Alan64

Hi Daniel. It's good to hear that you're doing better. Welcome back. A kit with a go-to mount, the mount would take up the lion's share of the outlay, and with the telescope generally taking a back seat, either in quality or aperture. Folks prefer a go-to mount if it's difficult for them to find things in the sky, whether due to excessive light-pollution, or if they'd rather not star-hop in the finding of objects with a manual mount. The basic "Dobsonians" are not upgradeable to go-to as far as I know. They're also not suited for DSLR astrophotography; only afocal, and perhaps EAA(electronically-assisted astronomy), photography modes. Research those two types of photography for more information. Many folks have a lot of fun pursuing both. The Baader set of eyepieces and a turret would be allright for a SkyMax 127, although not ideal. If you like the turret, perhaps you can get that separately and insert other eyepieces; any 1.25" eyepiece would fit. The 150mm and 200mm "Dobsonians" sport 2" focussers, although you'd probably only get one 2" eyepiece, and for the lowest power possible with the telescope; a 2" 32mm or 38mm. 2", low-power eyepieces can show you a much wider view of the sky, which would help in the hunting and finding of objects, then to insert an eyepiece of higher power, likely a 1.25", and for a closer look. Like happy-kat, I've been wondering the same, as we don't know the exact nature of your condition. Naturally, a 150mm "Dobsonian" is going to weigh less than a 200mm, and with a smaller aperture, but it's a bright telescope in its own right which would show you a lot. The Skymax 127 is a 127mm Maksutov, and for medium-to-high powers; less aperture still, but with go-to. I just got a 127mm Maksutov myself, without go-to, and I'm really looking forward to putting it through its paces. My skies aren't all that bright at night, except towards the north, nor very dark. In between I'd say; Bortle-4 if I had to guess. I couldn't use go-to, as I have far too many trees here at my home, and I don't venture elsewhere to observe. Again, welcome back, and let us know what you think.

If so, then that's why.

Yes, they're quite modular. Some even fit on a 2" eyepiece-holder, and/or a 2" nosepiece. The T2 has a 32mm clear-aperture, and the T2 Zeiss a 34mm, therefore I don't see a real benefit in so doing.

The helical eyepiece-holder seems to be included, as it states, "...With Focusing Eyepiece Holder...". If so, that would be ideal. The part number of the option does corroborate with that included with the diagonal. I have the "ancient"(2003) non-helical eyepiece-holder fitted onto my own... For quite a long time I have considered upgrading it with the helical.

Back in the early 1990s, I had an original EQ-2, made in Japan... I ordered a motor-drive for it. It had a table-lamp type cord that plugged into the mains; no means of using batteries. It was great. I observed Venus one morning with it, from about 5:30 whilst it was dark, and up until about 11:00 in broad daylight. With an occasional tweak of the declination, Venus remained centered in the eyepiece for the entire span. In the end, the planets appeared as a pale sphere, and seemingly sprinkled with fine sand or other; like a sugar cookie. You do have to tinker with the 9V-battery version to get it just right. If you have the option to return it, go for the deluxe version. I have a modern, Meade EQ-2 now, a Chinese clone. Its cogwheel is 49-50mm in diameter... ...and it can make use of that deluxe drive. But I had gotten the Celestron 9V-battery drive beforehand, which comes with two brackets, one for an EQ-1, and the other for an EQ-2... Although, I've yet to use it; pity, that, therefore I don't know what to expect. It has been known to drive an EQ-3, and successfully, by the way. Both of those links for those 9V-battery drives state, "Can be fitted to any telescope supplied with the EQ1 equatorial mount". Both also sport the same image; no rhyme nor reason. This is the RA-gear of the Meade EQ-2. I do not know if that of the Konus mount is the same. I've not measured it, nor have I counted its teeth... The Konus is definitely not an EQ1-class mount. It favours an EQ-2 rather, given its cogwheel and cam, and perhaps nigh to an EQ-3 at that; in certain aspects. I cannot say yea or nay for either drive, I'm afraid. Incidentally, the coupler of those 9V-battery drives has a thumbscrew. Conceivably, that may disengage, then re-engage the connection. Thinking out loud, I was wondering about altering the worm-shaft, and in sporting either a 32- or 64-sided end there, so that when you batten that thumbscrew down it would catch and grab onto the shaft.

I haven't touched my wee, 127mm Maksutov, yet... It's a Jinghua. and with a one-year warranty. Within, it has micro-baffling. No, you do not want to take the telescope apart whilst under warranty. A keeper, or no? As for my own, that determination will be made this coming fall and winter.

