Celestron Advanced Vx 6 Inch Refractor Telescope Review
#1 
Posted 28 Oct 2017 - 11:20 PM
In our never ending search for OUR perfect "scope of the hereafter", my wife is interested in a refractor for herself. To be edgeless, she wants it ALL in a dainty bang-up little parcel. Please understand that she is visually impaired, just not completely blind yet. This makes calorie-free gathering and magnification the most important aspects for her.
Most of the larger discontinuity refractors I have plant end up suffering on focal length. On average, information technology seems, 90mm is the top out for the balance between FL and aperture. Yesterday I discovered the Celestron 6" refractor on the VX mount. By specs lone, this seems to be the answer for her. It has all the features she wants in a counterbalanced, all in one package.
And then does anyone take whatsoever feel with this scope? What are the pros and cons for this i? Thanks a lot.
Edited by Kruegon, 28 October 2017 - 11:25 PM.
#2
Posted 29 October 2017 - 01:32 AM
The focal length of the scope has little to exercise with viewing magnification. If I want to notice at 300x magnification with my big reflector, I use a 4mm eyepiece. If I want to detect at 300x with my Mak, I use an 8mm eyepiece. So the FL of the telescopic is only one-half the equation. You can easily manipulate the other half, the FL of the eyepiece, to become whatever magnification you want. Will this refractor exist better for loftier power viewing than other refractors at F6? Yep, because the higher F ratio won't show as much false colour at high power. Merely achromats in general are not neat high power instruments. Good for low to medium ability. If you desire bright objects at high power, the traditional reply is aperture. Remember more than similar a x" Dob. These days technology gives u.s. other options though. I practise EAA with the Revolution Imager and go brighter views with that and my 4" refractor than I do with a regular eyepiece and my x" telescopic. A lot of people with poor eyesight have expressed gratitude for EAA allowing them to continue enjoying stargazing despite failing eyesight. And yous could get gear up with an EAA setup for near the same cost as the telescopic you lot are looking at. For case, $500 for a Bressor Exos mount, $400 for an AR102 refractor and $309 for the Rev Imager. Could become cheaper too, that is just one of many options. Granted, there is a learning curve, and information technology really helps to have experience doing successful goto alignments. Personally I accept a setup that doesn't require goto but goto is the norm for EAA and I normally do a goto alignment even though I have a specialized setup that doesn't require it. And then there is a learning curve with the telescope goto, and a learning curve with the camera. Possibly the most user friendly EAA organisation could exist the Unistellar EVscope, once information technology comes out a year from now. That is a fully integrated, dedicated EAA telescope for $1500. But a year is a long time to look, and no one knows if information technology will actually work well yet. Whether or not y'all agree out for the EVscope, I would give serious consideration to EAA for someone who is visually impaired.
She wants information technology ALL in one overnice niggling package, you say. Not really possible without EAA. Small-scale refractors cool fast, offer wide field of view, good planetary performance if you get an Apo (or F10 achro), no collimation fuss, highly portable,, but they struggle on DSO due to small aperture. Equally shortly as you step upwardly in aperture to viii" for better DSO viewing, yous are more often than not looking at SCT or reflector. SCT is quite portable upwards to 8" of aperture, and not unreasonable at 10-12". But yous got narrow FOV and long cool downward times. Reflectors can have wider FOV and better cool down only need regular collimation adjustments. And just in full general, someday you get bigger, you are adding weight and cool downwards, while narrowing the FOV. Simply my 4" Apo with Rev Imager and flip diagonal (to flip between visual and EAA) is the closest I take to a perfect "one telescopic does information technology all" solution. On my 26lb SXW mount with 4lb counterweight, the total setup weighs about 40lb. Non quite grab and go simply still highly portable. Has all the advantages of a small refractor but and so I tin can meet much deeper than a typical small refractor past switching to EAA. Basically a small refractor that can resolve spiral arms in galaxies. At a star party I did some comparisons and estimated that with EAA I was getting similar effulgence and detail to a twenty-25" Dob. Granted viewing targets on a screen isn't for anybody, but for me information technology allows me to have that perfect, 1 scope does it all.
