Questar 3.5

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

 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Vote
Page 1 of 3 Next

Questar 3.5
All images crisp and clean. Stars are nice airy disks. Image bright with silver mirror option and broadband coatings. Motor tracks very smooth with no noise. Basically the Rolls Royce of small telescopes.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39017

Questar 3.5
Exceptionally sharp, bright images especially for planetary viewing. Movement of all controls, particularly focus knob, is smooth and positive. Powerguide II option (9v) is exceptionally quiet and easy to operate. Craftsmanship is that of a fine ch and built to last a lifetime. A joy to own and use.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39019

Questar 3.5
this is the small jewel of telescopes; price is high, but
it will last many lifetimes and the optics are top-notch as
is the heirloom quality of construction; a real classy piece
of American heritage; THE BEST

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39021

Questar 3.5
A fantastic scope. Very portable,but does not have the computer interface of others. Mechanically, first class. I have aded a two axis drive and tracking is fine for my viewing. The three legs give a stable mount for viewing, I have not tried it photographically.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39022

Questar 3.5
Perfectly round Airy disk with one bright inner diffraction ring and a very faint outer ring when viewing second magnitude star. Limiting magnitude with direct vision under moderately light polluted skies is 11.9. DC drive is smooth and exceptionally quiet. Observed resolution better than 1.1 arcsecond. Great for double stars and planets. Very portable. Use with a sturdy camera tripod for best comfort. Suggest ordering with 16mm and 8mm Brandons. 260X is no problem for this scope under steady skies.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39024

Questar 3.5
Superb in every respect! Perhaps the eyepieces could be improved. I substituted the Brandon 16 mm with a Leica 32 WW (for Leicas 77 mm ED spotting scope) and the image was markedly improved.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39026

Questar 3.5
A gorgeous showpiece that I enjoy taking out of its velvet-lined case and looking at as much as using it. Precision-made instrument that's user-friendly. Quality built to last a lifetime. I've owned three and missed my first two when I sold it. I keep coming back for more.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39027

Questar 3.5
This is an additional commentary to my rating of this scope on 10/25/99. I have owned my Questar for over a year now and it continues to impress me. It is wonderful on double stars. For example, Gamma in Virgo (1.4 arcseconds)is a breeze to separate with plenty of black between the components. I have even detected elongation of the overlapping airy disks in Eta Corona Borealis (0.7 arcseconds). The colors of the orange-yellow and blue-green components of Alpha Hercules are beautiful. It reveals amazing detail on the Moon and planets. This is great little scope that is very easy top set up on the spur of the moment.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39028

Questar 3.5
Rating: 9.7
In spite of abuse, both the optics and the mechanics continue to perform well (over 5 years, now). Small aperture does indeed "punch through" New England turbulence; optics deliver reasonable contrast too. Only real complaint is that star chart: the seam makes it look cheap, and at $3-5k, I want to enjoy looking "at" this thing as well as "through" it.
Notes: Finder is NOT compatible with the TeleVue/Vixen 8-24mm zoom

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39029

Questar 3.5
There is no other telescope with this quality and is so compact. I do more observing now than ever, even though I own much larger scopes. Spend your hard earned bucks on plastic throw-away scopes or save and buy a masterpiece that will last the rest of your life.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39030

Questar 3.5
The quality and sheer ease of use make it far more enjoyable and interesting to use than my former 8" SCT. The smooth action of the control and the quality of construction make it a joy for life. This is a scope you acquire and keep for life, passing down to your heirs rather than selling.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39039

Questar 3.5
It's quite simply just an ETX with better mechanics. I've seen one of the mirrors on a Zygo alongside an ETX90 mirror and they are essentially the same. If you want the best mechanics money can buy then this could be for you, if you're more concerned with optical quality then don't bother, buy an ETX90 AND a 4 inch TMB apo with the change. Great mechanics doesn't justify the extra 3 grand, especially considering you can buy a great optical and mechanical scope with more aperture for considerably less. Thanks but no thanks.

Overall Rating: 1
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39040

Questar 3.5
Last night our group of observers got together for a night of observing at a dark sky site. One of the guys has a Questar 3.5 and after reading everybody's comments I felt I had to put in my two cents. I use two scopes: a vintage C5 and a TV Ranger. I've compared the Ranger and the Questar side by side and found the planetary veiws about the same. The Ranger has a little false color on Jupiter, the Questar has none, but detail and sharpness are about the same. As far as all around viewing I think short focus high quality refractors are much more versatile than the Questar. Compared to my C5 which has good optics, the Questar optics are better. I looked at Sirius through the Questar and thought, "So that's what a perfect airy disk looks like in an obstructed telesope." Nevertheless the C5 shows as much or more detail on the planets, it's much brighter, and for deep sky it shows much more detail than the Questar. Would I buy buy a Questar if I could afford it? You bet!!! Would I spend my lifetime astronomy budget on one? Not if it meant that I was stuck with 90MM at F/13 for life. But if someone gets the most enjoyment from this hobby out of the finest 90mm f/13 on the planet and he can afford it then what's wrong with that.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39049

