What's peoples thoughts.... Evo 120 'VS' Phoenix 127 ?

[spaceboy]

Not taking mounts into consideration what would be the general thoughts on D127 Tech Spec 'VS' First Light Optics - Skywatcher Evostar 120 (EQ3-2)

SPACEBOY

[John]

Personally I'd go for the Evostar although, as mentioned in another thread on here, if you buy new, be prepared for rapid depreciation - achromats are best bought used IMHO.

Why not the Phenix ?:

- over priced (the mount supplied is not up to the job either)

- variable quality control - you might get a good one, then again .....

- Alan's a nice guy but the folk at FLO know far more about astronomy

Just to put these prices in perspective, optical tube assemblies for both these scopes were sold used recently as it happens and both went for less than £100.

[spaceboy]

Thanks John. It's just temptation as I have found my Evo S/H so enjoyable to use. I know it doesn't make sense to buy new but with ever increasing prices I don't want to regret not having given it some consideration.

[RikM]

I would agree with John, and I have a Phenix 127. Optically, the one I have is very nice indeed, but the focusser is sloppy and the supplied mount is quite poor. I use it on my EQ3-2 instead, but it really needs something a bit stronger. SW scopes seem far better build quality in this price range.

[nightfisher]

evo 120, they are a good scope and the 150mm f8 is even better;)

[John]

The Evostar 150m F/8's are good scopes but do show more CA than the 120mm F/8.3's. CA increases with aperture so a 150mm F/8 shows more than a 120mm F/8 of comparable optical quality.

To get a more or less CA-free 120mm it would need to be around F/14 wheras a 150mm would need to be F/18 to achieve the same I believe. That would take some mounting !.

[JKB]

Skywatcher Skymax 127? Light, short and powerful

[RikM]

The Phenix blows my Skymax away for lunar and planetary detail, sharpness, contrast etc. Visually, it really doesn't compare. I don't know if that's just a factor of the EP's that I use working better with the achro vs. Mak, but I have done several side-by-sides and the achro was always the nicer scope to look through.

[spaceboy]

It would be nice to have a EVO 150 refractor but unless one was to come up incredibly cheap I think the increased CA and complications due to the length and weight requiring a sturdy mount makes it impractical when compared (cost wise new) to an 8" reflector which will sit reasonably comfortable (given it's aperture) on an EQ5 and not have you lay on all fours looking at zenith.

I feel in my opinion and others may disagree that there is a good balance been struck with the EVO 120 regards managing CA and giving enough aperture to make it worth while for DSO's. I don't think an EQ5 is the best mount for them but it is acceptably sturdy enough to minimize shake during focusing. (could be over come with auto focuser or crayford??)

JKB I have a 127 MAK and while it is a superb scope the FOV lets it down when compared to the refractors.

[Stardust]

I'd still prefer a TAL100RS, BTW there is a TAL100 on mount for £200 on ebay, catch is it's collection from Scotland.

I've heard the Celestron OMNI120 is well worth a look at.

I do like refractors

[spaceboy]

100R has too many issues for me to consider. The OMNI XLT is basically an Evostar in guise but with a smaller 6x30 finder and bigger price tag.

[Moonshane]

Hi Nick

I am not sure what you are using the frac for but I'd wait if you can until we get together either at the Peak Star party or what have you and when you can try my 6" f11 dob. even though such a slow newt would be hard to find, a good quality f8 6" would also be very good on planets, doubles and lunar.

apart from the rare occasions when the seeing was excellent, and when my 12" overtook the 6", I have never seen planetary/double star/lunar views as good through anything else.

I know I sound like a broken record but you'll see what I mean one day

[spaceboy]

I was blown away by the contrast and sharpness on the moon coupled with the huge field of sky I can get from the frak over my fleks. From what I have read apparently the 150p would offer me the same FOV but due to the Central obstruction I'd loose the contrast. Not to mention the focuser orientation issues with fleks. I like using the frak on those nights when the moon is killing all chances of getting any decent DSO hunting in but I still want to get out under the stars. Large open clusters, double stars and the moon and I'm finally a happy man again on those moonlit nights. All other times I can't beat my 8" fleck for planetary and DSO's.

I am planning on looking through a 16" homemade dob at the peaks Shane so no need to bring that little pea shooter No seriously I look forward to having a look through all your scopes Shane and seeing your EQP in action. How many days were you going for?

[John]

Another advantage of a refractor is more apparent during colder weather and that is the position of your body when observing.

With a newtonian, your body is alongside the scope. Your body heat can and does radiate into the tube causing tube currents which disturb viewing. Even putting your hand on the tube causes tube currents - try it in cold weather with an out of focus star - you can see the currents as soon as you touch the tube.

With a refractor, SCT or Mak-Cassegrain your body is behind the tube - at the back end where the eyepiece is, and therefore, not likely to introduce any warmth to the tube between the primary and the eyepiece.

Just some further "fuel" to the debate

[Moonshane]

I was blown away by the contrast and sharpness on the moon coupled with the huge field of sky I can get from the frak over my fleks. From what I have read apparently the 150p would offer me the same FOV but due to the Central obstruction I'd loose the contrast. Not to mention the focuser orientation issues with fleks. I like using the frak on those nights when the moon is killing all chances of getting any decent DSO hunting in but I still want to get out under the stars. Large open clusters, double stars and the moon and I'm finally a happy man again on those moonlit nights. All other times I can't beat my 8" fleck for planetary and DSO's.

I am planning on looking through a 16" homemade dob at the peaks Shane so no need to bring that little pea shooter No seriously I look forward to having a look through all your scopes Shane and seeing your EQP in action. How many days were you going for?

oooh the pressure! almost got my parts all together now (delayed a little as someone had the gall to sell a Paracorr at a decent price! - curse you Antony! ) and just need to buy the timber. it will be ready though.

I'd like to bring the 6" too if I can as this will allow people to see what I have been harping on about (hopefully) and also I'd like to do a proper head to head against a good quality 100mm or 120mm ED scope and maybe Maks too.

in principle I am going for the whole period especially as I only live down the road.

I'd like to see your EQP too. I suspect it will be more accurate than mine but I am happy with mine for now. No doubt I'll be reworking it again in the future.

[Moonshane]

Another advantage of a refractor is more apparent during colder weather and that is the position of your body when observing.

With a newtonian, your body is alongside the scope. Your body heat can and does radiate into the tube causing tube currents which disturb viewing. Even putting your hand on the tube causes tube currents - try it in cold weather with an out of focus star - you can see the currents as soon as you touch the tube.

With a refractor, SCT or Mak-Cassegrain your body is behind the tube - at the back end where the eyepiece is, and therefore, not likely to introduce any warmth to the tube between the primary and the eyepiece.

Just some further "fuel" to the debate

excellent points John. I have never really considered heating plumes etc. I suppose a dob knob helps a bit with this.

I might start wearing a tin foil suit to prevent such problems

[John]

excellent points John. I have never really considered heating plumes etc. I suppose a dob knob helps a bit with this.

I might start wearing a tin foil suit to prevent such problems

When I first raised this issue on the forum, the suggestion was to get some better insulated clothing - to keep more of the body heat next to the body where it should be. Sensible advice of course, for health reasons as well

Of course with a truss tube design (scope not clothing !) there is nothing to stop body heat getting into the light path. Another good reason to use a light shroud.

This is getting away from the original topic though - sorry folks

[Moonshane]

sorry, quite right John

back on track, assuming they are of similar quality optically, which they seem to be from general comments, I'd actually go for the SW model too. given that we all chop and change our kit regularly, resale values are always important to me and 'brand names' whilst not guaranteeing any better quality, generally sell more readily and more often than not at a slightly higher price.

[John]

100R has too many issues for me to consider. The OMNI XLT is basically an Evostar in guise but with a smaller 6x30 finder and bigger price tag.

Back on topic for me as well, I thought I'd read somewhere that there were some subtle improvements to the optics of the Celestron Omni XLT 120mm

The "blurb" states aspheric shaping, hand figured optics and Starbright XLT coatings. I may be being naive but if that's publicly claimed by Celestron and their dealers then I assume that it must be fact and not just hype.

Of course it's possible that the Skywatcher version has similar attributes

I wonder if you would notice any difference of you had an Evostar and Omni 120mm F/8.3's back to back

[Moonshane]

I had an OMNI 120 f8.3 and it was really good. I just felt it did not in any shape or form compare with the other scopes I had. It was great on star points and wide field views of clusters (could just get the Beehive and Pleiades in the field from memory) but suffered when I observed anything that needed aperture.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

One thing that raises some alarm bells in the Phoenix 127 description is the claim of a limiting magnitude of 14.4. As my C8 only reaches 14, this is ridiculous. It could be a simple typo, but such errors do not suggest attention to detail. Otherwise I can only add that my old 6" F8 Newtonian ran rings around any achromat of 4" in terms of sharpness and contrast on planets. Did not compare it to a 5", but in the 4" I did see CA, so the 5" would be worse, if anything.

[spaceboy]

Back on topic for me as well, I thought I'd read somewhere that there were some subtle improvements to the optics of the Celestron Omni XLT 120mm

The "blurb" states aspheric shaping, hand figured optics and Starbright XLT coatings. I may be being naive but if that's publicly claimed by Celestron and their dealers then I assume that it must be fact and not just hype.

Of course it's possible that the Skywatcher version has similar attributes

I won't claim to know what I am talking about but my "belief" is that it similar to copy right laws preventing you from selling identical/similar products products in the same manner. For one company to make a distinction from another company in the market place it may use legitimate selling jargon to over sell it's competitor despite both items in general being identical products. Once the claims are made another company would infringe selling/copy right regulations in doing the same with their product despite the fact it is identical. As far as I am aware Celestron, Orion, SW and WO are all franchisers of Synta products. I'm not saying that everything they sell are Synta just that to compete in the budget market they all sell the mass produced Chinese instruments amogst their catalogs and that certain products in their range only differ in label and sales pitch.