Scott
Edited past SeattleScott, 29 October 2017 - 07:35 AM.
#3
Posted 29 October 2017 - 02:29 AM
The Celestron six" f/8 refractor is an excellent value for a big achromat....I have endemic and enjoyed 2 of them. These are big, bulky telescopes that I practice not consider to be "grab 'n go".
Pros:
- Big unobstructed aperture for pinpoint stars
- Moderate absurd-downwards time compared to a triplet or SCT
- Collimatable objective cell
- ii" focuser
- OTA weighs a manageable 18lbs.
- Exterior and interior paint finish is adequate
- Decent multicoatings and optical quality
Cons:
- Chromatic aberration (fake color) on vivid objects...filters can aid
- Heavy lens cell makes for uneven balance point on the mountain
- Viewing objects near zenith means very low eyepiece position unless mountain is extended higher
- Black finish and steel tube easily collect dew
- two" single speed rack and pinion focuser is useable but not refined
- Included finder telescopic is directly cervix breaker, not correct angle design
The included VX GoTo mount is at its limit with this refractor because of the long moment arm. Okay for visual and casual imaging. As always, try before buying if possible.
- hdavid likes this
#4
Posted 29 Oct 2017 - 02:45 AM
I have the VX mountain and the ES AR127. This might be a compromise in aperture in exchange for a more manageable size. The weight does matter not only for ease of use but as well for how well the AVX works. My AVX starts to struggle at about xx lbs. The AR 127 is probably worth about $350 on the used market.
#five
Posted 29 October 2017 - 07:24 AM
Hi:
You recently caused an eight inch F/half dozen Dobsonian. I am not really certain if there's any existent advantage to a 6 inch F/8 achromat over the 8 inch F/half dozen Dob, the Newtonian is free of chromatic aberration, has greater aperture and resolving power.
Jon
- Sarkikos, RAKing, John O'Hara and 1 other like this
#6
Posted 29 October 2017 - ten:51 AM
I accept to concur with Jon on that. I was at a star party a few years agone and at that place was a 6" Celestron refractor alongside an 8" SCT. The SCT was the articulate winner in terms of object brightness and item (M57 in this instance). Your 8" reflector should perform in similar fashion.
#seven
Posted 29 October 2017 - 12:54 PM
I own two C6R set ups and they are very nice scopes.
The i thing I would stress though is the size and weight of them.
Scope: 20lbs
Tripod and mount: 35lbs
Counterweights: 22lbs
And then add a power source, eyepiece example and chair and it can easily be 6-7 trips to set upward.
Here is a skillful write up on the C6R that was written a few years agone: https://www.cloudyni...pe/#entry260023
- Scott Beith, Illinois, Sarkikos and 3 others like this
#8
Posted 29 October 2017 - 05:30 PM
I own two C6R set ups and they are very squeamish scopes.
The one matter I would stress though is the size and weight of them.
Scope: 20lbs
Tripod and mountain: 35lbs
Counterweights: 22lbs
Then add a power source, eyepiece case and chair and it tin hands be 6-7 trips to set up.
Here is a expert write up on the C6R that was written a few years ago: https://world wide web.cloudyni...pe/#entry260023
I agree with what Gabby says, and there's very little I have to complain about my C6R. Adding to this list of considerations, I'd similar to add yet another x-12lbs for the Orion sixteen" pier extension, which allows the scope to clear the tripod legs when slewing near Zenith. I consider the pier extension a necessity for this scope, unless you're going to run your mount manually using good old fashioned setting circles; plus it really adds stability to the setup, allowing the mount to handle the weight of the scope easier.
- Gabby76 likes this
#9
Posted 29 Oct 2017 - 05:42 PM
I own two C6R set ups and they are very dainty scopes.
