First telescope... I'm stuck...

[kitsune]

Hello

I have problems with my decsion for my first telescope.

Help would be much appreciated!

My budget is somewhat limited, I don't want to spend more than 600 EUR. If I really enjoy this hobby, I'll probably want to invest more at a later stage. Imaging would be nice, but I don't know whether this is realistic at such a low price point. I have tried to look for star parties but I can't find any! I can read about CA, focal ratios, FOV, astro photography, refractors vs reflectors all day, but I have no actual hands-on experience.

I guess I'm looking for a solid allrounder.

I'm probably more interested in image quality than portability. The telescope should still be somewhat portable - I don't have a car. I'm an avid hiker and I don't think that I will have a problem lugging around 20 to 25kg of gear, but I think that's the upper limit.

I'm from Switzerland and unfortunately there are aren't many telescope dealers around. Almost every shop either sells Synta telescopes (Skywatcher, Celestron, etc.) or expensive telescopes from Takahashi, TeleVue, ...

I don't want to buy a Dobson or a Newtonian-Reflector. My main reason is that, if GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) occurs, I could reuse an existing mount and buy another OTA. I also don't want to deal with collimation issues etc. at such an early stage.

Telescopes I found in my price class here in Switzerland:

• Skywatcher Evostar 120/1000 refractor with an EQ-5 mount (and pretty much every achromatic refractor from Sykwatcher or Celestron below this. This is the only one that seems to come with an EQ5 mount tho.)
  
• Skywatcher 127 MAK-CASS with an EQ3-2 mount
  
• Celestron Omni XLT 127 SCT with a CG4-mount
  

That's really about it.

I could go the "import lottery" route and buy telescopes from Germany:

• TAL 100 RS with an EQ5 mount
  
• Skywatcher 127 MAK-CASS with an EQ5 mount
  

Out of this, the two scopes that interest me the most at the moment are the TAL 100RS and the Evostar 120/1000 achromatic refractors.

I have no idea what the increase in aperture means in terms of observing deep space objects here. On paper the Evostar should produce brighter results, but from what I've read on here, the TAL might be better because its technical superiority somewhat equalizes the aperture gap? I have no idea how the SCT and MAK-CASS compare to the TAL or Evostar. The Evostar 120/1000 is interesting because I can buy it as a package with an EQ5 mount directly from an established dealer here in Switzerland. It's also cheaper than the Omni XLT 127 SCT, which I can buy from a rather generic online-shop.

I guess, my question is: Given this wall of text ( ), what telescope would you buy and why?

Thanks a lot!

[Teslar]

I think you have already made the correct decision an ED80 on an EQ5 mount would remain useful regardless of and future upgrade path. You may want a bigger mount at some point but the eq5 would remain useful for portability with the ED80 which can be used for planets and DSO and also serve as a guide scope if you go for a bigger scope and mount later

Sent from tapatalk

[swamp thing]

Not sure myself, can't see you lugging an EQ5, tripod, and scope far TBH. I reckon the novelty will wear off very fast. Once or twice is fine but every time you observe??? That'll be not often then.

EQ mounts are heavy, awkward things to carry. A lightweight alt - az set up would be a country mile better.

[kitsune]

I think you have already made the correct decision an ED80 on an EQ5 mount would remain useful regardless of and future upgrade path. You may want a bigger mount at some point but the eq5 would remain useful for portability with the ED80 which can be used for planets and DSO and also serve as a guide scope if you go for a bigger scope and mount later

Sent from tapatalk

ED80? I've never mentioned an ED80... Here, an ED80 tube alone (OTA) costs as much as an Evostar 120/1000 with an EQ5 mount.

[Marki]

This is a tricky question. I agree with Swampthing that an EQ5 will be no fun to lug about, and anything that impedes your ability to get your scope deployed means you'll use it less and less. Given your parameters, an alt-azimuth would seem better. I hear a lot of folk manage well with the skywatcher AZ4, or a Vixen Porta II.

As for the scopes, I'm a big fan of the TAL100RS and this will go quite nicely on an AZ4 (and is well matched to the EQ5 as well). No sure how portable all this is, though. The TAL is about 1 metre long, then you'd have to carry the tripod and mount as well, along with any accessories you'd want to carry (cameraa, eps, filters whatever).

Having said that, aperture is always king, and the Skywatcher 120 will give greater light gathering. A lot of people rate the 127 mak as well, especially for lunar/planetary, and I guess its a lot more compact. None are going to beat a 150mm or larger dob or newt though for DSOs etc. (you'd get way more for your money in going down that route in terms of pure aperture).

