whitewolfowner

I have owned a 12.5 Meade Newtonian scope for about 15 ears and have really enjoyed it. I have always longed for a good APO refractor that I could do photography with. I presently have a D750. Getting older, the 12.5 Newtonian is impossible to use without having younger guys to move it around for me. I'm looking for something that I can take out on the porch any night, set it up myself and view the sky. For the future I would love to able to set it up with a camera and sit at a table with a lap top and view everything for there and spare my aching back and neck. I realize the expense involved to so this, so it may never happen, but I still want the option if I ever get to that point.

I have been researching, and the more I research, the more confusing it gets. From what I can tell, my limitations is going to be weight andI feel that I am best to keep it between 4 and 4.5 (maybe slightly larger if the weight is not too high). Who makes the good ones for the money. I realize that there could be a thousand ways of interpreting this question but I'm looking for other peoples opinions on this. Even if some one says; stay away from this brand and give the reason why. I have discovered that if buying an Orion scope, it will have no resale value because if it need parts or service down the road, Orion refuses either to anyone who is not the original purchaser. This the kind of input I'm looking for. Someone else may say that this brand is as good or better than the competition at the same price point, or get a doublet, they are cheaper and you really don't gain that much with a triplet (I have no idea if this is true or not, but would like to hear opinions here; also on FLP51 vs FLP 53 and other types of APO glass).

I read many reviews but they are old and don't apply to modern models but someone may say that this older model is a gem and can be had used if you can find it. I have no objection to used; much of my lenses for the camera are used.

Alos, would be interested in ideas for eye pieces.

Thanks in advance and I'm looking forward to your experience and advise.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

When I was deciding on my Astrophotography equipment, I started off drooling over Celestrons monster 6" refractor.
But as I learned more about my desired direction (Nebula Photography) I learned a good triple APO refractor could do what I wanted. Eventually, I got down to what I wanted was a telescope that could work as a camera lens as well as a telescope. And being retired, I figured I better take my best shot at it.
A triple Apochromatic refractor can fulfill both. It can function as a lightweight telescope, and with a couple of Barlow lenses to multiply the focal length, you can do some fair planetary observing and even cluster busting.
Then with a few adapacators, hang a camera you probably already have on it, re-balance, and snap up some nice pictures. So more versatility.
Because you can use a triple APO for observing. And for photography.
Not so much with the Doublet Achromatic telescopes. They are designed for observing, but not great for pictures.
There is another nice point to an APO telescope, they also work well for daytime use doing terrestrial viewing or picture taking. So can do double duty that way. It works well with a DSLR.

Lastly, I like the light weight of the little buggers. My Orion ED80T CF (CF= Carbon Fiber) weighs 5.5 pounds alone. With everything added, it is 13.3 pounds. So very manageable still with all the added camera's, guide scope, and the USB hub and Stick computer I've added on.
I eventually stopped dragging my Celestron Advanced VX mount in and out, and it lives set up, ready to mount the telescope, plug in the necessary cables, and go to work. When I gather in the telescope, the mount gets a water proof canvas bag over it (open at the bottom for ventilation), And my 32 gallon observatory dome (plastic trash can) set over that.
I'm still able to carry my telescope in or out with one hand.

So that's my recommendation.

whitewolfowner

Sonny:

What you have said backs up everything I have learned in research so far. I did find some who claim that triplets can be matched by good doublets but I'm suspecting that a doublet needs a flattener for photos where a triple does not. Is that a fair statement? I also read that doublets cool down very quickly, but triplets take a long time.

From my research, it seems that a three inch scope will handle close to 200X, and for every inch in diameter in the scope, you can go up another 50x (generally speaking); so a four inch will handle 250X and a five inch will handle 300X. From my experiences with the 12.5" newtonian, depending on the conditions for viewing, rarely could you ever go much over 250X and that's at 3800 feet elevation and in the desert with excellent skies. I have a great viewing sky right outside my door. So based on that I'm thinking of a 100 - 115mm scope, with weight being the biggest limitation for me and that's not counting funds which are hard to come by for me; I am a poor man with expensive tastes for good glass. We all have our vises. I will sacrifice for years to afford a good lens for the camera of eye piece for the scope.

I do have the set of Tele Vue plossl's, with the exception of the 42mm one; didn't make sense to me for that eye piece to be 1.25", should be 2", so instead I got the Orion deep view 42mm (2") eye piece and I am very impressed with it. Plossl's get hard to use under 10mm so I plan on getting something else for those ranges and will need them for a refractor. I got a really good deal on the Meade 5000 82 degree 5.5mm eye piece and I was really impressed with it until I put it with the Tele Vue 2.5 powermate, then it showed all kinds of false colors in it. The Tele view plossl 15mm with the 2.5 powermate makes 6mm and embarrasses the Meade eye piece into the ground. Any suggestions on eye pieces below 10 mm?

