Questar 3.5

Ratings:Top:Astronomy:Equipment Reviews:Telescope Reviews:Questar 3.5

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Prev Page 2 of 3 Next

Questar 3.5
I have owned a Questar since the early 1970s. It has performed flawlessly on stars and planets for three decades, continues to do so, and looks as good today as when I first purchased it. The drive tracks perfectly and had never needed adjustment. I have sent it in for recoating the mirror only once in nearly 30 years. My grandchildren will someday mavel at this jewel. Can you buy a much bigger, excellent quality light bucket for the money? Yes. Can you buy a larger high quality APO for the money? Yes. Sure it cost a lot. Sometimes in life, you do get what you pay for. My 3.5" Questar has paid me back far more in satisfaction than I paid for it. And it will continue to do so, (dare I say it?) perhaps for generaions. And there is something about that that appeals to me, even if it can't find some 13th magnitude galaxy in Virgo.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39066

Questar 3.5
Facts: Diffraction limited 3.5" mak with machined (not cast) heavy duty mount. Only one I know of.

Took it to a "star party" on a moonlit night some years ago. The public had been invited. Trained it on the moon and they all lined up behind me leaving everybody else and their celesmeades twiddling their thumbs. (Including a C14.)

Opinion: Fun to use. Never frustrating. You can walk to a site carrying everything at once.You can set it up in two minutes and if you live in (or near) a large city not much can touch it. (Except of course, any other diffraction limited 3.5 inch with a fun-to-use mount.)

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39067

Questar 3.5
9.5 is actual score,, have the field model and love its mobility on a great bogen tripod,, do find the Tele Vue eps to offer a tad better image for both terrestrial and astro,, matched up against my TV-85 it is very close,,

extreme quality that the grandkids will also enjoy someday

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39068

Questar 3.5
Still can't believe I spent the amount of money I did on the Questar. Yes, by all accounts it might be overpriced, and money could be better allocated
on an APO refractor or other some such. However!!!! I owned an ETX for one
night and gave it back. While maybe those ETX optics are right up there with
the Questar and give you good optical bang for the buck, it was everything
mechanically surrounding the ETX that failed miserably for me. I consider
mechanics and ease of use just as important as optical quality! The ETX focusing
mechanism was jumpy and could not bring the thing to focus. The Questar focusing
mechanism is excellent. Yes, its a small focusing knob, but its a small scope.
A circular hard foam piece the size of a penny inserted over the knob gets you that extra size you need to feel in the dark and gets you an even finer
focus ability. The spotting scope on the ETX just won't do. The spotting
mechanism on the questar is actually usefull and fun. I like centering
some anonymous star and quickly powering up to see if its a binary. It does
take alittle talent centering objects in the spotter, but once eye-trained
how to do, things can go very quickly bringing an object in to view. The
Questar and its Bogen mount are stable, more so than the ETX. What good
is a shaky image, even if its cost effective. The drive on the ETX is not as
good on the Questar. There is very little mechanically getting in the way
of optically enjoying the use of a Questar, while I had to fight with the
ETX and lost. Yes, there are a few lamentable quirks with the Questar, but
they can mostly be overlooked. And every time I set up and use my little
Questar, I have never regretted the money I spent....I just can't believe
I spent the amount I did. Finally, the ever portable Questar allows me to
use it for multiple tasks all at once, birdwatching, landviewing, solar
viewing, astronomy. Very versatile. Yes, my TAK 4" APO gives a slightly
better planetary view and wider field, and the C5 spotter reaches deeper
on dimmer objects (though definately less satisfying on planets) the Questar
beats them though portability, versatility, and all the while by maintaining
mechanical and optical excellence. I can always count on my Questar to
give perfect star tests, excellent planet views. Don't count on it for
dim objects. Finally, just to cause a ruckus after my long winded expose,
I think my Questar gives more satisfying views of planets than my 10" Meade
SC, and accordingly got rid of the big lug!! I give the Questar a 10, despite
its cost because it is indeed an excellent small scope that accomplishes much.
I have no doubt the thing will be most durable and give a lifetime of excellent
viewing. And yes Virginia you can take that to the bank!

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39069

Questar 3.5
I've owned both a Questar (two, actually) and an ETX. Optically some ETXs have come very close to a questar, but the variability in Meade optics is very large indeed, as anyone who has owned more than one will tell you. Some ETXs have astigmatic optics, some have stressed mirror mounts, and most owner wouldn't recognize these errors looking through a scope.

My feeling about the ETX was that it's a nice piece of optics for the money, but the mechanics are borderline garbage. Too much plastic, too many easily breakable parts, and horrid human engineering. The finderscope is useless, and the scope is impossible to look through in some orientations. The lack of baffling in the ETX won't show up in an interferometer test but does show up in reduced contrast relative to the Q. I bought my ETX as a portable scope I could take camping when I didn't want to risk the Q, but after a month I sold it and bought a Pronto.

What the Questar gives you is a well built, optically excellent portable observatory. And the price isn't that unreasonable. Consider you're buying an optical tube, a quality finder, a quality barlow, an excellent diagonal and a fine drive in a portable package. The 3.5 OTA alone lists for not too much over $2,000, putting it about even with the typical quality APO of that size.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39070

Questar 3.5
Portable, meaning it get used more often. Solid, made to outlast it's owner. Superb Optics, perfect Airy discs. Easy to use, controls are precise. Expensive, but not a bad deal used. It's a precision piece of equipment that allows you to spend more time viewing and less setting up.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39072

Questar 3.5
I own an LX90 goto 8inch SC , televue 102 and Q with all the upgrades(BB, zerodur , powerglide). All three scopes have their own different strengths. The Lx90 for its computer system and all around performance. The Televue for its nice semi (3degree) rich field and pinpoint stars. The Q for it planetary and double stars . The Lx90 (8inch SC) image quality does not come close to either the Q or telvue 102. The Lx90 or Nextstar 8 are no where near as portable with the Q with tripod ...(To the above poster who are you trying to fool ...Yourself?) When people come over to my house for a Star party the scopes that are always used are the Q and the Televue because Their image quality (contrast sharpness, ) are far superior to an 8 inch SC..And that tells you Quality will always win out over mass produce quantity....

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39074

Questar 3.5
My Questar provides crisper images than any SCT I've used, including my own carefully collimated C-8. It also has better color correction than my 4-inch f/15 achromatic refractor. The area where the C-8 wins is light gathering ability. Overall, the Questar provides more pleasing images, while SCT images are kind of "mushy". I use the C-8 for deep sky and public events, and the Questar mostly for double stars, planets and the moon. Set-up on the Questar is much easier, which also makes it my instrument of choice for short notice observing. During transport, the Questar and its tripod will both easily ride in the front seat of any car, while the C-8 and tripod take up a lot more space such as a trunk or back of a pick-up. I would recommend a Questar, or high quality small refractor such a Tele-Vue or Takahashi in the 90-100mm range, as an instrument to complement the observing program of any amateur who owns a larger scope. If a new Questar is out of the question, you can purchase a used scope for a very reasonable price.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39076

Questar 3.5
This is the easiest rating I have ever submitted! For me cost was not an issue. My father (God bless his "Yankee Trading" traditions) found a 1960 3.5 Q in an antique store in South Florida and it was priced at $199.00. Knowing nothing about telescopes he managed to bargain it down to $54.00!!!!!!! I'm not kidding....serial number is 0-675! I own several other scopes including a C8D, a short tube 90 and a 6" Meade reflector. On deep sky the C8 will outperform just about anything smaller with an LPR filter fitted. But the 3.5 Q was not far behind!!!As compared to a short tube 90 there is no comparison and it was foolish of me to try since the Questar just blew it away in every aspect of performance. Look, I have no axe to grind nor do I need to justify a large expenditure. (I still can't believe it) Those who hate the Q because of it's cost...you got a valid point. Those who love them for every other reason are justified also. Anyone who has used a 3.5 or 7 Q has got to admit...This is one hell of a fine telescope no matter how small. As far as long lasting quality, this one is some 41 years old and looks like it maybe 4 years old and thats only because of some minor scratches on the base.

Gary Bell

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39080

Questar 3.5
Ergonomically and optically excellent. For CCD work I wish it tracked more
accurately.

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39082

Questar 3.5
7.5 times better than the ETX. Also lasts more. Great scope!
I even like my ETX, a nice scope. The Questar is definitely
state-of-the-art. It costs more than a Takahashi of its aperture
(just a couple of Takahashis). Amazing scope!

daSentinel

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39083

Questar 3.5
Price has no business being mentioned when revewing a scope.
and should not be part of the rating. Optical and mechanical performance are what is important. If a buyer feels it is overpriced he doesn't buy., that is how one responds to the issue, not by denegrating it with a rating of 1.
I paid $3000 for my ROLEX as I did for my Questar and I rate them a 10.
I have also had access to a Zygo and have seen many "mass produced " mirrors vary from a few good to most missing spec. Questar
has a very high quality control standard and that is a good part of the price.
My Questar performs as a true optical instrument should and as I expected it to, I was not worried that I got a poor one. The Questar is a very high quality travel scope worthy of great reviews by fair and respectful people, It is the product of perfectionists and true optical engineers, not "marketing" groups. I have compared it to high priced APO's and been very pleased to see virtually equal images with zero color in a package a small fraction of the size, a better group to compare it to
Rating 10

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39084

Questar 3.5
I have been thoroughly amused by the comments regarding this little gem of a telescope. I was especially amused by the stunningly misguided person who rated it a 1. Shall we use the same logic and rate a Rolls Royce a 1 because we feel
that a Lexus is equal at a forth the cost? This rating system asked the raters
to evaluate optics, mechanical, tracking, and stability with reference (implied)
to perfection, not subjectively to some other specific instrument.
My rating: optical=10 mechanical=10 tracking=10 stability=10 average=10

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39086

Questar 3.5
As a Questar 3.5 owner for three years, and with 12 prior years using other telescopes, I feel justified in rating the Questar 3.5 as a "9". Actually I'd give it a 9.8 but fractional ratings aren't allowed. My prior experience is exclusively with refractors, but the list includes Meade 60mm & 80mm, Celestron 102mm, Astro-Physics 102mm Starfire (two of 'em!) and D&G Optical 127mm. My reasons for not giving the Questar a "10" are as follows:
(1) A small but still significant number of Questars suffer from what I consider to be excessive image shift while focussing. The reason is inherent in the overall thimble design and requires factory "tweaking" to correct. I believe that it should have been redesigned by now (the design is 50 years old).
(2) Questar's PowerGuide II still suffers from quality-control problems that cause inaccurate tracking, as witnessed by the number of complaints on the Questar Users' Group web page. For an accessory that costs over $400, this is unacceptable.
(3) Questar moves too slowly in accepting new technology (such as GOTO) and making it available on the Questar.
That said, I think that the Questar still offers an "observing experience" (for lack of a better term) that is unrivalled - but it appeals only to a relatively small group of amateur astronomers. I believe that Larry Braymer knew that his telescope would never be "for the masses" but would appeal only to those who could appreciate the total experience of observing with fine optics, mounted in a telescope that was simple to set up and a breeze to operate. We afficianados like to refer to the Questar as "functional art", and that probably says it better than anything else. The Questar is not "just a telescope", any more than a Ferrari is "just a car". For those who simply want to observe and see the most that can be seen with the least outlay of cash, there are many better choices than a Questar - a good 6" or 8" Dob, for example - just as a Honda Accord is a far better choice than a Ferrari for someone who just "wants to drive" (better reliability and lower cost to repair, too!). But driving a Ferrari is an "experience," just as using a Questar is an "experience." For me personally, observing the stars is an "experience" that goes far beyond just finding another interesting object. I am a solitary observer; I don't like star parties. I like to be able to sometimes set up and take down quickly, at the proverbial "drop of a hat", or at other times engage in carefully planned solar or planetary observing sessions. And I like being able to take my astronomy with me when I travel.
Some have stated emphatically that the Meade ETX makes more sense in a telescope this size, basing it largely on the ETX's optics being sometimes as good and other times almost as good (or at least not discernably worse). If optics alone is the sole criterion, then the ETX is for you. But astronomy, to me, is more than just optics alone, and the Questar seems to satisfy my "inner needs" better than any other telescope I've ever owned - although the A-P Starfires and the D&G 127mm (which I used for 9 years, until I got tired of horsing the G-11 mount around) came close.
In closing, let me emphasize that the above is not an attempt to justify the cost of the Questar on performance alone. I don't believe that is possible. But there is simply not another telescope available with the same total package of features and quality that is as comfortable and relaxing to use, so for those who want what the Questar offers it is simply the only game in town.
Paul Bock (ALPO, RASC, AL)
Hamilton, VA

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39088

Questar 3.5
To begin, I have a hard time understanding how someone could praise the ETX as "almost as good" as a Questar, and then give the Questar a rating of "1". Does that make the ETX a 1/2 or 3/4 ? Think about it !

