1.43
#...
·
 |
|---|
Luka Poropat:Karl Theberge: *Well, the wording used was quite rude in my humble opinion. I understand than technical matter need correctness... but the wording here was the only thing sharper than the telescope you are looking for. Cheers K |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Probably this. https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/instruments/telescopes/tec/tec-300vt-houghthon-terebizh-telescope.html |
4.26
#...
·
|
|---|
|
All of the telescopes listed are likely able to bench-resolve far more detail than real conditions will allow, so choose one that fits other criterion that is important to you...like enough back focus to add accessories, or reviews of the ease of focusing, or the lowest LCA, or corner-to-corner sharpness. Anything under 100mm would be ultimately limited by seeing and the physics of aperture. Despite that, I get pretty small stars with the WO GT71 with reducer/flattener. It's the perfect size to produce impressive imagery quickly (f4.8 with flattener), and yet be over-the-shoulder portable. Doubling the light-gathering by selecting something over 100mm would make amazing stars. But 1.5X the length and double the weight. |
2.71
#...
·
|
|---|
| Sharpness is just one consideration. The Rokinon 135 has a good reputation for sharpness, but many copies suffer from other optical issues, ones that can’t even be patched up with AI or even by adjusting the iris. |
|
2.71
#...
·
|
|---|
| deleted |
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
| I own RedCat51 because I could not find any, significantly better answer to this question that is also a convenient solution. Despite the initial reviews, I'm still quite curious about the Pleiades though. If there is no perfection, a faster scope might be more convenient, at least for me. |
7.33
#...
·
|
|---|
Dan: Even the best Rokinon/Samyang copy cannot compare to some other optics. It has its flaws but its not great great on the level im writing this forum topic for. |
