Best all rounder for a budget of £1100?

[merlinxlm]

Hello everyone, what would be the best all round scope for a budget of between £1100 and £1200 tops. It would be used for viewing and some imaging. I already have a EQ6 Pro pier mounted, SW ST80 guide scope and a QHY5 cam. I know its a lot to ask out of one scope, but I wouldn't mind using a focal reducer. I'd preferably want it to do DSO's, planetary and lunar viewing and imaging. Is it worth me buying a C9.25 or waiting for the new SW 120 150ed scopes? Would my budget be enough to buy one of the newer scopes, or would it be best to buy one of the C9.25's? This scope would have to last me a few year's so I don't want to rush in and buy the wrong one.

Thank you.

[E621Keith]

The current SW 120ED cost £1100 and Equinox cost £1400. I can't imagine the 150ED will cost less.

[merlinxlm]

That's fair enough, I hadn't thought of that. Any other ideas as to which scope?

Thank you.

[pbyrne]

The 9.25 would be an excellent all round scope, great views of the moon and planets, very good at pulling in the DSOs and with the assistance of a focal reducer imaging is within your reach.

THe thing about the SCT is that it is compact, a long tubed refractor can lead to some very unusual observing angles. The SW80 will sit nicely on top, and look good.

There is also the question of aperture size, a 9.25" scope will always outperform a 4.7" instrument, or a 6" scope.

For me it would be the 9.25" all the way.

Just my opinion.

[ollypenrice]

The MN190 is the beast that would attract me. Far better optics than standard SCTs when it comes to imaging. Very fast, very wide flat field and enough aperture for visual and planetary imaging use as well. Also the (very reasonable) price is what you pay, whereas with an SCT you need flattener/reducer and aftermarket Crayford for imaging. Images from this scope are astoundingly good.

Olly

[merlinxlm]

How would the MN190 be for viewing, compared to the C9.25?

Than you.

[Ad Astra]

The 9.25 offers great flexibility that a refractor does not - you did say you wanted an "all rounder", yes? With a focal reducer and a HyperStar accessory, you can shoot photographically at f/10, f/6.3 (rear cell focal reducer) or f/1.8 with HyperStar (see Welcome to Starizona.com for more info). The 9.25 will also outperform refractors in the 100-120mm class every time on DSO's, and except for premium Apo scopes, the planetary views will be very comparable. Add the famous portability of the SCT and I think you have a winner.

This scope will do more things well, in a very compact package, than almost any other design. If I had to push the budget, I'd seriously consider the "Edge HD" version with the better optics and internal coma corrector. Really nice!

Dan

[merlinxlm]

I don't think that I'd be able to stretch to the newer edge scope. How do these C9.25 compare to a normal scope for observing when a focal reducer is used?

Thank you.

[ollypenrice]

No point in using a focal reducer in an SCT, visually. There was a thread on this one a while back. Many 2 inch EPs will take you to the FOV limit of the 9.25 without reducer.

Good visual scope but it will never appeal to the DS imager in me other than with Hyperstar. The Edge, yes.

Olly

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/

[AndyUK]

I would agree with Olly - As an all rounder, MN190's are very good for visual use and superb for imaging, and for the price, they actually punch well above their weight. I read a review somewhere where the reviewer referred to it as having similar characteristics to a 190mm triplet, but I certainly couldn't confirm that (never having looked through anything of that size!).

(Oh by the way, I'm very biased - I have an MN190... )

[ollypenrice]

I'm very keen to see an MN190 down here for a shootout against the TEC140 in imaging. The Mn has almost twice the speed and a flatter field but the TEC is easy and always on form.

In visual, theory would put the 9.25 ahead of the MN but it will not match the 190 for DS imaging.

On an EQ6 the 190 will be approaching the imaging mechanical limit while a C9.25 will be approaching the limit of easy guiding (with reducer). I very much doubt that the 9.25 at f10 would guide reliably on an an EQ6.

Olly

[AndyUK]

I'm very keen to see an MN190 down here for a shootout against the TEC140 in imaging

I'm working on it Olly ! I've shown my wife where you are, and she likes the idea, but I now have to convince her that Autumn would really be the better time... . We'd also need to leave our daughter behind - The MN190 would require all the backseat, so there'd be no room for her...

[JamesF]

On an EQ6 the 190 will be approaching the imaging mechanical limit while a C9.25 will be approaching the limit of easy guiding (with reducer). I very much doubt that the 9.25 at f10 would guide reliably on an an EQ6.

Olly

Why do you think that (of the C9.25), Olly? The narrow FOV?

James

[ollypenrice]

Why do you think that (of the C9.25), Olly? The narrow FOV?

James

In a sense, yes. Really you need to think of focal length when considering tracking precision and seeing quality. At a short focal length the mount can deviate a little from accurate but this will not be discernible in the picture. The same deviation at a long FL would produce very obvious blurring or trailing and the extra resolution of the long FL would be smeared away. SImilarly, to exploit a long FL you need good seeing or atmospheric blurring will, again, overwhelm the benefit of the longer FL.

Think of 8x binoculars and `15x. You can hand hold the 8s steadily but not the 15s. Same reason.

My assessment of the useful FL max of an EQ6 is from my experience and I have learned that I am on the pessimistic side in forum conversation. But a focal length of 9.25 inches at f10 is well over 2 metres and I would be looking at Takahashi, Astro Physics, Losmandy Titan and a few others to guide reliably at that. To beat the seeing an active optics device makes a big difference because it can correct around 8 times per second, way faster than an autoguider can nudge the mount.

