Thanks for the review! UL16 is a great dobs! I bought a UL16 F/5 back in 2013 and still using it. I used coil spring to help balancing the scope, this reduces the ballast weight significantly. Also, I numbered the truss and holes on the frame, this reduces collimation effort after re-assembly.
It's nice to know that they hold up well after 7 years. I am considering purchasing the same scope! How do you find the assembly and disassembly? I am still weighing up the best way to store the scope between uses to protect the primary mirror.
UL24 here, and yes it also had super fine tiny hairline scratches too, no issues with performance. Note also the mirror has a dielectric 95%+ coating. From different angles under bright conditions you'll see purple, blue, yellow halos on the surface which are normal for curved surfaces with dielectric coatings.
Your videos are excellent. I'm ready to move up from a 10" to a 12.5" or a 16" and I greatly appreciate the information you are providing, and the manner in which you do so. Thanks clear skies!
I've got a homebrew ultralight 16" dob with a Hubble Optics mirror in it. Love the mirror, as you say it cools fast and has given me great planetary views at hight power as well as DSO's. Much, much better than the GSO mirrors I've had in the past.
A year later and I like it even more. It's a keeper for me, especially after a couple of DIY upgrades I did. Here's some more info on it: ruclips.net/video/KIIOt2bNdaA/видео.html Clear Skies!
Great video. I do not have this brand, but found a hack about the weight you might like. Do exactly what you did, but have a 2.5 lb on-hand with neobydium magnets on one side for those occasional low altitude views. Take clear packing tape and tape-on about 6 of the 1/2" magnets onto the 2 1/2 lb weight. When weight is an issue, slap it on the main steel weight. Doesn't look elegant, but it is only used occasionally and only at night. They could probably be expoxied onto the 2.5 lb weight. Clear skies!
Your reviews are top notch. One thing that would take it to the next level: take a picture of the object you're viewing with settings that would mimic what the eye sees.
DSN I’ve watched this a number of times great work! I am ready to hit the order button in 2 days Friday 22 Sept but keep vacillating between the 14/16” this will primarily be a drive to dark sky scope and I have a “astronomy-transport” Dodge Journey so they will both fit with ease. I have a skywatcher 6”dob (fantastic scope BTW) for grab-go at home at home dozens of dobs over the years up to 10” so even the 14” should provide “wow” factor. My main thought about the 14” in favor of the 16” is rigidity. I have nothing to back it up but with a engineering background the 14” should be more rigid. Anyway I know this is kinda old but perhaps you’ll see it before I hit the order button! Dark skies!
Hey George, I went from a 10" to the UL16" and I'm glad I did. That put to rest the aperture fever. 😄 The weight and transporting size is not that much difference. But knowing you're looking through a 16" is different. Rigidity doesn't seem to be a problem. And I've got a homemade dew shield made out of a laundry tub with a PVS14 for night vision connected to a 35mm TV Panoptic in the focuser. Granted I had to counter balance it all but no big deal. Best regards. 🪐
Thanks for taking the time to reply! I ordered the 16” F4.5 Tong answered a couple emailed questions within a day. I was told 30-60 days till ship out. I’ll be happy if it’s 120 in time for galaxy season! Now I am buying a couple premium eyepieces over the next month or two. Clear skies!
Many thanks for this - very well done and informative. I'm in the process of planning the step up from my 10" and have been really mooning over this scope. Your vid was super helpful in firming the decision and inspiring much more frequent savings account deposits :)
Hey James, Yeah they're pretty amazing. Last Sunday I was at a class 2- dark site and a buddy of mine who got to look at M13 through the 24" Clark Refractor at the Lowell Observatory, said the view he saw of M13 with the PVS14 on the UL16 looked just like he saw with the Clark!! His wife agreed. :)
I love this video. I would like to upgrade from my Celestron 8" SCT to a much larger aperture 16, 18, 24 inch telescope. 😎 Just need more information before jumping in. Thank you. PS: Are the newer 2022 scope kit bugs worked out? Red First Contact Combo Assortment Kit formula polymer seems to work very nice for cleaning various optics.
Question for you since you have reviewed the Explore Scientific 12" and this one do you feel the extra $1000. for 4" of aperture is worth the expense. Also I always have to travel to observe which system the Hubble of Explore scientific is easier to setup and teardown?
Interesting that you ask. I'm currently working on a video that compares the UL16 to the ES12 at at dark site and one with moderate light pollution. Fist off, the fact that they are both ultra lights puts them ahead for transportation, setup and tear-down compared to traditional designs. Because I use night vision they are both somewhat similar in brightness on DSo's. But the UL16 has the edge for brightness without night vision. The main advantage I can see the UL16 has over the ES12 is the image scale and resolution, it's better but not knock you down better. But noticeably better. I would have to say the Hubble UL16 is better made but the ease of collimation on the ES12 is amazing. It also poses a smaller package for transportation. Cool down time for the primary mirrors are somewhat similar. But the Hubble is a 16" mirror so that in itself is impressive. If money is an issue, then the 12" gen 2 is good enough really. And if it were me I'd save the $1000 and put it toward getting a PVS 14 night vision monocular for the 12" with a 7 or 12 nano meter Ha filter for Nebulosity along with a Badder High Contrast filter for galaxies and star cluster. Now that would be a real game changer! And you'd be able to do some visual work under moderate light pollution. Something no amount of aperture can provide without NV and a Ha narrowband filter. For more on night vision astronomy check out my NV video if you haven't do so already. ruclips.net/video/6usKtqpVMi8/видео.html Clear skies!
i know Im asking randomly but does someone know a tool to get back into an instagram account? I was stupid forgot my password. I would love any help you can give me.
@Gael Angelo I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm in the hacking process now. Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Nice review. I was contemplating buying the 16" model. ThIs helps the decision process. You are the 3rd to mention that 16" is mainly for darker skies and it's probably better to try a smaller diameter objective to maximize the potential of the scope to the observing site.
Yes, that been my experience using an 8", 10", 12", and 16". The 10 or 12 would be the most useful under average conditions. Not that there's anything wrong with an 8". Just saying...
Any scope benefits from really dark skies. I remember as a 13 year old I was comparing my old 3" newtonian under very good skies to newly acquired 8" under suburban skies. I was astonished how much I could see with the 3". I always wanted bigger bigger bigger. But really what you should be focusing on is getting to the best skies possible, even if it means carrying a smaller scope or, hell, even just a good set of binoculars.
I have a 20" F4 obsession but wanted something smaller but not too costly with good quality. Sounds like that is what you are saying here. Light enough to carry out without much hassle means more viewing. I would want to get a nicely formed cover for that mirror. After watching your review I just put a down payment on one. How about the DSC and WIFE option they offer? And other options.
Congrats on your Hubble UL! What size did you get? Only option I would get, if I didn't have DIY analog setting circles, would be the Digital Setting Circle system they offer. It keeps things light and adds real value to the platform. The go-2 is out of the question for me. = extra cost, weight and complexity.
I noticed you added springs around the collimation adjusting screws between the plate and back of the housing on your holder. Why did you make this modification? Does this help hold the housing position when the collimation screws are loosened? I noticed if the screws are loosened too much the housing rotates out of alignment very easily. I am able to work around this by using small adjustments and keeping tension on the back of the housing. Maybe the springs would be helpful and not necessitate another check with the sight tube?
Hey Jim, you guessed right. The springs help hold the housing position when the collimation screws are loosened. They also provide tension on the screws to keep them from backing out when done. I've seen this employed in other secondary mirror housings so I can't take credit for the idea. You can get them at a well supplied hardware store. They usually have an assortment to chose from. Thanks for posting!
Congrats! The encoders is the way to go, for sure. Keeps the dob light and easy to move. If I didn't have the setting circles I would have got the encoders. Cheers!
Hi, I think I found the blue metal clips that you used for your carrying sling for your UL16, Nite Ize brand S-Biner SlideLock in Aluminium, blue color, size #4, they don't sell the Alu ones in UK but someone on Ebay USA had them, so I choose one in red (better for finding them if lost when using red light torch, or simply that red looks nicer to me). I think you must have used size #4, because of the profile of the look of the thing, and because of the loading requirements (the Stainless Steel ones are rated at 75 Lbs pull for size #4, the Aluminum ones don't have a rating that I could find?, and size #3 is only 25 Lbs / 11Kg pull strength, so wouldn't be enough to be safe, I assume). However I can't find out what sling you used? Do you have a brand / code / link to it? I also have a HO UL16 F4.5 on the way to me this week, finally, after 1 week short of 3 months of waiting for it to be manufactured. Best Regards.
