Skymax 127 or Celestron Nextar 127 and Wide view EP?

[Mostly Harmless]

Hello team,

First, a big thank you to everyone for your very helpful answers regarding my "first proper scope" questions. I think I have settled on getting a 127 Mak rather than a 130 Reflector. I am excited (but realistic!) about the lunar and planetary view a Mak will offer.

One useful PM suggested I might look at the Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT as an alternative to the SkyMax 127 SynScan? I wonder what others think regarding a comparison between the two? Has anyone else faced the same choice and having made it did they regret it?

- Any difference in build quality?

- Optical quality?

- Relative ease of aligning the two GOTO systems?

- Relative quality of supplied eyepieces and other accessories?

I am also looking at the probability of picking up a 40mm EP at the same time of as the scope to give me better FOV (or would a 32mm EP be adequate). I understand that open clusters like M44 will still be too wide to be completely in view with a 127 Mak but if I understand correctly (a big 'if'!) other objects including one of my binocular observing favourities - Pleiades , should fit into the FOV with a 32mm EP?

Any recommendations on a good value 32mm or 40mm (which would be better?) to go with a Mak 127 would be very welcome.

I must admit the versatility of an Explorer 130P is still attractive to me but I think it will be too big for storage, traveling and most importantly for the desire of my wife that the small garden does not, quote "start to look like Jodrell Bank"! - I know, how unreasonable.

Again, thanks for replies to earlier posts. I have started a new thread because I feel I am heading in a different direction to those earlier having identified that I will buy a Mak - it's just a question of which one now.

Thanks again for all the help and I look forward to any further help anyone can offer.

Really enjoying being a member of this forum - I am learning so much and I am genuinely grateful to everyone for reading and taking the time to reply to what must be very basic questions. I only hope that as I learn more I am able to help other newcomers in a similar way.

Carl

[sunshine185]

Plaeides won't fit in the fov sorry to say, the fov in a mak is too small. The optics on the celestron-sw are the same, the goto is easier to set up on the celestron, I think the mount is slightly better on the celestron. As for supplied ep's, will have to pass. You will also need a dew shield for a mak. A mak is a clear winner when it comes to planets, a 130 reflector willgive some good planetary and lunar views but will be much better at widefield. A 2" 32mm 70 degree ep on the 130 should easily get the plaeides in fov.

[sunshine185]

P.s a binoviewer was made to go in a mak, its a marriage made in heaven.

[John]

A 32mm plossl will show the same amount of sky that a 40mm will and the view will look "nicer" with the 32mm because it's 52 degree field of view is less "tube like" than the 40mm's 43 degrees. The limit is the 1.25" barrel diameter you see - you could get a 50mm eyepiece, if they made such a thing, and it would still show no more sky in the 1.25" fitting than the 32mm can.

The max true field of view with a 127mm maksutov-cassegrain is 1.1 degrees - not wide enough for the Pleiades I fear but many deep sky objects would fit within that.

Edit: sunshine185 has covered some of this already !

[rowan46]

I'm with sunshine, The optical package is the same on both scopes and the celestron mount and alignment is just a little better.

[sunshine185]

I wish I could get all of the plaeides on the fov in my dob, even with a 42mm 65 degree ep I still can't fit it all in . nevermind, when I win the lottery I am getting the most expensive apo I can get my hands on.

[Dunkster]

Hi Carl, given both brands are from the same parent company (synta?) I doubt they are all that different in any particular way - although I have no facts to back that up.

I have the Celestron version, only because Celestron was a name I recognised when coming back to the hobby cold after too many years. Of the bundled eyepieces...

• the 25mm is OK, I'm sure there are better options. All costing extra £/$. I also have the 25mm e-lux that came with the 6SE, it's marginally more comfortable in my limited experience.
  
• the 9mm I'm less sure of. I've not had much luck with this one, maybe I'm unlucky or a poor judge of viewing conditions!
  

I plumped for something in the middle - a 15mm BST explorer - and it's my most used EP so far.

A recent thread in the Discussion - Eyepieces section OP Malcspring has got a Baader Hyperion 24mm, 68 degrees FOV for his and I eagerly look forward to his first light! That gives pretty much the full 1.1 degrees John mentions above. For getting going, it's probably a bit of an overlap with the bundled 25mm.

Unless you believe you'd really notice the difference immediately, keep your cash and keep reading/asking

The best thing you can do once you get your scope is get out there and get familiar with it.

[Dunkster]

Btw, most enjoyable views I've had of the Pleiades so far have been through binoculars

[M4lcs67]

I, like Dunkster have the Celestron 127 SLT and I am very happy with it. As he says the Celestron and Skymax ones are made by the same parent company in the same factory. I am told that the Celestron one is slightly better made, but have no evidence to back it up with. (just what other people have said). Also there are slight differences in the accesories that both scopes come with.

I have recently bought a Baader Hyperion 24mm 68% ep and I am just waiting for the sky to clear so I can give it a blast. One of the very first objects that I was going to train the new ep on was the Pliades. At the mo I have to move the scope around in order to look at it, but with the fact that the Hyperion 24mm has a 68% fov I am hoping to get more of it in than I currently do. That is one of the things that should test out its true fov. I dont doubt that it will be a great addition to my set up, but will reserve judgement until I have seen it with my own eyes.

With regard to eyepieces I was advised that the maximum that you could go to with a 127 mak fitted with a wide angle ep was 24-28mm before you start to see the edge of the tube, so anything larger than this and you will end up wasting what you can see due to the inherant limitations of the 127.

One thing is for sure, if you go for the Celestron 127 SLT you will not regret it. I find it a great scope. One last thing. For either telescope, a must have accessory would be a powertank to drive it otherwise you will end up spending a fortune on batteries.

[Rwetherell]

I'm another Celestron 127 Mak owner and I'd just like to mention something that may have a bearing on whether you choose between the Celestron or the Skymax. Once piece of advice I was given when I was in the process of choosing between the same two that your deliberating over is that the instruction manual for the Celestron scope is written in English whereas the Skymax is in Swahili! You may be more technically minded than me (or not even bothered about reading the instructions) but I found them invaluable when setting up my first scope, especially when it came to setting up the goto function.

Good look with whatever you choose!

[Northern Soul man]

Hi Ya Carl, I also own a Celestron, for a grab and go scope. I have a 12" dob, an 8" SCT and the 127 Celestron and to be sure its a really nice scope for the moon and planets, Jupiter, now, has one of the highest apparitions as regards height above the celestial equator and the detail from the Mak (Bearing in mind that its a 5" aperture scope) is absolutely fantastic, but the focal length F12 tends to be better on the moon and planets. Not sure where you live and what light pollution you have, but here in the West Midlands light pollution is really bad, so the deep sky objects are going to be a struggle - but to say that, they are struggle in my larger scopes because of the light pollution, but take it from someone who has used larger scopes, the celestron is a really good planetary scope and ideal to take on hols to darker sites - but don't expect to see galaxies fainter than about mag 9 (so rules out the majority of galaxies) and nebulae - planetary and diffuse - depending on the amount of light pollution you have - if its a really dark site where you live - you'll see a lot more than me. DARKER skies always win over aperture - regards Carl an clear skies to you mate.

Paul.