127 or 150 Mak?

[Stargazer33]

Hi,

I currently have a Skymax 102 but having recently given up my other hobby of scuba diving and in the process of selling off my kit, I will shortly have some cash burning a hole in my pocket!

Anyway, I have been thinking about upgrading to the Skymax 150 Pro. I have seen the OTA for £399 somewhere, but I have just seen the Celestron 127 SLT on the FLO clearance.

Could I ask members if the extra size of the 150 would make it worth me holding out for the extra monies required to buy this tube? Or is there not that much improvement and maybe I should go for the Celestron?

Decisions, decisions!

Thanks, Bryan

[JamesF]

Is this to go on your existing EQ3-2?

James

[Stargazer33]

Initially, yes!

I know that the 150 Pro is too big for this mount. If I manage to sell all of my dive kit I should be able to afford the 150 Pro on an HEQ5 mount or equivalent. If I go for the FLO offer, that comes on a goto mount so it's not an issue.

Bryan

[JamesF]

Yes. I'd not even think about the 150 unless you can get a heftier mount.

James

[nightfisher]

The 150 is a really good scope, i have the 180 pro, but if i had to replace it i would get the 150 (long story) but it would need the heavy mount, it would work well on EQ5, good luck selling the dive gear

[Brian Nordstrom]

Size matters , go for the 150mm , we have one at our club and its a stunning lunar / planetary scope , good on deep sky .

Because its stored in an observatory cool down time aint an issue .

Brian.

[Stargazer33]

Thanks for all the replies!

I think I will hold out for a while and see if I sell enough of my dive kit to go for the 150 Pro on a heavier mount - then I can sell my 102 on the EQ3-2 & maybe go down the guide scope route.

On another matter, does the fact that the Maks have a correcting lens at the objective end mean that the number of elements in the eyepiece is less critical? What I mean is, do you need to go down the TeleVue sort of route with the multiple groups of elements in them, or would a decient 2 or 3 element Plossl eyepiece work just as well?

Bryan

[JamesF]

It's generally short focal lengths that are really demanding on the eyepiece, so the Mak shouldn't be a problem there. I didn't notice any major issues with my Revelation plossls, though I tend to stick to my BGOs now so I've not used them for a while.

James

[nightfisher]

Maks are very easy on ep`s, plossl`s work well as do orthoscopics, you just dont need televue`s for maks

[Brian Nordstrom]

To true , Jules , Maks with their long focal lengths perform as good as they can ( thats very good ) using Plossle's and are especially good with Orthoscopics .

Brian.

[dave armeson]

If you can push the boat out go for a Mak 180 - awesome piece of kit.

[dave armeson]

My mak 180 gives some outrageously impressive views of saturn, the moon etc and most smallish (eg messier ) DSO's. Large aperture APO scope performance at around £700 ish quid . Rother Valley cheapest - £724.

[Stargazer33]

If you can push the boat out go for a Mak 180 - awesome piece of kit.

Very nice Dave, but I think the 180 and a suitable mount will be a bit more that I will get for my kit. Then of course there is finding somewhere to store it that the wife will allow!

It's generally short focal lengths that are really demanding on the eyepiece, so the Mak shouldn't be a problem there. I didn't notice any major issues with my Revelation plossls, though I tend to stick to my BGOs now so I've not used them for a while.

So perhaps I went a bit overboard recently buying the Celetron X-Cel LX 18mm eyepiece then? I was going to buy some more when we go to New York for Thanksgiving, but if I don't really need them I will look at something a bit cheaper, or a similar price but a better quality.

Thanks again for all the help, Bryan

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Have you considered the Celestron C6 OTA: much lighter than the Mak150, so it could sit on an EQ3 (3 kg vs 5.5kg). The C6 is cheaper too, and slightly faster, so it could provide a bit larger FOV. The EQ3-2 can handle 6.5 kg it is said, so even the C8 OTA could be handled in theory (only 4.7 kg), though that would sit more comfortably on an EQ5. The Celestron SCTs are surprisingly light for their aperture, and mine at least has great quality optics.

[sevs23]

I have a mak150 and love it. Planetary and lunar it's just fantastic. Also I've has fantastic views of some Messiers including great views of m57.

[Stargazer33]

Have you considered the Celestron C6 OTA: much lighter than the Mak150.... The Celestron SCTs are surprisingly light for their aperture, and mine at least has great quality optics.

I hadn't been considering any SCTs because of the larger obstruction (mirror) at the objective end. With such a small objective compared with 200/250 reflectors and even bigger dobs, I thought that every millimetre of light gathering potential would count. That was my reasoning for going the Mak/Cass route. Rightly or wrongly!

I have a mak150 and love it. Planetary and lunar it's just fantastic. Also I've has fantastic views of some Messiers including great views of m57.

As you can see from my signature, I have a Skymax 102 and I love that! It's my first real scope - I had previously been using my old Mirador spotting scope that I used to use when I did archery. I think that was about 15 or 20 x 50. That was enough then, but I now think I have caught the dreaded aperture bug!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Actually, the central obstruction of the SCT is not that bad (13.9% by area), but the Skymax is reported as 7.84 % CO. This gives the skymax the edge in sharpness more than in light gathering power (about 0.07 magnitude).

[Stargazer33]

Ahh! Thanks for that. I did wonder why there were so many SCTs out there if the central obstruction was so bad.

They might be something to look at, especially with the reduction in weight - even more decisions!

Bryan