The i thing I would stress though is the size and weight of them.
Scope: 20lbs
Tripod and mountain: 35lbs
Counterweights: 22lbs
And so add a power source, eyepiece instance and chair and it can easily be 6-seven trips to ready.
Here is a good write up on the C6R that was written a few years ago: https://world wide web.cloudyni...pe/#entry260023
That thread volition respond pretty much any question you could have on the C6R. 
- Matt Harmston, dagadget and Steve Cox similar this
#10
Posted 29 October 2017 - 08:54 PM
I appreciate the input guys. Thanks for all the input.
You are right that I have an viii" Dob. I as well take a 5" EQ. And a iv.5" AZ. All reflectors. My married woman is happiest and well-nigh comfy using my 70mm refractor. At the last star political party, she spent hours at the 70mm and only came to the Dob if I told her I had something to view. We're working within her comfort level. For someone similar her, personal perception, confidence, and comfort level are more of import than actual performance. We are too researching Maks and SCTs. Its an ongoing process.
As for EAA, a friend is going to give us his former USB photographic camera and software at the next star party. He doesn't use it anymore but says he greatly enjoyed it when he offset got it. Of class he'due south also moved on to a 12" Dob with many bells and whistles.
Every bit for discontinuity vs FL, that's why nosotros chose to enquiry this telescopic. In a traditional refractor, its the largest aperture we could notice. It was simply luck that it happened to already be on a GoTo mount. Without having to invest in much more than expensive eyepieces, the long FL allows her to apply more than comfortable eyepieces at lower powers and nevertheless gain a significant magnification. She basically requires the largest lens we can find in here eyepieces. Information technology's sheer bore I'm referring to hither. Like the GSO 32mm or the Meade 4000 26mm. And of course our GSO 30mm Superview. But all of these limit magnification. Add in a long FL and/or a clear barlow, and her problems are solved. The Dob has done great in this, she just doesn't care for using it.
And so while it may seem to the experienced that we are looking in the incorrect management, this is non being done without corking consideration and the understanding. This research is most what's all-time for her and the best operation for her. Non the all-time performance in general.
I just don't want anyone to misunderstand or exist put off that we don't heed the advice they offer. Trust me, the advice and I exercise is all being read and considered.
- BinoGuy likes this
#xi
Posted 29 October 2017 - ten:23 PM
But achromats in general are not bang-up high power instruments.
Scott
Sorry Scott, but I disagree with this.
My half-dozen inch D&Grand soaks upwardly the magnification with ease, as well equally a iv inch Antares F-thirteen I used to take.
I'm sure there are Unitron owners out there that would as well disagree. I have owned a few Celestron SPC102 a few decades ago and could hands utilise them at 200X to 300X under good skies.
I take never owned the Celestron 6 inch that the O/P is questioning and then I can't really annotate on it, but if it'south anything like the SPC102's I owned in the 80s and 90's information technology should practice well
Attached Thumbnails
- Ziggy943, Craven, Gabby76 and four others like this
#12
Posted 29 October 2017 - 11:03 PM
No argument. In his original mail the OP mentioned vi" F8 and seemed to refer to vi" F6. My comment was more in regards to those scopes, not F13-F15 instruments. Just I should have been specific.
- Jon Isaacs and stevew like this
#xiii
Posted 29 Oct 2017 - xi:10 PM
Every bit for discontinuity vs FL, that'southward why we chose to research this scope. In a traditional refractor, its the largest discontinuity we could find. Information technology was simply luck that information technology happened to already be on a GoTo mount. Without having to invest in much more expensive eyepieces, the long FL allows her to employ more comfortable eyepieces at lower powers and yet gain a significant magnification. She basically requires the largest lens we can find in here eyepieces. It'due south sheer diameter I'chiliad referring to hither. Like the GSO 32mm or the Meade 4000 26mm. And of course our GSO 30mm Superview. But all of these limit magnification. Add in a long FL and/or a articulate barlow, and her problems are solved. The Dob has done great in this, she just doesn't care for using it.