Yes, the flocking, along with ultra-flat black paint for those areas within where it isn't practical to flock, makes for a most welcome improvement...

The scattering is certainly not to that extent within that image. Why, I see scattering with a refractor and a star-prism, although not that much. But I know that a star-mirror would simply make it worse. The background sky would tend more towards grey-black rather than jet-black. One or the other, it may either make or break a critical observation. However, true, the effect may not be noticed during general observations.

A diagonal should behave as though it not there, at all. It is a convenience, to save the neck and back. Would that we had an extra set of eyes at chest level, or lower. Mirrors scatter light. What might be the advantage of adding a third mirror to a reflector with two already? Light-scattering... Mirrored diagonals proliferate in the marketplace, as they are cheaper to produce; not for some imagined optical advantage. Mirrored diagonals are also more apt to arrive mis-collimated. Incidentally, in fitting a 2" diagonal onto a telescope with a 2700mm focal-length, what sort of low-power wide-field views are to be anticipated... https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p604_T2-diagonal-prism-90----T2---1-25--connection-on-both-sides.html A Maksutov, regardless of aperture and a 2" visual-back, is , after all, the utter antithesis of a rich-field refractor.

Note the drive that comes with a new Konusmotor-130 kit... That drive is the same as one of these... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-mount-accessories/ra-economy-motor-drive-for-eq1.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-mount-accessories/ra-single-speed-motor-drive-for-eq-2.html Both of those 9V-battery drives have a variable speed control, which may very well be an advantage in being able to compensate for any deviation between the RA-gear of the Konus mount and that of a Synta EQ-2. The deluxe drive with the hand controller and the battery-pack does not have a variable speed control. I'm not referring to the slew speeds, but to the rotation of the RA-gear. Also, I can't say for certain if that deluxe drive would work with the Konus mount. Before using any motor-drive, ensure that the worm-shaft and the RA-gear are butter-smooth in operation, with no slop or binding, and to keep from damaging the drive. Incidentally, I have a Celestron 127EQ OTA, a "Bird Jones", and practically identical to that Konus OTA. I just recently and successfully collimated my own. Have a look at this afocal shot I took with the bundled 4mm Ramsden or whatever it is, and at 250x... That was with the telescope on a shaky mount, and with my hand-holding a small point-and-shoot camera up to the eyepiece, so it is slightly blurred. The live view was virtually tack-sharp. I couldn't believe my eyes upon the event. Both my Celestron OTA and your Konus OTA are essentially 5" f/4 Newtonians with a "corrector", a doublet lens, installed at the bottom of the drawtube of the focusser. An f/4 Newtonian is rather difficult to collimate, especially for a beginner, hence the bad reputation of this type of telescope. I had to renovate the focusser of my own so that the drawtube racked in and out straight and true. I also replaced the rubber grommets for the adjustment-screws of the primary-cell with metal springs. I did many other things besides to the telescope, and it has certainly paid off. Hence, I wouldn't discard that OTA, unless you simply do not want to be bothered with what's involved in getting it to perform at its best. I found a gem hidden with my own, and it's a keeper.

https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/altair-2-prism.html#SID=566

If the seeing conditions are good, then that 80mm refractor can approach 100x per inch of aperture, which would be 300x. You could certainly make use of that for the Moon, but let's be a bit more conservative when viewing the planets, at, say, 200x... 600mm ÷ 200x = a 3mm eyepiece If it were myself, I would combine a 9mm eyepiece with a 3x-barlow, for a simulated 3mm, and for a power of 200x. The planets, particularly Saturn and Jupiter, put on a fine show at that power. There are also eyepieces of those shorter focal-lengths, and with barlowing elements built in, if you'd rather not use a dedicated barlow; for examples... https://agenaastro.com/explore-scientific-52-deg-series-eyepiece-3mm.html (200x) https://agenaastro.com/bst-1-25-uwa-planetary-eyepiece-2-5mm.html (240x) https://agenaastro.com/agena-1-25-dual-ed-eyepiece-3-2mm.html (188x) https://agenaastro.com/vixen-2-4-mm-hr-eyepiece-37134.html (250x) This high-power zoom ocular is quite popular... https://agenaastro.com/televue-1-25-nagler-planetary-zoom-eyepiece-3-6mm.html (100x - 200x) ...and a bit costly.

Quite a few double-stars require higher powers to split them, and to see the differing colors. A short-focus achromat(refractor) and a short-focus Newtonian/"Dobsonian" are going to be problematic in that regard. Still, refractors and Maksutovs are best for double-star observations. In so far as light-pollution, there are several ways to lessen its effects whilst observing, and with some requiring a bit of DIY, arts-and-crafts type work.

