Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stu1smartcookie

  1. 3 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

    Are you thinking of the 102 xs Stu ? There are three now four ! (they've added a 1000mm one I don't recall seeing before ) versions of the 102,

    the 102xs, which is the tiny short one with (reputedly) different glass, a 460mm focal length  https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102xs-460-Hexafoc-Optical-Tube.html?listtype=search&searchparam=102 xs

    the one I have, the 102s at 600mm focal length https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102s-600-Hexafoc-OTA.html

     the 102/1000 , 1000mm focal length ( you guessed that, didn't you 🙂 ) https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102-1000-Hexafoc-Optical-Tube-assembly.html?listtype=search&searchparam=messier ar

    and the 102L which is 1350mm focal length https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102L-1350-Hexafoc-Optical-Tube-assembly.html?listtype=search&searchparam=messier ar

    OP might wonder why the weird different lengths , answer is ( briefly) longer tube acrhros control CA better. However, as I said, there is always a trade off ... the longer the tube, the harder and more expensive it is to mount properly, and obviously the more cumbersome it is .

    Yes that is the one , Heather ... I think they all get a fairly good press , can't fault the look too , i reckon they look smart . 

  2. 6 minutes ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

    If you're hiking, then obviously pack size and weight is a major consideration, so really your are limited to a very small refractor, maksutov or binoculars. If the instrument will be used at home then what are your skies like? Can you see at least a slither of the Milky Way or are you badly light polluted?

    The cheaper achromatic travel friendly telescopes will not provide great high magnification views of the moon or planets but under dark skies there are plenty of other objects to observe. Likewise using 10x50 binoculars.

    A 90mm to 102mm maksutov is small and they're designed for high magnification however the field of view is quite narrow compared to the refractors.The quality of the image is excellent compared to the cheap achromats and arguably not that different to an ED72.

    Considering budget, this version of the Skymax 102 with the AZ Pronto mount and aluminium tubular tripod is ideal. The tripod can be strapped to the outside of a (for instance 40L) rucksack and the rest is easily fitted inside, with plenty of room to spare for the usual hiking gear.


    Unfortunately (for hikers) the tubular tripod has been replaced by a sturdier model and is more commonly the version for sale now:



    Yes that 102 mm Mak and pronto was a combination  i just sold the other week to fund my SkyTee ... the scope is a wonderful instrument that punches above its weight . Agree though about the tripod , shame they changed it really 


  3. 1 minute ago, johninderby said:

    The Bresser 102 is a regular achro and doesn’t have ED glass in it. Is OK for low to mid. magnification but CA is a problem at higher magnification.Good little scope though with a great focuser.

    John i beg to differ as this scope was always marketed as having ED glass although what type was never disclosed . Of course thats when i had one , if the marketting has been corrected then i stand corrected . 

  4. 2 minutes ago, sw89 said:

    the ED glass reduces the CA ?

    its a bit of a minefield in itself ... ED glass has many guises ... the scope certainly isnt "colour free " so its probably FL51 ( although i am honestly not sure ) . But , just as important for your situation , it has a healthy aperture which increases its light gathering abilities . Of course it has a very short focal length . its really lightweight too 


  5. Its the same as the 102ST but in a different livery and no tube rings ... i bought one of these from a well respected member on here and they are nice scopes . Obviously false colour is present on the brighter objects but for widefield stuff they are fairly decent . Be aware of course , and i'm not sure anyone has mentioned this , you wont see any colour from faint fuzzies you may view . All in all a good starter scope on a decent enough starter mount ... you can even buy a motor for it which will track the object in view , allowing you to take a picture or two .


  6. Can I just remind everyone that the op is buying a scope primarily for his daughter . She is 4 ! 

    Let's think about that . Using high magnification may not be the best option here. A 4 year old will want to touch the scope , and that  causes vibrations which in turn causes frustration which in turn wanes interest . So talking about 100x magnification on an st80 is or could be a bit of a disaster in THIS particular case . Far better to have a solid mounted scope that is useable at a reasonable magnification to look at bright objects that the child can actually see with their own eyes without the scope to start with .  


    • Like 4
  7. Firstly , welcome . :) 

    I don't have kids but i can guess that a 4 year old would want to see something bright and big in the eyepiece . I therefore may not recommend the ST80 which is essentially a wide field scope that would show just very small points of light . ( the moon would look ok )

    Therefore why not buy a heritage 130 or 150 dobsonian . These are really popular starter scopes , because they , especially the 150 have great light gathering and will show the likes of Jupiter , saturn and of course our moon in good detail . But most of all , those objects will appear bright . 


    • Like 4
  8. 6 minutes ago, JayJay007 said:

    Basically is it easier to find things with an 8 or 10"

    You will use an optical finder or a Telrad to locate objects . Larger Apperture will enable you to see further into space and to see more objects as you will increase light gathering , but you will also increase any imperfections ie light pollution . If you have dark , clear skies you may be overwhelmed by sheer volume of stars which actually make it difficult to pick out the targets ( not a bad problem to have in my book lol ).

