Burgess 127?

I have seen a couple of these Burgess 127 mm F-8 Achromats on Astromart.
The owners rave about the lack of color. Has anyone out there used this
scope? How would it compare to my D & G 5 inch F-12 ?
Seems they are very inexpensive.
Steve

I have not seen a Burgess 127 but the laws of physics will not allow a typical
f/8 achromat to be without color. The best will have color. Don't get me
wrong, a 127mm f/8 would be a nice instrument in anyone's collection.

The D&G f/12 will have less color, period. And their reputation is for great
correction and smooth optics. If it were me, and I wanted a planetary scope
with excellent definition, the D&G would be the choice. If you want more
portability and don't care about more color, then an f/8 would be OK for just
about anything but the brightest objects.

I have not seen a Burgess 127 but the laws of physics will not allow a typical
f/8 achromat to be without color. The best will have color. Don't get me
wrong, a 127mm f/8 would be a nice instrument in anyone's collection.

The D&G f/12 will have less color, period. And their reputation is for great
correction and smooth optics. If it were me, and I wanted a planetary scope
with excellent definition, the D&G would be the choice. If you want more
portability and don't care about more color, then an f/8 would be OK for just
about anything but the brightest objects.

I have not seen a Burgess 127 but the laws of physics will not allow a typical
f/8 achromat to be without color. The best will have color. Don't get me
wrong, a 127mm f/8 would be a nice instrument in anyone's collection.

The D&G f/12 will have less color, period. And their reputation is for great
correction and smooth optics. If it were me, and I wanted a planetary scope
with excellent definition, the D&G would be the choice. If you want more
portability and don't care about more color, then an f/8 would be OK for just
about anything but the brightest objects.

I agree with Chas on this on this one the F12 would have much less
colour. Check at www.excelsis.com and look at the comments on this
scope. I have the 6" F8 and the colour correction is good for an
achromat but I think your F12 would be much better.

Best of luck

Rich


On 12 Jan 2004 06:56:52 GMT, (Fr Chas) wrote:

I have not seen a Burgess 127 but the laws of physics will not allow a typical
f/8 achromat to be without color. The best will have color. Don't get me
wrong, a 127mm f/8 would be a nice instrument in anyone's collection.

The D&G f/12 will have less color, period. And their reputation is for great
correction and smooth optics. If it were me, and I wanted a planetary scope
with excellent definition, the D&G would be the choice. If you want more
portability and don't care about more color, then an f/8 would be OK for just
about anything but the brightest objects.

I agree with Chas on this on this one the F12 would have much less
colour. Check at www.excelsis.com and look at the comments on this
scope. I have the 6" F8 and the colour correction is good for an
achromat but I think your F12 would be much better.

Best of luck

Rich


On 12 Jan 2004 06:56:52 GMT, (Fr Chas) wrote:

I have not seen a Burgess 127 but the laws of physics will not allow a typical
f/8 achromat to be without color. The best will have color. Don't get me
wrong, a 127mm f/8 would be a nice instrument in anyone's collection.

The D&G f/12 will have less color, period. And their reputation is for great
correction and smooth optics. If it were me, and I wanted a planetary scope
with excellent definition, the D&G would be the choice. If you want more
portability and don't care about more color, then an f/8 would be OK for just
about anything but the brightest objects.

I agree with Chas on this on this one the F12 would have much less
colour. Check at www.excelsis.com and look at the comments on this
scope. I have the 6" F8 and the colour correction is good for an
achromat but I think your F12 would be much better.

Best of luck

Rich


On 12 Jan 2004 06:56:52 GMT, (Fr Chas) wrote:

I have not seen a Burgess 127 but the laws of physics will not allow a typical
f/8 achromat to be without color. The best will have color. Don't get me
wrong, a 127mm f/8 would be a nice instrument in anyone's collection.

The D&G f/12 will have less color, period. And their reputation is for great
correction and smooth optics. If it were me, and I wanted a planetary scope
with excellent definition, the D&G would be the choice. If you want more
portability and don't care about more color, then an f/8 would be OK for just
about anything but the brightest objects.

"stevew" wrote in message ...
I have seen a couple of these Burgess 127 mm F-8 Achromats on Astromart.
The owners rave about the lack of color. Has anyone out there used this
scope? How would it compare to my D & G 5 inch F-12 ?
Seems they are very inexpensive.
Steve

Hi:

Here's a link to Geoff Gaherty's excellent review of this scope...

http://members.rogers.com/ggaherty/burgess127.htm

Peace,
Rod

"stevew" wrote in message ...
I have seen a couple of these Burgess 127 mm F-8 Achromats on Astromart.
The owners rave about the lack of color. Has anyone out there used this
scope? How would it compare to my D & G 5 inch F-12 ?
Seems they are very inexpensive.
Steve

Hi:

Here's a link to Geoff Gaherty's excellent review of this scope...

http://members.rogers.com/ggaherty/burgess127.htm

Peace,
Rod

"stevew" wrote in message ...
I have seen a couple of these Burgess 127 mm F-8 Achromats on Astromart.
The owners rave about the lack of color. Has anyone out there used this
scope? How would it compare to my D & G 5 inch F-12 ?
Seems they are very inexpensive.
Steve

Hi:

Here's a link to Geoff Gaherty's excellent review of this scope...

http://members.rogers.com/ggaherty/burgess127.htm

Peace,
Rod