Hey Steam; The sling I used was just something I had laying around. I believe it might have been off a shoulder bag of some kind. It doesn't really matter so long as it's strong and long enough. But I like your side handles idea. Gonna try that one myself. :)
I usually get fine (ones you cant feel with your nail) scratches with 9 micron and less while fine grinding.. they go away with polishing and by the tine i try to figure for the 4th time 😁 they are all gone
That would depend on the quality and focal length of the eyepiece. Also, some guys are really sensitive to coma fields. The UL 20 F/4.2 is a screamer, really fast. So, it may be a bit more noticeable. But a guy could always pick up a corrector like the TV Paracorr-2. Though I'd wait first to see if it's a problem for you. One thing for sure, if I had a 20 coming my way I'd be so stoked! Coma or no coma, bring it on! We're talking seeing M51 in detail kind of stuff at a good dark site! Congrats.
Thanks for the great review - I ended up ordering one! The F/5 version. Just curious, at about 9'10" into the video, you put aside what look like two brackets and you speculate about their function. Are these likely to be the altitude encoder brackets? They rather look like they could be. Would be good if such brackets were included by default, even if the HO DSC system is not ordered.
Thanks for this reviens. I hesitate betwenn Hubble optics 14" and 16" for visual (without nb). I have to move some km for very clear sky ( SQM 21.5 at 5 km). There is some ligth near my garden.... Any advise about the value of 2" and the weight (21kg vs 27kg)?
Well, there's currently about a $500 difference. The 14" has a 6" lower eyepiece height at zenith which is nice. I tend to need a small step stool for that position and I have the f4.5. I do believe the visual difference between the two isn't much based on my comparison of the 12" to 16". So, seeing how you're not fully sold on getting a 16" I'd go for the 14" and save some money while you lose some weight and lower the eyepiece height. Clear Skies!
@@DakotaStarryNights thanks for advise. Well, i invest for the next 20 years.. so, i'm not worried about 500€ but about how i can handle with a 16". For size of focuser, i'm 1m80 (5ft 11in) tall, not a problem. Focuser is at the right place of my eyes. In your review, i saw you carry quite easily HO 16". What is weight of rocker, optical part without rocker? I saw your carry it with rocker with optical part. Thanks again, Hubble optics telescope don't have many owner and review in Europe. Excuse me for my language, i'm not very fluent.
Great review.very helpful for me.But make me wounder about couple things. Supporting system for the main mirror not look very strong.does six point support enough for holding this big mirror? Also focuser plain look a bit thin, does it stable enough when you go to big magnification? And last one stabilization look good with all stuff on scope but what happen to scope when you change the eyepiece ?does it still hold the position?
The primary mirror is supported by a two frame design. Six points are enough. The mirror in this dob is lighter than a traditional mirror due to it's sandwich construction. It cools down quicker too. Thanks for posting
@@mbrcomp I've designed a spring loaded plate that the Digital level gauge sets on. I cover the calibration in this video: ruclips.net/video/gsEECOUZnGg/видео.html However I've much improved the AZ component since then. It now has a vinyl AZ ring that rotates on a metal circular tray. The AZ ring is magnetized with 4 magnet buttons. This enables it to hold its position after calibration. (You can see it in the video at: 31:30, above the weights) I will cover its construction in an upcoming video: "Making the Hubble Optics UL16 Even Better."
We were just in your neighborhood on vacation a few weeks ago...wonderful area of the country and nice dark skies! I was trying to decide between the UL16 and UL18. What would you recommend? I'm in rural Kansas so I do have pretty dark skies but definitely don't want to struggle with a huge scope and tough setup. I currently have an Orion Truss Tube 12 Intelliscope that I'm selling to fund the new scope so that's bit of context as what type of scope I'm coming from. (Also have an Edge HD 8 which I love.)
A bit more aperture is also a welcomed thing. :) Check out my 12 vs 16 video for some more information on what one can expect. ruclips.net/video/66-dfu2q1O8/видео.html That said, if the weight of the 18 is something you can handle than it should show more of a difference over the 12. The 16 will too of course but maybe not as much. Portable is really the name of the game for me as I like to get to category 1 or 2 dark sites. I was out last night at a cat 2 and we were able to see the "Pillars of Creation" in the Eagle Nebula (M16) with the UL16 and night vision. Amazing and I'm still buzzing over it. :)
Hi Richard congratulations for the videos, I do enjoy them very much! I would like to ask you the material of dewshield and how did you fix it (tape?). I'm getting soon the same telescope but the 14 inch and I'm thinking about ideas. You dew shield is very good looking and I guess is necessary because the extended secondary mirror? Thank you, best regards from Portugal.
Hey there Ricardo, the dew-shield was made from a plastic tub; the kind they use for plants or laundry. It took some searching to find the right size. In the end I found one at a building supply store. (A farm and feed store might have something that will work too.) Keep in mind this adds extra weight at the eyepiece end. So counter weights are a must with this design. There is an alternative material that can be used to make a light weight one. It's called "Easy Bagger", used to keep plastic bags open when gathering autumn leaves. It's great for making dew shield of different sizes: You can use black duct tape, or Velcro, to put it together and flat-head screws and wing nuts to secure it to the secondary cage. Remember to put the shinny side out. Oh, and congrats on that new UL14! www.acehardware.com/departments/home-and-decor/trash-and-recycling/trash-bags/68617?x429=true&gclid=Cj0KCQiA9P__BRC0ARIsAEZ6irg4UBOpjXH_nCQ0SIXH1-Qr7Ca1vQ3Tp8Q-anvQlqFmHgRh1_BXIqYaAnVNEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
@@DakotaStarryNights thanks a lot Richard, I'll be looking in such stores for dew shield materials. The telescope shouldn't arrive for another month. I have hope I will be able to see visually one day the Horse Head Nebula with H Beta Filter with 14 Inches. From a dark sky I was already able to see without filters very bright Veil, Owl and Helix Nebulas with 8 Inches and were unforgetable experiences. Veil Nebula had a kind of blueish fluorescent bright :)
I saw that blueish fluorescent light in the Veil, NGC 6960. But only once with a 6 inch refractor at a class 2 dark site. It seems really good transparency and dark skies are needed to see that fluorescent lighting. It is, like you said, and unforgettable experience.
Hi. What really surprised me is your comments saying a 16inch in a light polluted city isn't worth it, and one should go for a 10-12inch, as the 16 will only amplify the light pollution ?? Are you absolutely 110% certain of this sir ? Reason i ask is I'm considering getting a 16 for my home observatory in the city ( Bortle 8-9 ) and I honestly thought a 16 would help me further tease out structure and maybe even some colour in Orion Neb, amongst many other Nebulae and DSO's ? Your reply would be most appreciated sir. Thanks, Wes, Liverpool, UK.
Hi Wesley, I admirer your commitment to the hobby working under the skies of Liverpool. Bortel 8-9 is tough for visual work. Under those conditions there is a diminishing return when you increase your aperture because you are also amplifying the the light pollution, which washes out the fainter details you're looking for. In other words, outside of astrophotography, there is only so much you can extract from light polluted skies. However, with a PVS14 night vision monocular and 7nm Ha filter the extra aperture will show a bit more and the PVS14 will show a lot more. ruclips.net/video/6usKtqpVMi8/видео.html Which is why I typically recommend putting the money in a PVS14 and use a fast 10 or 12 inch newt for guys looking to go deeper. Perhaps you could run a test with two different scopes that you might have on hand. Try keeping the size difference ration the same as the jump in aperture you intend to make. Thanks for posting. And best of luck.
@@DakotaStarryNights thank you so much for taking the time to reply sir. What you say does now make more sense to me. I will definitely click the links you included for night vision equipment, and invest in such equipment. I think I might as well invest the extra money now rather than later as I would buy them at some point in future anyway. I will test my 6 inch newt reflector against my 10 inch reflector as you suggested and see how they compare like for like. Off the top of my head I’m not sure the ratios are exactly the same as a 12-16 comparison but I would imagine it will still give me atleast a rough idea. Thanks again for your excellent advice sir! Kindest Regards, Wes.
@@DakotaStarryNights I'm just outside of Baltimore, MD, and facing a similar dilemma. I have a 6" triplet but always wondered about bumping up aperture to a 14" dob. I'm most interested in splitting hard-to-find doubles. I also have a PVS14. So, given my skies and my primary interest in double star splitting, would you encourage or discourage me to get the 14" HO? Does the HO-14 + the PVS14 give me a "better" double-star splitter setup?
