I am also aware that the Skywatcher 80ED is a KG heavier than the TS one. I have even considered even smaller options, ( 60mm? ) having a certain nostalgia towards the memory of my first scope, that I still have, but have not used in ages. I also have a C5 and a C9.25 and to be honest prefer using the C5 as the contrast appears to be better. I am aware about the drop down in brightness and reach with the loss of aperture, but think I will cope with it. The gain in tightness of focus will make for some of the loss in sheer amount of light. One last thing, if you go from a 102mm scope to a 72mm scope, the reduced brightness and resolution might disappoint you, so if I were you i'd take the largest smaller scope. The TS scopes have a 2.5" rack-and pinion focuser that should slip less than the Crayford on the Sky-Watcher scope, and the larger drawtube will make for better illumination if you do imaging. I wish I could test all the telescopes myself but that's not possible □. Best of all, the rings inside the patterns have very nearly the same brightness, sharpness and color on both sides so none of that spherical aberration gremlin, the number one enemy of contrast. Overall an excellent lab test for the 72. There is a very small zone in the middle of the small defocus patterns but it's negligible, and the very faint violet and green outer rings are the extremely low level of residual chromatism that all apos have to some degree. The large defocus patterns have the same white color so no chromatic aberration to speak of. The sharp lines in the Ronchi pattern mean the lenses have an excellent polish, and the fact they are straight means there are no aberrations due to their shape. Everything I've read about the Sky-Watcher 72 is good but to make things less subjective here is a Ronchi and defocus test (made by Teleskop Spezialisten):
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |