Evostar 100ED or Skymax 150?

[DMC]

I had all but made my mind up on purchasing a Skywatcher Evostar 100 ED as a second scope but now i am having second thoughts. I am considering the Skywatcher Skymax 150 instead as it has more aperture and longer focal length which would be useful for planets. It's also slightly cheaper and more compact. My question is, would the Mak vastly outperform the refractor and be the better buy?

[shaunster]

Nothing beats the crisp view through a nice refractor IMO!

[Bizibilder]

For purely visual observong of the Moon and planets then the Skymax. for more general purpose, including photography, the refractor.

[DMC]

Thanks guys. I should state that either scope will be for observing only as i have no intention of getting into imaging.

[Damo636]

+1 for the Refractor.

[andrew63]

The refractor is a more "all round telescope' - the skymax 150 more of a specialist in my view.

andrew

[johninderby]

I'd choose the refractor as well for a general all-round scope, and then there's the cool down time of a 4" refractor vs a 6" Mak to consider. The 100ED will cool down quickly so you can be observing sooner.

John

[whirlpool5194]

Cass for me.....I had one and it was superb!

Wp

[West End Wendy]

I found myself choosing between the same two scopes last year.

Went for the 100ED because of cool-down issues and because I like wide-field views.

It's a beautiful scope and I've never had a moment's regret buying it.

Tim.

Edited because iPhone changed "cool-down" to "collagen". 

[rwilkey]

Hi, the 100ED for visual only in my view, the Mak is more specialist and more exposed ie. more likely to dew up on longer viewing sessions IMO

[dweller25]

I have owned both the scopes you mention and still have the 100ED.

The ED will cool MUCH quicker then the Mak, will not dew up as quickly and will maintain it's collimation.

For the planets it's a great scope but you will see more planetary detail in your 200P

HTH

[Adrian]

I have the C100EDR (same optics as the Skywatcher, focusser isn't as good) and it has been good as a general scope, but I am selling it now as I want a more specialised planetary scope.

As you have a 200p dob I don't quite see where the 100ED fits in - the Dob has more aperture for deep sky and a longer focal length (with better resolution due to aperture) for planetary work... At least the 150 mak would have a longer focal length for more of a specialist planetary focus.

Wait! You want a second hand C100EDR

[rwilkey]

If you are referring to my recent post, I bought the C100ED-R after I suffered a stroke as I can't now manage the 200P on my own unfortunately, however, I agree, the 200P is the best scope for DSO's

[Adrian]

Sorry no, it was to the OP who also has a 200p dob listed. I couldn't really see the point of a 100ED in addition to the dob.

What mount would the scope be going on? You could get a skymax 127 on a goto for much less if you wanted more of a grab & go, and spend the difference on a couple of nice eyepieces.

[spaceboy]

Another vote for the refractor. The refractor will also be easier to mount being only 3KG compared to the 5.6KG of the MAK.

[DMC]

Thanks very much for all the feedback. I think i'm going to end up tossing a coin to decide this one The Mak would be a great addition but the ED100 is a lovely scope also. I will be mounting either on a very used by fully functional EQ5 and intend it to be my grab and go setup. I realise a smaller scope would be sufficient for this purpose but i don't want to end up wishing i had went bigger.

[blackparticle]

Having a Mak 150 I can safely say without a focal reducer it's pants for most DSOs with the possible exceptions of splitting doubles etc. Even bright globulars like M13 are just too dim to reveal any true glory. Even with a focal reducer (I have a basic x0.5) it's still not great due to the small opening at the focuser end which causes fairly bad vignetting.

Lunar views are excellent though and planetary views are also pretty good. (But I imagine your Dob would ultimately win out on both). Having some sort of motorised tracking is fairly essential though with the high focal length at 1800mm.

Weight-wise it's not really a beast. 5kg isn't that heavy tbh. I got mine s/h so it already came with the aluminium case which is probably an essential extra as is a dew-shield. (Though that applies to anything with a front lens if not already built-in)

Don't get me wrong, a very good and well-built scope but very limited on targets when it comes to observing.

If you're after something more versatile I'd have to say go for the ED100 (I see FLO are doing them with a matching x0.85 reducer) and they also come with the aluminium case whereas I think it's still an optional extra for the Mak 150 at around £80.

Whatever you choose though, I wouldn't leave it down to the toss of a coin.

Hope that's of some help to you.

Alan.

[DMC]

Thanks again for all the response's guys. I have came to a decision and its going to be the ED100. I hadn't considered the whole cool down time of the Mak and as i want it to be grab and go its not really ideal. I plan to have the mount permanently set up (covered when not in use with a rather large modified wheelie bin) and just lift the scope out of the garage and ready to go within minutes. I hope to build a better observatory in the coming months to house all my astronomy gear but that may realistically be in the new year. Anyway, i really appreciate all the advise and will post some pics on arrival of new baby!

[Whippy]

As you have a 200p dob I don't quite see where the 100ED fits in - the Dob has more aperture for deep sky and a longer focal length (with better resolution due to aperture) for planetary work... At least the 150 mak would have a longer focal length for more of a specialist planetary focus.

I agree, a well colliimated 8" newt is going to out-perform a 4" refractor and a 6" Mak-Cass visually. I don't really see the need for a refractor unless it's for imaging or a grab & go setup, even then a f9 4" model doesn't really tick either box for that.

Tony..

[blackparticle]

I think the refractor on a GEM would offer some advantages over the dob when it comes to tracking which does score points when viewing the moon and planets at high magnification.

Maybe Dermot should consider a HEQ5 Pro Syntrek and a set of scope rings for the 200P instead?

[DMC]

I think the refractor on a GEM would offer some advantages over the dob when it comes to tracking which does score points when viewing the moon and planets at high magnification

Exactly what i was thinking