I have had no problems importing from Germany to the UK; Teleskop-Service are very good and well-priced, deliver quickly and everything is in good order when it arrives.

I'm sure loads of people will be along with more informed suggestions soon . Remember your going to want eyepieces and other stuff as well, whatever you decide to go for

[Teslar]

ED80? I've never mentioned an ED80... Here, an ED80 tube alone (OTA) costs as much as an Evostar 120/1000 with an EQ5 mount.

Oops a slip up I did mean to refer to the Evostar 120

And I regularly lug about my NEQ6 so the EQ5 is way way easier than that. However each to there own in terms of portability. You did mention DSO, so other mounts may be more portable but would not be suitable for DSO's

Sent from tapatalk

[JamesM]

If it were me, I would certainly narrow down the choice between the TAL and the Mak. Both very capable scopes but if I had to choose then I would go for the Mak because 5" is better than 4", its lighter giving you options regarding a lighter (more portable) mount. The increased focal length will provide a slightly narrower field of view but the capacity for magnification on planets and the moon will show it to be a good performer providing lots of crisp detail.

Best of luck in deciding.

James

[nightfisher]

If you have no choice but to carry this gear a few miles, forget the EQ5, its very heavy and very awkward to carry, i rate the Tal 100rs over the 120 skywatcher it has a far better focuser, is lighter, and has better optics my suggestion would be the AZ4 mount with either the Tal or the skymax 127

[Mr Q]

Kitsune - Here's a couple of links that should help you decide:

Choosing a telescope:

http://www.galileotelescope.com/choosing_a_telescope.htm

What to expect to see with each type and size telescope:

http://www.astronomics.com/main/category.asp/catalog_name/Astronomics/category_name/V1X41SU50GJB8NX88JQB360067/Page/1

Hope these links help you out.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I agree that lugging an EQ5 around is quite easy, especially if you break the setup into parts. I first set up my tripod, then attach the mount plus weights (the Vixen GP is about the same as an EQ5), and then add the scope (either the C8 or the little 80mm. Three easy packages, I can set up in 5 minutes flat. For visual, I use very rough and ready polar alignment, just level the mount and point it north. The latitude is set to 53 deg for me. I only change that when I am on holidays.

All this applies when you have to carry it a short distance, however. For longer distances, weight and bulk are real issues. Alt-az mounts are better I would think. The Giro mounts are light, but the AZ4 might be the better choice. Scope-wise, I think the Skymax127 fits the bill very well indeed. The main reason is its compact size. You can stick it in a backpack easily. This is impossible with a TAL. Quality wise the Skymax is excellent optically. The only drawback is that it is less suitable for wide field than the TAL (which is not exactly rich-field itself). The answer to that is to get a pair of good binoculars later. The AZ4 could carry heavy bins as well (90 deg angle ones), or you could get a C6 OTA if you want to add aperture (actually lighter than the 5" Mak, Celestron SCT OTAs have the lightest weight for a given aperture).

[umadog]

What do you want to do? If it's visual observing then the equatorial mount is going to help you very much and is going to be real pain to deal with given your lack of car. You'd be much happier with alt/az. Collimation is pretty much a non-issue: doesn't take long to learn and it's quick to perform. If you don't want a Newtonian, that's obviously just fine, but don't let collimation rule the roost in your decision process. I would also suggest you go for something that doesn't require power: 12V batteries get heavy quickly and some of these powered scopes don't function well or at all without power. Check on that before buying!

[Capricorn]

Not a lot to choose between the 120 and the Tal. The Tal has a good reputation and the 120 is a bit bigger, collects close to 45% more light.

Both will give some CA, the 120 should give more and so be the poorer of the 2 in that aspect, but in a dark area it will enable you to see more.

The problem is that both are fairly large, around a meter in length and reasonable weight. The Maks win out in this respect but they have disadvantages also. My preference bing the refractors for the wider views.

An EQ5 is around 10Kg, tripod is 4, head is 4 and a weight makes up the rest. Transporting it in a trolly bag is one thing, carrying it and a scope is another.

Teslar mentioned an 80mm in error, have you considered one however?

Have read of many that find a decent 80mm refrector is the type of scope that covers all fields, maybe not the best in each field individually but they seem to do everything reasonably. Transporting one is a lot easier the transporting a Tal or 120 Evostar.

