Time for a new scope, maybe - need some feedback (WO Fluorostar vs Esprit ED)

For the price of a 6" ED APO (sub-par if you ask me) you should be able to get a fairly large RC or a proper astrograph. Have you considered these options?

You'll be wrong to assume that APOs have no need to be collimated (I have one very expensive example in mind). Or that cannot get whacked out of collimation when moved around. My f/4 newt/astrograph holds the collimation so well that I must have done it at least 1 year ago. The f/6 Mak-Newton was never collimated since I checked when I got possession of it ages ago. Ditto for the f/6 Newton, which to be honest I forget the last time I collimated it. The various Mak-Cass I have had and have were never collimated and they travelled the world (well, Europe). So it all depends. But then it is you call…

I know your are getting a lot of responses… I own a 132FLT WO  with the STD focuser.  I also own a FT 3" Focuser.  put a ZWO EFF and in the dark you can't tell the difference.  The 132FLT rides very well on my CGX and in a pinch (when the CGX has the 10RC) it rides the Orion Atlas…  Any mount with the CGX specs  or better will do a great job on the 132FLT…

Now for a subjective review - comparison   

It is hard to deny the quality of some of the Esprit images found on AstroBin! The FL don't matchup aperture to FL between the brands.  I would guess they weigh close as most Triplets are heavy.  I would look at how the FL's matchup with your Imaging camera to the objects you like to image…  In the States the availability of the EQ8 (or any of the higher end mounts) only exists in the used market. Lead times are excessive! 

I love my WO OTA's, 132FLT and a GT81-IV.  inch for inch my GT81 is the best scope I am have (by more than a little). The 132FLT does better but its a 132…

Hope this helps…

CS

Tim

Both of these are very good scopes, however I tend to recommend Option 2 for a few reasons, and I caveat this with the assumption that you are in the Continental United States. 

1.  Most of the feedback I've seen or heard from knowledgeable/experienced astrophotographers on these scopes tends to favor the Sky-Watcher.  For one example, see the interview with Vic Maris (Stellarvue President) on the Sky-Watcher "What's Up" YouTube Series (25 September 2020).  It is a very enlightening discussion on the quality of Espirit optics.  For the most part the objections I hear regarding WO scopes (I have the GT81) is that the scopes/designs/fittings/etc. are constantly changing, so it can be more difficult to get adapters, etc. Whereas Sky-Watcher has pretty much kept the Espirit line consistent.  For example, when I called Ron at Moonlite to get a new flange for my GT81, he had me mail a picture of the threads on the scope tube where I would connect the flange for the Moonlite because "I can't keep up with all of the changes from WO".  So he was able to send me a flange that worked fine, but when you ask him about Sky-Watcher the answser is always "no problem, I've got that".

2.  I always consider the quality of the warranty as well as the cost of shipping my equipment for repair.  Sky-Watcher has a two year warranty on most of their products, the EQ8 and Espirit included.  They will usually cover the cost of shipping provided you can demonstrate/clearly identify the issue, and they are not difficult about working with you on that.  iOptron on the other hand has a 1 year warranty and will charge you for shipping (both ways)  to work on your mount.  I had a CEM25 a few years ago and had a warranty issue.  It cost me over $100 to ship both ways and I was only  a few hundred miles from their location in MA.   Sky-Watcher support (phone/email) is better than iOptron in my opinion.  When I had CEM25, iOptron was pretty good about getting back to me, but the past year or two, I have had a very difficult time reaching them and getting timely responses. Sky-Watcher always gets back to me within a day or two. 

3.  If you need service for WO, you will likely have to ship the scope overseas.  Sky-Watcher does its repairs in California, so if you ever need service your shipping costs will be significantly less (assuming you are out of warranty) shipping to a CONUS location vs. overseas.

4.  I currently use the Starizona APEX reducer in my GT81, and it is great.  But, they were designed specifically for the Espirit series, so while I'm tracking down spacers/adapters to use it with my GT81, I would not have those issues with an Espirit.

Like others have said, you likely cannot go wrong with either choice.  While I personally favor Espirit, as you can see I own a GT81 myself so there are certainly circumstances where you may favor one over the other.  However, if I were considering a refractor larger than 80mm or so, I'd probably stick to the Espirit for reasons mentioned above as shipping expenses overseas increase significantly with larger weight/size.

