Meade LX-50 8"

Ratings:Top:Astronomy:Equipment Reviews:Telescope Reviews:Meade LX-50 8"

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Page 1 of 1

Meade LX-50 8"
Excellent observation scope, not so great for astrophotography without heavy modification. No PEC, and the DEC motor is weak without a mod kit from Jordan Blessing.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38131

Meade LX-50 8"
Oh yea, almost forgot- the stuff they ship with thing is embarrasing. a 30mm finder, a standard 25mm MA eyepiece, they didn't even toss in a plossl in the deal. So plan on replacing the finder, and get some real eyepieces.
If you plan on doing any type of astrophotography, which I don't recommend with this scope, plan on buying a telrad finder, an 8x50 finder, a weight balance kit, Jordan Blessing's dec fix kit (the brass gear set), and an SBIG ST-4 (forget the Meade 201xt, it sucks with this scope). If you want to punish yourself by doing manual guiding, get a good OAG, the 9mm wireless illuminated xhair reticle (the 12mm sucks, and wires always cause problems). A focal reducer and nebula filter help a lot also.

Optically, this scope is the same as the LX-200, minus the GOTO capabilities. If you plan on getting a magellan II, then you may as well save your dollars a little longer and spring for the LX200 cuz the MagII doesn't come close to the LX200. The magII does NOT make it a goto scope, you still have to manually slew to the area, and the find only gets it roughly in the eyepiece view on a longer focal length EP like 26mm+..

Regarding the mount, the fork arms are the same as the LX200, and the tripod is great, although I suggest permanent concrete or steel pier for serious use. The wedge leaves a lot to be desired, I highly suggest getting a latitude adjuster bar from any of several places- the poor excuse for a latitude adjuster that comes with the wedge just twists the wedge. And don't trust the bubble level that's on the wedge, get a torpedo level and use that.

Aside from what I complained about above, the scope is a great deal for observational use. The LX-10 just doesn't have the motor speeds or features to be of much use, and the LX-200 is great, but expensive. If you don't want GOTO, this is a great scope.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38132

Meade LX-50 8"
Optics on mine are well corrected. Drives are fine for visual & piggyback photography. I have no Dec drive problems that seem to be widely reported with this scope. keeping it well collimated is all that I do to provide very good performance on the planets & deep sky.

Jim Nadeau skyjunkie@acadiacom.net

Overall Rating: 9
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38134

Meade LX-50 8"
Generally speaking this is a good scope to consider if you think want to do astrophotograhy work but can't afford the LX-200. It is much sturdier than the LX-10 and optically the same as all the LX series. It also has an autoguider input.

However, don't get this scope planning to add the Magellan II. It would be much better to sink in a little more cash up front for the LX-200. Using the Magellan II is acquired skill that some never master. When you get the knack, it is still no where near as precise as the LX-200. Also once you add the Magellan, you will have cables coming out of everywhere which complicates turning the scope more than 180 degrees. The Dec motors range from bad to worse, with most having a serious speed and torque mismatch with the RA motor. They are also very loud. (Doesn't make you a hit at star parties!) The Scopetronix dec fix helps but shouldn't be required on a scope of this price.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38135

Meade LX-50 8"
I have owned an 8"LX50 for approx 2 yrs and find it a mediocer scope for the weight.However in fairness to Meade, most of the problems encountered were because the dealer from whom I bought the thing was suppost to have Certified &inspected it for collimation, ect.It has taken me all this time 2yrs to gwet it where it will show decent star test. Planetary views were ok(jupiter,Saturn, not so ok Mars. If had my m,oney bak would not buy an LX50.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38136

Meade LX-50 8"
I'm SOOOOO happy because I gonna buy a Meade Lx-50 10". I'm a 15 y. old boy and
is very interested in astronomy . . . . . .. .
Regards EIRIK SANDAL

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38138

Meade LX-50 8"
I have the 10" LX50 and am very happy with it's performance. The Magellan II pits the object in the field of view 95% of the time. The other 5% is just on the edge. I have installed the dec fix kit. I have set it up next to the LX 200 and had LESS trouble than the owner of the LX 200. One can hear a LX 200 making "coffee grinding" noise for a great distance. Over the past 30 years I have had many fine home made instruments and find that the LX 50 is a great scope. Those that berate the LX 50 for the LX 200 should have bought a LX 200 in the first place so they can complain about it instead !

