Winter's coming and I can't decide, 150 or 200?

[RikM]

The 250 is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 200. At f/4.7 rather than f/6 it needs a lot more attention to collimation and demands better (read more expensive) eyepieces to get the best out of it. Of course the 250's best is a bit better than the 200's, but IMHO it is not such a good 'starter' scope.

[dweller25]

I have owned the 150, 200 and 250.

They are all the same length.

The 150 was just a little bit lacking in resolution and light gathering.

The 250 was just a little bit too heavy.

The 200 was just right.

Sounds like the three bears !!!

I still have the 200.

[umadog]

I'd decide between the 200 or the 250. I'd base my choice more on the focal ratio than the aperture. A couple of inches isn't much but the difference between f/6 and f/4.8 (or is f/4.7?) is significant. The star images will look much nicer at f/6, it's easier on eyepieces, and collimation requirements are less stringent. Don't get me wrong, both my scopes are <f/5 right now, but one needs to be aware of the issues.

[twotter]

200P dob. It's £166 cheaper than the 250PX, which will buy a few extra EPs, red dot finder, cheshire etc...

It will also make you more attractive (this may not be true)

[the lemming]

It will also make you more attractive (this may not be true)

The 250 is out of the running.

I'm new round here and I'll stick with the 200P. Got to run this purchase past she who must be obeyed though.

Thank you everybody for your helpful advice