Keep in mind yous can get large eye lenses in short FL eyepieces. Think Baader Hyperions, Delos, etc. So it is easy to get a 3.5mm eyepiece with a large eye lens. They can be more expensive merely they don't have to exist cost prohibitive.
Scott
- Jon Isaacs likes this
#14
Posted 30 October 2017 - 12:55 AM
But again, we aren't looking to invest in more expensive eyepieces at this time. One expense at a time. Otherwise, nosotros might likewise sell everything we own and quit astronomy all together. Its a very only equation. We piece of work within our upkeep or we don't piece of work at all.
At present if nosotros can get back on topic, I only asked about reviews of THIS telescopic. The pros and cons. Cipher more. I discover information technology very abrasive that no matter what I postal service, no matter what I inquire, and no affair what I say, the vast majority of the responses are that I demand to spend more coin.
I didn't even inquire virtually other options. Non different scopes. Not different eyepieces. Not different mounts. Just reviews on THIS scope. Why must so many people here experience the need to tell me about other scopes. I bet if I asked virtually building a 75" observatory, someone, more likely several people, would insist I should build an 80' one instead. And at to the lowest degree one person would advise I build an orbital telescope with specs to shame Hubble. Please merely requite reviews on the scope listed. Its all I'one thousand looking for.
- prmoore and Steve Cox like this
#15
Posted 30 October 2017 - 01:22 AM
I didn't even inquire well-nigh other options. Non different scopes. Non unlike eyepieces. Not unlike mounts. Only reviews on THIS scope. Why must and so many people here feel the need to tell me about other scopes.
People are trying to be helpful, offering possible alternatives that might work out better for you lot. The thing most a half dozen inch F/8 achromat is that it will show a significant amount of chromatic abnormality. That's the thing to understand before purchase..
Jon
- Traveler and Sarkikos like this
#16
Posted 30 October 2017 - 05:51 AM
The Synta made half dozen" f/8 refractors were a stunning value when they hit the market as Celestron, Skywatcher, Konus, etc. dorsum in the belatedly 90'due south. I bought the display model from our local telescope store, and enjoyed the heck out of it. Now nosotros can get various 150mm refractors from other manufacturers with upgraded tubes and focusers, but the big Synta f/8 pioneered this value segment and still delivers operation today.
Sure, we could become 6" refractors before this simply they were very expensive, fifty-fifty the achromats (D&G, Unitron, Jaegers, etc.). The original Celestron CR-150 Hard disk on a CG-five mountain (no GoTo) was outstanding at $1199, and prices were slashed a year later. Then nosotros had the exciting Aries Chromacor upgrades to make this refractor even better for CA if desired.
I replaced my Celestron 6" f/8 refractor(s) with a 6" apo, simply I still have and apply the later Celestron Omni XLT 150mm f/5 for big unobstructed wide-field drinking glass. Either fashion (f/8 or f/v), these are large achromatic doublet telescopes that will still draw a oversupply.
#17
Posted 31 October 2017 - 01:14 AM
But again, we aren't looking to invest in more expensive eyepieces at this fourth dimension. Ane expense at a time. Otherwise, we might equally well sell everything we ain and quit astronomy all together. Its a very simply equation. We work within our budget or we don't piece of work at all.
Now if we can get dorsum on topic, I but asked about reviews of THIS scope. The pros and cons. Naught more than. I find it very annoying that no affair what I post, no matter what I ask, and no matter what I say, the vast majority of the responses are that I need to spend more money.
I didn't even ask near other options. Non different scopes. Not dissimilar eyepieces. Not unlike mounts. Only reviews on THIS scope. Why must then many people here feel the need to tell me about other scopes. I bet if I asked well-nigh edifice a 75" observatory, someone, more probable several people, would insist I should build an 80' ane instead. And at least i person would suggest I build an orbital telescope with specs to shame Hubble. Delight merely give reviews on the scope listed. Its all I'm looking for.
