| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Second hand Questar a first class experience. By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.226.48) Date: 09/04/2004 07:27:45 am PST I recently acquired a 30 year old Questar 3.5" standard. It was outrageously expensive. For that price, I seriously considered buying an ETX-125 with every possible accessory. Quality and design execution were the deciding factors. In use, the Questar is flawless optically and mechanically. I don't regret the purchase one iota. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.110.57 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.241.35) In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.198.12) (Original Message) Date: 11/03/2004 01:59:34 pm PST >Around 6 months ago, I was asked, by a friend if I were still interested in telescopes. I told him yes and he went out to his car and brought in a dusty, maroon colored old fashioned box with a handle on top and brass clamps on the side. He placed it on a table and opened it. I didn't know what to expect. I thougth it was some old scope that didn't work but after taking it out of the box and seeing that it was one of those "legendary" Questar 3.5's, I marveled at how beautiful it looked, having only seen one up close at a star party a couple of years ago. I had no Idea how old it was. He wasn't sure what it was worth but he let me have it for a week to check it out and see if it was usable and if I still wanted it we could talk then. >It turned out to have perfect optics. The Right Ascension controls were a bit sloppy and needed adjustment. No scratches on it and needless to say >I was amazed at the excellent quality of the ep's and integral dew shield. >The "close" magnified views are nothing short of amazing. At 12 feet away, it was like looking through a microscope when I was looking at a tree. The pine needles looked like they were right next to my eyes. >At night the moon looked amazing. Saw a "hazy" Andromeda and some of the nebula and >globulars around the Teapot. I didn't expect to see >deep sky objects very well, but was satisfied with this little 3.5 inch during testing. >Needless to say I purchased this little beauty a week later and have been used it during the Venus Transit and >other solar viewing as well as planetary use. >I'm no "snob", just a hard working Engineer who got lucky being offered a fine scope one evening. >Now if only someone offers me that "used old" TV Genesis, that would be a coup! Clear skies to all. > >George >NY > > > > > >>I feel sorry for this guy. He obviuosly has an envy problem and a very POOR attitude. I own a Questar and find it to be a very high quality instrument. Is it expensive-yes. A Time X watch will tell you what time it is just as well as a Rolex. One is more expensive than the other. So is the differance in price justified? There will always be people who appreciate quality. Some who can afford it and some who cannot. For others it is just a matter of priorities or interest. I am not wealthy but have always wanted a Questar so I saved up and bought one. Just like the Time X I wear this was a matter of priorities. Before I had a Questar when I saw those who did have one my thought was this:"I wish I had what they had and that they had somthing even better" If you are just starting out a Questar is probably not the scope for you. If you are into the hobby and deep sky objects but can only afford one scope again the Questar may not be for you. If however you want a compact highly precise instrument that is easily portable and an understanding of its limitations due to aperature this may well be an excellant investment. Just my 2c worth. >>R/S, >>Dan >> >>>>"price has no business being mentioned when reviewing a scope". hahahahaha. >>>>>What a bunch of bull#@&*. People like you really make me laugh. I guess you blow your nose on twenty dollar bills just because the texture of the bill has more "quality" than the average tissue wipe..... Go peddle your elitest attitude elsewhere. There are a lot more of us poor folks than you rich fatcats. And to the average consumer out there, i will pass along these words of advice concerning the questar 3.5 , I have read quite a bit about it, and everything points to the fact, that the optics(the most important part of any scope) is no better than the average ETX. If you want to blow thousands on an antiquated scope just because it will last long after your dead and gone, then go ahead. If your one of those crazy people who want to enjoy astronomy ,while your actually alive, Then save a bundle and go for something a lot more reasonable that will deliver the same performance under the stars. If your determined to spend what a new questar will cost. You can buy all sorts of quality scopes that will blow this tiny thing away. >>> >>> A very unfair comment, I think. Class war is not at issue here. Price may be related to the value of a scope, but it is not related to the technical quality of the instrument. Takahashi refractors are superior instruments, whatever their price; whether they are "worth" the price is an entirely separate question. If you have never looked through a Questar, I think you are not qualified to comment; reading about a scope is not the same as using one. I have owned two ETX's and neither was as bright nor as sharp as a Questar. I found the views in a TV 85 to be very like those in the Questar, although the Questar was much smaller and more convenient to use. It is of course true that you can buy quality scope that will do many things that Questars will not, but in a comparison of similar sized telescopes, Questars are outstanding. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Poor folk have no business in this forum, only Questar owners or people qualified to evaluate them after using them enough to foreward an objective evaluation Interesting. Does Astronomy attract snobs or require pretensions? I never used a Questar. But between users who describe it as an indestructible status symbol, and others who merely sound as if they want it to be something they can believe in, reminds me of Emerson's "Look, look, old moles! There! Straight up before you, is the magnificent Sun!" Surely there is something more attractively subjective about peeking at the stars than marvelilng at the sharpness of detail between this and that scope---or am I embarking on the wrong hobby? Subject: Questar By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.117.14) Date: 12/11/2004 11:37:49 am PST Interesting if acrimonious debate in this site. When I was in the market in the early '80's there was less choice than today. The RV-6 was a thing of the past, the only refractors on the market were Oriental achromats full of astigmatism and false color, and there were Schmidt-cass's. The Q was expensive and "only" 3.5" (which, by the way, was considered a mid-sized aperture when the Q was introduced; I well remember when amateur astronomy books were 90% concerned with the moon and planets, with a couple of pages on "lunatic fringe" deep sky at the end). I wanted a larger aperture and purchased a 6" Schmidt, and was disappointed with the quality of the images (the mechanics were fine!) I traded it in for an 8" Schmidt and the images were brighter but no finer. I began to consider a Q and drove 100 miles to spend a day with a respected astronomer, a Q owner of many year's standing. I made the decision and have never regretted it one bit. I never saw a perfect star pattern with Airy disc and diffraction rings until I observed with the Q (certainly not in any of the contemporaneous Schmidts I ever used). Quality control of mass-produced Schmidts may have improved over the years, and the ETX is now being mass-marketed, but over the last 20+ years I've observed many wonderful sights and have never been tempted to trade in or purchase another scope (although I'll never pass up an opportunity to observe through someone else's behemoth at a star party!) Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.110.57 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.220.167) In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.241.35) (Original Message) Date: 12/17/2004 09:14:34 am PST >>Around 6 months ago, I was asked, by a friend if I were still interested in telescopes. I told him yes and he went out to his car and brought in a dusty, maroon colored old fashioned box with a handle on top and brass clamps on the side. He placed it on a table and opened it. I didn't know what to expect. I thougth it was some old scope that didn't work but after taking it out of the box and seeing that it was one of those "legendary" Questar 3.5's, I marveled at how beautiful it looked, having only seen one up close at a star party a couple of years ago. I had no Idea how old it was. He wasn't sure what it was worth but he let me have it for a week to check it out and see if it was usable and if I still wanted it we could talk then. >>It turned out to have perfect optics. The Right Ascension controls were a bit sloppy and needed adjustment. No scratches on it and needless to say >>I was amazed at the excellent quality of the ep's and integral dew shield. >>The "close" magnified views are nothing short of amazing. At 12 feet away, it was like looking through a microscope when I was looking at a tree. The pine needles looked like they were right next to my eyes. >>At night the moon looked amazing. Saw a "hazy" Andromeda and some of the nebula and >>globulars around the Teapot. I didn't expect to see >>deep sky objects very well, but was satisfied with this little 3.5 inch during testing. >>Needless to say I purchased this little beauty a week later and have been used it during the Venus Transit and >>other solar viewing as well as planetary use. >>I'm no "snob", just a hard working Engineer who got lucky being offered a fine scope one evening. >>Now if only someone offers me that "used old" TV Genesis, that would be a coup! Clear skies to all. >> >>George >>NY >> >> >> >> >> >>>I feel sorry for this guy. He obviuosly has an envy