What's the diameter of the built-in stopped-down? Ideally, you can make a separate aperture-mask, and have at least an 80mm unobstructed aperture, if not a 90mm...

The Celestron CG-3 mount, is the same as an EQ-2. It may that the mount's axes, along with the worm assembly, are bound up. They tend to ship like that from the factory. Here's how to adjust them... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/319273-meade-large-equatorialeq-2-hyper-tuning/?do=findComment&comment=3492379

Your kit is very similar to this one... I have a finderscope that's just like it, and from an entry-level kit I got back in February... To improve the stability when adjusting it, and to preserve the alignment for a much longer period of time, line the front portion of the tube-holder with the thinnest self-adhesive felt you can find... Or, you can use masking-tape, or whatever else that would work. You simply want to thicken the circumference of the holder, and inward about a half-inch or so from the front. You can apply whichever to the tube itself, but it works best inside the holder instead.

Your telescope has a focal-length of 650mm. That's a bit on the short side in order to realise the higher powers associated with lunar, planetary and double-star observations. That's where you have two choices: either a 2x and a 3x barlow even, with Plossls, or more expensive eyepieces that have barlowing lens-elements already built in. A 130mm aperture is theoretically capable of up to 250x, but there are a few variables that will prevent that, one being the atmospheric seeing conditions. Near the horizon, observing through the atmosphere is akin to looking through a bowl of broth. The atmosphere is thinnest at the zenith, straight up overhead. Planets become interesting at 150x or so... 650mm ÷ 150x = a 4.3mm eyepiece, or 4mm to round it off. Some combine a 12mm Plossl, or other design, inexpensively, with a 3x barlow for a simulated 4mm. Others choose eyepieces that have barlowing lens-elements, with wider fields-of-view, longer eye-relief, and larger eye-lenses through which to see; for examples... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-starguider-eyepieces/bst-starguider-60-5mm-ed-eyepiece.html (130x) https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-starguider-eyepieces/bst-starguider-60-32mm-ed-eyepiece.html (203x) With a go-to mount, like the SLT, it's easier to reach those higher powers. The collimation of the 130mm f/5 Newtonian should also be spot-on, as a telescope has to work harder to produce sharp, pleasing images at those higher powers. Also, with a go-to mount, you don't really need wider-angle eyepieces, as the mount keeps you from having to bump and nudge the telescope in order to keep an object in view. On the other hand, if you prefer a bit of perspective, a bit of "real estate", the black sky surrounding the object, then wider-angle eyepieces will provide that. The telescope itself comes with a 2" focusser. You might choose a 2" 32mm 70° eyepiece, and for your largest view of the sky, for deep-sky venues and vistas; for example... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/panaview-2-eyepieces.html (20x, and binocular-like) That's the lowest-priced option for a 2" low-power eyepiece, therefore you might see some distortions at the edges of the view, but it wouldn't render it useless. Else, you can choose a 32mm Plossl; for example... https://www.365astronomy.com/32mm-GSO-Plossl-Eyepiece.html (20x) For medium-power observations, choose an eyepiece from 12mm to 16mm, or even a 20mm, a Plossl or a wide-angle. Do not choose Plossls shorter than 9mm, unless you want to rough it.

Sometimes you've got to give, and sometimes you've got to take... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az-pronto.html

Similarly to John's suggestion, I had initally thought of a 90mm Maksutov as an option, and when I was composing my previous reply, but I didn't mention it because it and a mount may go over your budget. Nonetheless, that would be an ideal telescope given the observing agenda and the desire for an ease of handling. This Celestron C90 Maksutov, which belongs to a relation, is shown here mounted upon my revamped EQ-1 equatorial, which is the very smallest of equatorial mounts on the planet... The two go together like Punch and Judy, but I wanted you to see just how diminutive a 90mm Maksutov is in fact, given your handling concerns, and if you might within the mind, to compare it to your Sky-Watcher 90mm f/10 achromat. This is my Meade 90mm f/10 achromat, and on its EQ-2, which is the next size up from an EQ-1... Incidentally, your 90mm f/10 achromat is also mounted onto a larger EQ-2. Here they are, two 90mm telescopes, yet of differing types, side by side... Now picture that 90mm Maksutov upon an alt-azimuth, and it wouldn't have to be a large one, comparable even to the size of that diminutive EQ-1. Don't consider an AZ-3, no, but this one rather... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az-pronto/sky-watcher-az-pronto-alt-azimuth-mount-tripod.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-90-ota.html By the way, why is that dovetail-bar upside-down??? Then, there is this whole kit, with that same alt-azimuth mount, but with a 100mm Maksutov... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-102-az-pronto.html Either would make for an ideal kit for your purposes. I do realise that it's more costly. Else, I'd go with the Sky-Watcher 130P, and place it on a table in the garden. If not that one still, then perhaps this kit... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/bresser-messier-ar-80600-az-nano-telescope.html

