Posts Made By: Alan French

I'd be interested in this too. Most tripods I have do not handle my 5 pound scope well when pointed high in the sky - the mount just won't hold the scope. I have an old, monster Linhof that does not have this problem, but it has too much "spring" in altitude. A lot of the small altazimuth astro mounts tend to be too balance sensitive, requiring rebalancing when changing eyepieces if going from a heavy one to a light one or vice-versa.

The personal fit and feel of a pair of binoculars is at least as important as the specs, and I highly recommend trying any binocular you are considering in person. I found some that other folks recommended highly just weren't for me, and I was very glad I took the trouble to check them all out.

I think your last three sentences nicely sum it up. I would never buy a pair of binoculars sight unseen. Anyone considering a binocular purchase should make a big effort to see the models under consideration.

The last time I got a pair sight unseen, which is when my wife wanted to buy me a new pair for my birthday, I was considering the Fujinon 8x40 BFLs and the Bushnell 8x40 Customs (I hope I have the latter right). She got the Fujinons, which I liked just fine. I later ran into someone with a pair of the Bushnells. I tried them, and the focus knob placement was terrible for me. They would have been a big mistake. For my next pair I made sure to personally check out everything on my consideration list. It took a while, and I had to make an effort to see some of them, but it was worth the trouble.

The optics in both are top notch, but there are other considerations when buying binoculars. I spent about three years looking for the "perfect" binocular for me. Early on, I saw a pair of Swarovski 7x42 SLCs and really liked them. At the time, I had not seen too many other high end binox. The Swarovski 8.5x42s sounded nice, but after seeing a pair I decided I didn't want to spend quite that much, really wanted 7x, and I liked the focussing on the SLCs better. Quite a few folks I talked to really loved the Zeiss 7x42s.

I finally arranged to have a dealer bring a pair of the Zeiss 7x42s to an astronomy trade show. I expected to be impressed, but they were definitely not for me. They did not fit well in my hand, focussing was very stiff (could have been individual variation), and I really disliked the stiff rubber eyecups. I also liked the view through the 7x42 SLCs better (he brought these too, and I bought them). One of my optical savvy friends also preferred the SLCs.

If you are interested in the ELs and the Zeiss, you really should try them in person before buying. All the advice in the world will not tell you how well they will work for you.

The 328 is probably the serial number. There might be folks who can relate that to a vintage year. The -2 may mean the focal length was 2" shorter than nominal, so adjustments in the spacing of the secondary and primary had to be made accordingly. Mirror makers do not worry much about exactly where the focal length wanders, and mirrors often turn out a bit shorter or a bit longer than intended.

I made one once for a 10" f9.5, according to a design in Sky & Tel that appeared quite a number of years ago. The diffraction spikes were far more obvious and annoying than the vanilla Novak 4 vane spider I had in the scope before. (I put both in for a while to be sure, with the Novak at 45 degrees to the other.) It was a big disappointment.

If you have two wires on any one leg, even if they are perfectly lined up on axis, a little off-axis you have two wires.

A 6" Dob, such as the Orion XT-6, would be around your budget, and a better choice than a $300 refractor. Is there an astronomy club in your area? There is no better way to find out about telescope and to get a start on figuring out what you want than visiting a star party held by the local astronomy club.

Nightwatch was recoemmended once, and I will second that recommendation. A must read before buying anything, and far less confusing than trying to make sense of the numerous reviews on the web.

No, you will see no difference in performance. Most mirrors have a few sleeks (fine scratches) and most coating have a number of small pinholes.

Yes, the 130 would be lighter, would cool down a bit more quitckly, and would be less expensive, but the 130 is just not going to keep up with the 155 for either deep sky or planetary viewing.

There is usually a retaining ring holding the lens in its cell, and the objective is larger than the clear aperture. Since the edge of the lens is hidden behind the retaining ring, how is light going to reach the lens edge, and why would blackening the edge make any difference in performance?