antares vs celestron focal reducer
The C8 has no noticeable vignetting with a 32mm Plssl in the f/6.3 reducer. However, this also came at a cost, as the sky background in the Antares was slightly brighter. The internal surfaces are blackened and glare-threaded to provide the highest contrast. Reducer - Corrector Learn More. The focal length of a focal reducer is usually measured from the rear lens surface of the reducer (and not the reducer's housing). But while the image gets brighter, the size of the image circle gets proportionately smaller. Besides observing from his heavily light polluted backyard in Los Angeles, Manish enjoys conducting astronomy outreach programs in local schools. They are reported as identical. Read our guide! Theoretically each of these combinations all varied-length light paths should have resulted in slightly different reductions between the Celestron and Antares, since they supposedly have different focal lengths. You also wont be unhappy spending the few extra bucks on the Celestron for the pretty orange lettering, particularly if you can pick one up used, as I did. He tested this on an 8 Celestron , I have a Celestron 6SE. This part is no longer in production, but it is sometimes available used and may be used with cameras with smaller sensors. Meade once made an f/3.3 focal reducer for SCT scopes. A slight nod to the Antares for heft and higher transmission, but points to the Celestron for nice threads and better contrast. If used before or beyond the working distance, unwanted image distortion may result. Read our 101 article or get in touch. Bear in mind you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, i.e. Please let us know what topics you are interested in. Fumbling around in the dark, fine threads might be a problem. Sign up for a new account in our community. Performance wise what differences might there be using the reducer on a smaller scope. Easy solution found a very tiny dab of super lube on the threads and all was well and quiet.. The Reducer/Corrector is easy to install by threading the unit onto the rear cell of your Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope (or the reducer plate of the C11 and C14). How does it look thats what matters. I've never found my 0.63 reducer causing CA when used with my SCT. Orders placed after 12:00 PM Pacific Time will be shipped the next business day. I also used several eyepieces including the ES 24mm/68, 17.5mm and 12.5mm Morpheuses, and a 10.5mm Pentax XL. Planetarium software package which provides easy-to-understand explanations and impressive visuals of all kinds. You need to be a member in order to leave a comment. The Antares is supposed to be pretty comparable. On the camera side, the focal reducer has male M42x0.75 or M48x0.75 threads that attach directly to the T-ring (with an M42-M48 adapter if necessary). If I had to chose one, I would base my decision on your level of light pollution perhaps the Antares for its slightly higher transmission if you live under less light polluted skies, but the Celestron for its greater contrast if you are dealing with a suburban or urban light dome. This also resulted in the clear aperture of the Antares being about 39-39.5mm, versus the Celestrons 41mm. riklaunim Members 559 3,445 Location: Poland Posted October 11, 2010 They are reported as identical. So Celestron buyers like Celestron, Meade buyers like the Meade and Antares buyer like the Antares. If I had to go out on a very thick limb, I would have to say that these two reducers/correctors are, indeed, identical the exact same glass in slightly different housings with different lettering. However, some focal reducers can be used over a wider range of working distances, especially those with simpler optical design, and especially when used with cameras with smaller sensors. I was going to measure the difference in grams, but my lovely wife caught me trying to use her precious, high-tech kitchen scale for the cause, and put the kibosh on it. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. Fastar Technology allows imagers the option of drastically increasing the speed and sensitivity of their Celestron optical tube, allowing bright, detailed images with short exposures. Much to my surprise, swapping back and forth between the two correctors using all three diagonal configurations, I also could detect absolutely no change in reduction between the two reducers. I'd favor the Japanese Celestron version over the others that are commercially available. To calculate how much back focus spacing you need to add, take the thickness of the filter and divide it by 3. Hi - most interesting - may I ask .. the brighter guys - "if a camera sensor is too small for a n adaper, will a focal reduer allow me to get greater use from the camera? I use it on my C8 SCT with a 1000d, and it seems to do everything written on the tin. To test this, I used three set-ups: 1. Article Agena AstroProducts, 2019. No retailers currently carry this product. The more focal reduction, the further inward the focal plane will be. Please note, orders placed after 10am on 2/28/2023 will be delayed. This article explained the basics of how focal reducers work with various kinds of telescopes and how their working distance affects their reduction factor, and it provided sufficient detail to help amateur astronomer choose and use the right focal reducer for a particular application. I doubt there is any difference between the Antares and the Celestron except price. Unique focal reducer and field corrector lens accessory Reduces the focal length and f/ ratio of your Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope by 37% Provides a dual focal ratio instrument, without sacrificing image quality Compatible with all Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes (see compatible list in description) Share Customers Also Purchased Description Any comments gratefully received. Antares Click Lock Visual Back - posted in Cats & Casses: Here is the situation:I bought a Celestron CPC 1100 for visual use.Want to put on the scope simulteanously a6.3 focal reducer, filter wheel, and aneyepiece turret. Manish Panjwani has been an active amateur astronomer since before Halley's Comet last flew by our neighborhood. Possibly the design of the Antares was changed .. The click-lock with a 2 dielectric diagonal with a somewhat shorter light path, using both a 2 ES 28mm/68 and the same low-profile adapter with a 1.25 ES 24mm/68. 