TE do an 80mm ED at 400 Euro, the EQ5 on their site is 280 Euro but I wonder if they would do a package for 600 Euro. The price includes the 19% tax so you might get it a bit less. TSED8053. Then have to pay whatever Switzerland charges instead.

To the original 2, more tempted by the 120 simply for the aperture, but the Tal will have a bit less CA and it is solid.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Capricorn has a point about little 80mm scopes. My 80mm F/6 fits in a very compact bag, together with a complete set of EPs. I really enjoyed using it from dark sites in Austria and France: very decent on planets, awesome on wide field objects like the North America Nebula and the Veil. If you want more aperture, high quality, be able to carry everything in a backpack or compact bag (tripod separate) and are willing to limit FOV, the Mak-Cas design is practically unbeatable (except perhaps by the SCTs which are lighter, have a bit more FOV, but have a larger central obstruction, reducing contrast slightly). My 80mm F/6 weighs in at 2.5 kg, the Skymax 127 at 3.2 kg.

[rwilkey]

I would go for the Tal100RS on a Vixen Porta II mount, much easier to carry around and the mount folds up quite nicely. The focal ratio is f/10, so good for detail and wide sky, whereas a Mak would diminish your options in my view. The Tal has a great reputation and many admirers on this forum. Quicker cooling down times as well.

[kitsune]

Thank you all for your help and insight! I'm very thankful that you are all sharing your experiences with me!

I probably made the error of focusing on the weight instead of the size of the scopes and mounts. I think I could handle carrying around 20kg of equipment for a couple of kilometers considering that I often had to march for over 50kms with over 30kg on my back during my mandatory military service. Also public transport is very good around here, and comparatively dark skies are nearby. I could hop on a bus station 100 meters from my flat, drive for 10 minutes, and after 10 minute walk I'd be at the observatory of my old high school. The walk back to my apartment would probably take 30 to 50 minutes. Anyways, I think I could also talk a couple of my close friends, and my girl friend, into helping me :grin:

The EQ5 mount looks unwieldy, especially its head. I don't know how easy it is to fit into a bag or case. I figured I'd have like two bags or cases, one for the scope and one for the mount, and a backpack for additional equipment, drinks, food. But after reading the comments in this thread I don't know how realistic this is.

Of course I "chose" the EQ5 because a lot of people (on the internet) say that's it's a great idea to go for a stable mount, especially if you are planning to buy additional OTAs in the future. Also everybody seems to recommend an EQ mount over an AZ mount for astrophotography because of field rotation.

The Vixen Porta 2 looks very nice!

After reading some of the comments here, I also reconsidered the 150mm f8 Newtonian Reflectors (on a mount) despite collimation and cooling (?) issues. But somewhat that tube doesn't exactly look portable either! What about the 130p? Especially compared to a 100mm or 120mm refractor?

About imports: I've been burnt by UPS and DHL a couple of times (usually all the time)! Their hidden administration fees for handling VAT/Duty at the border can be outrageous. The last time I even asked UPS for a quote on these feed before ordering a new laptop. When the package arrived, their quoted 30 bucks mysteriously transformed into 150 bucks.

Does anyone use smaller achromatic refractors for observing the milky way and DSOs?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

If you are going for a Newtonian, remember the 6" F/8 is 1.20 m long, longer and fatter than the TAL100 (which is a great scope by all accounts, but still a bit unwieldy). A better option (for Newtonians) would be the 6" F/5, but that would need more careful collimation (not a big deal, once you get used to it). I built a little 4.5" F=500mm miniDob for the kids, and that, or the SW 130P Heritage Flextube, is about as big a Newtonian as I would like to carry around in a bag.

[Groucho Ben]

Hi Kitsune, I'd say 600 euros is quite a lot of money! What about going for a nice Williams Optics 80mm OTA, a microstar alt-az mount and a red snapper camera tripod? (Or a berlebach/wolfe wooden tripod?) That would be properly portable ... You might have to get the OTA second hand though, to be under budget.

I nearly went that route myself, but opted for the longer SW ED80 and Porta II mount, as I don't see myself having to do much hiking with them.

Or what about just a good old Heritage 130p, under 6kg all in, they seem well made and it would leave you with lots of barlow/EP money Or even enough for a bigger second hand dob! Double the dob, double the pleasure.

[Mogga]

I've got an EQ5 mount and there is now way on earth (or deep space) I would attempt to carry that more than a few hundred metres, even broken down! That thing weighs a ton! I'm a fairly hefty bloke and not weak by any means so suggesting you can move from site to site without a car would be utter madness.

