The more i read about it....the more i am falling in love

It has the advantage of a non-moving primary mirror, which eliminates image-shift.
However, this gives it alot less focus travel when compared to other SCTs. This gives less options when using items which require alot of variation in focus position (e.g. eyepieces, barlows, binoviewers, cameras, etc)
It has a corrector lens in front of the secondary. I've no idea what the quality of this is like.

Just my 2 cent based on a quick scan of the spec of the unit. I've no experience with using this scope.

That corrector lens is what makes the VMC a cat. There are two basic choices when designing a catadioptric system with this configuration: a corrector lens somewhere in the optical train or a meniscus/corrector plate at the front of the tube. The VMC design eliminates the dew problem suffered by the Schmidt-Cassegrain and Maksutov designs by using the corrector lens instead of the traditional meniscus in what is otherwise a Mak. Unfortunately because it is open ended the secondary has to be mounted on a spider, which causes diffraction. As with every other telescope design there is a trade-off.

There's a good review here: www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1551

Paul & Michael --

It's my understanding that the VC (a corrected classical cass) has a flatter field and so is better for photography. However, the lens arrangement is also more fiddly, leading to suggestions that the VMC (a sub-aperture Mak-Cass) makes for a more robust and easier-to-use visual scope (albeit with more field curvature).

Sadly, I can't remember the source of this info....

-- Jeff.

From what I have heard they are very good. The only thing to bear in mind is that they are mounted on an equatorial mount (not fork) so the eyepiece placement will change quite a bit compared to an altaz fork mounted telescope

From what I have heard they are very good. The only thing to bear in mind is that they are mounted on an equatorial mount (not fork) so the eyepiece placement will change quite a bit compared to an altaz fork mounted telescope

Even then a short tube catadioptric is more convenient to use than a long refractor or Newt.

John i plan to mount it on a Porta AZ mount.

I look forward to your review Vagelis.

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions guys. All very positive.

MUCH apreciated.

I cant believe that the whole setup weighs only about 10-11 Kilo's.

Definitely the biggest selling point for me.

I'm just wondering if the Porta mount would be the best option to go for rather then one of the mounts that come as part of the "packages" with the Vixen. With the Porta mount the scope would have to be turned 90 degrees onto it's side to fit the dove tail............unless of course i went for mounting rings which would allow me to mount the scope in the correct position on the Porta.

One website i looked at is selling the Vixen+standard mount for slightly over $1000. Thats DAMN cheap.

There must be a catch...................like they dont ship to Ireland.

Paul,

Last night I went for observation with my friend John Effremidis and tested his new Vixen VMC200L 8".
The scope is great.
Excellent optics, very light tube, beautiful piece.
M42 and Trapezium were awsome with William Optics UWA 28mm, Saturn was crispy with a Nagler 9mm and even crispier with a 9mm orthoscopic.
The moon and craters absolutely amazing. M81/82 and M51 better than in a typical 8" SCT.
Star test ok: In-focus and out-focus images of stars symmetrical and concentric.
I think what they say that it is better than clasic 8" SCT is true.
You will enjoy this scope.
Set up: John had it on HEQ5 Pro mount and had replaced the Vixen diagonal with a Wiliam Optics.

Vagelis.