Two refractors that need splitting

[Flying Eye]

Hi all,

I'm looking at a Skywatcher Evostar 90 (EQ2) and a Celestron Astromaster 90EQ. I'm not sure which of them might be a better idea, or why. Can anyone shed any light on the various merits of one over the other please?

I am happy to mod the tripods as best as can be done, but the actual scope is what matters here for now. I've got a longer term plan for a better EQ mount, but that is a fair bit longer term. Once I make the plan become a reality, then one of these two would be going on it, but which one of these might I be happiest about buying by then? My gut feeling sort of says Skywatcher maybe, but as feelings go it's possibly not worth an awful lot as it's got no experience driving it.

Mostly wanted for simple observing for the near term, maybe throw a web cam on later for fun or at least to see what happens . I do favour a wider field of view, and I'm not really sold on anything with mirrors in it.

[Cornelius Varley]

Just to make it a bit more difficult for you, the optics will be identical. The red dot finder on the Astromaster is useless, the small finderscope on the Evostar is a bit better and can be easily replaced if you need to. Plastic parts on the Astromaster, more metal parts on the Evostar.

Peter

[lamby]

having briefly looked at both, the evostar would get my vote

[philj]

The evostar is the better built of the 2, less plastic so will last longer. The EQ2 mount is a little undersized but should still take the short tubed 90 OK for visual.

Philj

[nightfisher]

the evostar would get my vote as well

[Flying Eye]

Thanks very much all, this sort of runs with how I was seeing it, but it's really nice to know I am starting to be concerned about the right things.

Out of the two I think the Skywatcher seems best. Also, oddly, the mount on each seems to suggest the opposite in looking quite well turned out on the Celeston, and a bit rough and ready on the Skywatcher.

The finder issue being able to be easily fixed on one and the plastic content in the other rather sways me away from the Celestron though. Having an issue is one thing, making it near to impossible for the user to easily rectify a poor design decision borders on unforgivable.

[Mark Scott]

Ian,

Here's a we write up on the astromaster. I went for this as my sons first scope. Now that I've had it out since the write up the optics are great for the price. I got it delivered for £136

I thought I would put a small write up on the Celestron Astromaster 90mm F11 scope that we bought as a first scope for our son. This scopes big selling point is that no tools are needed for set up. This review is more about the build quality than first light as predicted the weather has been horrific since Christmas only allowing us to view the moon and Jupiter for around 15 minutes.

OTA…..

On examining the tube itself I have noticed two or three small dings on the scope that were there before painting. The marks look like the kind of impact marks you get on a car bonnet when a small stone is kicked up by the car in front. Other than that the OTA looks every bit the instrument it should.

Counter weights…..

The counter weights were another issue. The whole in one weight was not wide enough to fit on the tube provided and I had to bore it out to fit. The other weights locking nut did not reach the bar to secure it, on examining the box I found what could only be described as a metal dowel similar to the ones used to hold shelves in flat pack furniture. This I used as an extension to the locking nut resolving this issue. A small note in the box would be a good idea if this was an after thought as I thought it was a piece of junk at first and nearly binned it. On balancing the tube (a first for me) I found I only needed one of the weights. I hope I’ve done this properly because it’s supplied with two weights.

R.A and Dec locking nuts……..

The R.A nut is fine, but the Dec nut struggles to grip unless I use what I would say is excessive force to lock it up, maybe another small extension is needed here again. The slow motion controls are very smooth, but as I mentioned above the scope is a no tool set up. Unfortunately this is not strictly true because the slow motion controls need tightening with either the triangular plate supplied or a small flat headed screwdriver. Finger tight was not tight enough for a smooth responsive action.

Red dot finder……

I have not really had the use of this for testing, but with the street lights around my garden I predict it will be useless, a 6x30 finder would be better. Fortunately I have a spare one, but there is no obvious way of mounting it without damaging/drilling the OTA, thus voiding all warranties.

Focuser…..

This feels good in the hand, quite firm not stiff. I don’t see any problems holding heavy EP’s. Finding the focal point was easy.

Diagonal……

This is a right image diagonal, but I find there are reflections from light getting in through the EP’s, its side lined for night viewing.

EP’s…..

Supplied with the scope are a 20mm and 10mm.

The 20mm gave nice clear views of the moon; Jupiter was a little harder to pick details out. I did however manage to see two bands this is probably because the scope did not have an adequate cool down time due to weather forcing us to run back inside. The moon view was nice and crisp with little to no colour fringing.

The 10mm supplied was useless, we just could not get a view or bring it to focus. On inspecting the EP in the house it looks like the bonding material for the glass has been smeared over the lens

1.25” stand….

This has a good solid feel to it; it’s very easy to set up with ample provision for a few EP’s on the tray provided. Although a little light for a 90mm scope with a length of 1000mm in medium to strong winds. If this was your only stand I would recommend hanging a small sand bag under the accessory tray to give added stability.

My overall impression.

Would I buy this scope again?????? I think I would!

PS.....The CG3 mount blows Skywatcher equivelent AWAY!

[Flying Eye]

Thanks so much for this Mark. I am sure over the next few days and perhaps weeks even I shall read and re read it while figuring out my options.

It seems that after some initial fettling, it's come good.

I do have some ideas I want to try with imaging. I've got an alternate payload for whatever mount I end up with, I weighed it yesterday (first practical opportunity) and it tipped the scales at 314 grams. It has a length of only 120mm with an optional extension of say 50mm max, so all in all it would tax the mount far less I am guessing. I'm also wondering if by being less taxed all the normal complaints these mounts in this class have levelled at them may no longer apply, or would perhaps apply a lot less.

I am not sure how to discover the weights of the various scopes Celestron supply with this mount or I could perhaps be more certain of the likelihood of all that.

I really appreciate you taking time to write all that about the experience, it has been a most enlightening read. It's changed a thought or two. My eyes, and views of others, were telling me one thing but I could NOT see how the skywatcher was better on the mount front given how the two looked after a look over them both. Now the mount was not the major issue here but I do have some plans where it could be reused as I progress. I'd be adding the single motor drive they offer for that idea. Very interesting indeed now!

My sincerest thanks to you of course.