Celestron C90 Mak V's Skywatcher Skymax 90 Mak?

[Steve-G]

Ok, so now I know I'm weird. While the rest of the world seems keen to find a decent small refractor to use as a travel / grab 'n' go scope, I find myself wandering around the small Maksutovs. The two obvious choices so far appear to be either the Celestron C90 or Skywatcher Skymax 90. The Celestron C90 seem a tad pricier than the Skymax for some reason, but both seem to have identical specs. Am I missing something? 

I appreciate the limitations of these small Maks so I'm not expecting any miracles here, I just fancied adding one to the collection. Could any of you fine fellows shed any light on the differences between these two, or throw any other alternative suggestions into the ring? I already have diagonals & eyepieces galore so would only be looking for the OTA rather than a complete setup.

[happy-kat]

If it is any help I very very nearly went for a 90 mak but chose a Celstron c70 as at the time I had some Amazon vouchers and it was a really small package and cost me £30.00 I still use the little tripod a lot with my camera.

From my memory on reading the diffierences and why the c90 is more is because the c90 has a right way up diaganol (the skymax is a 90 degree diagonal) and the c90 was more water splash and dust proof. If you already have the bits then I would get the skymax but I can't say I have used either let alone side by side. The reddot finder on the skymax personally I would prefer over a small sight which is mreo expensive on the c90.

Why do I now have the startravel 80 because I found the FOV in the little mak too small for what I was after and the apperature was really too small at 70mm. Though some of the unpleasant eye positionign could have been the low grade eyepeice 10mm Skywatcher I used with it, the zoom lens was poor anything more demanding then half zoom.

There are lots of threads I recall reading about the skymax being a grab and go as so small.

[RT65CB-SWL]

Hi 'Steve-G'

 

I have just had a look at FLO and done some comparisons for you...

Celestron C90 --> 45^o diagonal included -->  f/13.89 --> £149.00GBP

SkyWatcher Skymax 90 --> 90^o diagonal included --> f/13.88 --> £116.00GBP

 

I know you said 90's but I included the 102. A little more expensive in price but it gives a bit more light gathering if that helps...

SkyWatcher Skymax 102 --> 90^o diagonal included --> f/12.74 --> £165.00GBP

[rowan46]

i am surprised at the difference in focal ratio as they are the same scope, made by the same factory just badged differently. The only difference is in the finder so which do you prefer red dot  or optical finder?

[Alfian]

A small refractor travel scope 70/80/80/102 usually implies a fast (F5 -F6) wide field scope  and very useful they are too. The little Maks are also useful tools but at - F12  - F13  they  gives a very narrow field of view. (Eyepiece friendly)  I have the SkyMax 102, the 90 will be similar but collecting less light. The Mak is amazingly compact and chunkily (?) well made with it. It effectively compresses  a 4" 1300mm scope into a package about 18" long and  5" wide. I use it on my CG3 equatorial mount but it will also go on my heavy (ish) duty photo tripod. Optically its very good and focusing is very smooth. Views of the moon (which is what I mainly bought it for) are astounding and the planets also. With a 32mm EP I get 40x and about 1.3 degrees which is wide enough for some DSOs but it does need a decent finder. The standard RDF is quite good but a Rigel clips on quite nicely although it does look a bit incongruous!  It does what it does very competently and I can recommend it, but if you are wanting even relatively wide views you need to look elsewhere.

[Steve-G]

Thanks chaps, some useful info there, much appreciated. I already have a decent diagonal & fairly good RFD going spare so looks like the Skymax 90 would be the better option. I've seen these with both blue paint jobs & a black version too. Would I be correct in assuming the black version is the newer model?

The narrow field of view shouldn't be an issue as I'm planning to use it mostly for planets & double stars. Our back garden is quite light polluted so most dso's would be out of the question anyway.

Thanks again for your input.

[Alfian]

Black is the new colour - quite nice sparkly metal-flake. If planets and doubles are the thing it seems like the Skymax will do nicely. Incidentally though the Skymax 90 and the C90 are similar in some ways I don't think they are quite re-badged versions of the same scope.

[Tonys]

My Skymax 90 performs very well considering it's small aperture. On the best nights it has it separated double stars very close to it's theoretical limit which is amazing given its price and it is also excellent for the moon. It shows the main belts of Jupiter, Saturns rings and Mars' polar cap. In terms purely of optical correction I think it's brilliant. The only downsides for me are some stray light when viewing the moon and some image shift while focusing.

[NGC 1502]

+1 for wanting a 90mm Mak for double stars. A Mak gives pinpoint stars and the sky is full of double stars at all seasons of the year.

I'm a double star fan, they are well seen through light pollution ( as are the moon & planets ).

I'd get a Mak with a 90 degree diagonal, better for astronomy than a 45 degree.

Regards, Ed.

[rowan46]

Black is the new colour - quite nice sparkly metal-flake. If planets and doubles are the thing it seems like the Skymax will do nicely. Incidentally though the Skymax 90 and the C90 are similar in some ways I don't think they are quite re-badged versions of the same scope.

I am pretty sure that optically they are the same they have the same focal length, the same apparture and they are made by the same company the only reason I can suggest for the difference in focal ratio  is that the celestron also gives imperial figures for the american market. the conversion to imperial may be the reason for the slight difference. But that aside they are good lunar scopes and good for doubles no annoying CA and very portabe.

[IanL]

I got a second hand C90 for my boy from fleaBay last year.  Very good in terms of build quality, smooth focus, etc.  Views of the Moon are superb, even with the cheapo eyepieces and Barlow that came in the kit - satisfactory even compared to my 8" SCT to be honest.  Pretty good views of Jupiter as well - it's mounted on a cheap photo tripod and despite the narrow FOV he was doing fine at locating objects and keeping them in view after a couple of sessions.

Overall if you're looking for a long focal length you can't beat these things at the price point, especially if you can find a decent second hand one.  I'm starting to think that maybe an ST80 and a C90 on a home made dual bar and a better tripod would be the ultimate grab and go for beginners.

[nicoscy]

Maks also take pretty well to binoviewers. You ain't seen the moon unless you've seen it through binoviewers in excess of 200x (seeing cooperating of course). Do think about adding a cheap binoviewer and eyepieces into the mix. Due to long focal ratio, almost all eyepieces "behave" well.

I had the SW 102mm Mak (upgrading to OO 140mm) and I was so pleased with it that even though I am upgrading, I still feel bad about selling it. In my case I got the Nexstar 6SE / 8SE mount to pair with the OO140mm, but for the 90mm to 102mm, the Nexstar 4SE mount and tripod would be perfect. When working at high magnifications, goto and tracking become really important. 

I would recommend the 102mm if money is available as the extra 12mm does indeed make a difference but also the size / weight of the telescope does not change much - still small and highly portable.

[Tonys]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet but I'd strongly recommend budgeting for a dew shield (mine's an Orion one).