problem and a very POOR attitude. I own a Questar and find it to be a very high quality instrument. Is it expensive-yes. A Time X watch will tell you what time it is just as well as a Rolex. One is more expensive than the other. So is the differance in price justified? There will always be people who appreciate quality. Some who can afford it and some who cannot. For others it is just a matter of priorities or interest. I am not wealthy but have always wanted a Questar so I saved up and bought one. Just like the Time X I wear this was a matter of priorities. Before I had a Questar when I saw those who did have one my thought was this:"I wish I had what they had and that they had somthing even better" If you are just starting out a Questar is probably not the scope for you. If you are into the hobby and deep sky objects but can only afford one scope again the Questar may not be for you. If however you want a compact highly precise instrument that is easily portable and an understanding of its limitations due to aperature this may well be an excellant investment. Just my 2c worth. >>>R/S, >>>Dan >>> >>>>>"price has no business being mentioned when reviewing a scope". hahahahaha. >>>>>>What a bunch of bull#@&*. People like you really make me laugh. I guess you blow your nose on twenty dollar bills just because the texture of the bill has more "quality" than the average tissue wipe..... Go peddle your elitest attitude elsewhere. There are a lot more of us poor folks than you rich fatcats. And to the average consumer out there, i will pass along these words of advice concerning the questar 3.5 , I have read quite a bit about it, and everything points to the fact, that the optics(the most important part of any scope) is no better than the average ETX. If you want to blow thousands on an antiquated scope just because it will last long after your dead and gone, then go ahead. If your one of those crazy people who want to enjoy astronomy ,while your actually alive, Then save a bundle and go for something a lot more reasonable that will deliver the same performance under the stars. If your determined to spend what a new questar will cost. You can buy all sorts of quality scopes that will blow this tiny thing away. >>>> >>>> A very unfair comment, I think. Class war is not at issue here. Price may be related to the value of a scope, but it is not related to the technical quality of the instrument. Takahashi refractors are superior instruments, whatever their price; whether they are "worth" the price is an entirely separate question. If you have never looked through a Questar, I think you are not qualified to comment; reading about a scope is not the same as using one. I have owned two ETX's and neither was as bright nor as sharp as a Questar. I found the views in a TV 85 to be very like those in the Questar, although the Questar was much smaller and more convenient to use. It is of course true that you can buy quality scope that will do many things that Questars will not, but in a comparison of similar sized telescopes, Questars are outstanding. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Poor folk have no business in this forum, only Questar owners or people qualified to evaluate them after using them enough to foreward an objective evaluation > >Interesting. Does Astronomy attract snobs or require pretensions? I never used a Questar. But between users who describe it as an indestructible status symbol, and others who merely sound as if they want it to be something they can believe in, reminds me of Emerson's >"Look, look, old moles! There! Straight up before you, is the magnificent Sun!" Surely there is something more attractively subjective about peeking at the stars than marvelilng at the sharpness of detail between this and that scope---or am I embarking on the wrong hobby? Questar is a jewel! Etx 90 is just crap opticaly and mechanically! Its like a plastic toy!Any good 90mm achromat beats it hands down!Oh I forgot etx has goto capability :-P perhaps cause its junk "finder" is useless.... Questar is expensive no doubt,but u get what u pay for... No I cant afford a Questar..unfortunately Subject: Re: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.26.74) In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.84.202) (Original Message) Date: 03/17/2005 02:56:26 pm PST >I bought an ETX for $250. I saved money and will get a 7mm Nagler Televue Eyepiece to go with it. this is the best scope I ever dreamed for: fabulous views of moon and planets, ULTRA portable. Questar??? would have been nice, but, I have a house to pay. Anyway...thanks, Mr Maksutov! Just wondering why you can buy ETX's for a dime a dozen? Subject: Re: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.116.71) In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.211.248) (Original Message) Date: 02/07/2009 08:32:45 pm PST >Is this a real scope or just a yuppie toy? I'm sure it's nice, but is it really 7.5 times better than an ETX? Actually its 8 times better First Prev Page 7 of 7 | ||||||||