@@gregorystevens5173 There are a number of advantages a refractor has over a dob in regards to splitting doubles, some of which you probably already considered. You can mount the refractor on a equatorial mount that will find AND track them. Tracking allows time to chose the right eyepiece for any particular night of seeing and the challenge at hand. Then there's the high contrast and spot on collimation of a refractor that can make a difference in the attempt to split. Larger mirrors or optics require more time to acclimate to the ambient temperature; during which the seeing might change. And depending on the difficulty, if a split is attempted before acclimation it is unattainable due to poor resolution. I'm sure you know, when it comes to splitting doubles, resolution is the name of the game. And as the refractor is looking through a smaller column of air, it is less affected by the seeing when compared to the larger dob: You can check out this workshop for more on the subject, about 2:20 in the timeline: ruclips.net/video/KJ_4tKk6Cik/видео.html A PVS14 rocks when it comes to nebulosity or planetary nebula. But for splitting doubles it, well, it sucks. :) Stars tend to halo and that will interfere with the split. But a UL14 for nebulous targets, that would be a lot fun! Cheers!
Thanks for the very entertaining and informative video. Next, I would enjoy one showing setting up the scope for viewing. Barring that, how long do you think it takes to set the scope up? Thanks again!
With the car backed up to the site, about 20 to 25 mins for a standard set up. The included captive hardware helps speed things up. FYI: I'll be posting a 12 vs 16 soon that gets into this a bit more. :)
Large aperture scopes are a challenge to bring to high power viewing in South Dakota. We reside under the jet stream most of the time and atmospheric conditions are typically not favorable. A 16" mirror looks though a large column of air which magnifies the distortion being created by subpar seeing conditions. And short focal length telescopes, like the UL16, have steep light cones which are more prone to come out of focus during even slight variations in atmospheric turbulence. That is why I have a 102mm f/11 ED refactor for lunar and planetary high power viewing. The smaller aperture coupled with the longer focal length makes things a whole lot easier, including maintaining focus. It's really about the right tool for the right job. Now, for deep sky viewing it's no contest. The UL16 wins every time.
@@DakotaStarryNights thanks. please can I ask you - I've read that Night Vision is the "great equalizer". Does that mean that DSOs look much the same in a 16" vs a 10" dob?
@@AJ-ww1ef I suppose it depends on the object. The larger aperture will always show more if the f ratios are the same. But is the difference worth the extra cost & reduced mobility? That would depend on the observer. For more on this check out this video on Dakota Starry Nights: ruclips.net/video/66-dfu2q1O8/видео.html Cheers!
I want to get 20" Dobsonian instead, thanks for the review. Now my only worry is, how about the quality of the primary mirror from Hubble Optics [Sandwich mirror]? I may get structure somewhere built for me, but then the cheapest mirror [primary] i found is from this maker, just not sure about their quality.
I find the seeing and transparency to be more of a problem to get the most out of any optics I might have out for the night. That said, the only real guaranteed way of getting the mirror you want is to buy it from one of the top end mirror makers with the accompanying paper work. A costly endeavor to be sure. Although it will not have the quick cool down as the Hubble Optics mirrors. And that was another problem I no longer need to deal with. Thanks for posting.
@@DakotaStarryNights Seeing and transparency is my last worry because i will never control that and it will never control me which scope to buy, even if it is the worst in the world, i saw images were taken under poor seeing with 14" and 16", they were amazing much better than images were taken under excellent seeing with 6"-10", so i will go risk with larger aperture no matter what. I can't buy from top end mirrors, very expensive, i may buy from them only if i can find a cheap cheap affordable brand new structure so i can save for the primary mirror, i already found a top end secondary mirror maker one or two so that is done, only they don't sell primary ones, and i was thinking about having not very expensive one primary mirror, my cheap mass production scopes has Chinese mirrors and I've got excellent mirrors, why by sudden this Hubble Optics mirrors will be any less? Thank you very much for your answers and i look forward your answers always.
Thank you for a detailed review! Much appreciated!! The specs on HO UL16's page (hubbleoptics.com/UL16.html) says "Weight, optical tube: 52.0 lbs". Their Sandwich Mirror page (hubbleoptics.com/mirrors.html) says 16" sandwich mirror weighs ~10.5 kg = ~23 lb. Does this mean their mirror box weighs ~29 lbs? Seems high for AL structure. If you don't mind, whenever you can, will you please let us know the individual weights of the mirror and the mirror box?
The ES ultra light dobs are way easier to collimate and might hold it a little better. But I would still go for the Hubble 16. It's better made and lighter weight. The sandwich mirror is a big step forward in dob design. Though there is a wait time and the whole international shipping thing to consider.
@@DakotaStarryNights Thanks for the quick reply, I am leaning towards the Hubble. I know you were happy with the optics of both telescopes so that is reasuring. A month ago i was looking at the 18" starwatcher stargate dobs but i think after doing a lot of reading with negative comments about the optics i have changed my mind on those scopes.
Another nice review Richard! Looks like a beautiful piece of equipment. I just read a review on Cloudy Nights of the HO 14 and may think about something like this down the road. I'm glad Mike asked the question about comparing it to the ES 12 you so nicely reviewed. There's no substitute for aperture! I had the pleasure of a friend who had an Obsession 20" years ago and every time I looked through it, I really had a hard time walking back to my Tectron 12" I had at the time, which was an amazing scope on it's own! But as Phil Harrington said in his book Starware: "The best telescope for you is the one you'll use the most". I just subscribed so keep the content coming!
You mentioned changing the springs for the primary mirror. I just got the UL16 and the primary mirror springs are not strong enough. Can you tell me the specs for the springs you used?
I don't have the specs for the replacement springs I used. But what I did was take one of the old ones out and made a trip to the hardware store. I compared a couple of sizes and resistance then chose the one that was somewhat stiffer and equal in height. Worked fine.
What the Hubble UL16 is not on par with Obsession, New Moon ect, is the price. I found the HO UL16 to be a great buy for the money and liked the quick cool down and lighter weight of the sandwich mirror. JMHO
That would depend on what you intend to look at. For wide field views of nebulous targets 35mm or 55mm plossl work fine or something in the 82 degree FOV eyepieces. For planets 10mm to 8mm works most nights. A Baader Contrast Booster filter helps in the city.
I bought the 16UL f5 and have been very disappointed in the quality. Yours looks very different from mine. The truss rods I recieved came in two pieces that have to be bolted together with a big aluminum block on each one. The mirror cover you can order as an add on is just a flimsy piece if abs plastic not worth 45 bucks. The shroud I got isn't even completely sown together. Once the telescope was assembled and colimated, I could not get any of my eyepieces to focus(multipe brands meade, pentax, astotech and televue), even after adjusting the truss rods and the secondary mirror down as far as I could the stars almost came into focus with the focuser turned in as far as possible. It needs about 3 inches cut out of each truss rod to be usable. And for the cherry on top, my mirror had a huge noticeable scratch in it. I don't know what's happened to hubble optics in the last three years but from my experience, I will be telling anyone I meet to stay away from hubble, spend a bit more money somewhere else and get a better quality scope.
I am in the “on the way” stage for my HO UL14 I read of 1 account of a significantly more expensive Obsession 18 which was a total lemon. It happens even in the best examples. The initial release had quit a few issues but as with Hubble they learned and modified for the better. Part of my research prior to ordering the UL14 was emailing 5 HO scope owners found on CN. 4 still have it and the other sold the 16 to purchase a UL20. All of them wrote they were satisfied with the scopes. They did mention Richard’s mods and a bit of tweaking may be required to get them to perform at high standard. I am not expecting perfection but as in the video the “bones” are good IMO. If the mirror has problems (seemingly rare) coating wise i already found a service with a @$300 charge including shipping. That still puts you in significantly under the other more well known companies.
You mentioned that you wouldn't recommend this scope if your skies are light polluted. I have access to bortle 2 skies. Is it still worth the buy you think? Will it magnify even small amounts of light pollution a lot? I don't have access to the absolute darkest of skies unfortunately (bortle 1)
Hey Jordan, having access to bortle 2 skies is great! I usually find myself at bortle 3 or 2 and have had great views with the UL16 so... I was referring to bortle 5+ and higher where you won't be able to take full advantage of aperture this large. A 12 or below would be better, IMHO.
If by better you mean easier to transport then the Hubble UL16 wins hands down. And from what I could find, the sky watcher 16 is only available with a go-2 system in the usa. It's cost more, has partial board and for most people it's not a scope you can easily take out to a dark site. As far as go-2... I've put adjustable setting circles on my UL16 and there's no problem finding DSO with a phone app like sky safari. You just calibrate the SC on a star, pull up your DSO on the phone, center it, and get the real time Alt/Az position of the object. I had some kids just last night at a star party do it and they nailed a couple of targets first try. The more I use this scope the better I like it. Hubble also offers a digital version of setting circles that look promising if you're not inclined to make your own.
