Hey Vincent van Bro, nice videos. I've had probably around 35 different scopes the past 35 years and I now have settled on a Meade 8" ACF SCT and an ES AR127 F/6.5. My third scope that I've had for several years is this little gem, the Omni XLT 102 F/6.5. Solid build, quality doublet glass for the price point, great glass coatings and a solid R&P focuser that can be made as smooth and snug as a Crayford with a simple mod. Want better cleaner views of Jupiter and Saturn? Just make a cardboard front mask with a 70 to 75 mm hole and poof! You now have an F/9 focal ratio and better cleaner planetary views. The little reduction in light is just fine as the moon and planets are bright anyway. (The 52mm hole in the front lens cap is just too small to be very useful). I put this very scope up against the much more expensive ES AR102 (F/6.5), the one with the huge pasta bowl up front. The quality and sharpness of the views were exactly the same. I'm saying as though I was looking through the same scope. That's how good this Omni XLT102 F/6.5 is. A terrific bang for the buck. I'll never let this gem go. That's right boys and girls, Brian ain't lyin'.
Ladies and Gentlemen, there you have it. If you thought that I might be lyin', surely you'd know that I AND Bryan would not be lyin' at the same time about the same thing. He's referring to an aperture mask. For refractors, you cover over the perimeter of the lens, where the light is bent the most (from the perimeter to the center at the focal plan). The glass has to do a lot more work there and it really can't. That's where most of the chromatic aberration occurs, blurring the image. "Stopping down the focal ratio" blocks out light, but only bad light. For bright objects: big improvement. (Don't cover too much, resolution is proportional to aperture). So, see: even Master-level Blasters keep a good inexpensive refractor in their clip. Thanks, Bryan!
What do you have your Celestron 80mm in the back mounted on? My Vixen made Celestron Firstscope 80 is on an original Alt-Az mount. I had a Powerseeker 80AZS F5 and 80X was about the max. I am much happier with the made in Japan 80mm F11 refractor.
That 80mm was borrowed for a video or a two (th-cam.com/video/pxbn6gYUt3c/w-d-xo.html). It's whatever cheap EQ Celestron was bundling with it. F11 is definitely going to have better images than an F5; the F5's advantage is wider field (for low power) and a shorter tube for keeping set up indoors.
Nice video. Can you please tell me which one I should buy for visual observations (not astrophotography): a Bresser achromat 102/1000 mm for 300 $ or a TS Optics 70/420 mm ED FLP-51 for 430$ ? I don't know which of the two would have a better performance / resolution. Bigger APOs are simple too expensive for me. Other types of telescopes are not an option for me since I don't want to bother with collimation. Thank you!
I'm entirely visual as well. So, "expensive glass" is for color correction, which matters at high power. At low power, you can get by with inexpensive glass. There is a LOT of value to low power viewing, particularly in dark skies (sweeping through the Milky Way). Also, Deep Sky Objects are generally colorless. Your 102/1000, will give great low power views, and, because it's f10, will have reasonable good color correction at reasonable power, you'll get very good views of the moon, Jupiter and Saturn. So it's a good all around performer. The 70/420 is going to have a very hard time magnifying the planets - 70mm maxes at 140x. It will excel at wide angle views - it will show over 5 times as much sky at lowest power (but you don't need the FPL-51 for that). My recommendation for general scope is an inexpensive 100mm f6. You lose some higher power, but you get a wider view than the f10. Many do prefer the higher power and are happy to sacrifice the wider fields - it depends on your viewing habits. My video on that is: th-cam.com/video/Qt13w1U-0Gg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=tUMFEjSuCX7jLXNu I think Celestron Starsense Explorer is revolutionizing astronomy for "the masses" as it's an amazingly simple way to get "computer targeting" on a scope cheaply. I find it better than far more expensive systems. My review on that is here: th-cam.com/video/5lmE1amf5js/w-d-xo.htmlsi=v4R56gQvAcilFyhg For me, I have 90mm refractor and that's as small as I ever want to use, and I'll always, always, always have a 100mm f6. They're inexpensive enough that I'm not afraid to take it with me anywhere or even put it in a suitcase when flying. Also, you can often pick up some excellent gear "at a steal" on craigslist. The 100mm refractors are often below $100, and Costco sells the 102mm f6.7 for as low as $150 at Christmas. Good luck! -jeff
Hi Vincent great video once again although I watch your videos on repeat so that the information sticks in my memory to learn as I'm a beginner and have just purchased the dwarf2 and I'm realising that I'm obviously going to need a bigger scope as I sent back my celestron without giving it a chance, so in order to capture mostly everything and see the craters on the moon I would be grateful if you could advise what scope to buy
It is SO hard to recommend a scope. How much do you want to spend? How often can you get to a dark sky? For the dirt cheap options, an inexpensive achromatic refractor is very capable, but planets will not be impressive. A used 8" dobsonian off of craigslist can be a "lifelong" telescope for $300 or less. "Computerized" easy to learn is best executed right now by Celestron's Starsense Explorer series.
