Basementboy

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

Well, there is scope that is half way between the two. It will provide you with planetary views similar to that Mak 127 and is "short" enough to provide you with wide fields.

 

I actually wouldn't mind – it seems like a great scope – except that it says it's 100cm long?

Which is basically the same as the Evostar 102

Unless that's a misprint?

Yep – this is exactly what I'm starting to realise. There's no perfect all-rounder starter scope.

And until I actually get out there, I'm not going to know WHAT I really want to do!

All I DO know for certain is that it needs to be:

-portable (ideally in a backpack, for visual security while walking through dark London parks at 2am)

-easy to set up and use, with no collimation or fussing about in the dark

-Forgiving enough FOV that I can actually find things while I'm just getting started.

I think that rules out the Evostar 102, because it's just too long; reflectors because of collimation issues; and probably the Mak for now, until I'm more comfortable finding things in the sky.

SO!

I'm thinking to start with a decent widefield scope like a Startravel 80 or 102, to get my bearings in the sky, with an AZ mount – maybe the AZ5, or even a smaller Pronto?

And then soonish buy a second scope – probably a Mak 127, also extremely small – for better views of planets. 

...... and if all of that sounds insane to plan for two scopes before I even have one, well – I blame it all on the advice I'm getting here.

(Just kidding. You guys have been amazing.)

Hi John, do you mind if I ask how you're liking this scope a couple of years since your first post? Still pleased with it? Do you use it for deep sky much?

Thanks! Interesting advert. The ST120 is a nice looking scope. And much more portable than the Evostar 102, which I'm starting to think I don't really want to be lugging around London. (I know it's light but it's very ... prominent.) 

I suppose the question is whether the Startravel 120 is much worse on planets than the Evostar 102? ST120 has the bigger aperture but 102 the longer focal length. Different animals, I suppose?

12 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

As is the Skymax 102 & AZGTI package, which also allows a degree of flexibility for future upgrades and mix/match possibility i.e. want a more stable platform? Add a steel tripod. Fancy a small refractor or picked up a used 130mm reflector one day? Mount it on the AZGTI and the steel tripod you bought. Want to travel, maybe camping? The Skymax AZGTI packages are small and light. 4" aperture will show a massive amount of objects in a rural setting. If you can push the budget, even better - the Skymax 127 AZGTI.

Thanks! This is extremely helpful. I'm leaning away from the Maks for now, just because of the narrower FOV (while I'm learning I want something a little more forgiving) and because I want a roughly equal balance of deep space and planetary. So I think a refractor is my best bet for an all-rounder first scope. But I take your point about future upgrades and the versatility of the AZGTI mount. Cheers

11 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

OP is going to view the sky from a park in South London, if he goes away from the scope for a while, and the 'scope is still there when he comes back, that would be a magical thing by itself !  🙂

Yeah, I wasn't kidding about bringing along a baseball bat. And probably another person

2 minutes ago, Commanderfish said:

I have just sold a 102, I've got a 115 apo and a 127 apo.  The extra aperture of the 120 over the 102 is definitely a good thing.  If you are just doing visual then tracking is not hard at all using an Alt Az.  Setting up and carrying counterweights for an EQ is definitely hard!

Cheers. What would you say to the idea of a 120 with an AZ4 mount, if I'm carrying it to the park to set up every time? Obviously the 120 is larger/bulkier to carry – but the AZ would mean it becomes much more portable than it would be with an EQ... does that sound right?

8 minutes ago, John said:

The Altair version is very well priced for a 4 inch aperture ED doublet refractor.

 

Thanks John, that's very helpful, I see now about the ED doublets – and yeah the Altair is much more reasonable than the equivalent Sky-Watcher. Thanks for flagging 

I suppose I'm less concerned about chromatic aberration than I am about trying to see as much as possible as sharply as possible.

How important is the focuser? I'm not quite sure how much to pay attention to this factor

1 hour ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

If you are really set on a refractor and able to stretch to £700, then an Altair Astro Starwave Ascent 102 and Sky-Watcher AZ4 with steel tripod .

 

Interesting! I hadn't considered any Altairs. Looks like a higher end scope than the Sky-Watcher Evostars? 

Also by no means convinced I need an EQ mount. Heather has convinced me that an AZ might be a lot more fun while learning. (But I don't feel like I need a Goto mount yet – would like to learn the basics of navigation by hand first.)

How do you think the Discovery 150 compares to the Evostar 102?

1 hour ago, KP82 said:

The 150 newt is a good choice for beginner. However I'd recommend getting the OTA on its own and then get a Skytee 2 Alt-az mount for it. Far more stable than AZ4.

I assume the 102 would be more than fine on the Skytee-2? (Though it's a bit expensive for me I think right now)

11 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Time, patience, practise, and (inevitably) throwing money at the problem by buying an optical finder and a Rigel quickfinder to mount on the mak instead of the standard red dot finder has made it easier, but it is a reason why I'm reluctant to unreservedly recommend the 127 mak (focal length 1500mm) as a first 'scope.

 

Yes I'm also very conscious that I'm almost inevitably going to have to throw some money at future problems – so I really would prefer not to break the bank before even getting started. 

