Meade lx65 8" (ACF) vs Celestron 8se

[PopeyesPappy]

We are thinking about getting a telescope again. I've pretty much got it narrowed down to either a Meade lx65 8 ACF or a Celestron 8se. Anyone with experience with both have a preference one way or the other? I'm leaning towards the Meade because of the Advanced Coma-Free (ACF) catadioptric-variant optical path.

[Chas]

We are thinking about getting a telescope again. I've pretty much got it narrowed down to either a Meade lx65 8 ACF or a Celestron 8se. Anyone with experience with both have a preference one way or the other? I'm leaning towards the Meade because of the Advanced Coma-Free (ACF) catadioptric-variant optical path.

I've had two Celestron computerized SCT scopes, a CGE-8" and a CGE-11".  They were both optically excellent, well-built, reliable.  If I were going to get another, I might go with a Meade as I have been impressed with the quality of their other optical products - eyepieces, binoculars - compared with the Celestron ones.

[PopeyesPappy]

We are thinking about getting a telescope again. I've pretty much got it narrowed down to either a Meade lx65 8 ACF or a Celestron 8se. Anyone with experience with both have a preference one way or the other? I'm leaning towards the Meade because of the Advanced Coma-Free (ACF) catadioptric-variant optical path.

I've had two Celestron computerized SCT scopes, a CGE-8" and a CGE-11".  They were both optically excellent, well-built, reliable.  If I were going to get another, I might go with a Meade as I have been impressed with the quality of their other optical products - eyepieces, binoculars - compared with the Celestron ones.

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've pretty much decided on the Meade for a couple of reasons. One is the ACF feature. The other is the ability to mount a second instrument on the opposite side of the mount. My problem right now is the Meade is out of stock everywhere that sells them for a decent price.

[Cavebear]

We are thinking about getting a telescope again. I've pretty much got it narrowed down to either a Meade lx65 8 ACF or a Celestron 8se. Anyone with experience with both have a preference one way or the other? I'm leaning towards the Meade because of the Advanced Coma-Free (ACF) catadioptric-variant optical path.

I've had two Celestron computerized SCT scopes, a CGE-8" and a CGE-11".  They were both optically excellent, well-built, reliable.  If I were going to get another, I might go with a Meade as I have been impressed with the quality of their other optical products - eyepieces, binoculars - compared with the Celestron ones.

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've pretty much decided on the Meade for a couple of reasons. One is the ACF feature. The other is the ability to mount a second instrument on the opposite side of the mount. My problem right now is the Meade is out of stock everywhere that sells them for a decent price.

Forgive me for butting in here, but I have a reason. I have a Celestron Astromaster 70 and it has never worked well for me. The side eye-aim is difficult to adjust, the adjustments of slight directions are crude, and I can never quite find anything I'm looking for. I fear buying a better one at considerable cost just to find the same problems.

I have an interest in astronomy from youth. The Boy Scout Astronomy Badge Camp teacher turned the class over to me when he realized I knew more than he did. But I have never had a really good telescope. And I don't want one I set on the deck and watch on the computer. I want to actually "see".

Put simply, "are these those"?

[PopeyesPappy]

I've had two Celestron computerized SCT scopes, a CGE-8" and a CGE-11".  They were both optically excellent, well-built, reliable.  If I were going to get another, I might go with a Meade as I have been impressed with the quality of their other optical products - eyepieces, binoculars - compared with the Celestron ones.

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've pretty much decided on the Meade for a couple of reasons. One is the ACF feature. The other is the ability to mount a second instrument on the opposite side of the mount. My problem right now is the Meade is out of stock everywhere that sells them for a decent price.

Forgive me for butting in here, but I have a reason.   I have a Celestron Astromaster 70 and it has never worked well for me.  The side eye-aim is difficult to adjust, the adjustments of slight directions are crude, and I can never quite find anything I'm looking for.  I fear buying a better one at considerable cost just to find the same problems.