Hi Richard! I'm looking to potentially get myself one of these 16 inchers. Is there anyone I can reach out to at Hubble Optics to ask a few questions concerning shipping/availability that you have been in touch with?
Sir，is this the F4.5 and may I ask your height? I'm choosing between 14inch and 16inch F4.5, but I don't want chairs when observing 90 degrees. Thanks.
Excellent video One thing I don’t understand why we believe that dobs are good kinda only for deep sky objects in reality my 15” obsession was blowing a way my Meade 10” lx 200
I guess it's because the larger mirrors take longer to acclimate to ambient temperatures; and the larger column of air they're looking through requires good seeing at higher powers. But when those parameters are met, they will out perform smaller aperture scopes by a county mile.
@@DakotaStarryNights I used dank binociwers on obsession observing planets I was amazed on good night . I want to know if this Explorer Scientific Refactor ED127 Triplet APO will be any closer to “15 obsession on planets ?
@@AstroRef68 That would always depend on the seeing. The better the seeing the larger the aperture. But a refractor would offer better contrast, no matter the seeing, as there is no secondary obstruction. However, if it's planets you're after a MAK (Maksutov-Cassegrain) is hard to beat for the money. But they do require an hour to adjust to ambient temperatures. So, they are not suited for grab-n-go setups. 🏃♂
There's a telescope at McDonald Observatory toting at least one (maybe more? I forget) bullet hole. It's done an awful lot of science since that horrible day.
Hello Richard. I ordered only the mirror from HubbleOptics.com. This was weeks ago and I even emailed the company and all they said was they were waiting on the mirror from China. The website says they are from Texas and all is made in house. To this day they charged me over 2k but no mirror. How long was your wait ? Did they charge you via PayPal?
Hi Coach, It should be noted, I do not work for or receive any commission from Hubble Optics or any other company on the products I review. Like you, I place an order and wait and see. That said, I waited about 3 months, if I recall correctly, for the scope to arrive. And that was before Covid. If I had to guess, I'd say they're making these as needed to reduce overhead costs. I ALWAYS pay through PayPal to be on the safe side. At over 2k that must be a really big mirror! Thanks for posting.
@@seansadler6912 indeed it was. I have had problems with the focuser. I purchased one that wasn't so loose and didn't droop when fully extended. I wanted to know the distance recommended from the center of the secondary mirror to the inside edge of the focuser because it does not give me a clean focus but phases into a blur. I've tried moving it slightly in and even added a plate to increase the amount but to no avail in improvement. Now I shall try positioning it away from the secondary mirror so I can find that sweet spot. I ordered an F5 and have yet to see Jupiter with reasonable clarity as other smaller telescopes have done for me. Any ideas?
@@DakotaStarryNights Your videos have been extremely helpful. Thanks for taking the time to create them ! Highly appreciated. I am in a dilemma if I should go for 18 inch f4.5 or 18 inch f4.0. I read in many places that lower focal ratio (like f4.0 UL18) requires "really-precise" mirrors and its too much of a risk & also the images might be a little blurry. Is that really the case ? If yes, how noticeable would that be and would adding a Paracorr bring the clarity to what a f4.5 offers ? I mean, I'd also be observing planets once in a while with my scope so hopefully an f 4.0 isn't a DSO only scope ? And when it comes to UL-18 f4.5, I have a feeling that it would be a safer bet, but the zenith is practically 10 inches higher than UL 16 f4.5 (the one you have here). That's quite scary IMO. Wish there was a review of the UL-18 as good as yours :-).
@@utki17 Being able to choose between an 18" or16" dob is a dilemma a lot of guys wouldn't mind having. lol:) Ok, the difference between the 16" vs an 18" isn't all that much, visually speaking. And you make a couple of good points as far as the challenges of faster focal ratio scope. My vote would go to the UL16 f/4.5 all things considered. But keep in mind, large aperture dobs are typically used as DSO specialist. (See below) For planets you might want to take a look at this:ruclips.net/video/KJ_4tKk6Cik/видео.html Thanks for posting!
That sandwich mirror is not light whatsoever. As the matter of fact is quite heavy for 16" aperture and not that much different from 2" thick one, weighwise. Modern, single plated, 1" thick mirror would give you very similar cooling properties and reduce weight by 11-12 lbs or more. So weight of that sandwich mirror is quite disappointing. Once I spoke to Norman Fullum about his Techno-Fusion mirrors which are very similar in design. He recommended them for very large telescopes because at "small" apertures they do not save weight that much. I suspect same way of thinking can be applied for sandwich mirrors. Of course small in this case is not that small because 16 inch is already very capable aperture.
Well, Greg I disagree. At our observatory we have a conventional mirror 16" truss dob and it hasn't been taken out in nearly two years due to the weight and size of the mirror box. The sandwich mirror in the UL16 is definitely lighter and by it's design can reach ambient temperature much quicker. But there's more to this dob than it's mirror. Overall it weighs less than an Explore Scientific 12" truss dob by 6.2 pounds. I can easily carry the mirror, mirror box with altitude bearings and ground board all assembled out to the car for a trip to a dark site. That alone is pretty remarkable. It's well made and after using it for over a year I've come to really appreciate it's overall design. Thanks for posting. Other opinions are always useful and welcomed here. Clear skies.
@@DakotaStarryNights, man you have some great videos. This year I got back into astronomy (I had a half-decent 70mm refractor as a kid and I was hooked) sadly I have only rebooted my old stargazing hobby this spring, some 30 years later! I didn't want to go too crazy for my first new scope since then and picked up a 10" Meade Lightbridge. So far I'm really enjoying this scope and I feel like it's a great beginner dob. Of course, in a few years I may very well upgrade to something with a fair bit more aperture ... great review with this Hubble Optics UL16!! cheers
Great video but man does "unboxing" ruin it. RUclips is gone beyond pathetic with people unboxing everything imaginable. Please don't add that in dude, it just plain ruins the video
I agree for the most part but in this case the fact that it was well packaged is very important. You of course don’t want the scope to arrive banged up.
Thanks for the review! UL16 is a great dobs!
I bought a UL16 F/5 back in 2013 and still using it. I used coil spring to help balancing the scope, this reduces the ballast weight significantly. Also, I numbered the truss and holes on the frame, this reduces collimation effort after re-assembly.
It's nice to know that they hold up well after 7 years. I am considering purchasing the same scope! How do you find the assembly and disassembly? I am still weighing up the best way to store the scope between uses to protect the primary mirror.
Thanks for the tips. :)
UL24 here, and yes it also had super fine tiny hairline scratches too, no issues with performance. Note also the mirror has a dielectric 95%+ coating. From different angles under bright conditions you'll see purple, blue, yellow halos on the surface which are normal for curved surfaces with dielectric coatings.
Didn't know that one on the halos, Rick. Thanks for sharing!
Your videos are excellent. I'm ready to move up from a 10" to a 12.5" or a 16" and I greatly appreciate the information you are providing, and the manner in which you do so. Thanks clear skies!
You're very welcome!
Richard thank you for your videos. All they are very interesting and USEFUL.
:) Thanks.
Just dropping by to thank you for such an in-depth review
You're welcome. :)
I've got a homebrew ultralight 16" dob with a Hubble Optics mirror in it. Love the mirror, as you say it cools fast and has given me great planetary views at hight power as well as DSO's. Much, much better than the GSO mirrors I've had in the past.
Agreed. I've looked through one of the popular telescope makers 16" dob with a GSO mirror and it was no where near as good as the UL16.
Wow! I haven't heard of this brand. It looks like such a simple rugged design especially for a big-mirrored light bucket.
A year later and I like it even more. It's a keeper for me, especially after a couple of DIY upgrades I did. Here's some more info on it: ruclips.net/video/KIIOt2bNdaA/видео.html Clear Skies!
Great video. I do not have this brand, but found a hack about the weight you might like. Do exactly what you did, but have a 2.5 lb on-hand with neobydium magnets on one side for those occasional low altitude views. Take clear packing tape and tape-on about 6 of the 1/2" magnets onto the 2 1/2 lb weight. When weight is an issue, slap it on the main steel weight. Doesn't look elegant, but it is only used occasionally and only at night. They could probably be expoxied onto the 2.5 lb weight. Clear skies!
Thanks for the tip!
Your reviews are top notch. One thing that would take it to the next level: take a picture of the object you're viewing with settings that would mimic what the eye sees.
Thanks! Check out my vid "Going from a 12" to a 16"..." for real time viewing: ruclips.net/video/66-dfu2q1O8/видео.html Clear skies!
