The Antares 0.5x focal reducer has arrived. It looks well made and comes equipped with a convenient plastic transport container. I decided to check its threads and was delighted to discover that both male and female threads fitted all of the eyepieces, diagonals and filters I tried with it.



So I decided to give it a preliminary daylight test (predominantly chimney pots, TV aerials and various birds lol) with the 90mm Omegon MightyMak, f/l 1000mm, f/11.1. For testing purposes I threaded the Antares reducer into an Orion Amici prism diagonal.



The eyepieces I tested were a 32mm Celestron Plossl, 30mm and 25mm Vixen NLP’s, 15mm and 12mm Celestron Omni EP’s, an 8mm TeleVue Plossl and a 6mm Celestron Plossl.



The first thing that I noticed was that none of these eyepieces could achieve focus with the Antares reducer when it was threaded into the diagonal. Whether this is a peculiarity of the MightyMak I don’t know. It seemed logical to thread the reducer directly into the diagonal in a similar way that 0.63x reducers for SCT’s thread into the visual back. It’s what Mr Spock would have done right? Fortunately the reducer happily threads directly into these (and other) eyepieces easily enough.



As a whole, the reducer does seem to work well and gives bigger FOV’s for a smaller magnification making them brighter and sharper. Vignetting was noticeable on the 25mm eyepieces and above but tolerable. It seemed more apparent on the 30mm Vixen NPL than any of the others. The 32mm Celestron was the closest I could get to the 32mm Sky-Watcher Plossl Phillip Pugh mentions in his book. If I’ve calculated correctly it gave 18.75x for a 4.8mm exit pupil, 1.2mm wider than the 3.6mm exit pupil for 25x with a 40mm Plossl. The image was sharp, clear and bright. Although with the longer focal length EP’s I did think I got a hint of the Gregory spot at times.



Edit: Just got first light with the Antares reducer with Venus and the Moon. Venus was predictably brighter at 18.75x although I don't think it showed the phase any better. The detail on the Moon was pretty good, I didn't notice any vignetting on the 32mm Plossl. I forgot just how much you can see on the Moon at around 20x.

 

Sounds like a nice Crimbo present lol. Agena do but it's out of stock at the moment I think.

 

Focal-Reducers and Maksutovs are thought not to work very well, unlike with their cousins - the SCT's. I read a technical explanation on this subject, so I'll take a crawl through my files at some point. If I manage to dredge it up, I'll post a link. Or the report itself.

Glad to hear the threading issue has been corrected. That's good news indeed!

Need a nap - just got back from my monthly rounds, and there was a 1/2 foot of new snow on the ground. Car-crash paradise: Vermont in the Winter!

Dave

 

Yes, that's the book. I got it on sale and it's written from a southern UK perspective predominantly. Although I disagree about the visibility issues with some of the MO's he mentions as seen from Britain. Pugh had difficulties with some low in the south, possibly extinction issues, and I don't suffer as badly from the SE to the SW, plus I'm further north. I think he had some light pollution issues as well. Something that is not such a problem for me.

Some of the star position photographs are poor quality, but he's gone to some lengths to show what the objects will really look like through a 127mm or smaller scope, and those actual Messier Object photographs are pretty adequate. Oddly, the book seems to be written in a mixture of British English and American English spellings, which is a bit weird. I think it would be useful from your perspective though Ray, your latitude is probably similar enough to mine and you are only about 5000 km away, which is zip in astronomical distance lol.

I'm about a quarter of the way through it at present. Dodgy chart photographs aside, I think it is one of those books that will be good to reference before planning a session. I'd recommend it, after all, it is Xmas!

 

That's possibly because most SCT's seem to be a reasonable f/10. Mak's are crazy slow! No snow here ... yet.

 

Upon further research it appears the problem with F-R's and Maks had to do with it being near-impossible to get the F-R attached to the Maksutovs. It appears that issue has been resolved by manufacturer's stadardizing thread-sizes on the Maks. It was related mostly for those trying to install the larger .63X-F-R often used in SCT's.

Your 0.5X should be good to go! There are threads on the Antares 0.5X and Maksutovs dating back many years in places you may not wish to go - without your 'whip & chair' (CloudyFrights), and another run by a nazi in Texas.

Dave

 

OK, thanks for the info Dave. I am interested what the real magnifications are that 0.5x reducers create though. Do they exactly halve the f/l of the scope (technically doubling the EP size used) or do they reduce it by 40%?

10% is a big difference sometimes.

