Malcolm, Enjoyed the article very much. Back when I first subscribed to S&T in Nov. '69, I was intrigued by the Questar ads that were in the magazine. I didn't know enough about optical designs at the time to even understand how the telescope worked and the price tag of $750.00 was incomprehensible to me. :S

Malcolm, Interesting comparison. I can only imagine the ease of setting up that light Questar! I have the TV 85 which I thought was an easy (and light) set-up!! However, I could never sell it as it's aways been my most used scope. I wondered how it would compare to the Questar so thanks for the article!

I have the pleasure of owning both a 1968 Questar Standard equipped with a CerVit mirror and a TV-85 I purchased in 2008. While I agree with your analysis of both scopes, I would like to comment on the brightness of the Questar.<br>About three years ago a friend stopped by with his Questar that had recently been returned from Questar and had gone through their standard cleaning and maintenance, but during the process Questar technicians discovered that his optics needed to be replaced due to problems with the coatings on the corrector lens. Now, he originally had a mirror of CerVit material in his Questar as do I. I understand that when Questar replaces the optics, they use only mirrors made from Pyrex. I don't know the reason why. Since the mirror and the front corrector lens are furnished only as sets, both were replaced in his scope. Further I believe his scope had the Broad-Band Low Reflection coatings applied to the appropriate surfaces of the optics.<br>Now, to the point of my story: We were observing with both scopes looking for the Ring Nebula in Lyra. I was astounded at how much more contrast and brightness was exhibited by his scope with current optics as compared to my 1968 version of the same scope. <br>So perhaps you might change your concerns a bit regarding the Questar if you had tested the TV-85 against a current Questar. I am well satisfied with both of my scopes for differing reasons, however, I may replace the optics in my scope before too long or purchase a new one after selling my original and very first telescope.<br><br>Kindest Regards,<br>Paul Knox

Interesting comparison. I have had a excellent 90mm short refractor and a Q50. The Q50's silver coatings are more reflective that the standard coatings. I just sold the refractor and kept the Q. It is a complete observatory. As far as finding deep sky objects (I don't really think either scope qualifies as a deep sky tool), have you every used setting circles? They are part of the Q. The last time I looked, they weren't part of the TV85.

Thanks Malcolm.
The 85 is far better on Planets and lunar.
The 85 takes the same amount of time to set up in my yard.
With both scopes figure 5 to 10 to be up and running.
The Q is a decent lunar scope, optics are sublime.

Matt

Thanks Malcolm.
The 85 is far better on Planets and lunar.
The 85 takes the same amount of time to set up in my yard.
With both scopes figure 5 to 10 to be up and running.
The Q is a decent lunar scope, optics are sublime.

Matt