- Posts: 777
- Thank you received: 18
Lunt Solar Scopes
- TrevorDurity
- Offline
- Red Giant
Less
More
16 years 11 months ago #58184
by TrevorDurity
Hmm, very very very tempted myself. Should be about 50% brighter than the 40mm PST I guess + no sweet spot effect & the ability to use a scope with crayford focusser and more inwards travel. And it's on a special of $699 at the moment.
Do you know if they have a 60mm Filter in the pipeline? If they do I may wait and hold onto the PST until that comes out.
I'm still amazed that they could release them at those prices.
Trev
Replied by TrevorDurity on topic Re: Lunt Solar Scopes
I'd seriously consider the 50mm
Hmm, very very very tempted myself. Should be about 50% brighter than the 40mm PST I guess + no sweet spot effect & the ability to use a scope with crayford focusser and more inwards travel. And it's on a special of $699 at the moment.
Do you know if they have a 60mm Filter in the pipeline? If they do I may wait and hold onto the PST until that comes out.
I'm still amazed that they could release them at those prices.
Trev
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- michaeloconnell
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Administrator
Less
More
- Posts: 6332
- Thank you received: 315
16 years 11 months ago #58257
by michaeloconnell
Replied by michaeloconnell on topic Re: Lunt Solar Scopes
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ayiomamitis
- Offline
- Super Giant
Less
More
- Posts: 2267
- Thank you received: 7
16 years 11 months ago #58342
by ayiomamitis
Anthony Ayiomamitis
Athens, Greece
www.perseus.gr
Replied by ayiomamitis on topic Re: Lunt Solar Scopes
Guys,
I would be worried about the quoted bandpass of "<0.8A". People are spending extra bucks (and/or euros) to stack their filters so as to be under 0.5A. The lower the bandpass tolerance, the greater the cost.
What would suffer the most is contrast, for a higher bandpass translates to less contrast.
I would be worried about the quoted bandpass of "<0.8A". People are spending extra bucks (and/or euros) to stack their filters so as to be under 0.5A. The lower the bandpass tolerance, the greater the cost.
What would suffer the most is contrast, for a higher bandpass translates to less contrast.
Anthony Ayiomamitis
Athens, Greece
www.perseus.gr
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- michaeloconnell
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Administrator
Less
More
- Posts: 6332
- Thank you received: 315
16 years 11 months ago #58389
by michaeloconnell
Replied by michaeloconnell on topic Re: Lunt Solar Scopes
Correct Anthony.
I would prefer a 40mm filter at 0.7A rather than a 50mm at 0.8A.
If one already has a 40mm filter, then I wouldn't see any point upgrading to a 50mm, TBH.
I have a Doublestacked Solarmax 40, and the view at the narrower bandpass is noticable better than then when using a single filter. Someday, I hope to be able to afford a Daystar filter unit for my TEC140 and get both the aperture and a narrow bandpass (~0.4A all going well).
I would prefer a 40mm filter at 0.7A rather than a 50mm at 0.8A.
If one already has a 40mm filter, then I wouldn't see any point upgrading to a 50mm, TBH.
I have a Doublestacked Solarmax 40, and the view at the narrower bandpass is noticable better than then when using a single filter. Someday, I hope to be able to afford a Daystar filter unit for my TEC140 and get both the aperture and a narrow bandpass (~0.4A all going well).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- michaeloconnell
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Administrator
Less
More
- Posts: 6332
- Thank you received: 315
16 years 11 months ago #59220
by michaeloconnell
Replied by michaeloconnell on topic Re: Lunt Solar Scopes
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- michaeloconnell
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Administrator
Less
More
- Posts: 6332
- Thank you received: 315
16 years 11 months ago #59439
by michaeloconnell
Replied by michaeloconnell on topic Re: Lunt Solar Scopes
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.133 seconds