Given the narrower FOV of the Maks and the refractor v mirror and the weight issues and the AZ v EQ etc etc etc, I'm leaning towards getting the Evostar 102 with an AZ4 mount.

44 minutes ago, KP82 said:

The Skymax 127 is much more portable than the refractors and can provide nice colour free views of the planets and the Moon. However the fov of a Mak is far narrower than a refractor, so might not be ideal for large DSOs such as M31, M42 and M45. At f/8+ the residuel CA in the Evostar 120 should be minimal. And when comparing refractors that aren't plagued by serious CA to any mirrored designs in the same aperture class, refractors always win in image quality.

The 150 newt is a good choice for beginner. However I'd recommend getting the OTA on its own and then get a Skytee 2 Alt-az mount for it. Far more stable than AZ4.

Thanks @KP82, this is really helpful – I've read it three times

And hey – you just helped me graduate to Nebula 🤩

Oh, 30 minutes isn't so bad. (90 would make it unusable.)

I've messaged the guy about the secondhand one – already on hold but we'll see. Maybe I'll spend some time in the secondhand section.

Really appreciate your help, Heather. And I love the Pullman quote.

7 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Dobsonians are Newtonian telescopes on Dobsonian mounts, but not all newts are dobs 🙂  My heritage dob can be taken off its base and put on the az5 , no problems .

You could investigate something like this  .... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/all-telescopes/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az5-deluxe.html

Heather

Nice – or this? Is it basically the same thing but a step up? https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-az4-mount.html

It was actually the conjunction that made me decide to finally get the damn telescope I've always been dreaming of. Bad luck Stu, sorry to hear

@Tiny Clanger How do find the 127 Maks would compare to a 4/5" refractor like the Evostars? FLO suggested that the Evostar 102 would actually be clearer than the Skywatcher 127 I was looking at (here: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-gti.html)

And  I've heard they need at least an hour to cool down?

And does anyone have thoughts on this combo – Explorer 150 with AZ4 mount? Seems like a reasonable price:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-az4-mount.html

Thanks @Tiny Clanger! Would I have to do all that assembly/disassembly with the Eq3 as well?!?!? Might be a dealbreaker.

And would I need an AZ4/5 for the 102 (not the 120)? Or could I use the "neat little pronto" you mentioned?

Definitely keen on slow-motion controls ...

I was planning to bring my baseball bat with me for Vague Threatening but it never occurred to me that the mount itself could do the trick. This is exactly the kind of deep knowledge for which I joined this forum. 

Thanks @Commanderfish! I guess I'd settled on an EQ mount because I gather it's easier to track objects as they move through the sky ... and while I'm still learning I reckon I want it to be easy to stick with an object once I've found it.

Do you think the 102 is a lot less good for deep space objects than the 120 (though maybe you haven't owned both)?

Hi all, just wanted to wave and introduce myself.

I'm a beginner in Camberwell, south London – still looking for my first scope but I've had some good advice from others on this forum (debating Evostar 102 v 120 here: 

But if anyone has any great suggestions in the £500 range for a very portable, versatile scope (no Dobs) – even secondhand? –  that I can take to the park without too much hassle I'd be all ears.

Otherwise it seems like a great site and I look forward to being around!

All the best

Chris

Oops I've got all your names wrong haven't I

Thanks all!

Rl – Yep I've ruled out the Dobsonians (assume that's what you mean by a 6" Newt) until I inherit my country estate. In the meantime I (er) don't have a car – nearest parks are 5min and 10min walk. I'd obviously prefer not to also have to buy cases (£679 for the 120 EQ5 without any additional eyepieces is already pricey for me).

Protostar – yes that's what I'm starting to wonder. Thanks for the weight link! It seems like the whole setup would be about 16-17kg. Which doesn't seem TOO heavy but then again might be a pain, and I take the point about it being clumsy at night. Plus I need to be able to outrun the local gangs

Red Dwarf – great to know about the colour. Did you find the 120 a lot better than the 102? I am very interested in deep sky but then again I am still just beginning

Court Jester – good to know. The kind of scope that you take into the garden but not much further, then?

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster. 👋

Having spent a lot of time researching my first telescope for a budget of up to £500, I settled on a few key criteria: A) portability is really important, as my backyard (in Camberwell, south London) has a lot of the sky blocked off by surrounding buildings, so I need to go to the park. And good balance between planets and deep sky. C) I was also willing to learn how to use an EQ mount.

So, after a lot of research, I'd finally narrowed it down to the Evostar 120 on an EQ-5 mount. I was just about the click "purchase" at FLO when the price jumped £140! (No fault of FLO, I gather.) 

It has me rethinking things a bit. FLO have been a great help but I wanted to ask this forum for advice. I could JUST about stretch to the new price (£679, erk, before eyepieces or books or anything else.) But is the 120+EQ5 going to be a bit heavy to lug to the park and back regularly? Will it be trickier to use? I gather there is more chromatic aberration than the 102, but I'm red-green colourblind so I figured I could sacrifice a bit of colour perfection in the interests of getting the larger aperture. But I do also want the telescope that I'll actually use most. I'm also concerned that the EQ3 is a little wobbly (even on the 102?) ... 

So my question is – Which scope do you think I'll end up using and enjoying more, as a beginner? 

Very grateful for any help!

Thanks

Chris