Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Skymax 127 Goto or Explorer 130 Goto? or ??

Mostly Harmless

Recommended Posts

Mostly Harmless

Mostly Harmless

Posted
Posted

Hey all,

Just found the website and this is my first post.

My name is Carl, I am 42 and I live between Watford and London.

I was bitten by the astronomy bug last Christmas after buying my young daughter a Celestron Firstscope and being amazed by the lunar images and intriguing views of Jupiter and her moons on our first evening. Soon after I bought a nice pair of 10x50 binos and along with a couple of guide books and Sky at Night Magazine and Sky Safari on my Ipad I have begun to find my way around the night skies.

I now feel ready to progress to a proper beginners / intermediate telescope and have a few in mind. Having saved my pennies I have a fairly modest budget of about £350. I really would like a Goto scope for this money.

Candidates currently are a Skymax 127 or Explorer 130 although I have also been recently attracted to the Mead Starnavigator 102 which seems like a fairly decent Refractor for the money (although I am told that they were/are available at Costo for half the price the normal scope retailers are selling them for - 150 pounds in Costco which seems a bit odd?) - I am not as Costco member so have no idea if this is true or not.

That said, I am inclined to go for the Skymax 127 and I have to admit apart for any optical benefits, the small form factor of the tube is also a bonus - I would like something I can travel with in a small car relatively easily. The best online price for the Skymax 127 Goto that I can find is about 365 pounds - is this the best price I am going to find.

So, I wonder if anyone can advise please?

Is the Skymax a good scope for the money, how might it compare with an Explorer 130 (which I realise is an all together bigger beastie) - or is there something else in this price range I should be also considering.

Any advise on price would be clearly well received :icon_scratch:

Best wishes and thank you in advance for any responses.

I look forward to contributing to this website in the future.

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

If you can live with the tube length of the 130 then the major difference is the focal length. Whilst it's perfectly fine for smaller or more dense clusters, the longer focal length of the 127 will give you a lot more magnification with the same eyepieces than the 130 will. That can mean that it will "look through" some of the less dense or larger clusters. On the other hand, it's excellent for lunar and planetary viewing. That said, I still use my 127 for some deep sky viewing if it happens to be on the mount at the time and I'm not desperate to swap it or get another scope out.

The 130 gives you a much wider field of view at lower magnification. You might struggle to get as good a view of Jupiter or Saturn with it as you do with the 127, but it may well do better on, say, the Orion Nebula.

I'd agree with the comment about the 130P and either would be a good scope, I'm sure. It's more a case of what you feel might suit your interests best.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chris

Chris

Posted
Posted

I don't have either the 127 or the 130P but I've previously owned both a Maksutov and a couple of Newtonians, and I've played with Goto's for several years a while back at Uni (probably not as good as the Goto's nowdays) so I was thinking that maybe the Goto would be a bit more accurate with the 130P because of the wide field of view a f/5 scope gives? if this is the case it might be a bit more friendly for a beginner :D well apart from the need to collumnate a reflector if you knock it too hard :( having said this I absolutely loved the optics of my little 90mm Mak so I can only imagine how good a 127mm Mak is on the planets :icon_scratch:

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mostly Harmless

Mostly Harmless

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you for all the helpful advice. I think the Mak 127 would be the best scope to go for. My primary interest is going to be lunar and planetary observation.

However, I would like to be able to also view objects like the Orion Nebula and am concerned that the Scope my just be too powerful to get all of the nebula in the field of view.

Does the narrow field of view also mean that the Skymax 127 be difficult to align and setup with the SkyScan?

I think I am correct in saying that the scope comes with a 10mm and 25mm eye piece. Would a larger eyepiece help to widen this field of view? I having been looking at some 32mm eyepieces and greater but I suspect that there must be a limit to the maximum that can be used?

The bottom line is: Am going to be disappointed if I wish to use the Skymax 127 as a scope of planets and also nebula and DSO.

I still have the option to go for a 102mm Meade refractor (with 475 handset) on a Goto mount (299 pounds from Telescope House perhaps adding a nice quality 2x barlow as opposed to the 365 pounds for the Skymax 127 at FLO). I guess I am trying to have my cake and eat it but I don't want to be entirely restricted to high magnification planetary views.

She who has to be obeyed has now authorised a budget ofup to ***but not beyond*** (on pain of something very unpleasant!) the cost of a Skymax 127 at "just over 300 pounds" or at least that's what I told her!

Advice as before hugely welcome and read with keen interest.

Right ... time to go enjoy Stargazing Live Programme 2.

Thanks again

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nightfisher

nightfisher

Posted
Posted

As a skymax owner i would suggest getting this scope (okay i have its big brother), like you said get a 32mm plossl like the GSO, to help with dso`s.

One thing to remember with maks, what they lack in field of view they make up with contrast, the sky around stars and dso`s tend to be velvety black with maks, helping to bring out more detail, and you dont have collimation issue`s that silly reflectors have :D time to get me coat:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunkster

Dunkster

Posted
Posted

I have the Celestron version - from what I've heard, they're practically identical.

The 127 is a great little scope and you should be able to see a lot with it. Light pollution is pretty bad here and I've seen things I never would have imagined (given the conditions). One day, you'll crave a larger scope... don't worry, it's perfectly "normal" and it's called aperture fever. The 127 is so small and portable, however, that it's a keeper.

With darker skies, it'll show you even more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pigz

Pigz

Posted
Posted

sorry i did lol at this as my name is also carl and im getting my 2nd scope (again!!) after selling my 1st long story but im getting the 130p synscan for the only reason is its in my price range and ive used the 130 before and its a great scope cant comment on the mak but as they are both very similar just the focal length to be honest and the size and the fact ones a mak of corse!! im sure both will be great for you altho if you can afford it go for the mak but if its a bit tight on budget go for the 130p either way you cant really loose both wiched scopes!! sorry this hasnt helped your descision at all but just had to have a comment and the fact you chose 2 really good scopes doesnt help!!!! :D clear skys :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tyr

Tyr

Posted
Posted

I too have the Celestron version of this scope, I quite like the view of the Orion Nebula I get through it although the amount of nebulosity I can see varies greatly based on sky conditions.

It seems to be great at Lunar observation and I've been very happy with the views of Jupiter, Saturn and recently Mars it's given me.

A larger EP would widen the field of view of the Mak but not by a huge amount. I have a 32mm Plossl which gives me a FoV of about 1.1 degrees compared to about 0.9 degrees with the 25mm EP. I think thats more or less the limit for the scope.

As already noted though larger objects such as open clusters can be enjoyed using an accompanying pair of binoculars.

I can't speak for the 102 refractor or the 130 reflector since I've not used them, but I've not been disappointed with the Mak.

Hope that helped

Tyr

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
Alan_B

Alan_B

Posted
Posted

Recently bought a 127 SynScan AZGT myself. I've had it about a month and I agree with the comments above regarding planetary & lunar views as well as M42

The mount tripod is not the most stable and there are issues with vibration when focusing but once settled down views are nice and clear.

I find It is an excellent setup for short sessions when the clouds are threatening to close in and I wouldn't chnace setting up my larger scopes and for this reason it been used more often so far in the time I've had it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.