Here is a link to a review of the Celestron CR150. I believe it's the aforementioned scope on an older model mount, and so you will have to ignore the comments about the mount.
Yet the comments fabricated nigh the optics are probably a pretty off-white assessment. Information technology's the tertiary review on this folio. http://www.scoperevi...m/page1i.html#3
- Steve Cox likes this
#eighteen
Posted 31 October 2017 - 07:41 AM
Regarding Ed Ting's review. It is worth realizing the refractor earth has changed dramatically in the xviii years since it was written. The affordable ED/apo doublets and triplets just did not be.
I particularly enjoyed the comment on the entire field of view existence purple at 254x viewing Jupiter.. chromatic aberration is a real abnormality and more than but a regal brume, the majority of the spectrum is not in focus.
Jon
- Sarkikos likes this
#nineteen
Posted 31 Oct 2017 - 08:29 AM
And so you lot are looking for focal length and discontinuity in a scope she can confidently handle herself. Have yous considered an 8" SCT? All the focal length you could want in a lighter and more than compact tube, with more aperture, and no CA. And very friendly to inexpensive eyepieces. Get a 2" diagonal and you can use your 30mm superview (or fifty-fifty the 42 Superview or a 38mm Q70/SWA, or a 55mm plossl). Used C8 OTAs are a bargain (around $300) if you lot want something than can be reasonably mounted on an EQ mount. The only thing a 6" F/viii achromat is going to exist meliorate at (at least IMO) is widefield, and it doesn't sound like that is her interest.
The 6" F/8 achro is a good value in a big refractor, but it's a 51" long OTA that weighs well-nigh twenty pounds. And information technology'due south going to have LOTS of chromatic abnormality.
#xx
Posted 31 October 2017 - 08:51 AM
Hither is a link to a review of the Celestron CR150. I believe information technology's the same scope on an older model mount, and then you volition take to ignore the comments about the mount.
However the comments fabricated about the optics are probably a pretty fair assessment. It's the tertiary review on this page. http://www.scoperevi...thousand/page1i.html#iii
Cheers. That was a very extensive and well informed review. A few of yous now take provided some great info and detail. As with many other things, I run into I'm being express past one or the other walls. Without a significant increase in cost, I pretty much get to cull size or operation, simply not both.
An APO would be a improve performer, but at a meaning reduction in aperture. An ACT would be a better performer, but, once again, at a significant loss of discontinuity. And if I did actually find one that was cost constructive and roughly the same size in an SCT or APO, it would more than than likely be of poor quality. Dang if we exercise and danged if we don't.
Only I have also noticed, that in general, very few people look at the gray area of "good enough". I think thats a loss for many beginners. Everything in life has a good plenty area that will pass for the majority of people. And I'm wary of some pre-owned items. If I can't try earlier I buy, I need to know I have a warranty to keep me covered. And you never know how someone treated their equipment before you got it. Plus in that location's no guarantee I'll be able to located a pre-owned one.
At present I have things to consider. I appreciate you providing the tools I need to recall this through.
#21
Posted 31 Oct 2017 - 09:23 AM
I had a CR6" for a few years and information technology was swell class what I paid for it. But if your married woman starting time goal is ease of use{which is why she like the 70mm}and then I would go with something a piffling bigger 90mm-102mm range
but with a much better lens. I'g pretty certain y'all could find a nice 2 element ed or triplet hither on CloudyNights or AM inside your price range if y'all're not in a existent hurry. I would say inside a month something would pop up.
Besides the CA being a problem you would need an Atlas Pier extender to make the view a lot more than pleasurable.
