Getting plate-solving status, please wait...
Apo vs prime lens vs Maksutov, dkamen

Apo vs prime lens vs Maksutov

Equipment

Loading...

Acquisition details

Loading...

Description

With the full moon and a very cloudy/rainy weather it is not really possible to do serious imaging, so I played with my Mak. Took it out, visually observed the moon and M42. Then I figured "let's plug the camera and see what happens" and started taking 8 second subs @ISO1250, unguided, with very rough PA (perhaps 1 degree off). To my amazement they weren't so bad. But I made me wonder: how *exactly* "not so bad" compared to my normal gear?

So here it goes. Same camera, same location, pretty much the same (high) light pollution, three different optics:

-TS Optics 60/360 apo with flattener. (60 second subs, guided)

-Samyang 135mm wide open (f/2) (30 second subs, unguided but tracked with good PA)

-90/1250 Mak (8 second subs -some 15 second-, unguided, bad PA)

The images have been scaled to the Samyang's resolution (since it has the widest field). I included unprocessed (STF) images, artifical luminosity channels and stretched, "final" images with an identical basic workflow (color balibration, masked stretch, HDRMultiscale, curves).

The Samyang is doing very well in terms of "seeing the colours" in the nebulosity, but the stars are too fuzzy and bloated (which is normal for a wide open lens). The Mak has good detail but the darkest image (both expected from a 90mm - F/13 instrument). The Apo has the best combination of detail and colour depth so it is the clear winner.

Still, I think that at one quarter the cost, the little Mak gives the two astrographs quite a run for their money.

Comments

Histogram

Apo vs prime lens vs Maksutov, dkamen