    As for the scopes mentioned to go with the AZ-Gti , both are very capable , the skymax 127 is a very powerful scope that will excel on planets and the moon and brighter DSO's .. for some people , thats all they need especially as both scopes will not show false colour.

    I suggest though that you seek out a YouTube channel from Ed Ting, and Astrobackyard , by Trevor Jones ( hes mainly into photography but did a nice piece on visual astronomy ) .. who both champion the 200mm Dobsonian as being the best starter scope . 

    In the end it comes down to , Price , Location , and viewing preferences . If these didnt matter we would ALL have the biggest and best scopes money can buy . 


  9. 23 hours ago, powerlord said:

    I don''t have many pics from that time with the skymax 102, as I sort of got on to new kit..and it got left on the shelf... but here is IC434 shot with my canon 1200d, mak 102 and az gti mount.

    bear in mind I'd only been imaging for about 1 month and didn't really know what I was doing.

    that's 30 odd 30 second exposures stacked. Which frankly at the time I though was absolutely frecking awesome.


    brilliant pic Stu 

  10. Hi ... i have the Evo 72ED and at this point only use it for visual ... in my opinion ( which will be a bit biased ) the views of stars and planets are tack sharp with very no CA , even on the brightest objects 

    Planets whilst being sharp are obviously small , but i find i can boost magnification to close to maximum on planets and get very good views . Of course this scope excels at widefield ... i actually use mine as a finder for my long F11 frac on the SkyTee mount , and it works a treat . 

    Look , its not a cheap scope and as others have commented , you just get the scope ( and case ) . So you do have to weigh up the costs , but , as in most things in life you do get what you pay for , but , there are bargains to be had ( buying used ) . 

    One thing you can be sure of , if you buy a used scope from people on this site you can almost guarantee that the equipment has been well looked after , and the seller nearly always points out even the slightes defect , ie paint chips 



    • Like 1
  11. Its reading posts like this that actually make me grateful to live where i do , and having a small garden , in bortle 5 with a nasty street light for company . So , next time i feel like moaning about light pollution i will remember this post and the trials of living in a city . 

    I know its not much of a comfort but at least the planets and moon are visible from LP areas . 

    Hope you find a suitable solution . 


    • Like 1
  12. Hi And welcome , I briefly owned a 180 Mak , so i have limited knowledge of it but as John writes the cool down time on both the Mak and the C8 will be considerable against a classical cassegrain as there is no corrector plate on the cc8 . Also i believe the primary mirror is "fixed " on the Classical Cass , so no image shift when adjusting focus , and the collimation holds . 

    Having said that , i do have a soft spot for the Mak 180 ( wish i had never sold mine )  , its a beast of  scope . I don't think you will be diesapointed if you choose it .


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  13. Hi , I honestly don't know the Meade scope but I have owned an st80 .. its a great little scope that you will use for scanning the skies, and viewing the Moon just like you would with a decent pair of binoculars.  

    You might want to consider a 90mm frac ,from SVbony which is nice and compact and is supplied with a dual speed focuser.. its about 80 pounds more than the st80 but when you consider the extra aperture, focuser and the nice aluminium case it comes in is worth considering.  Also it will open up more viewing options.  Planets will appear larger for one 

    Just my opinion of course

    I'm sure you will get many others in here.  


  14. 1 hour ago, Gfamily said:

    When I bought my second scope, I went for the 102mm Mak, on a Synscan mount - and I found it quite a disappointment.  Yes, good for planets and the Moon, but it really struggled with DSOs unless you could get out to really dark skies.

    The aperture didn't give enough light gathering for Galaxies and Nebulae to show up with enough contrast, and the long focal length gave a narrow field of view - which meant that Open Clusters didn't really show their best either.

    You could probably use it to survey double stars, but that's a fairly niche interest. 

    Unfortunately, at the time, the budget didn't really allow us to go for the 127mm Mak, and it's only the last 4 or 5 years that I managed to get one second hand - now that is a much more capable 

    Doubles are niche ????  Not sure I agree . I think  most people look at doubles and indeed they are very much a main part of our interest . 

    As for the 102 mak , well, many people including me will agree with your points but will also champion that scope as a very capable instrument that does what it does very well . At the end of the day, any scope will only perform if the sky and light pollution allows. 

    Did you not know that Maks have a narrow field of view when you bought it?

    What you see as a weakness is also their massive strength. 

    Honestly no malice in my post,  just another opinion :)


    • Like 1
  15. 5 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

    I don’t have the skytee but I do have tripods (BB Uni 28 and Planet) on which I mount either an AZ100 or AZEQ6. In neither case do I use a pillar (which I own). Mainly for additional weight reasons. I see no stability advantage. There might be cases where a pillar would allow great clearance of the OTA, but I’ve not encountered them. 

    I think in my case the clearance issue comes into play,  Jeremy . With the tripod fully extended i can see an issue with the scope maybe hitting the tripod , the extension albeit only 16" is the main reason for , possibly buying it . :)


    • Like 1
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.