Alan64

My ES/Bresser(JOC) 127mm Maksutov has a 1900mm focal-length, an increase of 360mm. Now, that's insane. As a result, I got this Barska 70/300 achromat... It arrived only as an effective 30mm f/10, but I've since opened it up to where it's supposed to be, a 70mm f/4.3. It will be the 70mm finderscope for the Maksutov. Yes, you do need a good finder for a blind-as-a-bat Maksutov.

Oh, yes, a dew-shield; that's an absolute must. I didn't take my new Maksutov outdoors until I made one of black art-paper... I made do with that until I received a proper one... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dew-prevention/astrozap-flexible-dew-shield.html Yours is listed there, "127-SLT / Skymax-127 / ETX-125: £28". Now, you won't find a dew-shield recommended or suggested within any listing for a Schmidt- or Maksutov-Cassegrain online. That is because their short tubes are a selling-point, an advertisement. These telescopes appear longer with a dew-shield attached, more cumbersome, bulkier in appearance, therefore the manufacturers prefer to make no mention at all of a dew-shield, yet it is one of if not the most important accessory you can buy for one. A dew-shield serves two purposes... 1. To keep dew, dust, dirt, pollen, and bugs off of the "lens" at the front of the telescope; you want to keep that meniscus as squeaky-clean as possible. 2. It will help to block stray sources of light, natural and artificial, from reaching the "lens" whilst observing: Moonlight, passing automobiles, porch and street lights. A word about zoom-oculars; I look upon one primarily as a teaching-tool. Let's say that you find yourself observing mostly at the 12mm setting of the zoom. You may then wish to acquire a dedicated 12mm eyepiece. The eyepiece will be sharper, likely more contrasty, and over the zoom's equivalent. Then, others prefer another aspect: a zoom is convenient, particularly for impromptu sessions, also when pressed for time. Instead of lugging out a case of eyepieces, you carry out only a single zoom-ocular.

The BST "StarGuider" series represents a great value, particularly the 8mm and 12mm. I have a 127mm Maksutov myself. The one thing you should know is that inexpensive eyepieces play very well with longer and long focal-length telescopes, like a Maksutov. This 20mm has a 68° AFOV... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/revelation-20mm-superview-eyepiece-125.html (77x) I have the same eyepiece, actually belonging to a relation, although I've tried it out a few times... For your lowest power and widest view of the sky, a 32mm Plossl is suggested... https://www.365astronomy.com/32mm-gso-plossl-eyepiece (48x) I have that one as well... Our Maksutovs are well-known for having narrow views of the sky, even at the lower powers. Maksutovs are like microscopes, but for the sky. Therefore, you want the widest view possible when selecting eyepieces. I have this 10mm 70° eyepiece(154x)... I've had it for many years. The view is most spacious through my longer-focus telescopes; delightful. It is still manufactured and sold... https://agenaastro.com/agena-10mm-super-wide-angle-swa-eyepiece.html Astroshop.eu carries it, but for twice the price. It does not play well with shorter focal-length telescopes, however, but it's exquisitely small and light in weight, yet powerful, and well-made. A Maksutov already has two mirrors within its light-path. To keep light-scattering to a minimum whilst observing brighter objects, a star-prism diagonal is suggested, and best for longer and long focal-length telescopes... https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/celestron-star-diagonal.html If you really want to try out a barlow in future, some examples... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlow-eyepieces/baader-classic-q-225x-barlow.html I have this one, and it's a keeper... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-x2-achromat-fmc-barlow-lens-125.html There may be an occasion or two when a barlow becomes useful, but wait until a situation arises when you feel that it might be of benefit, before deciding. Planetary eyepieces, from 2.3mm to 6mm, generally negate the need for barlows. Those, especially, should offer the widest view possible, of all. To ensure the sharpest images with whichever eyepiece and accessories you choose, check the collimation of your telescope. You can do that by conducting a star-test... https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/how-to-star-test-a-telescope/ Polaris, the North Star, doesn't move, and therefore an ideal, but it's not particularly bright. You can also use an artificial-star to check... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/hubble-optics-5-star-artificial-star.html Never assume that your new telescope is well-collimated, particularly after a trip from overseas. Collimation instructions for Synta's Maksutovs... https://www.telescope.com/assets/product_files/instructions/IN_183C_Mak-Cass_Collimation.pdf

Yes, they "threw me for a loop" when I first laid eyes upon them.

They should still be available for purchase... http://www.jimsmobile.com/buy_rb.htm A user's showcasing of the largest model, and from 2017... https://astromart.com/forums/astronomy-equipment/astro-binoculars/jmi-rb-16-16-inch-binoculars-61146 Per the 50x-per-inch maxim for reflector telescopes, 800x, which would require two 2.3mm eyepieces.