But more to the point. Would I pay $4000+ (the current list) for a Questar Standard 3.5 ? Maybe. DID I ? No. There are excellent second hand Questars available on an occasional basis, and I picked up a 1988 model on eBay for over $1500 less than the list price. The ad stated that it was "near mint" and was from a reputable astronomic equipment dealer, so I gave it a shot.

When the scope arrived, I was more than surprised and pleased. The '88 looked as if it had just left the factory..... immaculate to say the least. And that is one of the advantages of buying a second hand Questar in many cases. They are usually taken well care of by their owners as "prized posessions", where all too often much of the "mass marketed" equipment is found to be less than well maintained. You don't "have to" pay full retail to obtain an excellent Questar scope.

With that said, would I consider buying a "new" Questar at the current price level ? ABSOLUTELY ! My experience with the purchase of the nearly 14 year old '88 has gone a long way in proving to myself the quality of these beautiful little scopes, not only asthetically and mechanically, but also optically. I've seen and used many an ETX, and knowing Meades propensity for poor quality control and consistency, it's obvious that their little Maks run the gamut from mediocre to very good. "You just never know what you're gonna get" to quote Forrest Gump.

To those of us who own or have owned Questar scopes, there is seldom if ever any question as to their top-notch consistency in the quality control department. I have owned many scopes over the years, but it takes "experiencing" the quality and small details of Questar workmanship to realize how and where so many "mass market" scopes fall short. Can the optical quality of a "better" ETX ever approach that of a Questar Standard ? Even of the best examples of the ETX I've seen, I have never experienced one that came close to the resolution and optical quality of the Questar, "field tests" and "reviews" to the contrary. Meade has obviously profited from promoting the idea of getting a "Questar-like" small scope at a significant discount to the "real thing". But then, with the RA models now being sold in droves at far below their original retail price in the $595 range (Shutan recently selling them at UNDER $200 !!), it is obvious that there is a "value" problem there somewhere. Questar scopes, on the other hand, are known for their excellent resale value..... even the classic scopes of the late 50s and 60s regularly sell for more than their original price tag. In this regard, Questars are in the same class as most other top-end scopes. As the old saying goes, "Quality remains long after price is forgotten".

Sure Questars (and other top of the line scopes) are "expensive" But how many items that you buy for personal use and enjoyment can you depend on to last a lifetime and beyond ?

I have owned many quality telescopes over the past 35+ years, but the simple pride in ownership of a Questar and the impeccable quality and performance involved in this small scope is something that has to be experienced to be understood. I have no doubt it will become my favorite and most used telescope, and that it and I will travel many light years together.

A strong 10...... with no hesitation.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 15 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39090

Questar 3.5
I don't own a Questar, but a good friend does and we observe together frequently. I find the Questar to perform as well or better than any other scope I've used. It is bright, has good contrast, and mechanically is superb. At star parties I've had shoot outs with my friend and occasionally win except on poor seeing nights when his smaller apature is a major advantage. I own a five inch robo scope. I am handicapped and choose a nexstar 5 becuse of my specialized needs. I don't kid myself those looking through our scopes and evaluating them are more on the inexperienced side as most marvel at both. Objectively though I love my scope because I can use it there is no question in my mind that the Quester is the better scope. It is a work of art. It's mechanical quality is the best I've ever seen, fit and finish superb. Questar's general approach seems to be quality above technology or any other consideration. Questar has taken a good design as near perfection as anyone in the business. I don't have a problem with rating a Questar a 1 so long as all other 3.5 maks would rate a zero. I would love to own a Questar but my specialized needs are better met by a lesser scope. I am impressed by the Questar though I'm not a Mak fan. Purely and simply this is the best there is.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 4 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39116

Questar 3.5
I bought a Questar 3.5 about a year ago, loved it the first time I used it and love it still. I also own a 15" Dob and an 8"SCT.
Optically the Questar outperforms my SCT despite a 6X lightgathering disadvantage. Of course the 15" Dob gives better views, but its amazing how close the Questar comes on most nights.
My Questar replaced an ETX, and like the ETX, the set-up and take-down require only minutes. I found the ETX mount to be flimsy and annoying which is why I replaced it. In contrast the Questar mount and tracking are perfect. The attention to detail in its design is wonderful. Features like the built-in barlow and finder scope really add to the ease of use. I've even take a few good pictures with the Questar, tho of course the better mounted SCT is superior for astrophotography.
For easy set-up, excellent optics and comfortable viewing, the Questar beats any other scope I've used.
It is expensive and if cost is an issue the ETX is a tempting alternative. None the less, I think the Questar is more than worth the price they charge for it.