I have an interest in astronomy from youth.  The Boy Scout Astronomy Badge Camp teacher turned the class over to me when he realized I knew more than he did.  But I have never had a really good telescope.  And I don't want one I set on the deck and watch on the computer. I want to actually "see".

Put simply, "are these those"?

They could be. You could spend more, or you could spend less and get what you are looking for. Both have go to software so all you have to do is tell it what you want to see and it goes there. Anything you get is probably going to require a little adjusting to get it tuned in, and you have to make sure it is pointing north and level every time you set it up for the tracking system to work right. 

You would have to add a camera to either of these to view it from your computer. You could use a DSLR or get a dedicated camera. Celestron makes a dedicated 5 MP camera that sells for about $170 retail. It's USB though so you be tied to the telescope with a wire.

[trdsf]

Another happy Meade owner here -- I have a pair of 4500s and despite the relatively small aperture and the fact that I live in a city, the optics are good enough that I can still pull some surprising details and faint fuzzies.

Recently picked up a vintage Edmund Scientific 6" at Goodwill of all places; now I want to join the 4500s into basically a huge pair of binoculars.

[PopeyesPappy]

Another happy Meade owner here -- I have a pair of 4500s and despite the relatively small aperture and the fact that I live in a city, the optics are good enough that I can still pull some surprising details and faint fuzzies.

Recently picked up a vintage Edmund Scientific 6" at Goodwill of all places; now I want to join the 4500s into basically a huge pair of binoculars.  

One of the reasons I decided I'd rather have the Meade is the ability to mount a second optic on the other side of the mount. Probably too far apart for binoculars without a custom made mirror system between them, but I've been kicking around an idea for digital interferometry for a long time that I might get around to playing with.

[trdsf]

I got the idea from a picture I once saw from the Texas Star Party of twin 20" reflectors with a lawn chair between them, the whole shebang on a large Dobsonian mount.  Those who tried it say it was like sitting too close to the forward view screen on the Enterprise.  With two eyepieces, of course, it's completely immersive.

But yeah, I assume the only relatively easy way to view will be from a lawn chair or some such slung underneath, and I can't see any realistic way to do anything other than Dobsonian/alt-az.  I'm not sure I'd want to sit in an oversized equatorial fork engineered and built by me.  Aligning them will probably be a pain.

It's somewhere between a longterm and a dream project.  

[Gwaithmir]

Another happy Meade owner here -- I have a pair of 4500s and despite the relatively small aperture and the fact that I live in a city, the optics are good enough that I can still pull some surprising details and faint fuzzies.

Recently picked up a vintage Edmund Scientific 6" at Goodwill of all places; now I want to join the 4500s into basically a huge pair of binoculars.  

Interesting to learn that Edmund Scientific Co. is still in business. I first started buying things from them during the late 1950's when I was 5th or 6th grade.

[Chas]

I've had two Celestron computerized SCT scopes, a CGE-8" and a CGE-11".  They were both optically excellent, well-built, reliable.  If I were going to get another, I might go with a Meade as I have been impressed with the quality of their other optical products - eyepieces, binoculars - compared with the Celestron ones.

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've pretty much decided on the Meade for a couple of reasons. One is the ACF feature. The other is the ability to mount a second instrument on the opposite side of the mount. My problem right now is the Meade is out of stock everywhere that sells them for a decent price.

Forgive me for butting in here, but I have a reason.   I have a Celestron Astromaster 70 and it has never worked well for me.  The side eye-aim is difficult to adjust, the adjustments of slight directions are crude, and I can never quite find anything I'm looking for.  I fear buying a better one at considerable cost just to find the same problems.

I have an interest in astronomy from youth.  The Boy Scout Astronomy Badge Camp teacher turned the class over to me when he realized I knew more than he did.  But I have never had a really good telescope.  And I don't want one I set on the deck and watch on the computer. I want to actually "see".

Put simply, "are these those"?

Your telescope is at the high-end of what are called "department store telescopes".  All of the problems you are experiencing are par for the course.
A major problem is the tripod and mount on that one.

