Which telescope will best suit my needs?

[Brynjolfr]

Hi! I'm having a hard time choosing which telescope I should by. There are so many to choose between. I'll try to explain in detail what I'm looking for:

• Great for watching both deep-sky objects (mainly galaxies) and planets (as many of them as possible).

• No GoTo, as I'd prefer finding objects on my own rather than having the telescope do it for me.

• It should have a good red dot finder.

• Fairly portable/transportable.

• Not too much need of maintenance (like collimation). Preferably none whatsoever.

• Suitable for astrophotography (planets and galaxies).

• Cost under 4000 Swedish Crowns (roughly £380).

I've been thinking about a Skymax 102, but I don't know if it fulfills all of the above criteria.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Sounds to me like a refractor is the one you want. But you will only get a small aperture (3-3.5" scope refractor for that price).

The alternative, that hits all your needs is this:

First Light Optics - Skywatcher Explorer 130P

5" Newtonian reflector on an EQ mount.

A "good" red dot finder is optional................but not expensive.

I would have suggested a DOB, but you want zero maintenance.

With the cash left over you can buy a lot of extra bits.

[Stargazer Jack]

Just so you know, the above telescope will need collimation but not on a regular basics unless you are moving about a lot. I have never done it but most people say it is easy

[E621Keith]

No telescope will meet all your requirements.

For a budget of £380, you will be best served by a Skywatcher 200p dobsonian (£270). You will have money left over for some eyepieces, and RDF. However, that scope will need collimation and will be useless for DSO astrophotography (AP).

Skymax 102 will be good for planets, but will be weak on DSO. It will not work for AP either.

A ST120 +EQ3-2 refractor will be better for DSO than the SM102, but will be weak on planet. It requires no collimation but it won't be much good for imaging either.

In fact for your budget 150p and a EQ5 will meet most requirements and have limited AP potential, but it will need collimation.

To be honest, a basic entry level AP system will cost around £1500, so I will forget AP for now and get a 200p dob.

[RikM]

I agree with Keith. I don't think you will find any one scope that ticks all those boxes. You should perhaps prioritise what you want to do.

[Tribal-Wolf]

How is a 130P less maintenance than a dob?

[malc-c]

Hi! I'm having a hard time choosing which telescope I should by. There are so many to choose between. I'll try to explain in detail what I'm looking for:

• Great for watching both deep-sky objects (mainly galaxies) and planets (as many of them as possible).

In your budget, a large dobsonian like the 200P would work. To see faint object a large aperture makes all the difference

• No GoTo, as I'd prefer finding objects on my own rather than having the telescope do it for me.

Again, a dobsonian would fit the bill - one of the simplest scopes to move around the night sky

• It should have a good red dot finder.

• Fairly portable/transportable.

• Not too much need of maintenance (like collimation). Preferably none whatsoever.

Err... a dobsonian ?? - with regards to maintenance, all scopes need maintenance of some description. You should always check your oil and tyre pressures in your car before doing a long journey, checking collimation is just the same - it's not difficult

• Suitable for astrophotography (planets and galaxies).

• Cost under 4000 Swedish Crowns (roughly £380).

This is where you will falter... whilst you could get away with using a web cam with a dob for luna and planetary imaging, true imaging of galaxies requires a driven EQ mount, and the sturdier the better - HEQ5 tends to be the recommended starting point and this will be well over your budget.

I've been thinking about a Skymax 102, but I don't know if it fulfills all of the above criteria.

From the hits on Google the Skymax 102 is a goto telescope - but you've stated you don't want goto

Its not ideal for imaging work for two reasons - one, the weight of a dslr camera puts stress on the alt axis, and two, being alt / az mount it will suffer from field rotation.

[LukeSkywatcher]

How is a 130P less maintenance than a dob?

Thinking about it..................

It isnt. Just needs less collimation then a bigger "dob".

[Brynjolfr]

Sounds to me like a refractor is the one you want. But you will only get a small aperture (3-3.5" scope refractor for that price).

Here's one with 4.75" aperture for 3495 Swedish Crowns (£332). It's mounted on an AZ3 mount, though: Startravel-120 (AZ3) och annan information på - rymdbutiken.com - rymdbutiken

From the hits on Google the Skymax 102 is a goto telescope - but you've stated you don't want goto

Its not ideal for imaging work for two reasons - one, the weight of a dslr camera puts stress on the alt axis, and two, being alt / az mount it will suffer from field rotation.

Here's a Skymax 102 without GoTo that's been mounted on an EQ2: Skymax-102 (EQ2) och annan information på - rymdbutiken.com - rymdbutiken

NOTE: The linked web-pages are in Swedish.

[E621Keith]

The EQ2 is a very poor equatorial mount and there is no way it will work for long exposure astrophotography with the skymax 102. The skymax has a narrow field so it isn't really suited for DSO observing.

The ST120 is a rich field scope and not really suitable for planets due to excessive chromatic aberration at high magnification.

Both SM102 and ST120 are low maintenance scopes. Both are unsuitable for astrophotography due to their mount. The 120 will be better for DSO observing, the 102 will be better for planets. Neither will be as good as a 8" dob.

EDIT: 8" dob http://www.rymdbutiken.com/product.html/skyliner-200p-dobson?category_id=22