Almost 20 years ago I got a Tele Vue 40mm Plossl, instead of their 32mm, and simply because I didn't know any better. I still have it. A few years ago, I got a Vixen NPL 30mm, which is okay, and then later, most recently, a GSO 32mm Plossl... I can't tell you how relieved I am in getting that much further away from the 40mm, and there you are with a 32mm, yet contemplating a 40mm. You can go ahead and get a 40mm, and compare it to your 32mm. It wouldn't break the bank... https://agenaastro.com/gso-40mm-plossl-eyepiece.html But there is one important difference: whilst the field-of-view of a 40mm is practically the same as that through a 32mm, the background sky will be darker, blacker, more contrasty, through the 32mm. The object being observed, therefore, stands out better. So there you are. Leave the 40mm Plossls on the stores' shelves, gathering dust. With all your telescopes and eyepieces, ideally, you want a background sky of jet-blackness, black as coal, all the way up to the edges of the planets, the stars, whatever.

Indeed, my Meade 8-24 zoom-ocular, same as the Celestron, has a T-thread connection... The 1.25"/T-2 adaptor... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1405310-REG/alpine_astronomical_eyehold_1_1_25_t_2_budget.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=Cj0KCQjw--GFBhDeARIsACH_kdabCnVDQkq06YXRJgGJKchG-oUHMXMMtYPs6YK7lbr9VS7W99pLDz4aAuVuEALw_wcB You would screw the adaptor onto the eyepiece, then insert the SVBONY camera into the adaptor's 1.25" visual-back. However, it is known that the higher-power settings of these entry-level zooms are not as sharp as a dedicated eyepiece; for example, the 8mm setting of the zoom versus an 8mm eyepiece. Then, there is always the Baader Mark IV zoom to consider, and sharper, but at a price... https://agenaastro.com/baader-8-24mm-mark-iv-hyperion-zoom-eyepiece-2454826.html https://agenaastro.com/baader-hyperion-universal-mark-iv-8-24mm-zoom-eyepiece-with-2-25x-hyperion-barlow-2454827.html

Great shots. 3x... http://www.scopestuff.com/ss_eba3.htm 5x... http://www.scopestuff.com/ss_eba6.htm Barlows over 2x are becoming increasingly scarce. Get them whilst you can. I would like to get a 5x myself. In theory, so don't hold me to it, you can try and combine a 2x with a 3x, for a 5x. Then, a 2x with a 5x for a 10x, and dare I suggest, a 3x with a 5x for a 15x. I've never done that myself, as I've used eyepieces to magnify.

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-StarSeeker-IV-127mm-GoTo-Mak-Cass-Telescopes/rc/2160/e/422.uts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzKHBFHsgkM

Where's the meteor shower? A bit lacking otherwise.

Now, those clips tend to hug the side of the mirror, but no pinching, I expect.

Thank you for the clarification. I have edited my post accordingly.

That'll be a fun and versatile mount. You might want a Maksutov in future to complement the fast-refractor; swap them out and back again as desired. I have a couple of Celestron telescopes, and a Celestron star-prism diagonal. Actually, "Celestron", "Orion"(of California) and "Sky-Watcher" are all brands of their parent-company, Synta, with this item and that of each manufactured in the same factory even. Synta does design items of each of their brands slightly different from one another, and to prop up the illusion. I'm rather fond of an eclectic mix of telescopes and accessories myself, of differing brands. There are quite a few instances where an item under one brand is superior to that of another, and sometimes the better item for less money. In so far as a case to store the eyepieces and accessories, some use something like an aluminum case with pluck-foam, whilst I've read of one individual using a five-gallon paint-bucket. It works for them, I suppose. I myself am a bit frugal in that regard. Currently, my take-out is this... A $5 plastic tool-box from Wal-Mart. I have two of them, one for household-tools, for which the box was intended, and the other for astronomy. In the end, it's all a matter of personal preference. Harbor Freight is a good source for the aluminum cases with foam; Amazon, too. Enjoy!

Very well, then 45° it is. Also, good point about the clips... I try to shoot for a business- or index-card's thickness for my reflectors.