It is an easy set up though, so fine if you want go short distances!

[Teslar]

The EQ5 is way lighter than the HEQ5 or NEQ6 and I can set the NEQ6 up in minutes from the boot of my car. I admit it's more cumbersome than the SE6 goto I have but it's worth the effort if I'm imaging or even just visually tracking nebulae with my Quattro 10" carried on the back seat. It's the Quattro that I don't like carrying the few meters to the scope. One reason I'm looking for a Mak 180

Sent from tapatalk

[kitsune]

Is the EQ3-2/NEQ3 much more portable than an EQ5? The weight difference doesn't look like much...

At the moment I'm thinking about buying either a 100mm refractor or lower.. Or maybe a Mak 127. Or a Newton 130/150...

Man, talk about analysis paralysis...

Thanks again for your answers!

[Naemeth]

If it helps, the Skywatcher Heritage 130P is very light (only 7kg), the main problem is that it's bulky so you may need to check if it will fit into your backpack. It's great, and as others have said it leaves a lot of room for EPs.

You could always go for a big Dob for that budget, but it would make transporting it a real pain, and only back garden observing would be possible without a car. But you don't say that that is a problem, so it could be your solution .

[Saleratus]

Dear Kitsune,

I would advise you to rethink your plan entirely. Transporting a refractor and a mount will be a pain in the rear for you. This is not about how tough a hiker you are, it's about your motivation to get the scope out and use it. Maybe you are capable of hiking 2 kilometers, but if the sky is a little cloudy and maybe the dew is starting to come down a bit, will you bother so that you can have a chance at maybe 20 minutes viewing? Or will the effort defeat you. I can see only two solutions to your dilemma:

1. Get an extremely small refractor on a small alt-az mount. But you won't see much with this combo, and the mount will be too small to use for your next scope, which defeats your argument about needing good mount so that you can upgrade to better gear. So your other alternative is

2. GET A DOB. In a good six-inch dob you can see a lot, especially if you have a fairly dark site you can get to. There is little setup, and I imagine the whole thing could be slung on your back. This is a scope you will really use. You will see real objects instead of little fuzz balls, so you are less likely to get bored with it.

I know this is not exactly what you wanted to hear. Good luck on your decision.

[kitsune]

If it helps, the Skywatcher Heritage 130P is very light (only 7kg), the main problem is that it's bulky so you may need to check if it will fit into your backpack. It's great, and as others have said it leaves a lot of room for EPs.

You could always go for a big Dob for that budget, but it would make transporting it a real pain, and only back garden observing would be possible without a car. But you don't say that that is a problem, so it could be your solution .

A Dobs might indeed be a solution.

I've just checked a multitude of mounts, especially AZ mounts (Vixen Porta II etc.).

I find it funny that often the total weight of the mount is not given and it's really hard to find this kind of information. Also, often the different vendors disagree on the weight or added counter weights.

What I've gathered is that equatorial mounts are QUITE heavy and large.

EQ5:

Mount and Tripod: 11.5kg alone. Counterweights: 5kg - 10kg.

EQ3-2 (Alu):

Mount and Tripod (Alu): 7.3kg. Counter weights: 5kg.

There seems to be an EQ3-2 with steel tripod where the mount and tripod are as heavy as the one's used in the EQ5 and the two counter weights weigh 5kg in total. In some places this configuration is being sold as an EQ-5.

Vixen Porta II:

Weight with Tripod: 5.5kg.

AZ-4:

With Steel Tripod: 8.4kg

In short, I think I'll have to buy a AZ mount and read about what kind of telescopes these mounts can support.

Thanks a lot again!

[Naemeth]

Don't forget that a Dob can be mounted onto an EQ Mount as long as you get the Dovetails etc. For the money, a Dobsonian gives you the biggest aperture, and optically they are great too.

[kitsune]

Don't forget that a Dob can be mounted onto an EQ Mount as long as you get the Dovetails etc. For the money, a Dobsonian gives you the biggest aperture, and optically they are great too.

I don't know, but the Dobsons look actually pretty heavy. From what I've seen the Boxes alone are around 11kg.

For instance, a Dobson 150 seems to be 16kg in total.

A Skywatcher 150P OTA seems to weigh 5kg, so with an AZ4 that would be 12.5kg...

Again, thanks for everything, I think I'll have to ponder this a bit further