MK61, MN66 or MN68 or any other 6" Mak-Newt

John Gordon

unread,

Oct 9, 2002, 11:16:37 AM10/9/02

to

Been looking at the 6" Mak-Newts. Does anyone have any comments or feedback
regarding these. Pros or Cons? Thanks.
John

Tom Davis

unread,

Oct 9, 2002, 2:07:13 PM10/9/02

to

John,

I owned both the MN61 and the MN66. Optically,
both were excellent. The MN66 was lighter, and
cooled down more quickly (as long as you left the rear
cooling vents exposed).

Any of these scopes represent an excellent buy. The
planetary, lunar, and double star performance is top
notch on any of the scopes mentioned.

Thanks, Tom Davis

"John Gordon" <jgo...@pacbell.netdotcom> wrote in message
news:pLXo9.2410$pT1.13...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

David

unread,

Oct 9, 2002, 10:35:49 PM10/9/02

to

My MN-78 was an excellent scope and you may find the same with the 68. I am
sorry that I succumbed to the telescopitis (a common disease changing one's
telescopes continuously). With the active cooling, I did not find cool down a
problem. A bit long but manageable on the EQ-6 mount.
Go for it, there are at times good deals on Astromart. Have a look also on the
APM brand.

David

vahe sahakian

unread,

Oct 9, 2002, 11:24:09 PM10/9/02

to

> Been looking at the 6" Mak-Newts. Does anyone have any comments or feedback
> regarding these. Pros or Cons? Thanks.

On the positive side, near apo performance due to very small secondaries
resulting in high contrast, all spherical optics are generally very smooth
making MN's ideal for high power use,
Negatives include, very low resale value, restricted backfocus, big and heavy
compared to MC's, not so ideal a viewing position, and, the systems with very
small secondaries do not fully illuminate large 2" widefield eyepieces..

If you must have one, buy used, you will save a bundle.

Thanks,
Vahe

Nate Perkins

unread,

Oct 9, 2002, 11:35:31 PM10/9/02

to

"John Gordon" <jgo...@pacbell.netdotcom> wrote in

news:pLXo9.2410$pT1.13...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> Been looking at the 6" Mak-Newts. Does anyone have any comments or
> feedback regarding these. Pros or Cons? Thanks.
> John

Yes, I have the MN61. Very nice scope. I bought mine used in excellent
condition for about half of the new price (used prices on these scopes are
pretty good it seems). I have been very pleased with it.

Pros: Great optical quality (as close to perfect as I can distinguish at
my level of experience). Fairly good portability. Versatile performer for
lunar and planetary work, and also for wide field viewing.

Cons: If you wanted to do photography work, you'd need a very good mount
(because of the tube weight), and you'd be limited to CCDs because of
illumination issues. The scope also requires a fair amount of cooldown
time. It holds its own in deep sky viewing with 8" scopes, but after that
it loses out to aperture.

The MN66 is considerably lighter than the MN61. If price were comparable,
I'd get the MN66.

Cheers,
Nate Perkins
Northern Colorado, US

John Gordon

unread,

Oct 10, 2002, 11:00:55 AM10/10/02

to

Thanks for all of the input. I noticed that APM(I think) now has one with
Quartz mirrors and a fan and 1/10 wave. But it goes for almost 2K if I
remember right. I think I like the MN66 so far. Lighter than the MN61. I
think I am going to sell my C102 and Meade 8" SCT OTA's and go for one of
these. Any one interested in a trade? Thanks for all the input.
John

Rick Krejci

unread,

Oct 16, 2002, 5:10:36 PM10/16/02

to

John,

I have one of the APM Quartz MN's and find it incredible optically.
Everything is well made and tests just great. I went from a 10" f6.3 Meade
SCT (very large obstruction) to this and think the contrast and clarity are
far greated than the 10". For CCD imaging (I use an HX916), it is great
as well, with sufficient backfocus.

Rick

"John Gordon" <jgo...@pacbell.netdotcom> wrote in message
news:HCgp9.2728$FO4.24...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...