John

If you go for the mak, make sure you get a dew shield as well. Mak-cassegrains are "dew magnets" due to the large glass corrector right at the front of the tube and without dew prevention gear such as a dew shield, an observing session can be quickly frustrated. David's point about the 6 inch dobsonian is very pertinent but I suspect you have ruled out a newtonian long ago.

The only downside with the 8-24 zoom, as with the majority of zooms, is that the field of view at the 24mm end is rather narrow - around 44 degrees. It widens to 60+ degrees at the 8mm end though. More minor issues are that the field stop that defines the edge of the field can be fuzzy at certain points in the zoom range and that the eyepiece is not entirely par-focal throughout it's range so it needs a focus adjustment after changing the focal length. The limited field of view at 24mm means that I've found that you really need to complement the zoom with a longer focal length fixed focal length eyepiece for low power / wide views - something like a 30/32mm plossl or 24mm wide field. The ability to adjust the magnification almost instantly is very useful though. If you use a decent barlow practically all your observing needs can be served with these 3 items: low power eyepiece + zoom + barlow.

Just to add to this (which I very much agree with) my ED120 (ED doublet not the Esprit triplet) is one scope which I have never needed to collimate. My example is one of the early ones so around 15 years old.

Mine too

All scope designs can need collimation at some point in their lives IMHO. Mak-cassegrains, SCT's and refractors much less so than newtonians and but I've owned them all and quite a few of them did need some collimation adjustment to get a good star test. Once in collimation Mak's, SCT's and refractors tend to hold their collimation well and are pretty robust. I've had to make some collimation adjustments to a Celestron 90mm mak-cassegrain that I picked up a few weeks ago as a travel scope. Not difficult but it was needed.

If that was the case, surely the vendor should have: a) explained the issue and asked the buyer if they were happy to accept it or whether they would prefer to wait until a perfect sample was available b) discounted the price as it was an open box / ex display item. As far as I know, the vendor did neither.

Oh for goodness sake ! - the scope has been supplied in poor condition when it was supposed to be brand new. Just because you put up with a dusty objective does not mean that others should. We, the customers, don't have to put up with that and are protected by the regulations. To the OP: Insist on a refund or a replacement. Any decent supplier would make that happen for you without cost and at minimal inconvenience to yourself.

To find out though, the objective and cell will need to be removed from the scope. This will give the perfect excuse for the vendor to refuse to give a refund or replacement on the grounds that the customer has disassembled the scope. The vendor is already trying to be slippery about replacement / refund without giving them more ammunition.

I've merged the two threads that @Connor brad has started into this one. There may be some duplication though.

Optical Vision Limited (OVL) is the importer for Skywatcher gear but usually you would go back to your retailer as the 1st recourse.

You should get a reasonable image even if the collimation is a bit off. If all you are now getting is a blur it sounds like something else ? I'd suggest a star test to check the collimation but if you can't get a sharp star image in the eyepiece that's not going to be possible. Which part of the scope did you slightly knock ?

I agree entirely with those urging you to return it for a refund or replacement. The scopes that I have bought new, regardless of price and branding, have all had immaculate lenses and cosmetics and that is the way that yours should be. If we start to accept these issues then suppliers could get lax. Sounds like your retailer is giving you a load of baloney as well I'm afraid

I had an Evostar 120 on the EQ3-2 mount for a while. The mount was supplied with the steel tube legged tripod as per the Celestron Omni 120 / CG4 combination and the mount was OK for the scope. Not brilliant but good enough for visual observing.

Quite possibly. I've posted in your other thread on this (just started): Perhaps I should merge these two threads to avoid confusion ?

The stock eyepieces will probably show a distortion called astigmatism in the F/5 200P Explorer. This distortion causes stars to look elongated as they move away from the centre of the field of view. The colour fringing could be caused by the atmosphere if you are observing objects that are close to the horizon but eyepieces can also introduce false colour as well. Astigmatism looks sort of like this: The false colour issue is called lateral colour and looks a bit like this: The solution may well be to consider moving to better corrected eyepieces.

The Bresser 127L is an F/9.4 achromatic doublet, not that @Nair al Saif has chosen that one.

I've fitted both versions to my Vixen GP at one time or another. They both bolted straight onto the mount with minimal fuss. I currently have the enhanced set fitted to the mount and it's working just fine.

I didn't find my AZ-4 stable enough for the ED120 with either 2 inch steel legs or the Berlebach UNI 28 tripod unfortunately. It was great with my F/6.5 Vixen ED102 but longer tubes troubled it when the magnification got over around 150x, which it often does with the ED120 and similar length Tak FC100-DL as well. I wish it had been different because I always liked the AZ-4 I'm glad @Timebandit is happy with that combination though.

I've owned both scopes but there were many years between them so I never had a chance to compare them ! I've had the ED102SS for over 10 years now. I did notice some CA with my old Vixen 102M which is pretty much absent in the 102SS the latter being an ED doublet. The 102SS can show me a 4 degree true field which the F9.8 102M could not do of course and I think the 102SS is a touch better figured so it supports high magnifications just a touch better. The 102SS does need some cool down time to give it's best images though and that caught me out to start with. 30 minutes or so seems to get the scope really on song. The 102SS is not a scope you come across often - I've only seen a handful for sale in the years that I've had mine. I'm very attached to the scope and it will not be going anywhere despite being joined by the superb Takahashi FC100-DL around 4 years ago. Sorry I can't offer a direct comparison between the 102M and the 102SS but there were about 10 years between my ownership of them. I did enjoy the 102M when I had it though. Don't assume that the 102SS is BV compatible. I don't BV myself but it would be worth checking carefully if you decide to go down that route.

Great sketch ! I was observing Mars at the same time last night and you have captured the subtle surface features as they were showing very nicely I think You are so right about needing to spend some time at the eyepiece to allow the detail to emerge as well. "The more you look, the more you see" is spot on for planetary observing.

You still need to provide a guide price.

Images won't really help because a CCD / CMOS chip does not see the way that our eyes do. Sketches are a better guide. Also, what is actually visible varies, location to location, night to night and observer to observer. This thread: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/196278-what-can-i-expect-to-see/ and this section might be of more use: https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/21-sketching/

UK Astro Buy & Sell. I've sold them for that as well. Used prices just now might be a bit inflated because new kit is difficult to source.

The big difference is that the 2x Powermate is in the 2 inch fitting while the 2.5x is 1.25 inch. That is why the 2x costs more. The optical design and quality is the same. As far as I know the 2.5x does indeed amplify 2.5x.

I have not used the ES 2" 2x FE so I can't be sure. If there is some movement, it should not be much because the design is similar to a Powermate. Sorry that I can't be more help on that item.