You have quite the conundrum there. On the one hand, you want a kit that's light in weight, but on the other you want a telescope for lunar, planetary and stellar observations; the brighter objects in the night sky. That's where an entry-level refractor might fail you, as short, achromatic refractors exhibit false-colour when aimed at the brighter objects, and resulting in images that are less sharp and clear. In addition, the shorter focal-lengths of those achromats would make it more difficult to reach the higher powers associated with said observations. This kit would be better suited for that... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/sky-watcher-mercury-707-az-telescope.html It's not big at all, nor heavy. The equatorial version, if you'd like to track the objects... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/sky-watcher-capricorn-70-eq1-refractor.html These two 90mm f/10 kits would be the next step up in a refractor... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/skywatcher-evostar-90-az3.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/evostar/skywatcher-evostar-90-eq2.html ...that is, if you don't want to have to maintain a Newtonian, like the Sky-Watcher 130P "Heritage"... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html That telescope would require a bit more of a learning-curve, but it is compact and with 130mm of aperture. You would need barlows, a 2x, and/or even a 3x, to reach the higher powers more readily.

I have only one Crayford, and that I've never used, nor the telescope to which it belongs... However, I overwhelmingly prefer rack-and-pinion focussers; call me old-school or backwards.

...and the best of the line currently. A fortunate and wise choice you had made.

A Maksutov would indeed complement the 130P-DS, as one is the "antithesis" of the other. The full range of magnifications would then be covered with the two: the 130P-DS for low to low-medium power observing, the Maksutov for medium-to-high powers, and both on the one mount, interchangeably. I have my 127mm Maksutov on a manual alt-azimuth, and I have no trouble observing with it... ...motioning it to this object and that. It needs a good finder. If a lens-type, an 8x50 at minimum, and perhaps with a right-angled eyepiece; or, a reliable red-dot finder. The secondary-mirror of a Gregorian or "spot" Maksutov, like the Sky-Watcher and others, including my own there, is fixed, non-adjustable. It's only the primary-mirror that's adjustable, and rarely does it require same. Regardless of the type of telescope, when travelling the telescope should be protected, cushioned with padding or other.

A 127mm Maksutov, with its much longer focal-length, is more of a specialty telescope, rather than an all-rounder like the one you have now. Using the same eyepiece, you don't get the same view of the sky with one as you do with the other. For example, here's the view of the Moon and the sky background with a 32mm Plossl inserted into your 130mm f/5 Newtonian(orange), and versus the same eyepiece inserted into a 127mm(actually 120mm) f/12 Maksutov(red)... A Maksutov, since it cannot "see" a large area of the sky, usually requires a go-to mount to direct it. It can be used on a manual mount, but it would be more difficult to hunt, to locate obejcts. On the plus side, a Maksutov would make it easier to reach the higher powers associated with the Moon, the planets, and the double-stars; but many deep-sky objects as well. The views would probably be sharper in addition.

Fair is fair, and for a saving grace, I reinstalled all of the original washers, but used Super Lube as the grease instead of the factory's... Much better... ...the altitude motion much better indeed. I would think so, and after all of that. Glamour shot... No, that's not the Maksutov, as I don't think that the mount can support it properly. I got the Maksutov for itself, and the mount for my smaller telescopes, like that one, and both within a kit. That's my Antares 805, an 80mm f/6 achromat. Incidentally, this was the first time that refractor had been operated above 100x. Jupiter, at 160x, presented to my eye only a vague incidence of false-colour; a subtle violet veil it was, and barely extending outward. But so much for that, for it is an f/6 achromat, yet one that may be used to observe the larger planets after all, and the Moon in addition I already know, for myself in any event. I then went inside and got the eyepiece-tray and extended the legs of the mount. Picking the kit up at that point, I could then carry it with one hand with little effort, and over to the south... The telescope is aimed at Jupiter still, there, and at 80x. I rapped the tip of my middle finger forcefully onto the center of the telescope's tube: a 3- to 4-second damping-time. When the legs were retracted earlier, I had done the same, and the damping-time was at about 3 seconds. The verdict? I like this wee mount, a lot, now, and with the alt righted... But I still don't like that a metal head is joined to a metal hub via plastic. There's got to be an alternative, somehow, somewhere.