DSN I’ve watched this a number of times great work!
I am ready to hit the order button in 2 days Friday 22 Sept but keep vacillating between the 14/16” this will primarily be a drive to dark sky scope and I have a “astronomy-transport” Dodge Journey so they will both fit with ease. I have a skywatcher 6”dob (fantastic scope BTW) for grab-go at home at home dozens of dobs over the years up to 10” so even the 14” should provide “wow” factor.
My main thought about the 14” in favor of the 16” is rigidity. I have nothing to back it up but with a engineering background the 14” should be more rigid. Anyway I know this is kinda old but perhaps you’ll see it before I hit the order button!
Dark skies!
Hey George, I went from a 10" to the UL16" and I'm glad I did. That put to rest the aperture fever. 😄 The weight and transporting size is not that much difference. But knowing you're looking through a 16" is different. Rigidity doesn't seem to be a problem. And I've got a homemade dew shield made out of a laundry tub with a PVS14 for night vision connected to a 35mm TV Panoptic in the focuser. Granted I had to counter balance it all but no big deal. Best regards. 🪐
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
I ordered the 16” F4.5
Tong answered a couple emailed questions within a day. I was told 30-60 days till ship out. I’ll be happy if it’s 120 in time for galaxy season! Now I am buying a couple premium eyepieces over the next month or two.
Clear skies!
It took a while for me to get mine, too. Congrats!🥳
Many thanks for this - very well done and informative. I'm in the process of planning the step up from my 10" and have been really mooning over this scope. Your vid was super helpful in firming the decision and inspiring much more frequent savings account deposits :)
I'm glad to hear it helped. Clear skies!
I bet the views through the pvs14 are great!! Love you videos!!
Hey James, Yeah they're pretty amazing. Last Sunday I was at a class 2- dark site and a buddy of mine who got to look at M13 through the 24" Clark Refractor at the Lowell Observatory, said the view he saw of M13 with the PVS14 on the UL16 looked just like he saw with the Clark!! His wife agreed. :)
@@DakotaStarryNights cheers!!
I love this video. I would like to upgrade from my Celestron 8" SCT to a much larger aperture 16, 18, 24 inch telescope. 😎 Just need more information before jumping in. Thank you.
PS: Are the newer 2022 scope kit bugs worked out? Red First Contact Combo Assortment Kit formula polymer seems to work very nice for cleaning various optics.
I haven't heard about the 2022 scopes yet. But I'm plenty happy with the one I got 3 years ago.
Question for you since you have reviewed the Explore Scientific 12" and this one do you feel the extra $1000. for 4" of aperture is worth the expense. Also I always have to travel to observe which system the Hubble of Explore scientific is easier to setup and teardown?
Interesting that you ask. I'm currently working on a video that compares the UL16 to the ES12 at at dark site and one with moderate light pollution. Fist off, the fact that they are both ultra lights puts them ahead for transportation, setup and tear-down compared to traditional designs. Because I use night vision they are both somewhat similar in brightness on DSo's. But the UL16 has the edge for brightness without night vision. The main advantage I can see the UL16 has over the ES12 is the image scale and resolution, it's better but not knock you down better. But noticeably better. I would have to say the Hubble UL16 is better made but the ease of collimation on the ES12 is amazing. It also poses a smaller package for transportation. Cool down time for the primary mirrors are somewhat similar. But the Hubble is a 16" mirror so that in itself is impressive. If money is an issue, then the 12" gen 2 is good enough really. And if it were me I'd save the $1000 and put it toward getting a PVS 14 night vision monocular for the 12" with a 7 or 12 nano meter Ha filter for Nebulosity along with a Badder High Contrast filter for galaxies and star cluster. Now that would be a real game changer! And you'd be able to do some visual work under moderate light pollution. Something no amount of aperture can provide without NV and a Ha narrowband filter.
For more on night vision astronomy check out my NV video if you haven't do so already. ruclips.net/video/6usKtqpVMi8/видео.html
Clear skies!
i know Im asking randomly but does someone know a tool to get back into an instagram account?
I was stupid forgot my password. I would love any help you can give me.
@Talon August Instablaster ;)
@Gael Angelo I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm in the hacking process now.
Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Gael Angelo it worked and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy!
Thanks so much you saved my ass !
Nice review. I was contemplating buying the 16" model. ThIs helps the decision process. You are the 3rd to mention that 16" is mainly for darker skies and it's probably better to try a smaller diameter objective to maximize the potential of the scope to the observing site.
Yes, that been my experience using an 8", 10", 12", and 16". The 10 or 12 would be the most useful under average conditions. Not that there's anything wrong with an 8". Just saying...
This is a fantastic review and such a great insight.
Thank you, Darren!
Any scope benefits from really dark skies. I remember as a 13 year old I was comparing my old 3" newtonian under very good skies to newly acquired 8" under suburban skies. I was astonished how much I could see with the 3". I always wanted bigger bigger bigger. But really what you should be focusing on is getting to the best skies possible, even if it means carrying a smaller scope or, hell, even just a good set of binoculars.
Agreed. I always recommend portability over aperture to make it easier to travel to a good dark site.
An 8 or 10” that travels to Bortle 4-5 is way better than a 16” that stays home at Bortle 7-8
I have a 20" F4 obsession but wanted something smaller but not too costly with good quality. Sounds like that is what you are saying here. Light enough to carry out without much hassle means more viewing. I would want to get a nicely formed cover for that mirror. After watching your review I just put a down payment on one. How about the DSC and WIFE option they offer? And other options.
Congrats on your Hubble UL! What size did you get?
Only option I would get, if I didn't have DIY analog setting circles, would be the Digital Setting Circle system they offer. It keeps things light and adds real value to the platform. The go-2 is out of the question for me. = extra cost, weight and complexity.
Are you able to link Mike Lockwood's article? Can't find it anywhere!
I noticed you added springs around the collimation adjusting screws between the plate and back of the housing on your holder. Why did you make this modification? Does this help hold the housing position when the collimation screws are loosened? I noticed if the screws are loosened too much the housing rotates out of alignment very easily. I am able to work around this by using small adjustments and keeping tension on the back of the housing. Maybe the springs would be helpful and not necessitate another check with the sight tube?
Hey Jim, you guessed right. The springs help hold the housing position when the collimation screws are loosened. They also provide tension on the screws to keep them from backing out when done. I've seen this employed in other secondary mirror housings so I can't take credit for the idea. You can get them at a well supplied hardware store. They usually have an assortment to chose from. Thanks for posting!
I just ordered one! Can't wait. Got it with the encoders
Congrats! The encoders is the way to go, for sure. Keeps the dob light and easy to move. If I didn't have the setting circles I would have got the encoders. Cheers!
@@DakotaStarryNights thanks! I'm glad to hear that. I hope it doesn't take too long to arrive!
4-5 months later and it just arrived, glad I got this video to help me put it together thanks again!
This is just a tremendous review. Thank you!
Thanks!
Hi, I think I found the blue metal clips that you used for your carrying sling for your UL16, Nite Ize brand S-Biner SlideLock in Aluminium, blue color, size #4, they don't sell the Alu ones in UK but someone on Ebay USA had them, so I choose one in red (better for finding them if lost when using red light torch, or simply that red looks nicer to me). I think you must have used size #4, because of the profile of the look of the thing, and because of the loading requirements (the Stainless Steel ones are rated at 75 Lbs pull for size #4, the Aluminum ones don't have a rating that I could find?, and size #3 is only 25 Lbs / 11Kg pull strength, so wouldn't be enough to be safe, I assume). However I can't find out what sling you used? Do you have a brand / code / link to it? I also have a HO UL16 F4.5 on the way to me this week, finally, after 1 week short of 3 months of waiting for it to be manufactured. Best Regards.
Hey Steam; The sling I used was just something I had laying around. I believe it might have been off a shoulder bag of some kind. It doesn't really matter so long as it's strong and long enough. But I like your side handles idea. Gonna try that one myself. :)
I usually get fine (ones you cant feel with your nail) scratches with 9 micron and less while fine grinding.. they go away with polishing and by the tine i try to figure for the 4th time 😁 they are all gone
Interesting.
According to your experience, will I need a coma corrector for Hubble Optics UL 20 inches (f/4.2)?
That would depend on the quality and focal length of the eyepiece. Also, some guys are really sensitive to coma fields. The UL 20 F/4.2 is a screamer, really fast. So, it may be a bit more noticeable. But a guy could always pick up a corrector like the TV Paracorr-2. Though I'd wait first to see if it's a problem for you. One thing for sure, if I had a 20 coming my way I'd be so stoked! Coma or no coma, bring it on! We're talking seeing M51 in detail kind of stuff at a good dark site! Congrats.