These are hard to beat as a beginner’s refractor scope. The price is ridiculous and for most folks it’s a keeper even as you move upwards with your hobby.
I generally always have one. they're light enough to mount on a camera tripod. I've thrown them in suitcases and checked them in when flying. I wouldn't do that with an expensive scope.
@@lornaz1975 so, really good color correction (for a doublet) and high resolution (for an 80mm). I have a friend who appreciates those really high quality "stock" scopes.
APOs are so expensive compared to achromats, a 70/420 mm aperture APO costs just as much as a 127/1200 mm achromat. Would be nice to see a video comparing an APO and achromat at the same or similar price.
for high power bright objects or for photography you need the better glass of the APO. For low power or low-contrast grey objects (most of the deep sky stuff), the achromats work pretty well.
Early on my wife asked "Why do you need more than one scope?" "Because they all specialize in different things." -- You can make a rough guess by aperture, focal ratio, objective configuration and brand. then there are fluctuations in quality by brand (especially the mass marketed). For the most part, I observe mainly with mid-size dobs at lowish power. Everything looks pretty good with pretty much all of those. Clear skies!
@@golookup 😂😂😂Ive Been Looking At The Star Adventurer GtI For Something Small To Go With The Evoguide50ed,and The Zwo385MC,He’s Already Askin…Do You Know How Many Mounts You Have.???? Me….But This Ones Dufferent😂😂😂I Really Like That AR102,Not Ad Much CA As What I Thought There Would Be,Thought For Sure A Fringe Killer Would Be In My Future,But Im Happy To Say Not So Far,Skies Are Crap Again,And Some Weird Ass Light Stays In My West All Night Long’,So No Stars Tonight..Clear Skies❤️🙏🏻🔭✨🌏
@@PafMedic The AR102 is a very good achromat. When they first came out, they were inexpensive, great value. They're getting approaching the pricepoint now where maybe the jump to ED glass isn't so big. Again, only the bright objects see a boost. I like the mini-mount trend, but I'm actually in a buying-pause for a while. I'm curious to see how that platform evolves: light, capable, simple.
@@golookup ,The Whole Thing Came About Around 6 Months Ago,I Wasnt Looking For A Scope At All,I Had Been Looking At That Mount To Pair With My Mak 90 For A Totally Powerless Lightweight Set Up,I Was Just Bumming Around When I Saw ES Had It Along With The AR,For $379..Well Damn,Except For My Evoguide,I Dodnt Own a Refractor,lol..I Have a 6se,and Also The Eqm35Pro Mount..And Had Watched a Few Reviews Where I Saw 1 Guy..Honestly Surprised At How Well This Scope Is,They Included A 2”Ring..Great..I Have A 2” WO Durbrite Diagonal,lol,What Little Ive Gotten To Use It,Im Enjoying It,and Hope To Use It For The Lunar Eclipes
yes. and kits are built for pricepoints. the mounts and the "high power" eyepieces are almost throwaways. A cheap 4-inch doublet does some things really, really well. I'm not afraid to put mine in a suitcase with a photo tripod. If it's gets beat up or loss, a replacement isn't bank-breaking.
Hi Mike, I look forward to watching your Starsense videos. I watched a little: your videos are top notch. I believe Starsense is the future and look forward to your insight. (I had one for my Evolution 8 and I have the AZ102 version sitting here waiting for a review).