1.2" in that scope is a field stop of 43mm at f/10 and 27mm at f/6.3. What is likely is that fatigue sets in, and also that as the targets move toward or a way from the meridian there will be changes for that reason alone. This may be a problem if the focuser tube or the diagonal (for visual observing) is too narrow to accept light at this larger angle. Some refractors such the TeleVue Nagler-Petzval (NP), the Takahashi "FSQ", and the William Optics Redcat/WhiteCat 51 have inherently flat fields because of internal optical elements. A longer effective focal length leads to higher magnification with a given eyepiece for visual observers. However, manufacturers virtually never provide this specification. Housings, threads, reduction, correction, blah, blah, blah. One of the most important factors in a telescope is its transmissionthe percentage of light that reaches the focal plane. Never used one, but read the reviews here that suggest a coating problem. At a significantly lower price point, the Antares is a steal, and theres no need to upgrade to the Celestron if you already have one. The working distance of the GSO 0.5x focal reducer with 1.25" barrel and the GSO 0.5x focal reducer with 2" barrel is about 51mm to 53mm, approximately, from the middle of the metal cell that holds the lens. As another example,GSO makes focal reducers for their line of Ritchey-Chretien imaging telescopes. Very helpful, thanks a lot for this article! That is definitely a 2" eyepiece, but it is not a large or long focal length 2" eyepiece. Does anyone know if the Antares 4000 focal reducer is as good as the Celestron focal reducer. If you want to use them for visual - try maybe long focal length eyepieces rather than the reducer. The equations and argument in the Appendix of this article shows the relationship between the working distance and the reduction factor. We do not price match competitors if they are out of stock. In practice, it's important to remember that you will rarely operate at the exact working distance and at the exact reduction factor that is specified. 2023 OPT Telescopes. Watch this before you buy Celestron 8SE SCT, or a Focal Reducer or a Hyperstar 7,758 views Mar 28, 2018 145 Dislike Share Ray's Astrophotography 42.3K subscribers Note: I am not paid or. control and Sky Viewer display makes selecting your target easy. Celestron is considered better in terms of QA, less likely to come with free dust, hair or fingerprint. EclipSmart solar products feature Solar Safe filter technology providing the ultimate protection from harmful solar radiation, including both IR and UV light, and filters 99.999% of visible light. The visual back must be removed first. The reducer is we might presume designed to correct to some as yet un-measured extent, the image of a standard SCT. October 11, 2010 in Discussions - Scopes / Whole setups. My Celestron was made in China and the Antares in Canada. All rights reserved. These 0.63x focal reducers were originally designed to optimize for an image circle to match 36mm x 24mm film or its digital equivalent for astrophotography. Unlike . Designed distancing using the reducer with a 1.25 visual back and 1.25 Televue mirror diagonal; The Reducer/Corrector can also be used for terrestrial digiscoping. For imagers, the main purpose of a focal reducer is to increase the brightness of the image at the focal plane. Based on Test 1 and Test 2, I think there is perhaps more validity to opposing statements here in these forums that the Antares and current China-made Celestron do, indeed, have exactly the same optics just with different housings and branding. It might work but it does not tell us anything about how well or to what extent the product works to correct the field of an SCT. Thanks Peter! Take control of your telescope! The working distance (backfocus) of the Celestron f/6.3 reducer is specified to be 105mm from the base of the male SCT thread on the camera side. When using the diagonal, keep the field stops of the eyepieces under 20mm. This means that there must be sufficient travel on the telescope focuser to make up for this. And when d1 = FR, that is, when the focal reducer is placed at a distance from the focal plane of the objective that's equal to the reducer's focal length, the focal length of the combined optical system is Fo, so it acts as a 0.5x reducer. My experience is that CN sellers are way above those listing elsewhere. Scope size might influence choice as well, as a C6 might benefit from the Antares' transparency, while larger scopes might benefit from the Celestron's higher contrast. The camera side of the focal reducer is threaded for a T-adapter with wide M48 threads, or in some cases, with smaller M42 threads. Copyright 2021 Stargazers Lounge I have this one Opticstar F6.3 Focal Reducer / Corrector. . There may have been an almost imperceptible difference, but the Antares and Celestron were producing precisely the same reduction. We tested GSO's 1.25" 0.5x focal reducer at a variety of operating distances and calculated the field of view through a telescope to derive the actual reduction factor that is plotted below. Specially-designed focal reducers are available for use with these telescopes. Like many of us with SCTs, I have bought and sold a number of f/6.3 reducer/correctors over the years, and I have always been curious how they really stack up to each other. Depending on the design of the telescope, they may require separate focal reducers if they require focal reducers at all. It's an either/or proposition: reducer and 1.25", or 2", but not 2" and reducer. Opticstar F6.3 Focal Reducer / Corrector. The lens that the ZWO