15 replies to this topic

[sg80]

Yeah I know it's a achro but wow

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by sg80, 13 May 2025 - 04:49 PM.

[Dave Hederich]

Wow was my first reaction when I first bought that C4-R that you bought from me. So pleased to see that it's still creating wow moments for you.

[Terra Nova]

I had one. It’s a very nice scope! For a 4” achro they did it right. The XLT coatings really help as does it being F10. It’s also nicely pared with the Omni CG-4 mount which is nicely capable of handling the fairly heavy OTA. The price is great for what you get. A lot of us dreamed and drooled for a scope like that back in the day.

[RAKing]

I certainly enjoyed mine!  It was the first "Non-department store" telescope I bought, and I was blown away with the views through a "big" 4-inch refractor.  Goes to show that everything is relative.  <LOL>

 

The first few months I had it, I spotted about 30 Messier objects and enjoyed the views a lot.

 

Long may it live!

 

Ron

[Jon Isaacs]

I've had at least three of the Celestron C4-Rs. I think they're a good balance between capability and manageability. There's visible CA but it's not as bothersome as it is with faster 4 inch achro's. Good basic scopes for the planets and double stars.

 

Jon

[sg80]

The views are much  better at the eyepiece my cellphone adapter is not that good  and I learned after the fact I can change the exposure for lunar photos I will do  better next try I'm using a Samsung s23 fe.  I am having fun. 

[csrlice12]

The 22Pan and the 102XLT is a really nice combination.

[bobhen]

The Celestron 4" F10 (F9.8) achromatic refractor has been around for over 30-years and has gone through various stages; the first were produced by Vixen and now they are produced by Synta. Through the years, various tubes have been paired with different mounts and accessary packages. But the one common attribute they all seem to have, is that they are all well-regarded. 

 

At one time, I owned the optical tube that was usually paired with the Nexstar mount. That configuration was produced by Synta and branded Celestron. When Celestron dropped the Nexstar mount version, OPT offered the tubes (I presume Celestron had a bunch of tubes leftover) for the remarkable price of $59.

 

Ed Ting reviews that optical tube HERE. He goes on to say; "Like all versions of Celestron's C102, this one is highly recommended."

 

I took that refractor to a few public star parties. The scope always impressed those that got to look through it, especially the views of the moon and Saturn.

 

When asked about a first telescope for teenager or beginner, instead of a 6" Dobsonian, I always recommend the Celestron 102 Omni. Its good optics, quick acclamation, no need for collimation, lightweight, rather low cost, nicely-sized 4" refractor optics that offer plenty of aperture for the showcase, deep sky objects and the moon and planets (objects that beginners are drawn to) are all attributes that make it a really good choice for a beginner.

 

The image is of my old 4" Celestron achromatic refractor mounted on a UO, alt/az mount. I ended-up gifting that scope and mount to my Niece and Nephew.   

 

Bob

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Gary Riley]

I, too, had a Celestron XLT 102mm f/9.8 refractor. I agree that it is a good achro refractor. Yes, it has some CA. But at f10 it was not bad at all IMO.

[RAK on Tour]

I bought my C4-R when Celestron discontinued the model when they were introducing the XLT version with a white CG-4 mount with tubular tripod legs. Mine had a black CG-4 mount with the flimsy aluminum legs. I paid $249.00 shipped! I still have it and added an 8x50 RACI finder, a 2-inch dielectric diagonal and clock drive. It has been a workhorse for me and used far more frequently than my 10-inch Dob. False color? Yeah - but minimal. Clean images otherwise and one I probably will never part with. I have 12 other scopes, but this is my favorite.

[sg80]

I have the C4-R version

[Oldfracguy]

I was given a predecessor of the C4-R, a C102-HD by someone who has posted in this very thread (thanks, Jon  ) to see if I could figure out the cause of severe flaring around bright targets like Jupiter.  I spent a number of hours looking down a long hallway after dark using an artificial star testing out all the different combinations of lens element arrangements, and cleaning all four lens surfaces before each iteration:

 

 

 

I eventually came upon the correct lens arrangement, and the scope performed quite well after that.  The old C102-HD I had was a Vixen-made Celestron-branded scope from the mid-1990's I believe.  The previous owner must have at one time decided to take apart the objective and clean the glass, but got the lens elements put back in the wrong way.  This objective is of the Steinheil design:

 

Edited by Oldfracguy, 16 May 2025 - 07:24 PM.

[kmparsons]

I got one of the tubes that OPT was practically giving away. I put on a much better focuser, and it is a very serviceable instrument that has produced some very good planetary views. When looking through it you can forget how little it cost and just enjoy it!

[RAK on Tour]

If anyone is interested, there's an archived thread on the C4-R that's 28 pages long (25 responses per page) here: https://www.cloudyni...nced-refractor/. Sorry - you'll have to copy and paste the link.

[Oldfracguy]

I got one of the tubes that OPT was practically giving away. I put on a much better focuser, and it is a very serviceable instrument that has produced some very good planetary views. When looking through it you can forget how little it cost and just enjoy it!

How does the star test of that 4" f/9.8 achromat look compared to your AT115EDT?  Do the diffraction rings look pretty much the same on both sides of focus, or do they look good on the inward focus side and all blurry and muddled on the outward focus side?

[kmparsons]

How does the star test of that 4" f/9.8 achromat look compared to your AT115EDT?  Do the diffraction rings look pretty much the same on both sides of focus, or do they look good on the inward focus side and all blurry and muddled on the outward focus side?

I have never done a star test on that scope. If I do, I will report the results here.