Also, with your triplet, can you use a full frame camera with it or just a DX and does it cover the entire frame? I have a D750 so I would like to be able to fill the FX frame if possible. I'm assuming to do that I will need a certain size focuser; any idea what that size would be? Any good recommendations for a good focuser or a good 2" diagonal? An article I read said that companies have made a lot of money touting the dialectric 99% ones and they are not really necessary? Any thoughts on that statement?

Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. I may sound picky here but I'm in engineering and that is what we are trained to do.

Bernie

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Hi Bernie,
When shopping for my telescope I was trying to spread my funds far enough to get it all together at once.
At the time, the telescope I got was $1700 cheaper than it's next step up at $2700. Pretty big squeeze for me. If I had gotten the next step up, something else would have suffered. Hand holding a telescope just does not work.
My budget is tight as well. Still, I bit off a lot to chew. And the learning curve was long and steep.

Actually, refractors require little to no cool down. Especially compared to the reflectors. That was just one more factor that directed me toward refractors, over reflectors.
Anyone selling the value of a Doublet over a Triplet is misinformed. Take a look at this: https://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_telescopes_refractors.aspx Not hard to see what better glass can do for the picture.
Visual is one thing, the human eye can adjust and compensate rapidly. A Camera tells all, it records the good, the bad, and the ugly. And is unforgiving.
Astrophotography is about as tough and challenging as you could ask for.

The magnifying ratios (200x, 250x, ad nausium) are more advertising ploys than practical in the real world. They want to set folks agog with the biggest numbers they can. In practical use, the best viewing and imaging does not rely on those maxed out numbers. Let's simplify it, your tires are rated for XXXX pounds of load. But you will wear them out at a much less load than the maximum.
As the focal length goes up, so does the demand for a more rock solid mount and guiding demands. So it can compound the frustration factor. Not to mention co$t$.

If I was to do over, I believe I would look hard into the Explore Scientific brand for telescopes, and iOptron for a mount.
I've been rather disappointed in what I have. Failures that should never have occurred, and quality issues I cannot ignore. That's why given the chance, I steer folks clear of what my experiences have been. I bought low dollar, and I think I've paid a high price in the frustration in the products, and the BS I've had to endure. But I've always taken a sows ear and got it to work like a silk purse.
I think ES has nice packages, and well thought out telescopes. I would still want a carbon fiber tube. They are more ridgid, lighter by some, and perform in temperature swings (Which is, they hold their focus better than metal tubed telescopes. Critical in imaging.).
The reasoning behind iOptron is the quality and construction. You can Polar align, and or check your Polar Align without any messing with the telescope on the mount. It doesn't require the telescope be turned sideways. And iOptron provides a polar alignment scope in the package. They don't nickle and dime you later for things that should be there. Because they ARE there.
If you can swing it, and have a spot you can set up your mount (if you get a new one), semi permanently, then maybe one of the Tri-Pier, or pier mounts would be nice for a mount you can leave in your will. Yeah, it could be that good.

So try and digest all that is ahead of you. I had 3 wish lists on 3 different vendors sites. I spent 4 months building, changing, and choosing equipment. When I got to where I was as confident as I could be, that I could work with my choices, I pulled the trigger on 'the one'. The problems began cropping up in less than a month.
If you take a look at my signature, you can see what I would not recommend. Still, I persevere, I keep plodding along, and worked around the short comings.
But it should never have been so hard.

You can view through a triple APO ED (Extra low Dispersion glass). But taking picture through an Doublet, I believe, will be frustrating.

Oh, and shooting with my DSLR (which is rare), If I mount it to the telescope focuser, I can get good widefield images. But I only have my D3300 DSLR, cropped sensor. No full frame to try. That's with a 2" focuser.
If I put my DSLR behind my 1.25" filter wheel, I get dog doo. Even though the distance is short, it really takes poopy pictures in that configuration.

Make some wish lists, then groom them as you mine down to what you want. It gives you tangible things to mull over, move around, keep or drop as you refine your choices. And a clear view of the costs before you say, "Oh, chit!"

whitewolfowner

Sonny:

Seems you encountered many of the questions and frustrations I am encountering now. I am well aware that as that scope gets a little bigger; the mount really jumps up there too in price. I cannot do it in one shot, but will have to slowly work up to it. First, the ability to view; then a trackable mount that can be hooked up to a lap top to view that way instead of the back breaking eye piece viewing. A bad back and knees limit how much (not much at all, a couple of minutes can put me down for a long rest before I can get back up again); that's why I want to be able to see the views on the screen. Then, the last step will be trying to take photos. I am well aware that astrophotography is the most difficult photography to do; thus the challenge to conquer it.

