Celestron Eye Piece & Filter Kit and Celestron 130EQ Astromaster

[Tribal-Wolf]

You can mount the OTA (tube) onto an EQ mount later if you decide that you want to an can afford it.

Always try and get the best scope you can afford for what you want to do, visual, AP etc. You can buy EPs as and when you can afford it.

[Naemeth]

I think I'll do some shopping around and look for a large Focal Ratio (therefore larger potential magnification), as that should give better views of the planets, correct?

[Tribal-Wolf]

You can only achieve around 200x decent magnification in the uk due to atmospheric conditions. What you should look for is aperture size really. A small Mak has a long focal length but is not too good at seeing seep space object because of a small aperture not letting enough light in, they are good for planetary though but there is a lot more than just planets to see up there.

[Naemeth]

You can only achieve around 200x decent magnification in the uk due to atmospheric conditions. What you should look for is aperture size really. A small Mak has a long focal length but is not too good at seeing seep space object because of a small aperture not letting enough light in, they are good for planetary though but there is a lot more than just planets to see up there.

If I went for a telescope good for seeing deep space objects (Orion Nebula etc?), would I be able to get reasonable detail on the Planets, for instance, would I get to see Saturn's rings and the red spot of Jupiter, those are really my main goals for the planets .

If so, would the Skywatcher series be good for this?

[Tribal-Wolf]

Yes you can still see planets and Saturn & Jupiter will look great. Which Skywatcher scope did you have in mind?

[Naemeth]

Yes you can still see planets and Saturn & Jupiter will look great. Which Skywatcher scope did you have in mind?

Possibly the 150P, but I'd probably have to wait until August next year before I could afford it (student budget sucks sometimes), so I may have to go with something smaller...

[Tribal-Wolf]

Good scope, you must be looking at the EQ mounted version then I take it?

[Naemeth]

Good scope, you must be looking at the EQ mounted version then I take it?

Yes, no way can I afford an extra £300 on top of the scope right now .

[dag123]

>would I get to see Saturn's rings and the red spot of Jupiter

A tick for both with my Astromaster!

If you are thinking about a webcam and perhaps a barlow, you can start to bring out some detail, and with a series of captures over say an hour-or-two you can then make a partial animation of Jupiter spinning which is quite cool!

Although I understand why a lot of people are suggesting save up and get a better scope, you can still do an awful lot at the cheaper end of the market. I don't see anything wrong with learning the basics with a cheap scope while at Uni and then later when you do have more cash you can then upgrade with more understanding about the kit you might actually want!

dag123

[pel]

Naemeth,

Whatever you do, don't buy the Celestron Astromaster 130eq, the mount is terrible, mine fell apart (the RA worm screw completely came out, a screw sheared off when tightening and the lattitude knob fell off).

It's a shame because the OTA (Scope) is very good.

Perry.

[dag123]

Pel, wow you must have had a dud!

When not in use my scope lives disassembled in a corner of the kids playhouse to save on cool down and not much space indoors. The downside being the little ones don't yet respect optical equipment. On the plus side I am in a postion to say that unscrewing/screwing the various screws and weights and othewise dragging the mount (not the OTA I should say) sideways through a doorway has not yet adversly affected it.

dag123

[Tribal-Wolf]

There are a lot of posts on a lot of forum which suggest pel's experience is quite common with that particular scope unfortunately

[Naemeth]

There are a lot of posts on a lot of forum which suggest pel's experience is quite common with that particular scope unfortunately

I've read quite a few horror stories about the mounts too, are they just badly made?

[Dazza121]

for a new user they look quite good but when you compare them against a better quality mount you can see that they are made quite cheaply - having said that the 1 i got with my 130eq doesnt seem to have any problems with bits breaking or falling off just yet - but then it doesnt get used very much and is left fully assembled (although i have taken off the motor drive it came with as it was more hassle than useful)

[Tribal-Wolf]

They are built to do the job of attracting the inexperienced by looking the part. They are sold everywhere including some department stores and catalogues so they can flood the market. You can buy a brand new one for £125 inc delivery so you can't expect a top of the range model but they are better than some unknown brands in that price range and I have it on good authority they have a parabolic mirror even though Celestron's site says they don't, which is supposed be getting changed.

[dag123]

Yes, there has been some confusion about the mirror, but at least one thread on here has proof from Celestron that the mirror is parabolic. As with everything it is horses for courses or whatever the saying is. At my local society I was helping an lady who was having problems setting up her Skywatcher 130 which she she had had recommended to her. I guess this is the equivalent to my Astromaster. To my eye the build quality was certainly no better and I don't care what others say about the red-dot-finder on the Astromaster, the one she had was far worse!