One has to spend a little more for something decent.  If you want to have a good experience, you'll need to go $400+ - mostly +.

I do not intend to dismiss Celestron 'scopes, they can be excellent.  Celestron does a better job at less expensive decent 'scopes than Meade, but at the higher end (north of $1000),
I think Meade starts to pull ahead.

At the $1000 - $1500 level, it's a toss-up.

[Cavebear]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've pretty much decided on the Meade for a couple of reasons. One is the ACF feature. The other is the ability to mount a second instrument on the opposite side of the mount. My problem right now is the Meade is out of stock everywhere that sells them for a decent price.

Forgive me for butting in here, but I have a reason.   I have a Celestron Astromaster 70 and it has never worked well for me.  The side eye-aim is difficult to adjust, the adjustments of slight directions are crude, and I can never quite find anything I'm looking for.  I fear buying a better one at considerable cost just to find the same problems.

I have an interest in astronomy from youth.  The Boy Scout Astronomy Badge Camp teacher turned the class over to me when he realized I knew more than he did.  But I have never had a really good telescope.  And I don't want one I set on the deck and watch on the computer. I want to actually "see".

Put simply, "are these those"?

They could be. You could spend more, or you could spend less and get what you are looking for. Both have go to software so all you have to do is tell it what you want to see and it goes there. Anything you get is probably going to require a little adjusting to get it tuned in, and you have to make sure it is pointing north and level every time you set it up for the tracking system to work right. 

You would have to add a camera to either of these to view it from your computer. You could use a DSLR or get a dedicated camera. Celestron makes a dedicated 5 MP camera that sells for about $170 retail. It's USB though so you be tied to the telescope with a wire.

So that means I would still be outside with a laptop? Wouldn't be the worst thing. I have a serious warm coat. My problem is FINDING objects. How should I light a keyboard?

[Cavebear]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've pretty much decided on the Meade for a couple of reasons. One is the ACF feature. The other is the ability to mount a second instrument on the opposite side of the mount. My problem right now is the Meade is out of stock everywhere that sells them for a decent price.

Forgive me for butting in here, but I have a reason.   I have a Celestron Astromaster 70 and it has never worked well for me.  The side eye-aim is difficult to adjust, the adjustments of slight directions are crude, and I can never quite find anything I'm looking for.  I fear buying a better one at considerable cost just to find the same problems.

I have an interest in astronomy from youth.  The Boy Scout Astronomy Badge Camp teacher turned the class over to me when he realized I knew more than he did.  But I have never had a really good telescope.  And I don't want one I set on the deck and watch on the computer. I want to actually "see".

Put simply, "are these those"?

Your telescope is at the high-end of what are called "department store telescopes".  All of the problems you are experiencing are par for the course.
A major problem is the tripod and mount on that one.

One has to spend a little more for something decent.  If you want to have a good experience, you'll need to go $400+ - mostly +.

I do not intend to dismiss Celestron 'scopes, they can be excellent.  Celestron does a better job at less expensive decent 'scopes than Meade, but at the higher end (north of $1000),
I think Meade starts to pull ahead.

At the $1000 - $1500 level, it's a toss-up.

Let's say I can afford to be extravagant on a whim. Actually see some of the nearby galaxies directly. I can get pictures on the internet, but it is not the same thing. The galaxy in Orion's Sword. The Andromeda Galaxy. Could I see the Horsehead Nebula? The Crab? The Pillars of Creation?

[PopeyesPappy]

@Cavebear

I wish I could help with most of that, but I'm as clueless as you are.

For seeing the keyboard I suggest either a headlamp or a new laptop with a backlit keyboard. Some of the telescopes have wifi connectivity for remote control, but not the ones in this thread. So do some cameras so you could be inside if you wanted to be. You just have to spend more money.

I do know the Eagle Nebula should be easy to observe. It has been known for more than 250 years so it shouldn't take too much telescope to see it. The Pillars of Creation are just a small feature of the Eagle Nebula though. Most, if not all, the images of the Pillars we are familiar with were taken with Hubble. According to the NASA website, the Pillars are only observable with large telescopes under optimal conditions. They don't define large telescopes, but I'm doubting anything we are talking about in this thread meets the definition.