That’s a brilliant question. Any eyepiece that’s part of a kit is likely to be throwaways. I think that might be my next video. I rotate through scopes, but I have a handful of good eyepieces that I’ll keep a very long time. I’ll follow up your question in detail soon.
key being - the tripod. most ( all ? ) ' beginner' scopes have horrid tripods that renders use simply irritating. decidedly the wrong way to go for kids. Jupiter, Saturn - YES. also Orion Neb and Pleiades. visual, not into photos. that's kinda it for me. 8 in dob. 102. Meade. had 4 in 'beginner' newt.
yep. when trying to keep things at an inexpensive pricepoint, they're cutting corners pretty much everywhere. The objective is probably the most important part and then they add cheap accessories underneath. this is your basic bottom level tripod. The mount is the right design but very inexpensive. the azimuth works fine, but having to crank the altitude is rough. I prefer an adjustable clutch and no slow motion controls. Generally a good mount like this starts about $200 plus the tripod. But this is a good "see if you're interested" starting point. Sell and upgrade if you are (or my preferred method: keep and add). :)
This is the f/6.7. It comes with a tripod, mount and accessories for under $250 (when on sale). th-cam.com/video/_-2fJ4sa9NM/w-d-xo.html I agree that if you're serious about astronomy and are willing to spend more, a dobsonian is a better scope. So $250 for a first try, then sell and upgrade to a reflector when you know you're hooked. Beginners might like the ability of a refractor to point a terrestrial objects as well.
David points out the biggest variable in refractor pricing: the glass is the biggest differentiator in quality and price. The 102 f/9.8 is longer focal length and maybe better glass for twice the price (same diameter). The 102ED has better glass and is double the price of the f/9.8. Nebula Photos has a great video comparing 80mm refractors costing $130 vs $600 vs $1750 ( th-cam.com/video/lsS6PrrWnhI/w-d-xo.html). The difference is color correction and sharpness out to the edge of the view (required for good astrophotography).
Dec 6, 2023 - my local Costco has these in stock again, Now for $179. Still a great scope for the money.
Our Costco has them on sale now for $179.00
@@chancerossi7754 yes, I noticed! thanks for the reminder to update!
Hey Vincent van Bro, nice videos. I've had probably around 35 different scopes the past 35 years and I now have settled on a Meade 8" ACF SCT and an ES AR127 F/6.5. My third scope that I've had for several years is this little gem, the Omni XLT 102 F/6.5. Solid build, quality doublet glass for the price point, great glass coatings and a solid R&P focuser that can be made as smooth and snug as a Crayford with a simple mod. Want better cleaner views of Jupiter and Saturn? Just make a cardboard front mask with a 70 to 75 mm hole and poof! You now have an F/9 focal ratio and better cleaner planetary views. The little reduction in light is just fine as the moon and planets are bright anyway. (The 52mm hole in the front lens cap is just too small to be very useful). I put this very scope up against the much more expensive ES AR102 (F/6.5), the one with the huge pasta bowl up front. The quality and sharpness of the views were exactly the same. I'm saying as though I was looking through the same scope. That's how good this Omni XLT102 F/6.5 is. A terrific bang for the buck. I'll never let this gem go. That's right boys and girls, Brian ain't lyin'.
Ladies and Gentlemen, there you have it. If you thought that I might be lyin', surely you'd know that I AND Bryan would not be lyin' at the same time about the same thing. He's referring to an aperture mask. For refractors, you cover over the perimeter of the lens, where the light is bent the most (from the perimeter to the center at the focal plan). The glass has to do a lot more work there and it really can't. That's where most of the chromatic aberration occurs, blurring the image. "Stopping down the focal ratio" blocks out light, but only bad light. For bright objects: big improvement. (Don't cover too much, resolution is proportional to aperture). So, see: even Master-level Blasters keep a good inexpensive refractor in their clip. Thanks, Bryan!
What do you have your Celestron 80mm in the back mounted on? My Vixen made Celestron Firstscope 80 is on an original Alt-Az mount. I had a Powerseeker 80AZS F5 and 80X was about the max. I am much happier with the made in Japan 80mm F11 refractor.
That 80mm was borrowed for a video or a two (th-cam.com/video/pxbn6gYUt3c/w-d-xo.html). It's whatever cheap EQ Celestron was bundling with it. F11 is definitely going to have better images than an F5; the F5's advantage is wider field (for low power) and a shorter tube for keeping set up indoors.
Nice video. Can you please tell me which one I should buy for visual observations (not astrophotography): a Bresser achromat 102/1000 mm for 300 $ or a TS Optics 70/420 mm ED FLP-51 for 430$ ? I don't know which of the two would have a better performance / resolution. Bigger APOs are simple too expensive for me. Other types of telescopes are not an option for me since I don't want to bother with collimation. Thank you!