Articulate Skies, De Lorme
- Scott Beith likes this
#22
Posted 31 October 2017 - 09:34 PM
Then you are looking for focal length and discontinuity in a scope she tin confidently handle herself. Have yous considered an 8" SCT? All the focal length you could want in a lighter and more than compact tube, with more aperture, and no CA. And very friendly to inexpensive eyepieces. Become a 2" diagonal and yous can use your 30mm superview (or even the 42 Superview or a 38mm Q70/SWA, or a 55mm plossl). Used C8 OTAs are a deal (around $300) if you lot want something than can be reasonably mounted on an EQ mount. The only matter a 6" F/8 achromat is going to be meliorate at (at least IMO) is widefield, and it doesn't sound like that is her interest.
The vi" F/8 achro is a adept value in a big refractor, but it's a 51" long OTA that weighs nigh 20 pounds. And it'south going to take LOTS of chromatic aberration.
Actually, we are looking at the Maks and SCTs. Only pound for pound on price, they become rather expensive. And our upkeep has its limits. Information technology's ane of the problems with trying to get her everything she wants. It's a lot to ask for in a unmarried affordable package. Of course, we're finding it hard to get any scope that has our desired features in a single affordable package.
I have an eight" Dob. Its a skilful scope. But information technology doesn't feel comfortable or natural to me. I take a Newt on an EQ that fits me wonderfully. Once I figured out RA on information technology, it has been an accented joy to use. But everything has its downside. It'south a 5" short tube. And then it'south just an "ok" scope for true DSOs. And it's a i.25 focuser, which has its ain natural downfalls but isn't a trouble in itself. Office of it tin be corrected past eyepieces. But there nosotros go with more money after more than money. And I tin can't find a 1.25 dual speed focuser. Nor can I find a 2" focuser that says it will fit a 5" Newt.
To be honest, I retrieve she fears the others. She has no desire to try to align the Dob or the EQ.
1 thing I exercise observe funny information technology that my Orion 130ST is parabolic, i.25 focuser on a manual EQ mount. But my Meade DS-114 is a spherical, with a 2" focuser on a motorized AZ. Granted, its a junk plastic focuser with horrible gear ratio, merely it'due south 2" none the less.
At least GSO makes focuser options for refractors and SCTs should we go that way.
#23
Posted 31 October 2017 - xi:44 PM
Well, if she'southward comfortable with a computerized alt-az mount using the 70mm refractor, maybe a Celestron 6SE is worth consideration (especially since you don't want to buy used). Quality control seems to exist pretty practiced on the OTAs. It'due south expensive compared to a dob, but considerably less expensive than the 150mm F/8 refractor with the AVX. You however get six" of aperture (a huge increment from 70mm) and the whole package weighs just a flake over 20 pounds.
- Auburn80 likes this
#24
Posted 01 November 2017 - 04:19 AM
Just I have also noticed, that in general, very few people look at the gray area of "skillful plenty". I retrieve thats a loss for many beginners. Everything in life has a expert enough area that will pass for the bulk of people.
Really I think proficient plenty is where the vast majority of us live. Trying to devine what will be proficient plenty for someone else over the long run is not and so easily done.
Jon
#25
Posted 01 Nov 2017 - 08:57 AM
I love the long tube refractors. Whats the focal ratio of this D&Chiliad in the photo? I have a G11 and extension pier and would like to get something similar. it looks great!! Is that the dew shield that came with the scope? it besides looks to exist around the correct length.
Thanks!
... Ralph
Only achromats in general are not great high ability instruments.
Scott
Distressing Scott, but I disagree with this.
My six inch D&Thou soaks up the magnification with ease, likewise as a 4 inch Antares F-xiii I used to have.
I'1000 sure in that location are Unitron owners out at that place that would also disagree. I accept owned a few Celestron SPC102 a few decades ago and could hands use them at 200X to 300X under good skies.
I have never endemic the Celestron six inch that the O/P is questioning so I tin can't actually comment on it, but if it's anything similar the SPC102'southward I owned in the 80s and ninety's it should do well
Source: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/596720-celestron-advanced-vx-6-refractor-review/
0 Response to "Celestron Advanced Vx 6 Inch Refractor Telescope Review"
Post a Comment