[Cavebear]

@Cavebear

I wish I could help with most of that, but I'm as clueless as you are.

For seeing the keyboard I suggest either a headlamp or a new laptop with a backlit keyboard. Some of the telescopes have wifi connectivity for remote control, but not the ones in this thread. So do some cameras so you could be inside if you wanted to be. You just have to spend more money.

I do know the Eagle Nebula should be easy to observe. It has been known for more than 250 years so it shouldn't take too much telescope to see it. The Pillars of Creation are just a small feature of the Eagle Nebula though. Most, if not all, the images of the Pillars we are familiar with were taken with Hubble. According to the NASA website, the Pillars are only observable with large telescopes under optimal conditions. They don't define large telescopes, but I'm doubting anything we are talking about in this thread meets the definition.

Thanks. I am only guessing what I might "see". Well, you know, not having "seen"...

[Chas]

Forgive me for butting in here, but I have a reason.   I have a Celestron Astromaster 70 and it has never worked well for me.  The side eye-aim is difficult to adjust, the adjustments of slight directions are crude, and I can never quite find anything I'm looking for.  I fear buying a better one at considerable cost just to find the same problems.

I have an interest in astronomy from youth.  The Boy Scout Astronomy Badge Camp teacher turned the class over to me when he realized I knew more than he did.  But I have never had a really good telescope.  And I don't want one I set on the deck and watch on the computer. I want to actually "see".

Put simply, "are these those"?

Your telescope is at the high-end of what are called "department store telescopes".  All of the problems you are experiencing are par for the course.
A major problem is the tripod and mount on that one.

One has to spend a little more for something decent.  If you want to have a good experience, you'll need to go $400+ - mostly +.

I do not intend to dismiss Celestron 'scopes, they can be excellent.  Celestron does a better job at less expensive decent 'scopes than Meade, but at the higher end (north of $1000),
I think Meade starts to pull ahead.

At the $1000 - $1500 level, it's a toss-up.

Let's say I can afford to be extravagant on a whim.  Actually see some of the nearby galaxies directly.  I can get pictures on the internet, but it is not the same thing.  The galaxy in Orion's Sword.   The Andromeda Galaxy.  Could I see the Horsehead Nebula?  The Crab?  The Pillars of Creation?

This is an excellent starting point for figuring out what to get.  Sky&Telescope is the premier astronomy magazine.

You'll be able to see star clusters with a modest 'scope, but galaxies are a little harder.  Aperture and the quality of the optics put a limit on what can be observed visually.
Using a camera to capture images can capture fainter objects.

Don't expect to see images like photos depict.  Those are taken with large 'scopes and high quality cameras.  To get that kind of photo you will need to invest many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of learning.

I was able to use an older 9" refractor at the Stull Observatory while I was at a 3-day observing tutorial.


I was able to steer the scope mechanically using rt. ascension/declination and find the Cat's Eye Nebula.

If you look on the web, you'll see wonderful images like:



What I saw through a moderately big (but old) telescope was more like:



With modern optics and GoTo electronics, observing is fun and it is very satisfying to see it for yourself.

Viewing our moon and planets in our solar system never gets old, and clusters, galaxies, and nebulae are a joy to find. And with the proper filters, solar observing is fascinating - and you don't have to stay up late!

With a camera, telephoto lens, and tripod you can get great images of sun, moon, and planets:

Sunspots during solar eclipse 2017 (Nikon D7200 300mm lens):


Our moon (Nikon D7200 500mm lens):

[PopeyesPappy]

I ended up taking this in a different direction. We bought a used Explore Scientific ED102 FDC-100 refractor and a Celestron AVX mount. The scope just got here yesterday, and I was playing around with getting things set up last night.  

[Chas]

Nice choice.

[PopeyesPappy]

Ready for first light. As soon as it gets dark...