comes with give a perfect wide angle image of what is in front of it. Celestron makes a series of focal reducers for the Edge HD line that are matched to the 8", 9.25", 11", and 14" apertures of these scopes. Several functions may not work. Dedicated focal reducers for refractors are intended primarily for imaging, not visual observation. This superb fully multi-coated multi-element focal reducer takes advantage of the latest computer aided design techniques to achieve the highest standards of performance set by the brand leaders at a fraction of the cost. The two samples I have PERFORM IDENTICALLY. The previous post shows the reducer on what appear to be two different refractors. In terms of reduction and correction which are what reducer/correctors are supposed to do both are superb. For this test, I used a single configuration R/C, Click-lock, and 1.25 diagonal with the adapter. However, these will not impact optical performance. In this configuration, the 29.5mm camera nosepiece and a 6mm extension ring positions the reducer at a working distance of 53.5mm from the camera sensor, which is located 12.5mm inside the front edge of the camera. This should not be the case if they have their purportedly different focal lengths. None of this was offensive, nor did it interfere with views in any significant way. It must be in stock at the time of Price Match for us to make a guarantee. Thanks. There are many different types of focal reducers and they all effect. Fortunately, my neighbors are not out in their backyards at 11 pm, or they may have thought I was torturing a small mammal. Nada. Many focal reducers are meant to be used within a few millimeters of the specified working distance to achieve the best possible image results. I am new to these optic topics, and I want to ask you what happens with Masutov like SW or Celestron 4 or 7 inches. More details are found in the Appendix of this article. The Celestron is both a corrector and focal reducer and the Antares is just a focal reducer. So, this past week I challenged the Antares and Celestron models to a head-to-hear on my C8 on some decent nights of good seeing and transparency in my Bortle 5-6 urban skies. Since 2008, Brian has taught astronomy to tens of thousands of stargazers through his websites OneMinuteAstronomer.com and CosmicPursuits.com. InternetSales@optcorp.com, 800-483-6287 But in the Japan version I have never noticed any anomaly like the ghosting in the China R/C. This appendix summarizes how this works based on simple equations from the book Telescope Optics by Rutten and van Venrooij. That was fun. As one increases, the other decreases. The most commonly available focal reducers for SCTs are the f/6.3 reducers from Celestron and a similar f/6.3 focal reducer from Meade. It covers the basic optics and design specifications of a focal reducer, and goes through some practical factors to consider when selecting and using a focal reducer. When placed in the focal plane in front of a camera or eyepiece, a focal reducer leads to a wider field of view and a brighter image of extended objects, which is important for reducing the exposure times when imaging faint extended objects like nebulae or galaxies. In your opinion, is the Celestron is worth the added cost ($150 vs. $90)? I really don't see any difference in the current crop except the "Meade" is usually the cheapest. JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. A f/10 focal ratio now achieves a f/6.3, while an f/11 focal ratio now achieves a f/7. Your price: $579.00. I focus using a moonlight electronic focuser and focusmax. It works fine but you should stick with 1.25 EPs; or can use 2" EPs without corrector. What I do know is that the Antares and the Celestron samples that I have perform exactly the same from the center right out to the edges. While most Barlow lenses and focal extenders work with most kinds of telescopes available to amateur astronomers, focal reducers are designed to work in a narrow range of focal ratios of a telescope objective. Assuming you use the reducer with the stock 1.25" diagonal, it will operate at f/6.3. If a stronger level of focal reduction is used, say 0.5x, then the image circle may be too small to fill the sensor of larger cameras. Reducer Lens .7x - EdgeHD 800 Learn More. You cannot, for example, use a 0.63x focal reducer intended for a standard Celestron or Meade SCT and use it on a Celestron Edge HD or a Meade ACF. The Celestron f/6.3 is ~150 compared to the Antares at ~70. We will be glad to help. 2023 Celestron, LLC. For me the Antares was a little brighter and had the least scatter by a bit so the better coatings won. Antares or Celestron? We have tested our current batch and it works with Meade, Celestron, and Baader SCT accessories. if the illuminated field is 27mm wide without the reducer, it will be 27 x 0.63 = 17mm with it in place. DUE TO EXTREMELY HIGH DEMAND, WE WILL NOT BE TAKING NEW ORDERS UNTIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 14. Focal reducers for refractors are easy to use. Not one detectable iota of discernable difference. I've seen some older threads saying that the Celestron, Meade and Antares FRs are all the same and manufactured in the same factory. External Focusers for Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescopes 3.1 The Basics of SCT Threads ED glass is specially formulated and contains rare-earth compounds that greatly reduce a visual defect called chromatic aberration. Even though the manufacturer did not specify the working distance or focal length of this reducer, it is easy to see from this plot that this item provides its stated reduction of 0.5x when it is placed at a working distance of 51.5mm between the base of the threads on the mount and the focal plane of the eyepiece or camera. Reproduction without permission prohibited. My application is mostly visual now, but I'm looking to do more astrophotography over time.
Tui Cabin Crew Recruitment Process,
Oklahoma Joe Thermometer Accuracy,
Dyson Airwrap Refurbished,
Mankato Fishing Report,
Articles A