DOn't forget that at f10 you will need exposures 4 times as long as at f5 so your guiding not only has to be very good but very good for a very long time! Double whammy.

Olly

[merlinxlm]

OK, I've had a look around. How would a Skywatcher Evostar 120ED DS-Pro + focal reducer do? Would this be a good scope for planetary/moon, plus DSO objects? Could I use this scope for imaging and viewing all of the above objects? As the summer time nights are creeping in, I'm not in a rush to buy a new scope. But I want to make sure that I buy the correct one, sorry for asking so much questions.

Thank you.

[fatwoul]

I would agree with Olly - As an all rounder, MN190's are very good for visual use and superb for imaging, and for the price, they actually punch well above their weight. I read a review somewhere where the reviewer referred to it as having similar characteristics to a 190mm triplet, but I certainly couldn't confirm that (never having looked through anything of that size!).

(Oh by the way, I'm very biased - I have an MN190... )

x2 all of what Andy said. I am so happy with my MN190. I'm only a newbie, but it's met (and in most instances) exceeded my expectations in every situation I have put it through.

[swag72]

I have a SW 120 ED-Pro and the moon looks great - I don't think it's a particularly good scope for planets though. I have seen Saturn and Jupiter but they were very small, and difficult to see good detail. I was using a 17mm and 8mm Baader Hyperion eye piece if that helps.

[Revs]

I've been looking for a decent newt for imaging and after much reading, the 8" TS F/4 newt seems like a great all-rounder, even for planets, Lunar and visual. 1/12 wave optics seem to do a great job and at about £550 with an MPCC it's rather cheap.

The only thing stopping me getting one is I'm waiting for info on the upcoming SW Quattro newt, which has a CF tube.

Just thought I'd throw that in the mix

[fatwoul]

I have a SW 120 ED-Pro and the moon looks great - I don't think it's a particularly good scope for planets though...

Actually, if the MN has a weakness it's planets. I've enjoyed the views I've had of Saturn and Jupiter, but my demands aren't high in that arena, and I'm not looking for large planets looming in the eyepiece. It's possible that solar system fans might be disappointed with that Mak-Newt.

[fatwoul]

I've been looking for a decent newt for imaging and after much reading, the 8" TS F/4 newt seems like a great all-rounder, even for planets, Lunar and visual. 1/12 wave optics seem to do a great job and at about £550 with an MPCC it's rather cheap...

They do look really nice. I suspect f/4 would be a swine to collimate for a beginner (ie me).

[ollypenrice]

Whoa, I think people are describing the seeing and not the instruments here. A few observations on poor nights (eg transparent but turbulent) must not be used to assess optics.

I can't see why the MN190 would not be good on the planets. I haven't looked through one. But it has sharp optics and aperture and can easily get to the useful visual 200-250x magnification limit.

Would the SW ED120 do DS, imaging and visual, and planets? Certainly it would. I don't know what Fatwoul found disapointing about the 120 on the planets but from what I have read from experienced observers it is excellent. Ian Morrison certainly gave it the thumbs up and put it ahead of the Meade 127 which I do know well. I had great views of Mars in one of those, the polar ice caps, the surface details and colour... unforgettable. I think it might be the seeing, again, that was disappointing.

I have, in effect, an ED120 on steroids, a TEC140 apo. It is absolutely glorious but, for imaging, quite slow (F7) and I am honest enough to say that it might be out performed by an MN190. The MN would not be as delightfully 'plug and play' as the TEC (or ED120) so that is another consideration.

For my money, the MN190 is more 'difficult' than the ED120, being bigger and needing collimation, but when sorted will out gun the ED120 on a good night. That means there will be no shortage of occasions when the ED120 will out gun the MN190...

As for very fast optics and a very low price, I smell a free lunch and the doubts pour in. Where are the images?

Such is life.

Olly

[Revs]

Olly, I'm sure I read somewhere that you've had a go at imaging with these F/4 newts. If so, what did you think?

EDIT: As for images, I don't wish to clutter the thread, but..

http://www.astrophoto.homecall.co.uk/deepsky.html

[fatwoul]

...I can't see why the MN190 would not be good on the planets. I haven't looked through one. But it has sharp optics and aperture and can easily get to the useful visual 200-250x magnification limit...

I didn't say it would be disappointing, just that it might be. I've only viewed Jupiter and Saturn with a Barlow'd 28mm, so I can't vouch for the scopes ability to deliver on planets. I can, however, confirm that I adore the views of the moon that it offers, once I've masked it down a little.

...Would the SW ED120 do DS, imaging and visual, and planets? Certainly it would. I don't know what Fatwoul found disapointing about the 120 on the planets but from what I have read from experienced observers it is excellent...

I think you misunderstood my comment, Olly, but that is my fault as it was unclear. I quoted someone mentioning the ED120 for planets, because it prompted me to talk about my experience with the MN190 for planets, planets being the target I hadn't really given consideration when giving my previous comments in this thread. It was merely an addendum to my previous remarks about my own scope.

I've never owned or even used an ED120, but I do have the ED80, and like it very much. It is completely wasted as my guidescope, but is filling that duty for the timebeing because of its FL being suitable for the SynGuider.

The most interesting views of planets I've had were through my dad's old Vixen, which I think is about 910mm/11.

[swag72]

It was I that said about planets and the 120ED - Perhaps a barlow would help, but as it was I found the viewing rather small and somewhat underwhelming. Of course, having never looked in another scope, I can't say how this compares with any other scope.

[nightvision]

I am in a similar position so this is interesting.

I agree with Olly conditions can make objective appraisal of scopes very diffcult.