I'm entirely visual as well. So, "expensive glass" is for color correction, which matters at high power. At low power, you can get by with inexpensive glass. There is a LOT of value to low power viewing, particularly in dark skies (sweeping through the Milky Way). Also, Deep Sky Objects are generally colorless. Your 102/1000, will give great low power views, and, because it's f10, will have reasonable good color correction at reasonable power, you'll get very good views of the moon, Jupiter and Saturn. So it's a good all around performer. The 70/420 is going to have a very hard time magnifying the planets - 70mm maxes at 140x. It will excel at wide angle views - it will show over 5 times as much sky at lowest power (but you don't need the FPL-51 for that).
My recommendation for general scope is an inexpensive 100mm f6. You lose some higher power, but you get a wider view than the f10. Many do prefer the higher power and are happy to sacrifice the wider fields - it depends on your viewing habits. My video on that is: th-cam.com/video/Qt13w1U-0Gg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=tUMFEjSuCX7jLXNu
I think Celestron Starsense Explorer is revolutionizing astronomy for "the masses" as it's an amazingly simple way to get "computer targeting" on a scope cheaply. I find it better than far more expensive systems. My review on that is here: th-cam.com/video/5lmE1amf5js/w-d-xo.htmlsi=v4R56gQvAcilFyhg
For me, I have 90mm refractor and that's as small as I ever want to use, and I'll always, always, always have a 100mm f6. They're inexpensive enough that I'm not afraid to take it with me anywhere or even put it in a suitcase when flying.
Also, you can often pick up some excellent gear "at a steal" on craigslist. The 100mm refractors are often below $100, and Costco sells the 102mm f6.7 for as low as $150 at Christmas.
Good luck!
-jeff
@@golookup Thank you a lot for the detailed a answer :)
Hi Vincent great video once again although I watch your videos on repeat so that the information sticks in my memory to learn as I'm a beginner and have just purchased the dwarf2 and I'm realising that I'm obviously going to need a bigger scope as I sent back my celestron without giving it a chance, so in order to capture mostly everything and see the craters on the moon I would be grateful if you could advise what scope to buy
It is SO hard to recommend a scope. How much do you want to spend? How often can you get to a dark sky? For the dirt cheap options, an inexpensive achromatic refractor is very capable, but planets will not be impressive. A used 8" dobsonian off of craigslist can be a "lifelong" telescope for $300 or less. "Computerized" easy to learn is best executed right now by Celestron's Starsense Explorer series.
These are hard to beat as a beginner’s refractor scope. The price is ridiculous and for most folks it’s a keeper even as you move upwards with your hobby.
I generally always have one. they're light enough to mount on a camera tripod. I've thrown them in suitcases and checked them in when flying. I wouldn't do that with an expensive scope.
I never noticed the Celestron refractor in the background. Was that scope made by Vixen?
it might have been. as far as I knew, it was just an "old slow" Celestron 80mm. I was holding it for friend and didn't pay any attention.
@@golookup Those old scopes like that are really good!!
@@lornaz1975 so, really good color correction (for a doublet) and high resolution (for an 80mm). I have a friend who appreciates those really high quality "stock" scopes.
Yes I know. That is why I noticed it!!
APOs are so expensive compared to achromats, a 70/420 mm aperture APO costs just as much as a 127/1200 mm achromat. Would be nice to see a video comparing an APO and achromat at the same or similar price.
for high power bright objects or for photography you need the better glass of the APO. For low power or low-contrast grey objects (most of the deep sky stuff), the achromats work pretty well.
I Have The ES 102/1000,Curious As To The Match Up Against Them…But Love My 6se,Mak9,and My 11&Lcm Was My 1st Goto❤️🙏🏼🌏🔭✨Clear Skies
Early on my wife asked "Why do you need more than one scope?" "Because they all specialize in different things." -- You can make a rough guess by aperture, focal ratio, objective configuration and brand. then there are fluctuations in quality by brand (especially the mass marketed). For the most part, I observe mainly with mid-size dobs at lowish power. Everything looks pretty good with pretty much all of those. Clear skies!
