. 

 

The cure for the DX8 was the scope that I replaced it with, an Astro-Physics, 1989, 152mm F9 triplet apo. Freaky sharp it was. Jupiter showed a wealth of detail, with as many as 15 belts and zones and low contrast details within the bright zones.

 

All of my "freak sharp" telescopes have been apo refractors, except for one. A 15" F5 Tectron Dobsonion with a Galaxy mirror. That mirror had a perfect star test.

 

No SCTs, or value-priced Maks or achromats that I have owned or observed with would I call freaky sharp.   

 

Bob

My C102 was my sharpest ever and did 600x like nothing. But color on Jup would bother me.

[starman876]

Yes, I’ve heard about them many, many times over the years.

 

I know what you mean

[Terra Nova]

[Kasmos]

I have had a lot of scopes.  Some have been freaky sharp and also provided amazing detail on what I was viewing.  Others were simply mush dogs that would never provide a really sharp image.     How many of you have had the same experience?

Freaky sharp, Mush dog? You my friend are an enabler. 

[starman876]

oh oh what have I done

[CHASLX200]

Worst ever SCT was a mint orange 1982 C11 my friend had.  Mine was a gray 2004 made C8 and three 2045's.  Never a bad old school slower newt.

Edited by CHASLX200, 09 March 2025 - 02:33 PM.

[Rick-T137]

I've had a few freaky sharp scopes in my life, many average scopes and just one mush dog (a Jason Comet Chaser 480).

 

Sharpest scopes I've had/used are:

• Meade 2120 Premier (past dead freaky nuts sharp)
• my current Meade 2080 LX3 (reasonably freaky sharp on good nights)
• Explore Scientific ED-102 Classic (uber freaky nuts super sharp)
• Meade Starfinder 10" Dob (freaky sharp despite the rest of the scope around it being a dumpster fire)
• Questar 3.5 Standard (freaky sharp AAA++ class)
• Meade ETX 90/EC (freaky sharp AA+ class)

I think that's it. The rest of my scopes also worked great, but the above ones pop out in my mind as a cut above.

 

OH! And there was that one C8 I owned that was also FREAKY SHARP... I should have kept that!

[CHASLX200]

Still freaky sharp is hard to judge as it will vary by person.

[deSitter]

Rayleigh and Airy knew, so I just do what they found out

 

Anything that is 1/4th wave will make a good image. Anything that is 1/8th wave will make a great image. Anything that is 1/8th wave and is smooth will make a great great image. The more accuracy the better, but it is not that hard to get in the ballpark, and not even that hard to stand on the pitcher's mound.

 

I can instantly tell if a scope is worth more trouble. The star test tells it all, instantly. You don't have to be scientific. If it focuses sharply to a nice Airy pattern, you're all good. You have to know what sort of pattern to expect. But the key point is quick unambiguous focus. If you have that, you have a good scope.

 

Some of my long classics have such good optics, that they have a snap focus even at f/16. That is a lot to expect. That's freaky sharp.

 

-drl

[Steve Allison]

My Celestron/Vixen C102 achromatic refractor is razor sharp and displays just about the most perfect Airy disks of any refractor I have ever owned. Perfectly round, almost 3d ball bearings.

 

My Sears 90mm, f/15.6 achromat likewise, with about a third less color.

[starman876]

It is good to see how many of you have had excellent scopes. I am sure there are plenty of others. I have had my share of excellent optics.

[CHASLX200]

My Celestron/Vixen C102 achromatic refractor is razor sharp and displays just about the most perfect Airy disks of any refractor I have ever owned. Perfectly round, almost 3d ball bearings.

 

My Sears 90mm, f/15.6 achromat likewise, with about a third less color.

Same here on my C102.  Jups moons at 600x were perfect little balls.

[CHASLX200]

It is good to see how many of you have had excellent scopes. I am sure there are plenty of others. I have had my share of excellent optics.

Had way more good than bad.

[starman876]

Had way more good than bad.

Good for you Chas. I will make note of that

[CHASLX200]

Good for you Chas. I will make note of that

Really only 5 i would call real bad. Many were ok to so so and plenty super good.

[Airship]

I'm not a fan of either characterization... however... of all of the scopes that I have owned/used I have found only one that I couldn't tame, and I haven’t completely given up on that one, but I'm close (a poorly executed Bird-Jones). Some are more better than others, but I would describe none as poor. Most of the problem children need a little TLC (loose, misaligned optics), precise collimation, good acclimation, and good seeing conditions to give them a fair test. Full disclosure... I have generally avoided the Halley Years, and I have stuck to Celestron and Meades on the SCT side of the house.

Experiences vary, but these are mine.

Enjoy!

[deSitter]

I'm not a fan of either characterization... however... of all of the scopes that I have owned/used I have found only one that I couldn't tame, and I haven’t completely given up on that one, but I'm close (a poorly executed Bird-Jones). Some are more better than others, but I would describe none as poor. Most of the problem children need a little TLC (loose, misaligned optics), precise collimation, good acclimation, and good seeing conditions to give them a fair test. Full disclosure... I have generally avoided the Halley Years, and I have stuck to Celestron and Meades on the SCT side of the house.

Experiences vary, but these are mine.

Enjoy!

I have a 90/1000mm "mirror lens" from Meade that is not very good But it's so well made, I like it anyway!

 

I can stop it down to like f/22 and use it as a camera lens, as intended.

 

Or, I can use it as a sort of long-range microscope, by looking at things so close that the induced SA cancels out the baked-in SA This is actually tons of fun!

 

-drl

[thegiff]

I have a Meade ACF mush dog. Will not resolve the double double. Both my NP-127 and Tak FCT-125 are freaky sharp, with the Tak just a bit ahead. My C-11 seems to be average, but aperture wins so it is overall the sharpest once cooled down in good conditions.