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38139

Meade LX-50 8"
F10 version has good optics though not as good as Meade's advertising would have you believe. Able to pick up 4 craterlets on the floor of Plato under moderate seeing using an 8 mm Radian. Regularly see at least 5 bands on Jupiter, shadow transits of the major moons and the great red spot. The Cassini division on Saturn is easy to see.
26 mm Plossl that came with the scope is fine on axis but deteriorates noticeably at the edges. I would personally prefer Meade to limit the field.
6x30 finder scope is a cheap toy, and has a very limited focus range (it will not accomodate my -3 dioptre correction)
My biggest gripe is the poor mechanical tolerances of the supplied 1 1/4 inch right angle mirror diagonal which can be noticeably rattled in the eyepiece holder. On clamping the unit noticeably twists and is unlikely to be normal to the optical axis.
Mount is sturdy and supports scope well, however my overall feeling is that similar rigidity could be realised through improved engineering practices and without the excessive weight.
Standard Tripod is sturdy although at full extension some vibration is noticable.
Dec drive is noisy but not as bad as some reports would have you believe.

Bottom line: Good visual scope, fair value for money. Improvements required however in several areas.

Overall Rating: 8
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38140

Meade LX-50 8"
Addendum to previous posting. Noted that the eyepiece drawtube end of the Meade 1.25 inch prism diagonal was far from square. Closer inspection revealed that during assembly it had been screwed in at an angle.Was able to unscrew the drawtube and refit it correctly. Having been shaken by the poor mechanical QA of the Meade diagonal I decided to invest in a 1.25 inch Televue mirror diagonal. This metal cast unit feels more substantial and well built; although it lacks the precise eyepieve fit of its larger 2 inch stablemate. During collimation I noticed that I was now able to get a much better result. Visually too I see a difference. Can see 7 bands on Jupiter on a night of moderate seeing with my 8 mm Radian.At the same mag I saw banding on Saturn for the first time. On the moon 4 craterlets within Plato were easy to see. I suspect that with higher power,I may well see more. My general impression too is that there is less chromatic abberation now than with the prism.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38141

Meade LX-50 8"
I bought my LX50 second hand for around 60% of the list price (the scope was in perfect condition). First of all, it looks great and impresses the neighbours!. The optics on mine are excellent. The usual stuff (M13; M2; M57.. ) all of a sudden appear and are as you see them in many astro-photos. Brighter galaxies are also no problem. I have done some tracked fotos and they turned out fine. The only real contra is the weight. I dread to think what a 10" version would be like to hoist onto the tripod. If you can get one for around 60% in perfect condition then go for it.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38142

Meade LX-50 8"
i got it for $1000 shipped and in great shape i used to have a lx50 10" but was so big and heavy that i wanted something smaller.great telescope would reconmeand it to anyone

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=38143

Meade LX-50 8"
Great scope, have had no problems at all with the optics of my scope. The Dec. motor with the fix kit is the only way to go in haveing it track good. Planetary viewing is very good, but no where as sharp as my 6" apo refractor. Deep sky viewing is where this scope dose its best.

Overall Rating: 9
Optics:9 Mount:9 Ease of Use:8 Value:10
Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=75564

Meade LX-50 8"
Good value for money

Overall Rating: 7
Optics:6 Mount:5 Ease of Use:4 Value:6
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=165107

Meade LX-50 8"
I have used this scope and compared it to a Celestar 8" SCT with wedgepod (about same price range). There is no comparison, except for optics. The Celestron wins hands down.

1) The C8 is a lighter OTA and fork assembly - much easier to transport and yet built just as well. I think the Meade forks are heavier, but the C8 is just as sturdy.

2) The Celestron wedgepod is much easier to use than the Meade tripod and wedge assembly. The Celestron wedgepod tray on top really helps hold stuff, too but the Meade does not have one. The Meade is much more difficult to set up.

3) Optics were virtually identical. Very good. Neither had dark dark background and were typical SCT optics. Can't beat the price for 8" of aperture and the ability to keep an object in view. You can find the C8 used for around $700-$750 and Meade LX 50 a little more here in 2003. BTW - I think dobs are dumb. But, maybe it's me. I just like to be able to put an object in fov and watch it for a long time even at high power without moving scope constantly. That's why I think the Meade is a good buy on used market for 8" of aperture.

4) The Meade RA lock seems to be better. Give the edge here to Meade.

5) Based on ease of use, the mount, and weight - I give the edge to the C8. Optics were the same. I think the entire C8 scope and mount are a well engineered combination. The Meade is good, but just more difficult to set-up and use.

Overall Rating: 8
Optics:9 Mount:8 Ease of Use:6 Value:8
Weight: 5 (Veritable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=180171

Page 1 of 1

[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