First scope advice

[BoothUK]

Hello everyone

I've been looking at the different options for telescopes and reading threads on here for some time but am looking for some advice for my specific situation.

I'm looking at buying my first scope and don't have much astronomy experience but feel that looking at the planets and moon will be the most interesting initial objects, but am also hoping for a scope that will be flexible enough to show some other objects as well.

As quite a "gadgety" family and with a fairly limited amount of spare time I feel that a GOTO scope would be a good first introduction and starting point for our/my learning.

Am I correct in thinking that a quite large focal ratio will be best for viewing the planets? Would a scope such as a Skywatcher Skymax 127 SynScan AZ GOTO be a good first purchase? What would views of DSOs be like through such a scope?

Or would a reflector such as the Skywatcher Explorer 130P SynScan AZ GOTO be a better all-round performer, offering good views of the planets, moon and DSOs?

Living in a reasonable sized town, I think we may have to transport any telescope some distance in order to get the best from it so am looking for something that will not be too large to transport and store.

Also as my parents are interested in using the scope, and are of an age when their eyesight is perhaps not what it once was , I'm hoping to get images that are as large and clear as possible, if that's relevant.

Thanks in advance for any input!

[nicnac]

the 130P would be the better "all-rounder" in my view, nice and fast, wide field views for some of the brighter DSOs and when you get in the mood for planets, a nice barlow

[BoothUK]

Thanks for your advice nicnac.

I think I quite like the compact nature of the Skymax 127 Mak - is a scope like that considered quite "specialised" as something that's mostly only appropriate for planetary views?

I would definately hope for something that would be flexible. Does the barlow manage to almost make up for the smaller focal radio when viewing planets on the Explorer 130p newtonian?

Thanks again.

[Capricorn]

Why people say a long focal ratio is better for planets it is simply because you can magnify planets more then DSO's. They are in effect brighter. If you try something like Uranus or Nepture then you are back in the dim object area.

A long focal ratio/focal length just makes it easy to get higher magnifications.

The problem of a Mak (the 127) is that they have a narrow field of view and on a goto this is relevant expecially when you first set up the scope. Unless the scope is pointed almost exactly at the alignment stars then there is nothing in the field of view to perform the alignment on.

If you had 50x mag on the 127 then the view is 1 degree, this means that you have to point the scope accurately at a specific brick in a wall 40 ft away without any help to start the alignment off. This where a goto Mak has it's problems. You will have a finder scope and therefore you will need to align finder to main scope.

Do not think that the scope does it all for you, it doesn't. You supply the data and you do the alignment, when the scope moves to where it thinks the next star is it is simply checking the data and set up that you have done.

The 130P is fine but you would I suspect use the 127 more. Additionally the 130 will require you to keep it in collimation. Which although not impossible would require doing at regular intervals. Eyepieces may also be a concern on the 130. It being an f/5 scope the standard budget plossl's may be inadaquate, especially at the shorter focal lengths. You would need the shorter focal lengths to get the magnification.

It being almost Jan I suggest that you locate a local(ish) astro club, or two, and see if they have anything planned for Stargazing Live. Many clubs are. Get along and have a look at scopes being used.

A goto needs power, batteries are of little use.

A Mak (127) is OK for DSO's, just keep the magnification down in the 80-100x area. More magnification = dimmer image, and DSO's start out dim, so magnifing a dim object too much means a very dim image. The 127 will perform tha same as the 130 on DSO's for the same magnification. Same light gathering ability and same size image means same image brightness.

[gdheib0430]

The barlow will help out a lot...I have a 76mm reflector with a f9.2 so I don't believe the f ratio matters much. The thing with planetary objects is with a barlow you are doubling your magnification so you can see more detail...planetary objects are quite small in comparison to DSOs but are very bright so you don't need much aperture to view them, just more magnification. I can pick out the two main red bands in Jupiter in my scope with a 10mm EP but with a barlow you will be able to see the GSR and a little bit more detail.

The reason for the 130p is it has much more aperture so you will get a lot more light gathered into your eye so DSOs will be more visible. If you live in a light polluted area I would also recommend either getting a OIII filter or a LPR filter for your scope...it will be usable if you upgrade and it helps bring out DSOs a lot more as well.

Please someone correct me if the f ratio matters...I am pretty sure though f ratio and focal length are more for photography though.

KK nevermind lol capricorn answered my post and corrected anything I said wrong

[nightfisher]

Why people say a long focal ratio is better for planets it is simply because you can magnify planets more then DSO's. They are in effect brighter. If you try something like Uranus or Nepture then you are back in the dim object area.

A long focal ratio/focal length just makes it easy to get higher magnifications.

The problem of a Mak (the 127) is that they have a narrow field of view and on a goto this is relevant expecially when you first set up the scope. Unless the scope is pointed almost exactly at the alignment stars then there is nothing in the field of view to perform the alignment on.

If you had 50x mag on the 127 then the view is 1 degree, this means that you have to point the scope accurately at a specific brick in a wall 40 ft away without any help to start the alignment off. This where a goto Mak has it's problems. You will have a finder scope and therefore you will need to align finder to main scope.