Thanks for the great review - I ended up ordering one! The F/5 version. Just curious, at about 9'10" into the video, you put aside what look like two brackets and you speculate about their function. Are these likely to be the altitude encoder brackets? They rather look like they could be. Would be good if such brackets were included by default, even if the HO DSC system is not ordered.
The brackets are used to support the alt bearings.
Thanks! I did quickly work this out once I received the 'scope 😀. It certainly works well!
Thanks for this reviens. I hesitate betwenn Hubble optics 14" and 16" for visual (without nb). I have to move some km for very clear sky ( SQM 21.5 at 5 km). There is some ligth near my garden....
Any advise about the value of 2" and the weight (21kg vs 27kg)?
Well, there's currently about a $500 difference. The 14" has a 6" lower eyepiece height at zenith which is nice. I tend to need a small step stool for that position and I have the f4.5. I do believe the visual difference between the two isn't much based on my comparison of the 12" to 16". So, seeing how you're not fully sold on getting a 16" I'd go for the 14" and save some money while you lose some weight and lower the eyepiece height. Clear Skies!
@@DakotaStarryNights thanks for advise. Well, i invest for the next 20 years.. so, i'm not worried about 500€ but about how i can handle with a 16". For size of focuser, i'm 1m80 (5ft 11in) tall, not a problem. Focuser is at the right place of my eyes.
In your review, i saw you carry quite easily HO 16".
What is weight of rocker, optical part without rocker? I saw your carry it with rocker with optical part.
Thanks again, Hubble optics telescope don't have many owner and review in Europe.
Excuse me for my language, i'm not very fluent.
Great review.very helpful for me.But make me wounder about couple things.
Supporting system for the main mirror not look very strong.does six point support enough for holding this big mirror? Also focuser plain look a bit thin, does it stable enough when you go to big magnification? And last one stabilization look good with all stuff on scope but what happen to scope when you change the eyepiece ?does it still hold the position?
The primary mirror is supported by a two frame design. Six points are enough. The mirror in this dob is lighter than a traditional mirror due to it's sandwich construction. It cools down quicker too. Thanks for posting
Very intelligent reviewer. He must be a professional engineer.
Thank you!
Thanks for the review!!!!
Thanks for the review !
You mentioned the DSC assembled at the secondary cage. What type of DSC ? I would expect it to be in the rocker box.
OK I see it by the end of the review. Sounds reasonable; ) How do you calibrate ?
@@mbrcomp I've designed a spring loaded plate that the Digital level gauge sets on. I cover the calibration in this video: ruclips.net/video/gsEECOUZnGg/видео.html
However I've much improved the AZ component since then. It now has a vinyl AZ ring that rotates on a metal circular tray. The AZ ring is magnetized with 4 magnet buttons. This enables it to hold its position after calibration. (You can see it in the video at: 31:30, above the weights) I will cover its construction in an upcoming video: "Making the Hubble Optics UL16 Even Better."
We were just in your neighborhood on vacation a few weeks ago...wonderful area of the country and nice dark skies! I was trying to decide between the UL16 and UL18. What would you recommend? I'm in rural Kansas so I do have pretty dark skies but definitely don't want to struggle with a huge scope and tough setup. I currently have an Orion Truss Tube 12 Intelliscope that I'm selling to fund the new scope so that's bit of context as what type of scope I'm coming from. (Also have an Edge HD 8 which I love.)
A bit more aperture is also a welcomed thing. :) Check out my 12 vs 16 video for some more information on what one can expect. ruclips.net/video/66-dfu2q1O8/видео.html That said, if the weight of the 18 is something you can handle than it should show more of a difference over the 12. The 16 will too of course but maybe not as much. Portable is really the name of the game for me as I like to get to category 1 or 2 dark sites. I was out last night at a cat 2 and we were able to see the "Pillars of Creation" in the Eagle Nebula (M16) with the UL16 and night vision. Amazing and I'm still buzzing over it. :)
Hi Richard congratulations for the videos, I do enjoy them very much!
I would like to ask you the material of dewshield and how did you fix it (tape?). I'm getting soon the same telescope but the 14 inch and I'm thinking about ideas. You dew shield is very good looking and I guess is necessary because the extended secondary mirror? Thank you, best regards from Portugal.
Hey there Ricardo, the dew-shield was made from a plastic tub; the kind they use for plants or laundry. It took some searching to find the right size. In the end I found one at a building supply store. (A farm and feed store might have something that will work too.) Keep in mind this adds extra weight at the eyepiece end. So counter weights are a must with this design. There is an alternative material that can be used to make a light weight one. It's called "Easy Bagger", used to keep plastic bags open when gathering autumn leaves. It's great for making dew shield of different sizes: You can use black duct tape, or Velcro, to put it together and flat-head screws and wing nuts to secure it to the secondary cage. Remember to put the shinny side out. Oh, and congrats on that new UL14! www.acehardware.com/departments/home-and-decor/trash-and-recycling/trash-bags/68617?x429=true&gclid=Cj0KCQiA9P__BRC0ARIsAEZ6irg4UBOpjXH_nCQ0SIXH1-Qr7Ca1vQ3Tp8Q-anvQlqFmHgRh1_BXIqYaAnVNEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
@@DakotaStarryNights thanks a lot Richard, I'll be looking in such stores for dew shield materials. The telescope shouldn't arrive for another month. I have hope I will be able to see visually one day the Horse Head Nebula with H Beta Filter with 14 Inches. From a dark sky I was already able to see without filters very bright Veil, Owl and Helix Nebulas with 8 Inches and were unforgetable experiences. Veil Nebula had a kind of blueish fluorescent bright :)
I saw that blueish fluorescent light in the Veil, NGC 6960. But only once with a 6 inch refractor at a class 2 dark site. It seems really good transparency and dark skies are needed to see that fluorescent lighting. It is, like you said, and unforgettable experience.
Hi. What really surprised me is your comments saying a 16inch in a light polluted city isn't worth it, and one should go for a 10-12inch, as the 16 will only amplify the light pollution ?? Are you absolutely 110% certain of this sir ? Reason i ask is I'm considering getting a 16 for my home observatory in the city ( Bortle 8-9 ) and I honestly thought a 16 would help me further tease out structure and maybe even some colour in Orion Neb, amongst many other Nebulae and DSO's ? Your reply would be most appreciated sir. Thanks, Wes, Liverpool, UK.
Hi Wesley, I admirer your commitment to the hobby working under the skies of Liverpool. Bortel 8-9 is tough for visual work. Under those conditions there is a diminishing return when you increase your aperture because you are also amplifying the the light pollution, which washes out the fainter details you're looking for. In other words, outside of astrophotography, there is only so much you can extract from light polluted skies.
However, with a PVS14 night vision monocular and 7nm Ha filter the extra aperture will show a bit more and the PVS14 will show a lot more. ruclips.net/video/6usKtqpVMi8/видео.html Which is why I typically recommend putting the money in a PVS14 and use a fast 10 or 12 inch newt for guys looking to go deeper.
Perhaps you could run a test with two different scopes that you might have on hand. Try keeping the size difference ration the same as the jump in aperture you intend to make.
Thanks for posting. And best of luck.
@@DakotaStarryNights thank you so much for taking the time to reply sir. What you say does now make more sense to me. I will definitely click the links you included for night vision equipment, and invest in such equipment. I think I might as well invest the extra money now rather than later as I would buy them at some point in future anyway. I will test my 6 inch newt reflector against my 10 inch reflector as you suggested and see how they compare like for like. Off the top of my head I’m not sure the ratios are exactly the same as a 12-16 comparison but I would imagine it will still give me atleast a rough idea. Thanks again for your excellent advice sir! Kindest Regards, Wes.
@@DakotaStarryNights I'm just outside of Baltimore, MD, and facing a similar dilemma. I have a 6" triplet but always wondered about bumping up aperture to a 14" dob. I'm most interested in splitting hard-to-find doubles. I also have a PVS14. So, given my skies and my primary interest in double star splitting, would you encourage or discourage me to get the 14" HO? Does the HO-14 + the PVS14 give me a "better" double-star splitter setup?
