And for my next purchase...

[jonathan]

CG-4, I have you now!

*rubs hands with glee* What's next?

My grand long-term plan is coming together quite nicely - I have my 8SE for high detail and DSOs, I experimented with an ST80 as a grab-and-go which I enjoyed using immensely. Now having just acquired a CG-4 mount I feel confident that I can replace the ST80 with a better small scope... but which one?

I have been looking at the Skywatcher Equinox 80 or 100 for a while, I gather the 80 is good for visual and photography, the 100 more for visual. The 100 is also longer so loses a bit of the grab-and-go element. The 120 is just a tad outside my price range (and too big, really). So there's my dilemma - do I stick with 80mm with the chance to get some quality novice photography and a light portable set up, or go for the less photography-friendly 100mm and find somewhere to put the somewhat longer tube.. but get to see more with it visually? The 100 also comes with tube rings and dovetail bar, the 80 does not have these listed (I will need them).

Do the 80 and 100 fit the same tube rings? Sorry if that is a silly question.

More questions...

I like the look of the Telrad finder, does this fit well onto the Equinox scopes? I don't want to have to drill or modify anything. Would you get the 2" or 4" height adjuster too?

Would a RACI finder also be necessary on the Equinox 80 / 100? Personally, I find the 9x50 straight-through finder on my 8SE tricky to use sometimes - I need to use the Celestron Red Dot Finder to locate things before looking through the 9x50 finder (my binoculars are not even 9x50!) Is it even possible to fit two finders on theses scopes?

The difference is the best part of £300, that's like an entire scope. Is it really worth that much for the extra 20mm under average skies? I have a diagonal and eyepieces already, so not too worried about those being lacking from the 100.

Thank you for your advice or comments.

EDIT: Just as an addendum to this, it's not outside the realm of possibility for me to acquire something like a TAL 100RS for increased visual detail at a later date. +1 for the Equinox 80! For the price of the Equinox 100 I could have the Equinox 80 AND a Tal 100RS.

[jonathan]

Interestingly, just reading the specs on the Skywatcher website it says that the 80 actually has slightly better magnitude viewing potential than the 100. Is that due to the speed of the scope?

[John]

As a visual observer I find the 20mm well worth having but the 100 may be too "slow" for imaging. It depends on your priorities I guess. A CG-4 would probably not be enough mount for imaging with the 100mm scope but fine for visual observing.

Maybe the 80mm Equinox plus a TAL100 is the best approach - something for imaging and something for visual.

PS: a 100mm scope will see fainter than an 80mm, for visual use anyway. Imaging may be different.

[ollypenrice]

Hmmm, you have the SCT for getting in close. You'll see both more and less in the 100 than the 80. You'll see deeper in the 100 but wider in the 80. When I sold my widefield refractor with a FL of 500mm I lost the ability to observe the whole of the Veil, the whole Rosette, the Double Cluster framed with Stock 2, the Pleiades with lots of room around them... I couldn't bear this loss and bought an old Pronto very cheaply. At my last UK astrosoc the 500mmFL refractor/Panoptic 35 was a real crowd puller. Lovely views enjoyed by all.

It's nice to have a short FL available. Of course, bins are a way of restoring this as well.

The 80 has nothing left to prove from an imaging point of view just as the 100 can startle even the most expensive apos on the planets.

Telrads look a bit big on short refractors but you rarely need more than that to find things in a wide EP.

Olly