Questar 3.5
I have a 1971 Duplex. It is a small f/13 Mak and does perfectly what it is designed to do. It is a piece of art and a status symbol. If that is what you are looking for go no further.If performance/cost ratio is the issue pass on the Questar.It is no where as useful as my TV101 or even my C5+ but that is not why people buy them. I also have a Rolex Submariner and a Seiko drivers watch.
They perform the same but I bought the Rolex because it says Rolex. No other reason. The same holds true of the Questar.Buy it for what it is not as a general purpose scope.I would suggest that if you want one find a used Questar.People take excellent care of them and you can save $1000-$2000 and still have the work of art, the status symbol and an excellent 90mm Mak.I would not buy a new one as they are far too expensive for what you get.At $1800-$2400 the normal used selling price they are still expensive but easier to justify IMHO.Again for the type of scope it is it can't be beat.The best planetary views I have seen in a small aperture scope but no better than my Tak FS102 or TV101 which leave the Questar in the dust as far as rich field and deep sky. In
the 90 mm Mak category it is clearly a 10.As a general purpose scope it is a 5
Randy Hester
Dallas Tx

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39058

Questar 3.5
It is always ready to go. I have an older locked triangle tripod and wedge from a 1970's Celestron 5 that is light weight and rock steady. I set the unit outside for a few hours so I am ready to observe later. Day or night it is a pleasure to use. Construction is flawless-the views are spectacular. Isn't it wonderful to live in a society where we can earn some money and decide how we would like to spend it? I never try to justify the price of my toys-I just enjoy them!

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39059

Questar 3.5
A truly superb instrument with many built-in features that make it a delight to use. Butter smooth controls and top-notch optics combined in an extremely well designed and lightweight "portable observatory". A very beautiful as well as functional instrument. Thanks to Stew Squires for selling me the Questar.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39060

Questar 3.5
MORE THAN A TELESCOPE A WORK OF ART . I OWN MANY TELESCOPES INCLUDING TELEVUES AND TAKAHASHI'S BUT THIS SCOPE IS SPECIAL...THE IDIOT WHO RATED IT A 1 SHOULD BE IGNORED. HE OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T OWN ONE AND THEREFORE ISN'T QUALIFIED TO EVEN POST HIS COMMENTS.

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39061

Questar 3.5
If this is the best mechanics money can buy and the optics arejust as good as an etx 90 (which buy the way I agree the etx has excellent optics) than how can a scope with the best mechanics and excellent optics ever be given a rating of 1..I agree with the previous poster. The guy who gave the Questar a 1 rating is an idiot. I love my Questar......

Overall Rating: 10
Weight: 1 (Unreliable Vote)
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39063

Questar 3.5
After owning a C-8 and Brandon 94mm over the past 25 years (in that order) and now a Questar ( I've been downsizing ) I would rate the optics at 10 plus after seeing Jupiter through this scope-- best view I've had of the three scopes. Mechanicals are very good but not perfect. The azimuth axis slipped until tightened. Not real happy with the way the Brandon eyepieces screw into the holder. I understand why it's that way but it makes it more incovenient to use other eyepieces. On the plus side it's very portable and can be set up on a Bogen tripod and I can be observing in a matter of a couple minutes. I like it a lot! It's very easy to use, much easier than the equatorial mount for the Brandon. I bought this scope because I've always wanted one, I wanted a portable scope I could chase eclipses with, and ease of use. NO REGRETS. Expensive? YES. But I earn my own money and I will spend my own money on what I want. I will enjoy this scope for a very long time.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39064

Questar 3.5
I owned a 3.5 Questar in the 80's. Even the mighty Questar can have quality
issues and mine was one of them. At the time, I was a real perfectionist, so
keep this in mind. The overall correction of the main optics were excellent,
that is, until the temperature fell. Around 40degrees Fahrenheit they went
astigmatic and stayed that way. Stars were egg shaped at moderate power. Questar
didn't fix it. I then backed off the tension on the corrector lens - that returned the stars to their spherical shape. I thought the motor was quite loud
and it took too long to engage. The baffling was good but could be better and
the finder lens , though unique, isn't illuminated and doesn't have cross hairs.
This is of course due to the fact that the finder uses the telescope eyepiece.
Also, being right angled made it all the more difficult to 'find' objects. Using
the scope with the supplied screw in legs was somewhat cumbersome and the tube
only rotated about 45 degrees. The focusing knob was small and difficult
to use especially when the scope is pointed near the north star. Lastly, the
barlow vignetted the field somewhat and introduced off axis glare , lowering
contrast somewhat, especially in the daytime. So much for my 'Quest' for the
perfect scope. My original idea was to hand it down to my children, but considering the above, I sold it and have since given up on the idea.

Overall Rating: No Vote
Weight: <none>
Date:
By:
Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=39065

Page 1 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