This is just my perspective on the subject and I would be happy to be proved wrong buy the suppliers.......... The "blurb" states aspheric shaping, (I would imagine all lens are aspherically shaped) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspheric_lens hand figured optics ( the one I love most... hand made! I would much prefer something machine made as it would be more accurate but hand made is suggested in so many things to be time spent perfection. In truth most items sold will have a degree of hands on as machines haven't replaced us yet!)) and Starbright XLT coatings. (One might have gotten sick of calling their multi coatings, multi coating and thought they would distinguish themselves from the crowed. Just a fancier word for multi coatings. Turbo seems to be another favorite buzz word. IE how can a razor be turbo ??? Do these people even know what a turbo is Turbocharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) I may be being naive but if that's publicly claimed by Celestron and their dealers then I assume that it must be fact and not just hype. I'm sure all claims are legitimate in their own right but us as the consumer may be sucked into the jargon taking it on face value and adding our own expectations into the mix with out really being able to question the claims.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I won't claim to know what I am talking about but my "belief" is that it similar to copy right laws preventing you from selling identical/similar products products in the same manner. For one company to make a distinction from another company in the market place it may use legitimate selling jargon to over sell it's competitor despite both items in general being identical products. Once the claims are made another company would infringe selling/copy right regulations in doing the same with their product despite the fact it is identical. As far as I am aware Celestron, Orion, SW and WO are all franchisers of Synta products. I'm not saying that everything they sell are Synta just that to compete in the budget market they all sell the mass produced Chinese instruments amogst their catalogs and that certain products in their range only differ in label and sales pitch.

This is just my perspective on the subject and I would be happy to be proved wrong buy the suppliers.......... The "blurb" states aspheric shaping, (I would imagine all lens are aspherically shaped) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspheric_lens hand figured optics ( the one I love most... hand made! I would much prefer something machine made as it would be more accurate but hand made is suggested in so many things to be time spent perfection. In truth most items sold will have a degree of hands on as machines haven't replaced us yet!)) and Starbright XLT coatings. (One might have gotten sick of calling their multi coatings, multi coating and thought they would distinguish themselves from the crowed. Just a fancier word for multi coatings. Turbo seems to be another favorite buzz word. IE how can a razor be turbo ??? Do these people even know what a turbo is Turbocharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) I may be being naive but if that's publicly claimed by Celestron and their dealers then I assume that it must be fact and not just hype. I'm sure all claims are legitimate in their own right but us as the consumer may be sucked into the jargon taking it on face value and adding our own expectations into the mix with out really being able to question the claims.

What you say is largely true, but there can be differences in finish between apparently identical versions from different brands, and if your run is sufficiently large, you may make modifications, and/or have different demands in terms of quality control.

[spaceboy]

What you say is largely true, but there can be differences in finish between apparently identical versions from different brands, and if your run is sufficiently large, you may make modifications, and/or have different demands in terms of quality control.

More often than not this will only be cosmetic. OTA colour label etc. Companies are in it to make money. If a sales pitch can do this alone why ruin a good thing. On a car forecourt sale person's all sell the same cars but a good sale men will earn large sums for their pitch while others struggle make their quoter's.

[F15Rules]

It seems to me that the OP is, in his heart of hearts, a refractor fan, and really wants to "sell" the refractor solution to himself..(nothing wrong with that, I too am refractor biased).

A lot has been said about the merits and demerits of the various sized apertures and mounts. However, little if anything has been said about tripods. Although the newer mounts such as EQ5 have much better tripods than in the past (remember the awful "flexipods" where the tripod under any weight could turn around with almost 180 degree flexure??:eek:), there are still significant differences which IMHO really affect the stability of a scope. And the more stable a scope is, the more you will see, fact. An experienced and expert observer (not me I hasten to add;)) will tell you that they spend long periods just looking at one object, to tease out every last detail. And they can only do that if the object is very steady.

The new EQ5 steel tripod is fairly good, but is still only 1.5" diameter. Anyone who has used a CG-5 recently knows that the 2" legs it comes with make the mount very noticeably more stable.

But the CG-5 legs aren't perfect either, and a heavy duty wooden tripod (preferably fixed height and thus more solid from top to botton) will be noticeably more stable again. Short of a fixed pier type mounting, I believe a heavy duty wooden tripod is hard to beat.

I bought my CG-5 new, a couple of years ago, complete with 2" pipe legs. It performed well. But then I got the chance to buy a homemade, solid timber, heavy duty tripod, and the difference in steadiness is amazing.

I currently have my Evostar 6" F8 on my CG-5. The issues I have are more to do with the fixing of the tube onto the mount, rather than the mount itself...The single handscrew plus the smaller safety screw is not really up to the weight and size of the Evo...an upgraded puck such as on the HEQ5/6 plus a heavier duty dovetail bar would make a big difference to the rigidity.

Shorter scopes such as Maks and some Newts will be fine on standard EQ5 type legs..but anything bigger than a 4" refractor, even at F8, will really test your tripod.

HTH:)

Dave