You are lucky that you bought your scope from Orion and not second hand. Are you aware that Orion will not support or sell parts to anyone but the original owner. Why they take this stand is beyond me; it's anti business all the way. A friend of mine bought used their 120mm scope with the go to mount (sells for $599 new) from some people and it was missing a few parts. When he went to Orion to buy them, they refused to sell them to him. For this reason, I will not buy anything from them outside of a sale on eye pieces or something like that; an item that would rarely need servicing or parts, so I can imagine what they put you through with your scope. I do understand that the scope you have is a very good one though.

What you say about a doublet for photography, I have read the same but I have also read that they are OK if you get a good one. That's where the information gets confusing when one article contradicts another and neither site specific pieces of gear that they are talking about. If people were more precise in what they refer to then it would be a lot easier to figure this all out. Seems I have sorted out everything to be questioning but the puzzle pieces are all in front of me but I haven't put it all together in my mind.

Several years ago I did view the Orion 80mm ED telescope that sells for $449 and was very impressed with it's views but do not remember the eye pieces used or their power. The best thing maybe to do is to go to a star party and look through as many scopes as I can and just sort it out with what my eye sees, but there is the fear that I will be not happy with anything but that $30,000 scope I got to look through. Sometimes ignorance is the best way to be able to be happy with what you have and can afford.

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

I would recommend looking into the AT65EDQ APO refractors. This is a QUAD and no field flattener is needed (already built in) You can find this scope on the Astro-Tech website at
https://www.astronomics.com/astro-tech-at65edq-65mm-astrograph-telescope_p18437.aspx

If you go to the Astrobin website you can search all of the pictures that have been uploaded to this popular photo website and see for your self just how outstanding this optic is. I ordered one back in January (they are always on backorder) ...by June they still didn't have a supply so I ended up canceling my order and I got a Stellarvue 70T instead - great scope but twice as much plus you have to spend another 300 for a flattener.

As of this morning, they still have a supply but they just came in (wouldn't you know it) and they will sell out fast. At least one other member of the HOG has one and I am certain he loves his.

Here is the link to the Astrobin website hosting images taken by this scope [url]http://www.astrobin.com/search/?q=AT65EDQ&search_type=0&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6&telescope_type=any&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=22&camera_type=any&camera_type=0&camera_type=1&camera_type=2&camera_type=3&camera_type=4&camera_type=5[url/]

tony85629 Loc: Sahuarita, Az

Based on my own experience I would recommend a 4-5" APO on the best mount you can afford. Check out: ASTROMART and CLOUDY NIGHTS web sites for astro imaging for sale items. Excellent resources.
Good luck
Tony

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

I suppose I was lucky that I was mesmerized by the Orion Nebula (the real one, not the Earthbound company). So as I became immersed in wanting to DIY the night skies, I knew I wanted to take images of the wondrous Nebula there. So I had a direction I wanted to specifically go. Mining down to how to do that made it a bit easier for me. I wanted to reach w-a-y out there. Surprisingly enough, to that end, smaller was better. (Lucky for me) Learning how to get there was a process. It's like Macro of the sky. But harder.
I learned early on in my process I wanted my computer involved. And to the extent that I have it now, remotely operating my Borg-a-scope from my home office, wirelessly, live view on screen. But coming from Zero, it was quite a task. But one that is right up my alley. A fun personal challenge.

I actually bought my telescope on the Amazon marketplace, but from Orion. I also bought several other things from Orion, but likewise through Amazon. I have a dislike for supplying free lunches to the employees who's job is to get a box off the shelf, put a sticker on it and put it in the shipping bin for UPS or whomever to pick up. Orion charges $9.95 for everything you order from them for shipping. And that kind of crap pisses me off.
I had Amazon Prime in 2015, free 2 day shipping, free easy returns if it wasn't what you wanted, no questions asked. Which is true for much, but not all things.
I take a close look at that anymore. And anymore, I've begun liking Ebay once I started using it. I can scour to find the free shipping vendors, where they are (I prefer to deal with American based firms), and like fast shippers. The waiting is the hardest part for me.
I was not at all aware that Orion won't sell to other than original owners. Never heard of that before, and can't vouch for it. I do know they have been golden about my warranty issues. Specifically my G3 camera (#3 and final), and a focuser replacement on my telescope due to a manufacturer defect in one guide wheel.