The best advice is, try the scopes out first, even if just at a shop showroom. A bit like cars, some people swear by Fords, others choose Volvos, but don't they have the same chassis, just a different finish on top?

dag123

[onesmallstep]

Hi

I first used the Celestron EPF kit with my first scope, a NexStar 130. I've since sold the scope but still use the EPF kit with my current scope so I can definitely recommend it for yours.

HTH!

[Tribal-Wolf]

I think the most annoying thing with the astromaster is the fact that there is no central marking point on the primary mirror making collimation impossible unless you remove the mirror and mark it, not the ideal thing to do especially for someone new to telescopes. This in itself is terrible build quality when compared to SW scopes to me. I don't think the way they are built is any better but SW don't use all the plasticky breakable parts that Celestron seem to.

[dag123]

Agreed the lack of a centre spot is not ideal but it only took me 15 minutes to take out the mirror, draw round it on a sheet of A4, cut it out, folded it in four, snipped off the pointy bit, opened the paper and laid it on top, added a tiny blob of blutac. job done!

It took that long as I was paranoid about which screw went where so I labelled everything. Turns out it would not have mattered. Went back exactly as it was before.

dag123

[AlBoning]

I began this hobby two years ago with the purchase of an Astromaster 130EQ. On paper it was just what I wanted, EQ mounting and more aperture than that 75 mm alt-az mounted newt I had briefly 30 years earlier.

And if I had never learned anything more it would be the only telescope I own and I'd be happy with it to this day.

But I started to educate myself, what a mistake! First there were the initial accessory purchases. Some more eyepieces meant I'd get more use out of the scope so I ordered the Celestron 1.25" Eyepiece and Filter Kit. What?! These scopes need collimation? So then it was a cheshire crosshair sight tube. OH! The reviews say the finder on this scope is useless, so I ordered a Telrad.

Then there were books, "Nightwatch," "Turn Left at Orion," "Objects in the Heavens," "Burnham's Celestial Handbook," "Sky Atlas 2000" and its Companion, "Pocket Sky Atlas," "Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes," "The Planetary Observer's Handbook," "The Moon Observer's Handbook," Sidgwick's "Amateur Astonomer's Handbook" and "Observational Astronomy for Amateurs," (hey, I'm a retired research scientist I like having a reference library) and more, not to mention miscellaneous things like a planisphere, binoculars, clothing, pluck foam cases, laser collimator, etc. etc. etc. And let's not forget that most essential accessory - an adjustable height observing chair. Before long I'd spent twice as much (and then some!) on accessories then on the scope and mount and realized I'd have been justified in purchasing a lot more scope in the first place.

Of those initial purchases, the scope, eyepiece kit, sight tube, and Telrad it is only the Telrad that remains in use; the rest now sit gathering dust because I discovered I had a passion for the hobby and re-equipped with an Orion SkyView Pro 8 EQ (in English a 200P on an EQ5) and Hyperion eyepieces. Other signicant purchases since then have been an Atlas (in English an EQ6 with GoTo) and an Astro Telescopes 102 mm f/11 achromatic refractor (the same OTA is available from Lyra Optics) and that thing is absolutely joyous to use.

But it wasn't just because I wanted more aperture, more eye relief and a wider field of view but also because as I became more knowledgeable I became increasingly dissatisfied with all the compromises that had been made to bring the Astromaster 130EQ to the market place at such a low price.

Looking back I am ashamed of the glowing review of that scope that I made at the vendor's web site because not long after I wrote Celestron pointing out that the finder was not only defective in design and manufacture but that the instructions failed to mention that there are two red dots (only one was ever visible in mine) to be lined up to aim the scope. Not long after that I wrote again to Celestron simply saying, "You should be ashamed to have put the name Celestron on this scope."

The list of deficiencies encompasses almost every component, for instance: drawtube wobbles, mirror clip on secondary mirror, secondary mirror hub larger than secondary mirror, spider vanes much too thick, secondary mirror alignment screws trace circles on the back of the secondary mirror holder when being adjusted, focuser tilt so bad you can see the side of the spider hub and it cannot be corrected by shimming the focuser because the spider vanes and tube end ring are one piece of plastic that wraps around the base of the focuser making it impossible to access the focuser without first removing the focuser so that one can remove this ridiculously large piece of plastic that is in the way, it quivers like a frightened dove at the slightest touch to focus or turn a slow motion control, and the biggest insult a manufacturer can make on a newtonian marketed to a beginner - no center spot on the primary. Well that's the short list but maybe you get my drift.

