SCT/Mak newbie: Pls help comparing used Meade EXT 125 and new Celestron NexStar 127

[quesne]

I am very new to Catadioptic scopes and could use some help understanding the price difference of these two items.

Here is a used Meade EXT 125 being offered for $500 on CL.  Have spoken with the owner.  The price is firm.  Very helpful and knowledgeable guy.  Sounds like he has taken good care of the scope.  He bought it 6+ years ago on eBay, so it's probably 10 to 12 years old (my guess, please correct me).  When I compare this with other similar Meade EXT 125s for sale, the price seems to be fair.

Here is the Amazon listing for the Celestron NexStar 127SLT Mak.  I can buy it new for $427 (or even less in "used but like new" condition). The Meade appears to have two extra decent eyepieces, but the scopes are both the same size with (more or less) the same features.

1.  Why does a 10+ year old Meade cost $500, and a brand new Celestron cost $400?  

2.  Is it all in the quality of the scope?  Optics?  Manufacture pedigree (i.e. not Chinese)?

3.  If I am willing to pay $500 for a 5" CAT, am I better served getting the Meade with no warranty, or the Celestron covered by a new product warranty?

Thanks in advance for any and all assistance :-)

[nightfisher]

Go with the Celestron, i seem to remember the Meade was not with out its problems

[baggywrinkle]

Go for the Celestron if it is new.

You imply the Meade is 10-12 years old, these days celestrons mirror coatings are much better. I would have thought $500 was a tad excessive for a senior OTA.

[Hootsitabernacle]

another vote for the celestron..unless you can get hold of a skywatcher 127 mak..same scope but better mount (sturdier)

[alan potts]

Go with the Celestron being new is always a big plus. Meade in my books are over priced but the goto system is good however I have never seen the Celestron system.

Alan.

[ronin]

How much of the sky do you know?

I think the setup of the Meade and the alignment are easier of the 2.

On the Meade it is a case of adjusting the legs so the base of the scope is flat, then pointing it North. Then telling it to align, the level and North is in effect a virtual star. The scope then determines 2 stars to use and will slew to these. It tells you which 2 and your purpose is to get them in the middle and press Enter. The ETX does it for you. You NEED a wide field of view eyepiece - the wider the better.

For all the talk of drive problems I have never had a problem, also every club I know uses Meades. Meade also tend not to have software updates, so that is not going to go wrong because you will not do any.

However the Meade is now some 5 to 10 years old and if there is a problem you have no recourse. It is a case of buyer beware.

Why is the other person selling?

The ETX is a nice size and can be taken anywhere and used, so cannot be a case of the scope is too big. It is also not really too small.

$500 for the ETX is about right, they go for £350 over here, so the same area although I suspect they were originally a bit less in the US when new compared to here.

The Celestron is new and Celestron tend to be good, although the scope at 127 will be the Skywatcher and I do not know how much of the rest is actually Skywatcher and not Celestron. To me this Celestron/Skywatcher balance is relevant. Simply there are a lot of Skywatcher failures reported - equally there is a lot of Skywatcher equipment out there.

A lot of answers will depend on what equipment a person is familiar with, with me it is Meades and my Meades ETX's are older then the one you are looking at and going well. Someone with a Celestron can very likely say the same.

Really common sense says the Celestron, it is new nad has a warrenty. Will say that if you get it then have the retailer, assuming an astro specialist, update the firmware to the latest. Get them to do it as part of the purchase. Then do not update unless something fails. In effect if it goes form 4:15 to 4:16 and there is no real pressing reason just leave it.

[RT65CB-SWL]

Hi 'quesne' and welcome to SGL.

The ETX125 at US$500.00 does seem very expensive as pre-owned.

Why pay more when can you can get the Nexstar 127 new for less?

What do you intend to view? Maks are great lunar and planetary scopes. They are 'slow'... (ETX125 is f15 and the Nexstar 127 is f12) and do have a narrow field of view and they do tend to struggle with some DSO's.

Before you part with your hard earned cash I would recommend having a look at www.weasner.com/etx

It covers all ETX models with tips, tricks, add-ons, advice, etc.

