Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mak MK-66 vs 4" APO's

Expand Messages
  • Michael Hosea
    I have an Intes MK-66DX to complement my 10 f/5 Newtonian. I use the Intes frequently with an 8mm Radian (~225x). It will take higher magnifications on
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I have an Intes MK-66DX to complement my 10" f/5 Newtonian. I use
      the Intes frequently with an 8mm Radian (~225x). It will take
      higher magnifications on Saturn and the moon, but I think 225x
      usually gives the best image. Cooldown is fairly long, but I handle
      things like you. I've had both scopes for over a year now, and
      neither is for sale. OTOH, if I were in the market today I would
      have to think long and hard about a 6" TEC Mak. It will be more
      expensive by several c-notes but still less than a 4" APO.
      --
      Mike

      --- In telescopes@y..., "Ralph" <aa6ww@y...> wrote:
      > Thanks, Image quality is always important to me. I dont have a
      > problem
      > with cool down. Having had big schmidts, Ive always taken out my
      > optical tubes a few hrs before viewing, even if i remotely feel
      like
      > observing. By 9 or 10pm, when the rest of the family is in bed,
      thats
      > when i do my viewing and the scopes are always cooled down.
      >
      > One of my biggest frustrations is when i wanna go up in power and
      the
      > scope wont let me. On planets, i like to observe at 200x +.
      >
      > Wide fields are no problem, I have a 4" WF102 celestron but i may
      > replace that with a Teleview 76 or 85, which i also piggy back on
      my
      > C11.
      >
      > Thanks again! Ralph
      >
      >
      > --- In telescopes@y..., tdbblb@j... wrote:
      > > --- In telescopes@y..., "Rick" <aa6ww@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Ralph - I've owned the MK67 Deluxe, a Vixen fluorite 4" (and
      a
      > > couple of Takahashi 3" refractors). Selling the MK67 was a
      > mistake,
      > > so now I'm buying another.
      > >
      > > Objects will be brighter in the Mak, and in my opinion, shows
      more
      > > detail in extended objects (planets)than the 4" apo does. The
      tube
      > is
      > > relatively light (the MK66 is heavier than the MK67, that's one
      > reason
      > > I prefer the 67), so it's easy to mount. Since it's f/12, you
      will
      > be
      > > able to get higher magnification from longer (and usually easier
      to
      > > use because of eye relief) eyepieces. I think all these are
      > reasons
      > > to choose the 6" Mak over the 4" apo.
      > >
      > > However, the refractor will cool down a lot more quickly, and
      will
      > > have a wider field of view... but if the bottom line is image
      > quality,
      > > then I think the MK67 beats the 4" apos I've looked through (not
      by
      > a
      > > lot, but it still beats it)... hope this helps in making your
      > > decision. Troy
      > >
      > >
      > > > Does anyone know of any downside to owning an MK-66 Deluxe?
      Ive
      > been
      > > > racking my brains on why i need a 4" APO refractor for a back
      > yard
      > > > scope to compliment my CG-11 instead of the Mak. Everything
      Ive
      > ever
      > > > read tells me the Mak is a superior scope to even the finest
      4"
      > > APO's
      > > > with the possible exception of FOV.
      > > >
      > > > Any comments from first hand experience?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ..Ralph
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.