Best of luck with your decision.

Well, my five cents: Both EQ8 and Esprit 150 are heavy beasts, so, on practical terms , 
portability will be at the edge. EQ8 is more observatory kind of mount. CEM70 will handle the weight of Esprit 150 with photographic gear and improve portability .  I  have CEM70 and Esprit 120 and can't complaint on either.  Consider CEM70/  Esprit 150 combination also.
Either way you go, you can't make serious mistake . Details decide  at the end (warranty, support, portability , total price, delivery time, etc.)
Good luck with your choice.

I've been through a good amount of gear, and you cannot go wrong with Sky Watcher, both mounts and their Esprit line. In our local astrophotography group, Sky Watcher people are the only plug and play people, zero complaints, some of them were not even aware spacing is a thing to worry about. I ended up buying a used esprit 120 just for that, I got tired of spacing, tilt, weird stars, inconsistent results…

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. 

After thinking some more about it, my current plan is to fudamentally revise my setup to address the various issues I have come across and that were starting to tick me off. 

I will probably be going from:
QHY163m (small sensor, strong reflections on the cover glass of the chip, not a lot of dynamic range, strong amp glow)
200/Newton (collimation not stable..)
NEQ6 Pro + stock tripod (getting old, gears make crunchy noises at times (had it serviced 2 years ago), does not support Losmandy plates, no cable management)

To:
QHY286M
WO Fluorostar 132 (reduced to F5)
iOptron CEM70g + tri pier 360

WIll keep you posted…!

And a decision has been made (and stuff ordered for mucho $$$)….

I ended up ordering an EQ8 + pier tripod and a hand-selected and optimized Esprit 100. There is a company in these parts that has a world class optical workshop. You pay a little extra, but the result, so I have been told, is very much worth it. 

Not at all the "class" of scope I started out looking for. But the way I figured is that the Esprit 100 will be my "wide field" instrument (sort of); and I will complement that with a longer focal length scope for galaxies and such (on the fence between a couple of options, incl C11 Edge). But that is a decision for next year. 

It was actually pretty close between this setup  and the above mentioned WO 132 + CEM70. The deciding factor at the end was that I got offered a really good discount for the ESprit+EQ8 , whereas the company selling the WO scope could not be bothered to give me even 1% discount on a package deal And when asked if they would at least check the WO Apo on an optical bench prior to shipping, they just said "nope". That's not how you get customers, mates ^^

Anyway, new scope day soon (optimizing the scope and shipping all the stuff takes a little while)!

Congratulations, I think you will be quite happy with that setup and you certainly have a great weight margin with the EQ8.  Did you go for the standard EQ8 or did you opt for the encoders as well?

Best of luck with your new setup!

Congratulations, I think you will be quite happy with that setup and you certainly have a great weight margin with the EQ8.  Did you go for the standard EQ8 or did you opt for the encoders as well?

Best of luck with your new setup!

Thanks! No, I went for the encoder-less version. Just couldn't justify what is almost double the price for an admitably useful albeit non-essential feature. 

Yeah, the EQ8 really opens up possbilities. THe CEM70 would have also carried a wide range of scopes, but the EQ8 is just in a different class. Especially if and when I move into galaxy hunting with much larger focal lengths.

Hi,

so this is an interesting story…
First of all, no, I am based in Germany, and bought from lacerta in Austria. 

However, returned the EQ8 since my unit was faulty (gear meshing was off, and I wasnt gonna open up a brand-new 5k mount). 

I eventually got the CEM70g, and am super happy with it. I am using it primarily with my Esprit 100, which means I can make full use of the built-in auto guider. Which is such a time safer, not to mention the digital polar scope.

Glad you like the pictures!

I would def. consider the CEM line, but just beware that the CEM120 is probably not gonna be portable in the same way that the EQ8 is (i.e. no handles, and iOptron recommends locking the RA axis during any kind of transport - which makes the whole process both awkward and time consuming). It's really mostly meant for an observatory, I think (also: no digital polar scope - which you wouldn't need in that setting ofc). 

I can carry the CEM70 + Tripier (regular, not 360) fully assembled from my shed to the backyard. And since it has an integrated USB hub and power distribution, setup takes basically no time at all now. I found that the USB hub on the EQ8 did not work for me - and you can find similar reports on Cloudynights and other places. So it depends on how important that aspect is to you as well.