I look back at that Tasco Luna I purchased 30 years ago with some nostalgia because I'll always believe that the views I got of Jupiter with it back then were better than any view of Jupiter I've seen since, not just with my scopes but also in every scope I have viewed Jupiter with at all the star partys I've been too. Yeah, I know I'm looking back with a rose colored bino-viewer.

I suppose one day I'll look back at the Astromaster 130 EQ with some nostalgia too as it was the first scope with which I observed the Andromeda Galaxy.

Finally, if there was one characteristic of the Astromaster 130EQ which for me was outstanding it is that it revealed I had a passion for the hobby, but it seems doubtful I will ever gain a sense of gratitude for it doing so. As educational expenses go it was a bargain but the money would have been better spent to defray the cost of something better.

In conclusion I'd like to say something positive about the Astromaster 130EQ. For the money it really is an outstanding value as far as the view at the eyepiece is concerned. Every dollar, pound, rupee, kopeck, euro one spends on astronomy will never be as cost effective at putting a good image in the eyepiece as that one spent on their first telescope.

The eyepiece kit is a good value too. I have pushed the magnification to 500X viewing the Moon with an eyepiece and the Barlow from that kit (of course that was with my 8" newt) and really couldn't come to a conclusion as to whether or not I'd reached useless magnification. Eyepieces capable of that are in no way bad. Now whether or not all the eyepieces in that kit will be used depends on the individual and his scope.

Finding happiness in this hobby is a very personal thing. First, only the individual can decide what is right for them, what it is they need, and what it is they'd like to have, second, one has to ignore that almost everyone else will disagree, and third, if anyone can come in under budget I have nothing but admiration for them.

I began this hobby with the expectation that I'd like a telescope with the intent of using it a few times a year. The Astromaster 130EQ showed up at my door for a mere 177USD and I begrudged every penny of it, but it was perfect for what I intended. Discovering I wanted to observe several times each week changed all that.

[Dazza121]

My skywatcher 200p didn't have a centre point on the mirror either and adding one to the 130eq was no more difficult than adding it to the 200p (actually found it easier even though it was my first go at removing the mirror)

[Dazza121]

And I still think at the price point that the 130eq comes in at it's a pretty capable scope - yes you can get better scopes and pay a lot more money for better mounts but I bought mine for my 8 year old son who loves it being able to see the craters clearly on the moon and first glimpses of Jupiter and Saturn. It should be viewed as what it is - a starter scope that you can use to get you interested - we all know that once hooked it can become a bottomless pit of money upgrading but for some people shelling out 125 quid on a telescope is a lot of money and as long as you go into it not expecting to see views like the hubble then it's a very good starting point for anyone. Just ditch the red dot finder as its the worst bit of the scope and get a cheap finder instead

[Tribal-Wolf]

This is true but if a scope has as many problems as have been reported then it might be enough to put you off astronomy for ever.

I haven't heard of a 200P without the centre spot but then the original 200P was a Helios scope and skywatcher bought them out. I do know of 200mm scopes that have no spot but they are all spherical mirrors.

[dag123]

Yes, I recognise pretty much all the gripes mentioned by Al. but as Daz says it is a starter scope and should be seen as such and when money is tight you make compromises. For me I caught the bug and found a bit more to spend on the EP kit. There is a 32mm EP in that and this has pretty much solved the problem with the finder. I don't bother with the red dot being switched on. I've kind of worked out where my head needs to be to sight the scope so I then see my target in the wide field of view pretty much first time. I tend to locate targets by star hopping and so my initial targets tend to be bright stars that are hard to miss. For example I would not try and line up with the ring nebula first thing, I start with Vega or the double-double and pan down to Lyra and then to M57.

dag123

[Tribal-Wolf]

I would never say don't buy one, but if you afford the cost of an EP set as well as that scope then for me the money is better spent on a better scope and a couple or more select EPs. I was the one who wrote to Celestron and found out the astromaster has a parabolic mirror because at the time I was considering one, I emailed them again recently to ask why they hadn't changed the site yet. There will always be a market for cheap and cheerful or we would never see companies develop or people with limited funds be able to have things that more fortunate people have. I live on a tight budget as I can't work and I'm disabled so I know what it's like to make do. I have my scope through buying something broken and repairing it to sell on otherwise I would have a loo roll tube and a good imagination.