Different types of scope

[PorkyB]

Yet another newbie looking to buy a first scope. To help me narrow my choices a bit, can anyone point me towards what type of scope I should be looking at. For roughly the same money I could have: a 90mm long-tube refractor, a 120mm short-tube refractor, a 150mm reflector, a 200mm Dobsonian or a 100mm Maksutov-Cassegrain.

I want to be able to get good views of the planets and also a reasonable look at some of the prettier DSO - I would like to see the Hercules Globular Cluster as a cluster and not a blob.

The other requirement is it has to be portable. Some of the sites I like to use involve a mile or two walking up a big hill. The scope would be carried around mostly in the car and then carried, ideally in, or strapped to, a backpack.

I can only afford one scope, and I don't want to get too hung-up on portability just to end up with aperture-envy. I suppose the Dob is out of the question straight away. So a few specific questions:

How will the performance of the short and long tube refractors compare? The shorter focal length of the short ones will mean I need a shorter eyepiece to get the same magnigication. Will the image quality suffer? Is eye relief an issue as i wear specs?

Will the reflector be too delicate to carry up and down hill? It is not too heavy but it is bulky, so it will get rougher treatment.

How does the Maksutov compare? It is the most portable but how does it perform against the others?

Answers to these questions, and 101 others, would be very greatly appreciated.

[DOBBY]

to get 'Everything' you need for an evenings viewing a mile up a hill in one trip...I'd settle for a small tripod..binoculars..seat..& drinks

[Qualia]

...it has to be portable. Some of the sites I like to use involve a mile or two walking up a big hill. The scope would be carried...ideally in, or strapped to, a backpack....

The Meade ETX-80 AT-TC - Review is a back-packer's telescope and will offer great portability, but I feel it may have relatively low power.

The Celestron would be a better scope to have on the power side: First Light Optics - Celestron C90 Mak but I'm not sure what kind of mount you would need for this.

The main problem for portability, I feel, may not be so much the telescope itself, unless you're buying a Tal, most OTAs are made of plastic and light, but the type of mount and tripod needed.

[Tribal-Wolf]

Usually if you can carry it a mile or two walking up a hill then it will not have a big aperture, I think the compromise would be a decent sized mak might do.

[PorkyB]

to get 'Everything' you need for an evenings viewing a mile up a hill in one trip...I'd settle for a small tripod..binoculars..seat..& drinks

I will be doing exactly that on Thursday night if the weather forecast is accurate.

It looks like the scope choice is coming down in favour of a Maksutov. The Skywatcher Skymax 102 (EQ2) is the most likely at £255 from FLO, but I am already suffering from "spending creep": For £25 more I could have it on a GOTO mount; for £43 more I could have the bigger 127 on the auto-tracking mount... I would really like another eyepiece to go between the 25mm and the 10mm, maybe a 15mm or 17mm, so more money to spend there.

I expect this scope will be good for planets, but does anyone have experience of observing DSOs with it. Will it be any good?

[RikM]

The Skymax 127 is okay for planets and DSO's. Just okay mind you, not as good as a 150mm Newtonian and doesn't come close to a 200mm. It isn't what I would consider backpackable though. I carried my Skymax 127 and AZ4 about 1.5miles on the nice flat pavement to do an observing evening for the local Brownies and it damn near killed me. And I cycle 15miles a day and do vinyassa yoga!

Binoculars and a camera tripod would be my choice for something to carry that distance. Actually I bought an ST80 to take walking!

[PorkyB]

OK, maybe I have not been thinking about the size and weight of the total package. I see that the 102 has a tube weight of just 2kg but a total shipping weight of 19kg. Allowing for 1 or 2kg of packaging that does mean that there is a lot of weight in the tripod and mount.

[RikM]

OK, maybe I have not been thinking about the size and weight of the total package. I see that the 102 has a tube weight of just 2kg but a total shipping weight of 19kg. Allowing for 1 or 2kg of packaging that does mean that there is a lot of weight in the tripod and mount.

In most cases the mount is much larger and weighs vastly more than the scope...and this is a good thing because if your scope is not stable you can't keep it steady when you look through it.

My 150P OTA weights about 6kg, my NEQ6 Pro mount closer to 40 kg