Scope to complement Mak127

[Bobcat]

Hi

I have a Skywatcher Mak 127 scope which has been fantastic for viewing planets and lunar. Had a great time observing Mars a while back and Jupiter recently and got into hunting double-stars.

Now it's not the best scope for viewing DSOs (aperture of F11.81) but it does its bit.

I'm looking to get a scope to complement the Mak. Unfortunately I don't have the storage space for a Dob (200P would be perfect), so am looking for smaller options.

Probably something like an Explorer 150P (aperture of F5) or startravel 150??

Mainly will be used for DSO viewing, so what are your views and suggestions? Eventually I'd like to end up into imaging (mmmm Evostar 80ED) so will be bearing this in mind with the selection.

Thanks

[onesmallstep]

How about getting a reducer to tame the Mak's focal length? Alternatively a 150mm f5 Newtonian such as the Orion Optics VX6 with an EQ mount or the Vixen Porta mount setup?

[GazOC]

Visually a f5 refractor would do the trick. Wide FOV and no cooldown which are 2 of the main issues with a Mak but they probably wouldn't be suitable when you wanted to start imaging.

I think the original suggestion of an EDD80 is a very good one that ticks all the boxes except being a little limited by aperture for viewing DSOs.

[jkwhinfrey]

I've seen some really nice images on the forum taken with a 127 Mak, like these

http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-planetary/157894-few-jupiter-images-lastnight-skymax-127-mak.html

DSOs are giving me a taste for something better, and bigger, than my 130 refractor, but I don't think there's any substitute for aperture: more light allows better resolution.

The only other way to resolve detail is using imaging (long exposure or stacked) and in this case all I've read says that a really solid mount is key, probably more than the scope.

[Bobcat]

Cool.. thanks for the suggestions guys.

I'll check out the Orion Optics VX6 scope.

Main issue with the Mak is the FOV and aperture (getting aperture fever !! ). What about a f5 reflector like the Skywatcher Explorer 150P (750mm f5)? Heard they're quite good for viewing as well.

Think I'll get some more practice on imaging Jupiter with the current conditions being favourable especially after seeing the images in that link...

[Macavity]

If you are looking to eventual imaging, and want "aperture", an 8" / F4 Quattro would be the same length as a 6" / F5. <G> A challenging option - Expensive too, if you get the Carbon Fibre version. Not strictly a visual scope, but has other (e.g. video) possibilities. But the size / weight etc. of my TS/GSO Newt has converted me from a "never in a million years" perspective re. larger mirrors.

[gthomas]

I started with a Mak127 but quickly moved to the Explorer 150P for both visual and imaging which has done well for the past year. Now upgrading to a Quattro 8" F4 mainly for the doubling in light gathering but it will also sit on my EQ5 ok.

What mount have you got the Mak on? Mine is on an AZ goto which is no good for imaging and far too small for the 150P.

[Ags]

I added an ST80 for widefield views to complement my mak. Personally, I think the ST80 is rubbish. Optically it is a million miles from what you see through a mak. The larger STs would be even worse. But many people recommend them... it depends too much on the observer's preferences. I'm also considering a VX6 scope now - seems a nice balance between adequate aperture, widefield viewing, and even a bit of imaging...

[nightfisher]

I added an ST80 for widefield views to complement my mak. Personally, I think the ST80 is rubbish. Optically it is a million miles from what you see through a mak. The larger STs would be even worse. But many people recommend them... it depends too much on the observer's preferences. I'm also considering a VX6 scope now - seems a nice balance between adequate aperture, widefield viewing, and even a bit of imaging...

I have the larger ST, mines the 150 f5, and i have to say its a pretty darn good scope, but needs a decent mount, at least an EQ5

[Ags]

For many people the STs seem to be great scopes. My point is that it depends on the observer. I think as I've been using a mak I have certain expectations about the optics that STs cannot meet.

[damnut]

I have the st120 as a grab & go, its a great scope to compliment my main 10"lx and 127mm F9.5. If there is a gap in the sky the st on az4 is hard to beat, also it goes in the roof box or boot, shrugs off sand and dog slobber, I just would not put an expensive apo scope through that and it would be me that loses out on all that observation time!!.

And an st150 would be better ;-)...

[Ags]

I added an ST80 for widefield views to complement my mak. Personally, I think the ST80 is rubbish. Optically it is a million miles from what you see through a mak. The larger STs would be even worse. But many people recommend them... it depends too much on the observer's preferences. I'm also considering a VX6 scope now - seems a nice balance between adequate aperture, widefield viewing, and even a bit of imaging...

Munch munch munch... I am eating my words :-)

I tried out my speer-waler in my ST80 tonight. This is an EP that is much better corrected at F5 than a hyperion. The difference in view was quite clear - stars were sharp(ish) across the whole field of view in the speer-waler. The view was quite pleasing.

[catburglar]

I tried an ST120 a while back, and wasn't impressed. I was comparing it to a ZS80, and never felt I could see much more with the 120. The trouble is that at at low power and f5 the exit pupil is quite large with corresponding high background sky brightness leading to reduced contrast. At higher magnifications, the image wasn't particularly sharp or satisfying.

If it were my money I'd go for an ED80 or similar with an OIII or UHC filter if you want to see the fainter fuzzies

[Ags]

I agree the image was not particularly sharp, but it was a lot better with the speer-waler @ 10mm than the hyperion @ 24mm, which just makes sense really.