Hello goddasgirl, and welcome! This is your telescope... https://www.celestron.com/products/travel-scope-70-portable-telescope It is a 70mm f/5.7 achromat, or refractor, and with a rather short, 400mm focal-length. The telescope is configured for low-power, wide-field views, and not unlike your binoculars. Observing the planets requires medium-to-high powers in order to see them well, up close. The planets become interesting at around 150x. Let's see what you would need to reach that... 400mm ÷ 150x = a 2.7mm eyepiece; very short indeed. There's the problem, a lack of 2.7mm eyepieces in the marketplace. Quite frankly, the focal-length of your telescope is a good bit too short to make it easy to reach the higher powers for observing the planets and double-stars. I have this Celestron "AstroMaster" 70mm f/13 achromat... Note the longer length of the tube, and compared to your own. That telescope has a 900mm focal-length. Let's see what it would take to reach 150x... 900mm ÷ 150x = a 6mm eyepiece; there, that's better, as 6mm eyepieces are readily available online. Now, you can get a 2x-barlow... https://agenaastro.com/gso-1-25-2x-achromatic-barlow-lens.html You will insert the barlow into the telescope first, then your diagonal into the barlow, then your 10mm eyepiece into the diagonal. That combination will give you an effective, simulated 3.3mm eyepiece, and for a power of 121x. If you use a 9mm eyepiece(133x); if an 8mm(150x). Now, that's not taking into account focussing issues that may arise. Then, the diagonal that came with your telescope is an Amici-type diagonal, and primarily for daytime/terrestrial observations; birds in trees, ships at sea, that sort of thing. It can be used at night, but for nighttime use a star-diagonal is best... https://agenaastro.com/celestron-1-25-telescope-star-diagonal.html At almost f/6, a star-prism shouldn't introduce too much additional false-colour when viewing brighter objects, if any. In any event, a comparable, economical star-mirror is unavailable, and possibly into 2022. If you have any questions, we'll be here to answer them, and to the best of our abilities. Enjoy!

I'm thinking that the only way to increase the magnification would be to insert the camera into a barlow: a 2x, 3x, or a 5x. The only way I'm able to integrate an eyepiece is simply by holding a small point-and-shoot camera(or a "smartphone" camera) up to the eyepiece and snapping the shot; for examples... That's known as afocal-photography. The method is limited to the brighter objects however. There are jigs sold that hold a "smartphone" over an eyepiece. What you're attempting is EAA(Electronically-Assisted Astronomy). It is a shame that an eyepiece cannot be readily integrated within that type of set-up. I've day-dreamed of being able to do that myself. Although, there's always DIY, and in making adaptors to join the SVBONY camera to eyepieces of differing focal-lengths. Eyepieces come with standard barrel sizes, but the upper portions differ from eyepiece to eyepiece, and at the whim of the manufacturers.

It may be desirable to begin looking into a replacement for the ubiquitous red-dot straight away. An optical-finder with a 90° diagonal would save the neck and back. The higher the telescope is aimed above the horizon, the less of the chicken-broth of our blurring, swimming atmosphere to penetrate, and that's where a right-angle finder comes into play. This is an example of one... https://agenaastro.com/gso-8x50mm-right-angle-correct-image-finder.html Now, some don't like right-angle finders, but many do. I don't know the ratio, however; something to research before considering.

I was thinking more along the lines of a busy "tower of power" jutting up out of the visual-back, rather. It's not so much an issue with refractors and catadioptrics. I've always thought of the Tele Vue barlows being a bit on the long side, like this 3x for example... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlow-eyepieces/tele-vue-barlows.html My 2.8x Klee, a triplet, and no longer available, was $79($150.37 in 2021; madness) when I purchased it in 1992 or '93. I was simply wanting a barlow at the time, and I was doing mail-order as the internet had not yet arrived, in my area at least. I got the barlow from University Optics in Michigan, also defunct. I knew of Astronomics at that time, too, via their mailings. It turned out, in later years once the internet was in full-swing, that I read that that very barlow is excellent for shorter, "fast" Newtonians, but again, I didn't know it at the time I had purchased it. It, albeit allegedly, corrects for coma, to some extent at least, if true. A 2.2x Klee was offered later, but I didn't pursue that one. Those were the only barlows ever offered by University, in my experience. The Antares 2x and 3x barlows, shown flanking the Klee, are very good, if not also excellent. For example, with my 6" f/5 Newtonian, I was using the 3x one night, and that was the first time an image snapped into focus. It was quite a pleasant surprise. From that experience, I now suspect that the primary-mirror of the telescope is at least above average in its execution, possibly. Or, rather, is it possible that the barlow, with its lenses, simply helped the mirror along in that? We may never know. For a 750mm focal-length, one can make use of a 2x, and particularly a 3x, barlow. 3x-barlows, however, are seemingly as scarce as proverbial hens' teeth, if not scarcer. This is the same 3x-barlow as my own, but updated with a twist-lock... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-x3-twist-lock-barlow-lens-125.html I don't like spending a lot on eyepieces and accessories, either. Then, there is an alternative to barlows: short-to-very short focal-length eyepieces, but they tend to be pricey in and of themselves. In the end, I prefer the cheap thrill of a barlow.