@@gregorystevens5173 There are a number of advantages a refractor has over a dob in regards to splitting doubles, some of which you probably already considered. You can mount the refractor on a equatorial mount that will find AND track them. Tracking allows time to chose the right eyepiece for any particular night of seeing and the challenge at hand. Then there's the high contrast and spot on collimation of a refractor that can make a difference in the attempt to split. Larger mirrors or optics require more time to acclimate to the ambient temperature; during which the seeing might change. And depending on the difficulty, if a split is attempted before acclimation it is unattainable due to poor resolution. I'm sure you know, when it comes to splitting doubles, resolution is the name of the game. And as the refractor is looking through a smaller column of air, it is less affected by the seeing when compared to the larger dob: You can check out this workshop for more on the subject, about 2:20 in the timeline: ruclips.net/video/KJ_4tKk6Cik/видео.html
A PVS14 rocks when it comes to nebulosity or planetary nebula. But for splitting doubles it, well, it sucks. :) Stars tend to halo and that will interfere with the split. But a UL14 for nebulous targets, that would be a lot fun! Cheers!
@@DakotaStarryNights Thanks, Richard. That's the information I was looking for. Clear skies.
Thanks for the very entertaining and informative video. Next, I would enjoy one showing setting up the scope for viewing. Barring that, how long do you think it takes to set the scope up? Thanks again!
With the car backed up to the site, about 20 to 25 mins for a standard set up. The included captive hardware helps speed things up. FYI: I'll be posting a 12 vs 16 soon that gets into this a bit more. :)
How well can you see the 4 gas planets? Can you see their natural colors?
Large aperture scopes are a challenge to bring to high power viewing in South Dakota. We reside under the jet stream most of the time and atmospheric conditions are typically not favorable. A 16" mirror looks though a large column of air which magnifies the distortion being created by subpar seeing conditions. And short focal length telescopes, like the UL16, have steep light cones which are more prone to come out of focus during even slight variations in atmospheric turbulence. That is why I have a 102mm f/11 ED refactor for lunar and planetary high power viewing. The smaller aperture coupled with the longer focal length makes things a whole lot easier, including maintaining focus. It's really about the right tool for the right job. Now, for deep sky viewing it's no contest. The UL16 wins every time.
Hi there - great review. Can you tell me how you find it holds collimation?
About average.
@@DakotaStarryNights thanks. please can I ask you - I've read that Night Vision is the "great equalizer". Does that mean that DSOs look much the same in a 16" vs a 10" dob?
@@AJ-ww1ef I suppose it depends on the object. The larger aperture will always show more if the f ratios are the same. But is the difference worth the extra cost & reduced mobility? That would depend on the observer. For more on this check out this video on Dakota Starry Nights: ruclips.net/video/66-dfu2q1O8/видео.html Cheers!
I want to get 20" Dobsonian instead, thanks for the review.
Now my only worry is, how about the quality of the primary mirror from Hubble Optics [Sandwich mirror]? I may get structure somewhere built for me, but then the cheapest mirror [primary] i found is from this maker, just not sure about their quality.
I find the seeing and transparency to be more of a problem to get the most out of any optics I might have out for the night. That said, the only real guaranteed way of getting the mirror you want is to buy it from one of the top end mirror makers with the accompanying paper work. A costly endeavor to be sure. Although it will not have the quick cool down as the Hubble Optics mirrors. And that was another problem I no longer need to deal with. Thanks for posting.
@@DakotaStarryNights Seeing and transparency is my last worry because i will never control that and it will never control me which scope to buy, even if it is the worst in the world, i saw images were taken under poor seeing with 14" and 16", they were amazing much better than images were taken under excellent seeing with 6"-10", so i will go risk with larger aperture no matter what.
I can't buy from top end mirrors, very expensive, i may buy from them only if i can find a cheap cheap affordable brand new structure so i can save for the primary mirror, i already found a top end secondary mirror maker one or two so that is done, only they don't sell primary ones, and i was thinking about having not very expensive one primary mirror, my cheap mass production scopes has Chinese mirrors and I've got excellent mirrors, why by sudden this Hubble Optics mirrors will be any less?
Thank you very much for your answers and i look forward your answers always.
Thank you for a detailed review! Much appreciated!! The specs on HO UL16's page (hubbleoptics.com/UL16.html) says "Weight, optical tube: 52.0 lbs". Their Sandwich Mirror page (hubbleoptics.com/mirrors.html) says 16" sandwich mirror weighs ~10.5 kg = ~23 lb. Does this mean their mirror box weighs ~29 lbs? Seems high for AL structure. If you don't mind, whenever you can, will you please let us know the individual weights of the mirror and the mirror box?
Richard knowing what you know now would you go Hubble optic or Explore Scientific 16" dob
The ES ultra light dobs are way easier to collimate and might hold it a little better. But I would still go for the Hubble 16. It's better made and lighter weight. The sandwich mirror is a big step forward in dob design. Though there is a wait time and the whole international shipping thing to consider.
@@DakotaStarryNights Thanks for the quick reply, I am leaning towards the Hubble. I know you were happy with the optics of both telescopes so that is reasuring. A month ago i was looking at the 18" starwatcher stargate dobs but i think after doing a lot of reading with negative comments about the optics i have changed my mind on those scopes.
Where you get/make that dew shield??????? It’s a bit different that explorer scientific
I built it out of a wash tub. I hope to have a video on its construction soon. A lot of guys have been asking. Cheers!
Hey Matt, the How to construct a Dew Shield for the Hubble Optics UL16 has posted. :)
ruclips.net/video/G4QZVkDAf5o/видео.html
Another nice review Richard! Looks like a beautiful piece of equipment. I just read a review on Cloudy Nights of the HO 14 and may think about something like this down the road. I'm glad Mike asked the question about comparing it to the ES 12 you so nicely reviewed. There's no substitute for aperture! I had the pleasure of a friend who had an Obsession 20" years ago and every time I looked through it, I really had a hard time walking back to my Tectron 12" I had at the time, which was an amazing scope on it's own! But as Phil Harrington said in his book Starware: "The best telescope for you is the one you'll use the most". I just subscribed so keep the content coming!
Thanks Mainuh. The 20" is great, like you said, but Phil got it right. The one you can use the most is the one you want. :)
It’s been four years. What do you think? I’m interested in a high quality dob like Hubble Optics
Well, I still have it. And I often sell gear off to fund other projects.
You mentioned changing the springs for the primary mirror. I just got the UL16 and the primary mirror springs are not strong enough. Can you tell me the specs for the springs you used?
I don't have the specs for the replacement springs I used. But what I did was take one of the old ones out and made a trip to the hardware store. I compared a couple of sizes and resistance then chose the one that was somewhat stiffer and equal in height. Worked fine.
Sorry ... My previous post/comment was relative to the secondary housing. Thanks.
Coming late to the party but would you say Hubble telescopes is on par mechanically with Obsession, New Moon, Teeter, etc?
What the Hubble UL16 is not on par with Obsession, New Moon ect, is the price. I found the HO UL16 to be a great buy for the money and liked the quick cool down and lighter weight of the sandwich mirror. JMHO
@@DakotaStarryNights
Sweet. I appreciate your advice.
This UTA is different? What is it? Is it an option?
what eyepieces do you recommend for this ? I live in city. So maybe i need some filters as well?
That would depend on what you intend to look at. For wide field views of nebulous targets 35mm or 55mm plossl work fine or something in the 82 degree FOV eyepieces. For planets 10mm to 8mm works most nights. A Baader Contrast Booster filter helps in the city.
Your videos are great!
Thanks. :)
I bought the 16UL f5 and have been very disappointed in the quality. Yours looks very different from mine. The truss rods I recieved came in two pieces that have to be bolted together with a big aluminum block on each one. The mirror cover you can order as an add on is just a flimsy piece if abs plastic not worth 45 bucks. The shroud I got isn't even completely sown together.
Once the telescope was assembled and colimated, I could not get any of my eyepieces to focus(multipe brands meade, pentax, astotech and televue), even after adjusting the truss rods and the secondary mirror down as far as I could the stars almost came into focus with the focuser turned in as far as possible. It needs about 3 inches cut out of each truss rod to be usable. And for the cherry on top, my mirror had a huge noticeable scratch in it. I don't know what's happened to hubble optics in the last three years but from my experience, I will be telling anyone I meet to stay away from hubble, spend a bit more money somewhere else and get a better quality scope.
I am in the “on the way” stage for my HO UL14
I read of 1 account of a significantly more expensive Obsession 18 which was a total lemon. It happens even in the best examples. The initial release had quit a few issues but as with Hubble they learned and modified for the better.
Part of my research prior to ordering the UL14 was emailing 5 HO scope owners found on CN. 4 still have it and the other sold the 16 to purchase a UL20. All of them wrote they were satisfied with the scopes. They did mention Richard’s mods and a bit of tweaking may be required to get them to perform at high standard.