[jgroub]

As a proud and recent owner of the NexStar 127SLT, you know where I'm going.  I also just bought it off of Amazon for $429.  It arrived in perfect condition, nestled safely in a bunch of boxes nested like those Russian dolls.  The two EPs that it comes with are okay.  They're cheap Plossls (25 and 9mm), but they get the job done until you decide to upgrade.  Last week I bought a 32mm Meade 4000 Super Plossl to squeeze the maximum amount of TFOV out of the scope over the 25 that comes with it, and I also have an Astro-Tech Paradigm/Agena Starguider Dual ED EP on the way to me by the end of this week.  

But the key here, I think, is the dual warranty.  If anything goes wrong with that Meade, you are completely out of luck.  With the Celestron, Amazon will give you until January 31st to return it (about 70 days) due to the holiday season, PLUS you've got Celestron's 2-year warranty behind you.  All that for 70 bucks less.  That's gotta beat an optically similar 10-year old Meade.  

I have been astounded by the optics of the Celestron.  ASTOUNDED!  The Mak design has often been compared to an APO due to its pristine tack sharp views.  This little scope is great.  The Goto can be incredibly accurate, putting the object in the FOV of the 32mm time after time.  Of course, it can have its off nights as well.  I think it comes down to how accurately you level the scope.  The Celestron has a spirit level built right into the top of the mount to get this right.  

I don't know anything about the Meade, but I've read that the only thing that the NexStar might fall behind on is the mount, which people have knocked.  I haven't had problems with stability on my mount, but even so, it can be worked with.  Here are some simple steps:

1.  Tighten up all the tripod screws, including the flange in the middle that holds the accessory tray, by one-quarter turn to make them nice and tight.  (Any further might crack the plastic.)  

2.  Don't extend the legs all the way.  Yes, this can be used in a standing position, but it is much easier and much more relaxing to use it sitting.  If you leave a couple-three inches of the legs in the tube, the stability is increased.  

3.  Tie a weight from the flange holding the accessory tray.  This lowers the center of gravity, also increasing stability.  

4.  If you're observing from a deck or something other than the ground itself, anti-vibration pads should be used to eliminate vibrations.  

I did the first, because it took 2 minutes, and why not?  I also do the second because it lowers the EP to the perfect viewing height for sitting.  I haven't found it necessary to do the third or the fourth.  But like I said, it's not a big deal.  

A final mount recommendation that I've seen isn't so simple - it's to put some epoxy in between the little crack between the metal of the legs and plastic of where they're attached to the top of the mount, and at the bottom where they contact the ground.  I haven't done this.  

Again, I don't mean to scare you on the mount.  Mine has been plenty stable enough without doing many of these things.  And I love, love, love this scope.  Get the Celestron.  

And feel free to PM me with any other questions you may have.  

- Jon

[Signal]

I own an ETX-125, its a good scope but I would have concern about any used scope unless you know a lot about its history.

The ETX-125 had a few versions.  The later ones had metal forks and ball bearings, and were quite nice.  There can be many problems with any used scope from any manufacturer.  I recommend given your budget perhaps investigate Orion as well, they have some nice Mak's that will probably work well and a reputation for very good quality.

If however you are just looking at these two, I would say the Celestron sounds nice.  Its nice to have new stuff.

[chiltonstar]

The 127 Mak (SW or Celestron) is considered to be the "Jewel in the Crown" of the cheaper Mak range. The Mak design in general is brilliant - no collimation (or easy if you really have to do it), sealed tube, no image artefacts (unlike newts) and a flat field, unlike SCTs.

Despite what has been said elsewhere, the 127 is good on DSOs; the slow f ratio doesn't make any difference visually (does when imaging of course) - a DSO would look pretty much the same through a 5" Mak or a 5"  f4 Newtonian if the image scale is the same  (you would need more mag with the newtonian to show the DSO at the same size in the fov, which would of course dim the view).

The down side of a Mak is the narrow fov (field of view) compared with a faster scope, and the relatively long cool-down times.

But overall, they are great scopes for the money, and the Celestron above sounds good!

Chris