LX90 ACF 12" VS LX200 ACF 12"
Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:01 PM
Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:49 PM
Some of the people that have experience with these scopes really need to speak up, but I can tell you a few of the basics.
First off, the optical tubes are the same. The difference is in the mounts themselves.
The LX 90 is lighter and more portable than the LX 200. The 12 inch version of the LX 90 is probably at the far end of its weight capacity.
The LX 200 is much heavier and less portable. Most people, but not all, who have a 12 inch LX 200 end up building an observatory for them due to the portability issue.
Due to its stability, the LX 200 has greater capacity to hold weight of additional components for such things as astrophotography. This is the mount that the people that I know that are avid astrophotographers using either of the two use.
With a 12 inch optical tube, the LX 90 would be more transportable, probably by quite a bit and would be much easier to manhandle. It would probably be just as good at visual astronomy, but would not be as steady of a platform if you choose to get deeply into astrophotography and does not have the same options available to it for that purpose.
What have I left out? Comments?
Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:36 PM
Having owned an 8" LX200 GPS, I can tell you, if you are going to be moving that scope around, the weight is a real consideration. So it really comes to this, how will you be using the scope? Will you be moving the scope or not? If you will be moving it around, will it be to the backyard or way out in a field? Will you be doing astrophotography or just casual viewing (like me)? If you think you may want to do astrophotography at any time in the future, it will make a difference which scope you choose. So if you tell us a little more, there are a lot of people in the forum that can give you good advice (a lot better than I can). Welcome to the forum, and I hope this helps.
Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:37 PM
A LOT OF GOOD POINTS WERE MADE, AND THINGS TO CONSIDER. BASICALLY, I WOULD LIKE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS, BUT I KNOW YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!
ANYWAY, I KNOW ONE ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IS ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN STUDYING AND WOULD LOVE TO GET INTO. THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE ONE OF MY FIRST PASSIONS FOR TELESCOPE USE.
AS FAR AS THE PORTABILITY GOES, THERE IS A GRADE SCHOOL AND LARGE FIELD DIRECTLY BEHIND MY HOUSE FOR AN EXCELLENT PLACE TO VIEW AND SET UP. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WALKING 60 TO 70 YARDS AND SETTING UP. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT IF I WANT TO GO OUT OF TOWN, OUT OF STATE, OR EVEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR A VACATION OR EVEN TO VIEW THINGS THAT ARE NOT VIEWABLE FROM HERE? I DON'T KNOW ABOUT PUTTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON AN AIRPLANE!
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HAVE THE AUTOSTAR II SYSTEM SINCE IT OFFERS SO MANY MORE PROGRAMMED OBJECTS FOR VIEWING. BUT WOULD THIS BE AN UPGRADABLE OPTION FOR THE LX90?
I AM SURE THAT MORE QUESTIONS WILL COME UP AS MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE, SO KEEP IT COMING WITH ALL OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCES ON THESE TELESCOPES. I PLAN ON MAKING A PURCHASE BEFORE SUMMER STARTS!
Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:04 PM
I don't think the AutoStar II will work on the LX-90, but I bow to the experience of people that actually use one.
Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:01 PM
But when it comes to astrophotography, that's out of my league. I have no real experience with it (that's where others on the forum can help).
I would say this though, I would be considering the LX600. For example, (and this brings us to the really BIG consideration not mentioned before) for the same money, you could get a 10" LX600 over a 12" LX200. The LX600 is a better platform for astrophotography (I assume) and it is more portable. According to Meade's website it can "be easily broken down and moved to a dark-sky site" and "The OTA can be quickly separated from the mount, reducing the total weight that must be lifted at one time by 35 lb".
But if you have a little help to move it, the 12" LX200 would give slightly better views. (Which brings me to an interesting thought. Does anyone know how the faster F8 10" LX600 would compare to the approximately 59% greater light gathering ability of the slower F10 12" LX200 for astrophotography?)
Anyway, do consider that whichever of these scopes you get, you will need to get a wedge for serious photos. None of them come with it.
- pastordad likes this
Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:35 PM
Posted 08 April 2013 - 05:53 AM
RUSSELL MADE A GREAT POINT THAT I NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED. THE 10" LX600 LOOKS LIKE A FANTASTIC SET UP AND SEEMS TO BE A BETTER SET UP FOR THE ASTROPHOTOGRAPHER ALSO. BUT AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS AND THE 12" LX200 FOR THIS APPLICATION.