Celestron and Orion, along with others, are under the Parent company Synta. I was not aware before, but very aware now.
Also, Celestron has a very... Asian... approach to their products (Others may as well). Once you buy, you cannot return. Read the warranty. Tuff chit. I got sold a Gen 1 mount from a vendor back East. I learned the hard way, they have a strict 14 day return policy. From the time you order, and no matter how long it takes for their lazy ass to get your order shipped. Two Day shipping is just a ploy with them.
My AVX developed an error code Week 1, I talked to Celestron directly, they sent me an adapter cable, and emailed me a link to update the firmware in the hand controller. I was fed the lame excuse that sometimes the firmware "goes bad from sitting on the shelf". Pure BS. One week later, 16 days into ownership, the motor drive failed. Celestron, to their credit, replaced the entire mount with a Gen II mount. But it did not fix the electronics problem.
Long story short, I've suffered through two of those, and my mount ONLY get feds 12 volt power from a large AGM type battery since. Bottom line is the components China used for my run of mounts were marginal quality, and I've learned of several failures in other mounts in other Countries, common denominator: NexStar controls and motor drives.
Just be aware, read the warranties, and hope in the things you buy. You still might get screwed anyway. I'm very gun-shy of anything "Synta". And I bought the first, and the last, Celestron mount I'll ever own.

I am real happy with my telescope. It works very well for everything I use it for. But I'm very careful when I handle it. It is a precision instrument. But better than others? Humm....

Doublet V: Triplet, I wasn't going to roll the dice on my telescope. So I didn't consider a doublet long. I was after a camera lens quality telescope. At the time, Triplets were at the front of the line. Now Quads are, but hard to find, as Ed knows. It's all technological advancements. Suffices to say, if someone even thinks they may one day hang a camera on it, get the better telescope.
It's kind of like how I shop for TV's, look at a wall of them, shut off the ones that don't look right, sort down to the final pick. The item has to be the best for YOUR eyes. Not the best seller, not the best reviews, the best for you. Because only you will be living with your final choice. Not me, and not anyone out here on the other side of the looking glass.
I didn't want "OK...", But I didn't want a Takahashi either. So I sat in the middle-ish zone.
Remember, you want a photographic capability, and looking through a telescope does not often weight how the camera will see it. So I err on the side of the best I can afford for me. Which certainly has it's limits.
Then I make that silk purse out of the sow's ear. I consider that a personal challenge, and fun.
But you will never see me with a $30,000 dollar telescope. Not even near one.

Doing computer controlled astronomy is fun. The correct term is EAA, Electronically Assisted Astronomy. (Some think it only pertains to video astronomy, wrong.) And it was a natural direction for me to gravitate. Astro stuff on a computer display suits me, and my target audience, Grandkids. But me first. So I started looking at taking control through my computer almost right away, actually before my equipment began arriving. There were various 'Breakthrough' moments. Forrest Tanaka was a great influence.
Alignment: Matthew told me, "Sonny, it's the brightest star in the field of view." Yep, and it still is the brightest star in front of the telescope. That's important at a dark site when there is a bazillion mistakes to pick.
Computer Control: Matthew and I had discussions about how he runs his mount from inside his home. Although he is out on Pluto compared to me, he got me out there as well in my own round about way. I spent many months (years) operating my equipment wired. Laptop on a table, an array of cables bundled to my telescope equipment coming to a USB hub that was marginal. Matthew again recommended a powered USB hub, StarTech. I chose this one, because I'm industrial.
Remote Computer Control: Ronnie mentioned he gets his telescope set up with his laptop, then retires to his basement to do his imaging. And he helped me find the programs for me to do that as well. Started with Teamviewer, but I gravitated to one called Tight Vnc. Teamviewer is a commercial product and kept nagging me to buy it. So I found the Open Sourced Vnc.
But it got me inside, connected to my laptop wired to the equipment through my wiring loom.
Focus Control: That was a stumbling block. Tweaking focus was a PITA. But I finally found a viable DIY stepper motor focuser. Matthew had talked about it, and built his from salvaged components with stepper motors. IIRC. Then I stumbled onto Tekky Dave's thread across the pond. So I built my focuser. And got control of that.
But I was entertaining thoughts of not carrying my laptop back and forth every night... And being indoors in the chill of winter. Matthew mentioned Stick computers. In about a month my entire telescope had grown a small rectangular lump on it, and the StarTech hub was on top of the focuser project box.
The Borg telescope had arrived. Weird shapes, cables connected to various parts, odd LED lights glowing about. And no laptop, except if I want a display at the site for Polar alignment. Less spider and mosquitoes bites. And better imaging because of less human vibrations.
And set up consists of carrying the Borg-a-Scope out, mounting it via the detents drilled in the solid aluminum Vixen bar, connecting 5 cables and two battery feeds, then retiring inside to run the scope.
I do have to make several trips back and forth at first, sometimes finding that first star in my finder; putting off the Bahtinov mask after focusing for the evening, or if my G3 camera stalls and needs the USB cable twiddled.

