150P and 200P Size Difference

[TwistedJester]

I am heavily debating between these 2 Dobsonians. I know the main difference is the aperture. Is this important and worth the extra £70. I have the extra money but only want to pay it if it is worth it. Also what are the size differences? Do they need anything to mount onto or can you just place on the floor and use? Any help would be great. Thanks

[RikM]

They are not significantly different in physical size. The tube lengths are the same. But the 200P is heavier but still very portable. They don't need any extra mounting.

My feeling is yes, the 200P is worth the extra £70 but you might want to try and visit an astro-society and have a look through some scopes first because your opinion may be different. If you've never looked through a scope before you might not see much of a difference initially.

[jimmyjamjoejoe]

You just stick them on the floor an off you go. They're both the same focal length, so the same height, and if i recall correctly both have the same width base, so the only difference is literally the tube diameter.

I have the 200p, and i love it. I can't honestly comment on the 150p since i've never even seen one. The most common saying on these forums is "aperture is king". 77% extra light is not to be sniffed at, and personally i'd say go for the 200p if you can fit it in your life.

You'l be happy with either scope. Ultimately it comes down to what you want to view. If it's solely planetary, then perhaps a refractor, mak, or even the 150PL would be better, but for an all rounder, you can't get much better than the 200p for the price.

If you've never looked through a scope before you might not see much of a difference initially.

Probably not, and it'l only really be apparent when hunting down faint fuzzies, or teasing detail out of some brighter objects. Both of those activities require a somewhat experienced eye and the 200p will only pull ahead months down the line. I remember my first views through a 90mm achro, then a 120mm apo, and i saw no difference! After several months of carefully scrutinizing that little disk of jupiter through the 90mm, i went back to that 120mm apo, and it blew my socks off!

[sinky]

My intention was to buy the 150p, but this forum convinced me to get the 200p when I realised the only real difference in size was the diameter of the tube. Glad I did. It is still reasonably luggable.

Be aware you will need to upgrade the eyepieces at some point.

[TwistedJester]

Also I was reading that the 200P is f/5.6 and the 150P is f/8 does this make any difference to viewing experience?

[John]

The larger aperture scope will show more than the smaller one, especially with deep sky objects. While you may not see a significant difference initially, you will not be a "newbie" for long and then you will start to appreciate what the larger aperture can do.

There has been a very recent thread on just this topic which would be worth a red through as it contains posts from some who have made the upgrade from 150mm to 200mm:

http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/179416-150p-200p.html

[spaceboy]

Might be worth noting that the 200P comes with a crayford focuser