I am not expecting perfection but as in the video the “bones” are good IMO. If the mirror has problems (seemingly rare) coating wise i already found a service with a @$300 charge including shipping. That still puts you in significantly under the other more well known companies.
You mentioned that you wouldn't recommend this scope if your skies are light polluted. I have access to bortle 2 skies. Is it still worth the buy you think? Will it magnify even small amounts of light pollution a lot? I don't have access to the absolute darkest of skies unfortunately (bortle 1)
Hey Jordan, having access to bortle 2 skies is great! I usually find myself at bortle 3 or 2 and have had great views with the UL16 so... I was referring to bortle 5+ and higher where you won't be able to take full advantage of aperture this large. A 12 or below would be better, IMHO.
which one is better this one or sky watcher 16 inch donson? i am thinking to get one of them
If by better you mean easier to transport then the Hubble UL16 wins hands down. And from what I could find, the sky watcher 16 is only available with a go-2 system in the usa. It's cost more, has partial board and for most people it's not a scope you can easily take out to a dark site. As far as go-2... I've put adjustable setting circles on my UL16 and there's no problem finding DSO with a phone app like sky safari. You just calibrate the SC on a star, pull up your DSO on the phone, center it, and get the real time Alt/Az position of the object. I had some kids just last night at a star party do it and they nailed a couple of targets first try. The more I use this scope the better I like it.
Hubble also offers a digital version of setting circles that look promising if you're not inclined to make your own.
Hi Richard! I'm looking to potentially get myself one of these 16 inchers. Is there anyone I can reach out to at Hubble Optics to ask a few questions concerning shipping/availability that you have been in touch with?
Yeah, just e-mail them and Tong will get back to you. At least that's been my experience.
www.hubbleoptics.com/contactus.html Clear Skies!
@@DakotaStarryNights thanks for the fast response!
Sir，is this the F4.5 and may I ask your height? I'm choosing between 14inch and 16inch F4.5, but I don't want chairs when observing 90 degrees. Thanks.
The f4.5 is pictured in the video. I'm just under 6'
Excellent video
One thing I don’t understand why we believe that dobs are good kinda only for deep sky objects in reality my 15” obsession was blowing a way my Meade 10” lx 200
I guess it's because the larger mirrors take longer to acclimate to ambient temperatures; and the larger column of air they're looking through requires good seeing at higher powers. But when those parameters are met, they will out perform smaller aperture scopes by a county mile.
@@DakotaStarryNights
I used dank binociwers on obsession observing planets I was amazed on good night .
I want to know if this Explorer Scientific Refactor ED127 Triplet APO will be any closer to “15 obsession on planets ?
@@AstroRef68 That would always depend on the seeing. The better the seeing the larger the aperture. But a refractor would offer better contrast, no matter the seeing, as there is no secondary obstruction. However, if it's planets you're after a MAK (Maksutov-Cassegrain) is hard to beat for the money. But they do require an hour to adjust to ambient temperatures. So, they are not suited for grab-n-go setups. 🏃♂
Excellent review.
I'm not understanding what you mean by "using night vision". Is this some kind of finder scope that uses night vision technology?
Here's a workshop video I put together on night vision astronomy. Clear Skies!
ruclips.net/video/6usKtqpVMi8/видео.html
There's a telescope at McDonald Observatory toting at least one (maybe more? I forget) bullet hole. It's done an awful lot of science since that horrible day.
Hello Richard. I ordered only the mirror from HubbleOptics.com. This was weeks ago and I even emailed the company and all they said was they were waiting on the mirror from China. The website says they are from Texas and all is made in house. To this day they charged me over 2k but no mirror. How long was your wait ? Did they charge you via PayPal?
Hi Coach,
It should be noted, I do not work for or receive any commission from Hubble Optics or any other company on the products I review. Like you, I place an order and wait and see. That said, I waited about 3 months, if I recall correctly, for the scope to arrive. And that was before Covid. If I had to guess, I'd say they're making these as needed to reduce overhead costs. I ALWAYS pay through PayPal to be on the safe side. At over 2k that must be a really big mirror! Thanks for posting.
The 6 point support looks pretty crude for a 16 inch
Thank you.
Do you have some views with this scope?
Here you go: ruclips.net/video/66-dfu2q1O8/видео.html
Is Hubble Optics still in operation?
Best to try to contact them and see.
Yes, they are. I ordered a UL16 back at the end of September 2022, and it was just delivered (March 14, 2023), so, about a 6 month delay.
@@seansadler6912 indeed it was. I have had problems with the focuser. I purchased one that wasn't so loose and didn't droop when fully extended. I wanted to know the distance recommended from the center of the secondary mirror to the inside edge of the focuser because it does not give me a clean focus but phases into a blur. I've tried moving it slightly in and even added a plate to increase the amount but to no avail in improvement. Now I shall try positioning it away from the secondary mirror so I can find that sweet spot. I ordered an F5 and have yet to see Jupiter with reasonable clarity as other smaller telescopes have done for me. Any ideas?
Cool scope
It looks like they dropped those boxes in the ocean a few times on the way over.
f 5.0 or f 4.5 ?
f/4.5
@@DakotaStarryNights Your videos have been extremely helpful. Thanks for taking the time to create them ! Highly appreciated.
I am in a dilemma if I should go for 18 inch f4.5 or 18 inch f4.0. I read in many places that lower focal ratio (like f4.0 UL18) requires "really-precise" mirrors and its too much of a risk & also the images might be a little blurry. Is that really the case ? If yes, how noticeable would that be and would adding a Paracorr bring the clarity to what a f4.5 offers ? I mean, I'd also be observing planets once in a while with my scope so hopefully an f 4.0 isn't a DSO only scope ?
And when it comes to UL-18 f4.5, I have a feeling that it would be a safer bet, but the zenith is practically 10 inches higher than UL 16 f4.5 (the one you have here). That's quite scary IMO.
Wish there was a review of the UL-18 as good as yours :-).
@@utki17 Being able to choose between an 18" or16" dob is a dilemma a lot of guys wouldn't mind having. lol:) Ok, the difference between the 16" vs an 18" isn't all that much, visually speaking. And you make a couple of good points as far as the challenges of faster focal ratio scope. My vote would go to the UL16 f/4.5 all things considered. But keep in mind, large aperture dobs are typically used as DSO specialist. (See below)
For planets you might want to take a look at this:ruclips.net/video/KJ_4tKk6Cik/видео.html
Thanks for posting!
Excellent setup!
Thank you.
Sweet!
That sandwich mirror is not light whatsoever. As the matter of fact is quite heavy for 16" aperture and not that much different from 2" thick one, weighwise. Modern, single plated, 1" thick mirror would give you very similar cooling properties and reduce weight by 11-12 lbs or more. So weight of that sandwich mirror is quite disappointing. Once I spoke to Norman Fullum about his Techno-Fusion mirrors which are very similar in design. He recommended them for very large telescopes because at "small" apertures they do not save weight that much. I suspect same way of thinking can be applied for sandwich mirrors. Of course small in this case is not that small because 16 inch is already very capable aperture.
Well, Greg I disagree. At our observatory we have a conventional mirror 16" truss dob and it hasn't been taken out in nearly two years due to the weight and size of the mirror box. The sandwich mirror in the UL16 is definitely lighter and by it's design can reach ambient temperature much quicker. But there's more to this dob than it's mirror. Overall it weighs less than an Explore Scientific 12" truss dob by 6.2 pounds. I can easily carry the mirror, mirror box with altitude bearings and ground board all assembled out to the car for a trip to a dark site. That alone is pretty remarkable. It's well made and after using it for over a year I've come to really appreciate it's overall design. Thanks for posting. Other opinions are always useful and welcomed here. Clear skies.
Do you know if Santa Claus delivers these?
You'd have to get the OK from Mrs. Claus first.
@@DakotaStarryNights, man you have some great videos. This year I got back into astronomy (I had a half-decent 70mm refractor as a kid and I was hooked) sadly I have only rebooted my old stargazing hobby this spring, some 30 years later! I didn't want to go too crazy for my first new scope since then and picked up a 10" Meade Lightbridge. So far I'm really enjoying this scope and I feel like it's a great beginner dob. Of course, in a few years I may very well upgrade to something with a fair bit more aperture ... great review with this Hubble Optics UL16!! cheers
@@hdagent8080 A 10" dob is a great scope to start out with. Or to keep for that matter. I started out with a 10" dob too.
+
Great video but man does "unboxing" ruin it. RUclips is gone beyond pathetic with people unboxing everything imaginable. Please don't add that in dude, it just plain ruins the video
I agree for the most part but in this case the fact that it was well packaged is very important.
You of course don’t want the scope to arrive banged up.
0
That mirror sounds shit