But in spite, I have a lot of fun!
And so far, the meddling enviroMENTALists haven't filed suits to control the night skies. Like they have to screw me out of fishing.

To wrap: Triple or Quad telescope lens. Eyepieces to your liking (the ones you have for starters). Future computer enjoyment, an Eyepiece camera for putting the view on your display. (Link is to mine. There are many others.)
The cables and other fund draining items will materialize in time.
Have fun. "I am well aware that astrophotography is the most difficult photography to do" OK, just trying to be thorough.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

But rectal orifices for moderators.

whitewolfowner

[quote=nikonshooter]I would recommend looking into the AT65EDQ APO refractors. This is a QUAD and no field flattener is needed (already built in) You can find this scope on the Astro-Tech website at
https://www.astronomics.com/astro-tech-at65edq-65mm-astrograph-telescope_p18437.aspx

If you go to the Astrobin website you can search all of the pictures that have been uploaded to this popular photo website and see for your self just how outstanding this optic is. I ordered one back in January (they are always on backorder) ...by June they still didn't have a supply so I ended up canceling my order and I got a Stellarvue 70T instead - great scope but twice as much plus you have to spend another 300 for a flattener.

As of this morning, they still have a supply but they just came in (wouldn't you know it) and they will sell out fast. At least one other member of the HOG has one and I am certain he loves his.

Here is the link to the Astrobin website hosting images taken by this scope [url]http://www.astrobin.com/search/?q=AT65EDQ&search_type=0&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6&telescope_type=any&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=22&camera_type=any&camera_type=0&camera_type=1&camera_type=2&camera_type=3&camera_type=4&camera_type=5[url/][/quote]



Thanks for the reference but from research I have done, I have decided that I really want a scope between 100 and 115mm. Larger for more light gathering capability, but still small enough for portability purposes and easy movability.

whitewolfowner

I am on cloudy nights, but have no notices of any responses yet. I'll check out Astromart; they are new to me. Thanks. I agree with your assessment of the size scope to look for. The 5", which I would love to have is getting too big for portability purposes adn their weight becomes a severe hinderance for me. The 4-4.5" seems ideal for me, but seems since Stellarvue has discontinued their 115mm model, I'm not aware of any scope in that range anymore. Sad for sure.

whitewolfowner

Sonny:

You have been so helpful. I have been doing a lot more research and have kinda narrowed down my initial choices of:
Explore Scientific 102mm FCD 100 F7 ED APO
Sky Watcher 100mm Esprit ED triplet
Stellarvue SV102mm F7 APO Triplet

Affording them is another whole thing, but I always seem to dream larger than my wallet and usually have to compromise before making the final decision. I was wondering if anyone out there has looked through any of these scopes and can advise on the ndifferences between them and if the Sky Watcher and/or Stellarvue are worth the extra cost. The Explore scientific has life time warranty, which is very attractive but it is also considered not as good as the other two.

I will be studying the reference you gave me as I too would like to be able to use the computer as the viewer instead of the eye pieces all the time. Older backs and knees just are too painful to be bending over all the time.

whitewolfowner

Looking at Synta, they also do Sky Watcher, so I'll have to see if they refuse refunds and returns too. For your information, that policy is illegal in many if not most states. Most states have laws about returns and will prevent them from that ridiculous practice, but why do business with a company that acts hostile to their customers. I'll remove getting anything from here on from Celestron, Orion or Sky Watcher.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Yes, that is the scope I have. Really love it. Can't really say how it compares to the other two. They are probably really nice too. We just made it through June and I can say definitely that it is sealed against penetrations from June bugs. More than I can say about my Orion Astrograph which would have been a disaster to bring out while they were flying the night sky with the precision of flying Mr McGoo's.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

I have 3 scopes. The Explore Scientific 102ED, the 8" Orion Astrograph and the 9 1/4" Celestron Evolution. The majority of the time, the lighter weight of the Explore Scientific 102ED refractor is the determining factor and I take it out. Entirely pleased with the Explore Scientific.