I tend to avoid the CN Fight Club and Texas nazis as a rule lol.

 

Off topic, but I thought it might interest you - The Barlow-Nut.

Remember the VITE article in CrowdedFights? The one with XXX-Porn? Well - I managed to snag it - after I scanned it for bogeys - and thought I'd hand it to you:

VITE 2X Barlow Lens Review.pdf

Read the letters below the article in the Pdf. The one on the VITE 5X Barlow should serve as a stark warning.

'Ta,

Dave

 

Yeah, doesn't look good. I honestly don't know much about VITE Barlows or possibly counterfeit ones for that matter.

 

Oh bollocks!

The Antares reducer will have to be returned. After trying it in more eyepieces a powder coating has worn off the thread and now it doesn't fit anything as the thread is too small and slips right out.

Looks like they haven't really fixed the problem Dave.

I've ordered this: https://www.teleskop-express.de/sho...l-reducer-0-5x---1-25-inch-filter-thread.html

It has M28.5 x 0.6 threads on both sides.

 

Thanks for letting us know about the Antares, Mak. Of all the sleazy, underhanded tricks! What the $!@!! is wrong with Antares?! I'd be tracking-down the top-management for a little 'chat' - one they'd never forget!

If possible, take some pictures of this "powdered-threads" and post same?

Regards the VITE Barlow, I'd never looked into these. I've seen them listed and offered many times, but no further information was forthcoming. So I pounced on the review in 'CrowdedFights' and ran off a copy for you (and all). Thought you'd probably never had same as I.. So the 2X are reasonable, though I wouldn't be trashing my 2X TeleVue® just yet. And the 5X reviewed might work as a 'Cat-Toy.'

The Ugly American -

Dave

 

I had a feeling something wasn't quite right, but put it down to my imagination. Due to my disability I often have to rehearse holding, manipulating and assembling equipment. Which is why I was practising with the reducer and various eyepieces. After a while the reducer started to thread on some EP's more easily and it felt like some powder-like material was in the thread grooves. I used a cotton wool bud/Q-tip to clean the thread and it deposited some powdery residue. Although this isn't that unusual with filter threads.



This jpeg is the best I can do. Eventually this coating must have worn off completely and it is now too small to thread into anything. Just like in the reviews you found Dave.



Above ~ the female thread as a comparison. I'm guessing this coating was a quick fix to the undersized thread problem. It didn't take long to wear off the thread!

 

Why on Earth - or anywhere else - would Antares allow this to continue unchecked? I had a great a great deal of respect for that outfit - 'had' being the operative-word - which is rapidly fading away, fast enough to show a red-streak from the Doppler effect.

I'd suggest you write up your findings and submit them to any outfits that offer these for sale. Their distributer's hold the keys to stop this, by suggesting strongly to Antares they correct this issue, and halt sales until they have. As well as to either post on their websites a strong warning about this problem along with their advertisement - or stopping all sales of these right-off and returning their stock up the ladder to Antares.

I'm now wearing my 'Political-Activist' hat, in case you hadn't noticed..... !

You know a good place to start? Try: RIGHT HERE. AgenaAstro, this sites' sponsor. I'd be surprised if they (and all others) aren't grateful for this info & suggestions. You can reference this thread for any further elucidation.

While I'm merrily snarling in America, you can no longer say: "This jpeg is the best I can do." - I'm returning your perfectly good .jpegs. Now they're PNG's.






Have fun!

Fidel's Ghost

PS - Bomb's away in SGL:

Post on Problem With Antares 0.5X Focal-Reducer in SGL.pdf

 

It's not the first dodgy Antares item I've ever bought that has had to be returned either. I suppose they thought they could get away with this quick fix and nobody would notice.

Well, Antares, you've been busted! lol

 

I think the TS Optics reducer is very probably GSO.

http://www.gs-telescope.com/content.asp?id=136

I don't think you, me or Dave will need a reducer on the ST80. I was just curious really. Especially as they seem to be useful on Mak's. More or less halving the Skymax's 1300mm f/l could give it a new lease of life with the Vixen mount. A potential f/6.3 would probably drastically improve its DSO observing ability. I'll have to see what the TS Optics reducer is like.

I'm glad your arm has improved a bit. Perhaps we'll both be able to get out soon and do some hardcore observing lol.



I got a look at the First Quarter Moon with the MightyMak earlier. Couldn't see Flo though lol.

 

Yeah, Flo rocks.



I've ordered a new book to try to get over the rubbish Antares reducer fandango with retail therapy. I think you can get it on Amazon.