Posts Made By: Doug Culbertson

Good thought to remember Floyd. My feeling is this; we all started out here with zero ratings, and someone took a chance on buying from us.

Doug
Midway, FL

Six of one, IMO.

Whichever you get, I strongly suggest that you think about adding Amateur Astronomy as well http://www.amateurastronomy.com/ if you are interested in the hobby itself. Lots of articles about star parties, telescope building, observing, equipment reviews etc. It's all in black and white, and written by amateurs, so it's not as fancy as the glossy rags, but it's the only magazine I have ever subscribed to that I read cover to cover, every single issue. Oh, it only comes out quarterly, so there is also that anticipation between issues.

I find I can get most of the information I am interested in that is in the glossies from various websites, so I cancelled my subscriptions to both S&T and Astronomy and only take AA now.

Just my .02...

Doug
Midway, FL

If you love a nice wide flat field that has the contrast of a fine apo refractor, you are going to love the MN66. I have to say that the MN66 is one of two telescopes that I have owned and regret selling, the other one being an AP 130 f/8.35.

The only downsides to the MN66, IMO, are the stock focuser and the size/weight of the scope, which requires a bit of a beefy mount, IMO. I would suggest that you think seriously about replacing the focuser with one of the Moonlight Crayfords, since they make a drop in replacement for the MN66.

What mount to you plan on using for it? I used to use mine on an Orion Atlas, which I liked quite a bit, and then switched to a Losmandy G11, which handled the weight a little better once I added the incredibly heavy Parallax rotating rings. The rotating rings added about 10# to the overall weight. I mainly changed to the G11 for the slip clutches, but if the Atlas goto had been available, I would have used that.

BTW, in some forums you will read posts that make it sound like the Maknewts are tricky to collimate, but I found that it collimated just the same as any Newtonian, and held collimation better.

Doug
Midway, FL

Actually, the star test is probably one of the most rigorous tests you can do on your own, and will tell you a great deal about your mirror's quality.

Here are a couple of good articles concerning the star test. The first one, aberrator, has some good images of various aberrations so you will know what to look for.

http://aberrator.astronomy.net/html/body_star-testing.html

http://voltaire.csun.edu/tmb/tmb4.html


Also, if you don't already own it, I would suggest that you get Richard Suiter's book "Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes", as it contains a wealth of information.

Doug
Midway, FL

I had a chance to use the 17mm Stratus this past Saturday night. The scopes we used this ep in was my SV115 f/7, and a friend's Teleport 14.5" f/4.5.

Now, keep in mind that we are both former owners of a lot of Naglers, and we both own pretty much the entire line of Pentax XWs. To say that we were both impressed with the Stratus is an understatement! The first thing that I noticed, when compared to my 20mm XW, was that the Stratus, while displaying contrast that was almost as good as that in the Pentax, showed none of the field curvature that the XW did. It's funny, but I never had really paid much attention to the field curvature in the XW up until then.

On Jupiter, the Stratus showed a nice neutral tone, much as the Pentaxes do. I really liked this aspect of the Stratus, as I don't care for "warm" eyepieces when viewing planets.

At any rate, I was impressed enough to order the 5mm-21mm Stratuses the next day. I will compare them to the Pentaxes and then decide which ones to keep. I think that their may be some surprises in store. IMO, I think that it's great that eyepieces of this quality can be had for such good prices.

On edit: I forgot to mention that the 17mm was one of the most comfortable eyepieces that I have ever used. The eye relief seemed a tad shorter than the advertised 20mm, but I found it to be just right.

Hope this helps...

Doug
Midway, FL

Welcome to Astromart, Doug! Beautiful setup...something about a refractor, eh?

BTW, great name too.

Doug
Midway, FL

Thanks Mike!
I agree about the 115's ease of setup and use. It's a terrific scope in spite of its small aperture, but lately I have come to really like moderate aperture scopes with excellent optics.

Doug
Midway, FL

Pete,
I agree with that. I recently picked up the 4mm and 5mm Burgess/TMB planetary eps, and am really very pleased with them.

On a recent clear steady night, an observing buddy and I compared the two Burgess eps to his 3.5mm and 5mm Pentax XWs in his Starmaster V8 with a Stevens mirror and we were both pretty well amazed at the results. The 60 degree field of view, coupled with the 16mm of eye relief made the Burgess very comfortable to use.

While the contrast in the Pentax may have been slightly better, it was extremely close. I think that I can speak for both of us when I say that the difference certainly wasn't 3x as great, which is the price difference between the Burgess and the Pentax XW. Light scatter was virtually identical, meaning hardly there, and the field was nice and flat. The tone on Jupiter and Saturn was pretty well neutral in the Burgess ep, which pleased me as I don't care for "warm" eyepieces like the Radians.

Looking back on it, we didn't look specifically for lateral color, but none stands out in my mind.

I consider these eyepieces to be a real bargain, and I don't just mean "for the price", as you often hear associated with lower priced eyepieces.

Now the downside; my 4mm arrived with a definite rattle coming from the eyelens. This is reportedly a common problem, but one that is pretty easily fixed by tightening the retaining ring. Still, it was an annoyance that shouldn't have been present. But, in spite of that, I just picked up a used 6mm Burgess and look forward to using it.

Sorry for the long winded response, but I thought that this might help somewhat.

Doug
Midway, FL

Nice focuser! I didn't know that Moonlight had that color, but it's really nice. BTW, I agree with you about the stock MN66 focuser. I found it to be a constant source of frustration, but not so much that I ever replaced mine. Go figure. :S

So, how are you liking that scope so far? I loved the views through mine!

Doug
Midway, FL

Linton,

Yeah, back when I was binoviewing I used to hear that term a lot too. Never meant much to me, but it does to some folks I suppose. I bought most of my pairs on Astromart from different sellers, though I did buy a couple of brand new pairs too. I never noticed a difference in the views, and never gave much thought to it.

One thing that really stands out in my mind is a pair of 19mm Pans that I bought, one from two different sellers. They both had obviously different looking coatings when held to a bright light. The view through this pair was stunning, and I never gave it another thought.

Just my .02, and I am sure that there will be those that disagree.

Doug
Midway, FL