IT SEEMS THAT THE X-WEDGE IS ALMOST A NECESSITY FOR THE ASTROPHOTOGRAPHER. I SEE THAT IT IS AND OPTION FOR THE LX600 BUT WILL IT BE ADAPTABLE ON THE LX200. I DON'T SEE THE OPTIONAL PURCHASE FOR IT ON THIS SCOPE.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I AM TRYING TO FIND THAT PERFECT SCOPE FOR THE SERIOUS ASTROPHOTOGRAPHER, YET HAVE IT PORTABLE ENOUGH THAT I CAN SET UP ON MY OWN IF I HAVE TO, AND ALSO NOT HAVING TO SPEND A FORTUNE ON IT AND MORTGAGE MY HOUSE! LOL! ON THAT NOTE, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE AMOUNT, $4000 - $5000.
WHAT ABOUT SOFTWARE FOR THIS APPLICATION? I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THIS AT ALL, AND AM NOT SURE WHAT IS AVAILABLE, IF ANY. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A GOOD OPTION FOR ME, OR IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT GETTING A SMALL DEDICATED LAPTOP FOR THE SCOPE ALSO.
KEEP THE INFO COMING! THANK YOU EVERYONE!
Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:26 AM
You might consider not using all caps when posting, the norm is to use standard text, using caps is saved for excited/angry posts, which is rare here.
14" Meade LX850 ACF f/8
80mm Meade 6000 APO
90mm Meade ETX
60mm Focal (First Telescope)
Orion MiniGiant 9x63
Mallincam Xtreme EXview HAD
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L
Canon 24-105mm f/4L
Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:52 PM
Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:55 PM
If you really want to go with LX 200, there is the Meade Equatirial Wedge, as well as several other 3rd party wedges available for it.
If your goal is Astrophotograohy, then you need to get either a German Equitorial Mount (like the LX850) or a good wedge for the LX 200/600.
Posted 02 May 2013 - 03:08 AM
This topic is also incredibly interesting to me because I too am trying to decide about whether going with a LX90 or LX200, but I am leaning towards the LX200. I have had two smaller, non-name brand scopes and I now want to get something that rocks. My main purpose in getting a telescope is to view the heavens with my kids, and try to get some pictures with my Canon 5D Mark III. If I am correct a larger aperature allows a better image, therefore I am interested in getting a 12 inch scope. Am I correct that the main drawback to the 12" LX200 would be its weight and lack of portability?
I have noticed that some have posted that there are different models of the LX200, like the LX200, LX200R, and LX200GPS, but at Meade's website there is no mention of these model differences. As I understand there should be no differences in the LX200s besides aperatures, and the fact that the 16" model comes with the Zero Image-Shift Microfocuser. Can anybody elaborate?
Also, the LX200 has a number of accessories. I would like to hear anybody's comments regarding any of them. To me the Zero Image-Shift Microfocuser and the X-Wedge would be a must for astrophotography, or am I mistaken?
As I understand from what has been written here and at other sites, that the LX200 is better for astrophotography, but is very heavy and bulky due to its obviously larger tube, but also to the tripod.
Posted 02 May 2013 - 04:39 AM
YouTube channel: https://www.youtube....jc2Y0j7-UoRD6lg
Posted 30 July 2015 - 03:31 AM
First off, the optical tubes are the same. The difference is in the mounts themselves.
Hi Bill, are you sure?
By comparing the focal lengths for a given size
it seems that the LS, LX90 and LX200 share the same (or similar?) f/10 OTA,
while the LX600 and LX850 share an f/8, looks like you can also buy the f/8 OTA without the mount.
From reading comments elsewhere, for AP it sounds like the f/8 OTA + EQ6 (or similar) mount would be a very nice setup, and it's certainly cheaper than an LX850.
But what do I know, I don't even own a pair of binoculars ... yet
[[ snapshot of the above page captured at web.archive.org ]]
Posted 30 July 2015 - 04:37 PM
If an optical tubes for the LS, LT, LX 90, or LX 200 have the same diameter and focal length, they are the same thing. The only caveat is if it is a regular Schmidt Cassegrain or an ACF version, which are different in terms of the optical formula for coma correction. The 6 inch version will only show up on the LS or LT, if you find one. The 8 inch can show up on any of them, assuming that they make an 8 inch LX 200. (Without looking it up I do not remember.) The 10 inch or larger does not show up on the LS or LT because it is too heavy for the mount. I am remembering that the 12 inch used to just show up on the LX 200, but that has apparently changed, if my memory is correct. Sizes beyond that come on the LX 200 mount.
The f/8 scopes are a different thing entirely, other than they still have a Schmidt Cassegrain type format. I have never been around one of those, but I suspect they are very versatile.
The only drawback that I can see for having one of the big optical tubes on an equatorial mount, is the weight. You will not be picking it up and moving it around by yourself. It would either need to be on a dolly or installed in an observatory of some sort.
By the way, welcome to the forum!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users