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Mount:10 Ease of Use:10 Value:10
Weight: 2 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=85406

Questar 3.5
The "perfect" scope for travel! Zero error in the optics afford sharp, clear stellar views. The terrestrial ability is amazing! Total package weighs just 14 pounds - easy carry-on for the airplanes!

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Mount:10 Ease of Use:10 Value:10
Weight: 3 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=111709

Questar 3.5
I recently picked up a Questar Duplex on Astromart. Truth is I am one of those "over 40" amateurs who dreamed as a kid of owning one. Prior to the Questar I have owned and enjoyed numerous scopes from a 10" Portaball to various 3" refractors and most sizes inbetween. The Questar has rapidly established itself as the perfect quick-look and travel scope. I keep it on an old Gitzo tripod and simply carry it outside with the 16mm Brandon in place.

A few nights back I came home late from dinner with friends. Since it was clear I grabbed the Questar and went outside. Within a few minutes I had viewed M13, M57, the double-double, Albeiro and the moon. The optics are amazingly sharp and easily separated the double double into it's component parts each surrounded by a diffraction ring. M13 was partially resolved and M57 showed as a two-tone smoke-ring. Not bad from a heavily light-polluted site near Los Angeles! Being able to go from finder to medium and high power at the flick of a couple of switches is the ultimate in ease of use. Though the finder, while convenient, does take a bit of getting use to.

This morning I had it out for a quick look at Saturn and to compare it to an excellent Showa 4" F/10 flourite scope. Results? The Questar matched it neck and neck for sharpness but did not put up as bright an image. Each easily showed Cassinis and detail on the globe. The image was best at 162x (Brandon 8mm) in the Questar but held up well to over 200x. At 166x (6mm UO ortho) the Showa was simply brighter. Higher power gave the edge to the Showa but not by much. Turning to the moon I found the same performance: excellent sharpness in both, the Showa image being just a bit brighter and holding a bit more at higher powers- 225x and above.

The biggest difference? I carried the Questar out in one hand while it took three trips with the Showa/GM8 combination. And the Questar went back into it's case, and is now ready to go off to the office and provided great solar viewing for my co-workers during lunch in a local park.

Verdict? The Questar is an excellent scope for someone who has a need for optical perfection in a small package. It is not a deep sky visual scope in my opinion (what size/quality scopes did Galileo and Messier use?) but it excels at lunar, planetary and doubles stars. Plus it will, hopefully, accompany me to Africa for this December's total eclipse. The Questar will certainly be my most used scope and I could live quite happily with just two scopes: the 10" Zambuto/Portaball and the Questar.

Overall Rating: 10
Optics:10 Mount:10 Ease of Use:10 Value:9
Weight: 12 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=115907

Questar 3.5
Okay, first off, the ETX *IS* almost as good as a Questar. I know - I owned both, side by side. Compared head to head on many many nights. Consistently, the views were almost identical (using the same eyepieces in both). Where the Questar pulls away is in the build construction and overall quality. This thing is a work of art! Silky smooth controls, and more gadgets than you can shake a stick at, all in a package more compact than the Meade. However, I found it hard to keep all the knobs straight, and i never did get the hang of the "through the eyepiece" finderscope. Overall this is a great scope (I think the optics in the ETX are also top shelf), but where it falls down is in value. This is way too much to pay for a 3.5 inch scope. Don't let the hype fool you - 3.5 inches is 3.5 inches. This scope does NOT outperform an 8 inch SCT - I know. I also owned a C8 at the same time. It just isn't going to happen. The price is too high, but if you can afford it, you'll have one of the world's premier compact travel scopes (for the money, though, I'd be looking at a TV-85 or an AP Traveller). VERDICT: Recommended (if you can afford it).

Overall Rating: 7
Optics:9 Mount:10 Ease of Use:7 Value:3
Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=142085

Prev Page 2 of 3 Next

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!

Checking Your Telescope
Starting out in Amateur Astronomy
 
How to use This Site
Why Register?
[Get rid of the ads!]
Voting Guide