There is one more thing... As magnification is increased, the telescope, the eyepieces, the optical-accessories(barlows, et al), all have to work harder, and for pleasing images at the higher and highest powers. A Newtonian is a continual work-in progress, as it must be collimated regularly to maintain those pleasing images. It must also be collimated as precisely as possible via its mechanisms, the secondary-assembly in particular. The alignment of the focusser plays a most important part as well, and as it racks inward and outward, ideally straight and true, with no binding nor slop. All three components, the primary/secondary assemblies and the focusser, must be aligned with one another, as accurately as possible, and in an L-shaped light-path... It's the secondary-assembly that gives the most fits.

With my solid-tube 150/750, I use 2x and 3x barlows, but with a 12mm eyepiece, and for an effective, simulated 4mm(3x). Then, the 12mm has the benefit of a larger eye-lens with which to look through. With a manual mount, I've found that to be nigh to the limit with that telescope(188x). However, according to the 50x-per-25.4mm "rule", a 150mm aperture can at least approach 300x, so the former is not set in stone. Personally, I love to ramp up the power with my telescopes. I've had a 70/900 achromat up to 225x, on Polaris, and the image was clear enough, not bad at all. You do want short barlows with a Newtonian, the shorter the better. My own are fairly short, the one in the middle particularly... Some, if not many, opine that excessive magnification results in so-called "empty magnification" -- blurry, soft images -- and at times to the point where you might feel that the telescope will explode if you do so. Per said 50x "rule", my 70/900 achromat should only reach 138x, yet I've had it up to 225x, and meaningfully, satisfactorily. In short, by all means, shoot for the Moon.

I landed this 50mm f/12 achromat, and off of eBay for only $25... I've seen globular-clusters through it, sparkling. They don't seem to sparkle otherwise.

I have an Orion(of California) 150/750 Newtonian... Yours is a bit more deluxe than my basic model. Both are manufactured by Synta, perhaps in the same factory overseas even. I can't help but to suggest to set aside the laser-collimator, as the entry-level types oft require collimating themselves, and before using to collimate a telescope. I use the passive tools instead, tried and true. I use a sight-tube, and a collimation-cap(as a second-opinion and fail-safe)... When using said tools, the telescope, its interior, requires illuminating... Bang on... Afterwards, I see glory. A combination Cheshire/sight-tube... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/astro-essentials-cheshire-collimating-eyepiece.html Collimation-cap... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/rigel-aline-collimation-cap.html In the U.S.... https://agenaastro.com/agena-1-25-collimating-eyepiece-newtonian-reflectors.html https://agenaastro.com/rigel-systems-aline-telescope-alignment-eyepiece.html Collimation instructions/tutorials are widely available online, in text-form with images, and videos too. Laser-collimators are preferred by users of larger Newtonians, "Dobsonians" 8" and up in particular. You can certainly continue to use your own, but it should be checked for collimation, and adjusted if needed... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZsgNlgIrqQ&t=98s If you need more information, we'll be glad to help. Just ask away.

The mount is not quite an EQ-3, nor an EQ-2; betwixt the two it seems... You can certainly motorise the RA-axis, but you will need to tweak the DEC-axis once in a while during use, the frequency dependent upon how accurately the RA-axis is aimed at the NCP(Polaris). A knob that will fit onto the latter, without a cable, will serve. It may be possible to attach one of the 9V-battery drives on the market to the head; for example... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-astromaster-series/motor-drive-celestron-astromaster-geq-93514.html I have one of those drives. It comes with two brackets for attachment... Or, a bracket can be customised for the mount, and based on those two; a bit of DIY. The drive has been used successfully with EQ3-class mounts. The one thing I like about that type of drive is that the speed can be adjusted. It's something of a universal drive, and sold under several marques(Sky-Watcher, Orion, Meade). Now, there are Bresser OEM drives as well, and you can certainly consider those as well.

I would back away slowly and steer clear of that one. You must remember that it is well-known that the supplies of telescopic equipment are still hard to come by. There are quite a few out there who know this, and are looking to cash in. Don't fall for offers of that nature; identify, and avoid. Research, as you do seem to be doing now. In addition, Maksutovs and other long-focus designs of telescopes do not require corrective, and therefore expensive eyepieces for a good showing. Most any "cheap" eyepiece can perform surprisingly well with a Maksutov.

Astrophotography may have been easier in the olden days, with a simply motorised equatorial. The skies were darker, making it easier to guide. But back then, what I call "paper cameras" were used, so that tended to negate the benefit of the former. I myself didn't delve into general photography until the debut of the digital-camera, and at the time with a whopping 1.3 MP CCD-sensor. Nowadays, go-to and astrophotography go together like... The higher the power, the closer you want to get to an object to snap a shot, like the planets, galaxies and nebulae, individual objects, then the larger the mount, and the smaller the telescope in relation, must be. Picture a telescope bolted to an enormous boulder. That's how rigid a telescope must be held to track an object long enough without becoming blurred. In addition, the mount-head's RA-axis must be aimed at the NCP(nigh Polaris) as precisely as is humanly possible...