Tangent

Thanks for the suggestions so far. The reason I’m set on a 90 mak is outlined in my original post. The scope plus mount and tripod etc will be travelling in a camper van along with sundry other stuff ( beer,food, more beer, bicycles, wetsuits etc) as such I need to be careful not to exceed the payload of the van. With a 90 mak I think I can have a setup which will be around 6kg so that won’t threaten my payload capacity nor will it take up much space. I’m often away for weeks at a time in my van pursuing several activities. Quite often I find myself in locations with good dark skies and it would be nice to take advantage of them by having a small lightweight set up at my disposal. Astronomy is not the main purpose of my trips away so for now I’m just looking for a low maintenance simple lightweight setup. Hopefully that will explain why I’m focussing ( pardon the pun ) on 90mm maks. Sodoes anyone know if the skywatcher skymax 90 has its baffle tube coated or is it shiny and needing flocked? Thanks, Tangent.

Hello, First time posting here so be gentile please. I’m looking to get my first scope and I am torn between the Celestron 90 or the Skymax 90 maks. Why a mak? I need something small light and portable that will not easily go out of collimation. This scope will be getting bounced around a bit in a camper van so size weight and robustness is important to me. I believe that Celestron are now coating the baffle tube of the C90 to cut down on glare and contrast which used to be an issue on older models. Does anyone know if the Skywatcher skymax 90 baffle tube is similarly coated or not?