Do not think that the scope does it all for you, it doesn't. You supply the data and you do the alignment, when the scope moves to where it thinks the next star is it is simply checking the data and set up that you have done.

The 130P is fine but you would I suspect use the 127 more. Additionally the 130 will require you to keep it in collimation. Which although not impossible would require doing at regular intervals. Eyepieces may also be a concern on the 130. It being an f/5 scope the standard budget plossl's may be inadaquate, especially at the shorter focal lengths. You would need the shorter focal lengths to get the magnification.

It being almost Jan I suggest that you locate a local(ish) astro club, or two, and see if they have anything planned for Stargazing Live. Many clubs are. Get along and have a look at scopes being used.

A goto needs power, batteries are of little use.

A Mak (127) is OK for DSO's, just keep the magnification down in the 80-100x area. More magnification = dimmer image, and DSO's start out dim, so magnifing a dim object too much means a very dim image. The 127 will perform tha same as the 130 on DSO's for the same magnification. Same light gathering ability and same size image means same image brightness.

An excellent reply, very informative.

I would suggest the mak 127, these scopes really punch above there weight, if you got one i would suggest getting a 32mm plossl eyepiece for dso work, this will give les magnification but wider brighter views of dso`s

[BoothUK]

Just wanted to thank everyone for their very useful replies.

Having spoken to Martin at FLO I think I'm leaning towards the 127 Mak, but probably the Celestron version of it, the Nexstar 127 SLT as I think that Celestron's SkyAlign process may be a little more forgving for people like myself who don't have huge knowledge of the night sky!

Just have to hope that FLO can get the scope in stock sometime soon as I think Christmas has wiped them out of a lot of these options!

[todd8137]

the 127 mak may disappoint you my mate got one for xmass i hope he does not like it so i can have it of him go for the 130p goto is not every thing and it never works that well either you must no a few stars out there to get the align (thats when it works )

[M4lcs67]

As you can see I have the Celestron version and I am very happy with it. I am a newbie and have only been doing this for a few months. The Celestron and Skywatcher versions are virtually identical and are make side by side in the same factory. Optically they are identical. I am told that there are just slight differences in the accesories and asthetics, but cannot confirm this 100%.

Even after several months of fruitless trying I still cannot get a 3 star alignment, so I usually get it with a 2 star one. If you go down this route I would suggest that you get a powertank to drive the scope otherwise you will be spending a fortune on batteries. I am sure FLO are out of stock after the Christmas rush. Also with the approaching Stargazing Live on the BBC, the telescope shops will all be running low on stocks.

[hemihaggis]

hi there i have had both scopes you mentioned , my first real scope was a 127 mak goto , anyone who ever looked through the scoipe could not belive how good the images were ,even on dso`s , like the above posts state ,it punches well above its weight . i could not recommend it enough , .

i have also had a 130 , i bought it off a friend second hand , i think i used it once and sold it ... its not that it was a bad scope ,just it could not compete with the mak ..

[dave750t]

I have got a Skywatcher 130p AZ GOTO (a first telescope, bought a couple of months ago)

I'm very impressed with it (apart from the poor instruction manual).

Once you get the hang of it, aligning the telescope for GOTO is very straightforward (I use 2 star alignment).As long as the tripod is level and you have entered the time and location correctly it seems to be pretty accurate. I can usually do an alignment in a couple of minutes or so.

[lw24]

I'd go for the 127 Mak, as I've heard that they are very good for their size.

Lunar, planetary and solar (with an appropriate filter!) wise, the Skymax 127 will be great.

Clear Skies,

Luke

[DoctorD]

Hi

I have the 102 MAK and the 130p and use them both on the Synscan AZ GOTO mount.

The mount is more stable with the MAK due to its shorter length and I think this would still apply to the 127 version.

I like both scopes and use the 130p for wider field of views of DSOs but the MAK is a great performer especially with a 32mm plossl to tame the long focal length on DSOs and is great on planets.

Only down side of the MAK is long cool down times compared to the newt.

Hope this helps

Paul

[BoothUK]

Thanks again to everyone who weighed in on this one! It's so useful to hear from people who already own the different options.

As the planets are my main target for the moment (and many DSOs will be within its reach) and hopefully the SkyAlign process makes things a little easier I've decided to go for the Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT.

Order is placed and FLO tells me that the Skywatcher version is in stock now or very shortly, and the Celestron will be along later in the month. Hopefully I won't have too long to wait!

[M4lcs67]

A wise choice. It is regularly one of the best selling starter scopes on SGL. Just a shame that it will not be around for the start of Stargazing Live which is on the beeb in a week or so.

[pgwenlan]

Excellent comments from you all - been thinking of a 127Mak... Hopefully soon - then wait for decent skys!

[BoothUK]

I got my dispatch email from FLO on friday!

Should mean a Nexstar 127 SLT is arriving for me on monday - but will have to wait until the weekend before I'll have a spare evening, so apologies for all the cloud arriving from friday!

Thanks to FLO for managing to get their hands on one so quick, was expecting a much longer wait.