@@golookup 😂😂😂Ive Been Looking At The Star Adventurer GtI For Something Small To Go With The Evoguide50ed,and The Zwo385MC,He’s Already Askin…Do You Know How Many Mounts You Have.???? Me….But This Ones Dufferent😂😂😂I Really Like That AR102,Not Ad Much CA As What I Thought There Would Be,Thought For Sure A Fringe Killer Would Be In My Future,But Im Happy To Say Not So Far,Skies Are Crap Again,And Some Weird Ass Light Stays In My West All Night Long’,So No Stars Tonight..Clear Skies❤️🙏🏻🔭✨🌏
@@PafMedic The AR102 is a very good achromat. When they first came out, they were inexpensive, great value. They're getting approaching the pricepoint now where maybe the jump to ED glass isn't so big. Again, only the bright objects see a boost. I like the mini-mount trend, but I'm actually in a buying-pause for a while. I'm curious to see how that platform evolves: light, capable, simple.
@@golookup ,The Whole Thing Came About Around 6 Months Ago,I Wasnt Looking For A Scope At All,I Had Been Looking At That Mount To Pair With My Mak 90 For A Totally Powerless Lightweight Set Up,I Was Just Bumming Around When I Saw ES Had It Along With The AR,For $379..Well Damn,Except For My Evoguide,I Dodnt Own a Refractor,lol..I Have a 6se,and Also The Eqm35Pro Mount..And Had Watched a Few Reviews Where I Saw 1 Guy..Honestly Surprised At How Well This Scope Is,They Included A 2”Ring..Great..I Have A 2” WO Durbrite Diagonal,lol,What Little Ive Gotten To Use It,Im Enjoying It,and Hope To Use It For The Lunar Eclipes
@@PafMedic Ain't it great when a great deal comes along?
The problem with cheap refractors is rarely the tube. It’s the cheap-o photography tripods they tend to ship them with.
yes. and kits are built for pricepoints. the mounts and the "high power" eyepieces are almost throwaways. A cheap 4-inch doublet does some things really, really well. I'm not afraid to put mine in a suitcase with a photo tripod. If it's gets beat up or loss, a replacement isn't bank-breaking.
Hi Mike, I look forward to watching your Starsense videos. I watched a little: your videos are top notch. I believe Starsense is the future and look forward to your insight. (I had one for my Evolution 8 and I have the AZ102 version sitting here waiting for a review).
I would recommend a short tube 80 as a beginner refractor. 🙂
nice for ultra wide fields...
Thanks. Does it come with good eyepieces or do you recommend buying other eyepieces?
That’s a brilliant question. Any eyepiece that’s part of a kit is likely to be throwaways. I think that might be my next video. I rotate through scopes, but I have a handful of good eyepieces that I’ll keep a very long time. I’ll follow up your question in detail soon.
What will I be able to see during the night?
my first and only CPC 1100👍🙏🇭🇷
I had a Nexstar 11 GPS. Great Optics and easy to use. I should have kept it. I’d buy that one back.
key being - the tripod. most ( all ? ) ' beginner' scopes have horrid tripods that renders use simply irritating. decidedly the wrong way to go for kids. Jupiter, Saturn - YES. also Orion Neb and Pleiades. visual, not into photos. that's kinda it for me. 8 in dob. 102. Meade. had 4 in 'beginner' newt.
yep. when trying to keep things at an inexpensive pricepoint, they're cutting corners pretty much everywhere. The objective is probably the most important part and then they add cheap accessories underneath. this is your basic bottom level tripod. The mount is the right design but very inexpensive. the azimuth works fine, but having to crank the altitude is rough. I prefer an adjustable clutch and no slow motion controls. Generally a good mount like this starts about $200 plus the tripod. But this is a good "see if you're interested" starting point. Sell and upgrade if you are (or my preferred method: keep and add). :)
That looks like an Omni XLT 102 which has an f/9.8....not f/6.7. And the Omnis are in the $650 - $700 range. May as well get a 6" dobsonian
This is the f/6.7. It comes with a tripod, mount and accessories for under $250 (when on sale). th-cam.com/video/_-2fJ4sa9NM/w-d-xo.html
I agree that if you're serious about astronomy and are willing to spend more, a dobsonian is a better scope. So $250 for a first try, then sell and upgrade to a reflector when you know you're hooked. Beginners might like the ability of a refractor to point a terrestrial objects as well.
David points out the biggest variable in refractor pricing: the glass is the biggest differentiator in quality and price. The 102 f/9.8 is longer focal length and maybe better glass for twice the price (same diameter). The 102ED has better glass and is double the price of the f/9.8. Nebula Photos has a great video comparing 80mm refractors costing $130 vs $600 vs $1750 ( th-cam.com/video/lsS6PrrWnhI/w-d-xo.html). The difference is color correction and sharpness out to the edge of the view (required for good astrophotography).