Mak or Reflector?

[glen whitehead]

I do not have a scope yet and i'm doning my best to understand things so if i'm completely wrong then please tell me.

I want something which is a decent all rounder and i cant decide wether i should get a mak or a reflector.

As i understand things the mak will hace a longer focal length and will be better for planets it also is more portable where as the reflector having a shorter focal length would be better for nebula viewing.

So should i go for the reflector and a barlow or a mak with a longer eye piece to reduce the magnification and widen the fov?

I know mak's cost more but they are more portable.

[VigdisVZ]

A mak is not an allrounder in my eyes. Get a decent newton and some good EP's and maybe a barlow for max flexibility.

With that being said, you would probably enjoy the mak aswell.

Do you mean subay-portable or car-portable? Also would be handy to know your budget for this.

[glen whitehead]

Car portable but for holidays etc it would have to fit in with luggage and other stuff.

The other pro's for a mak would be closed tube design and daytime obs.

budget would be around £250 but cheaper would be better for now if possible.

So i suppose my real question is can i use a longer eye piece with a mak to view M class objects with any success and will i get a decent one within my budget?

As i said i am a complete beginner so all advice is welcome and thanks in advance.

[John]

A 32mm plossl eyepiece, in the 1.25" fitting, used in a 127mm mak-cassegrain will show a true field of view of around 1.1 degrees which is large enough to get most deep sky objects comfortably in the field of view. Thats as wide as the scope will go though because you can't use 2" eyepieces with them. 40mm and longer 1.25" eyepiece don't show any more sky and have narrow "tube like" apparent fields of view. You will need a dew shield with a mak too as their front corrector lenses do acts as "dew magnets". For compactness though, they can only be matched by the schmidt-cassegrains.

All scope designs have compromises of one sort or another - as long as you know about them in advance there should not be any nasty surprises !

[VigdisVZ]

A closed tube design has other drawback like it's prone to dewing. You might need a dew shield or even a heater for extened sessions (meaning you also have to carry extra batteries).

Actually you might consider getting a refractor tube instead of a Mak. It has wider field of view, and is a closed tube design, however it's not that great on planetary... just something to consider.

If you're wondering what EP will give what view on what scope, check out this little tool: http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm

[nightfisher]

This is always a tricky one, you want one scope to do lots, the Mak is a total planet killer, and it will also show some of the brighter messier objects, a reflector will show more messier but planets will be smaller. The Mak will not require much in the way of collimation, but reflector will need doing more often, i would not class the Mak as being good for holidays if going abroad due to the EQ tripod needed

[glen whitehead]

Thanks John and Carl

I have been looking at the 127 and it has got some great reviews but the 102 is cheaper. Does the 127 warrant spending the extra?

Also i want to use the scope where i live which has some light pollution and i have read that the maks are better in light pollution than reflector?

I havn't read it anywhere but i'm assuming the flex tubes are even worse in light polluted areas which is why i've decided against one of them?

The idea is to get the best i can within budget and then slowly add to it with better eye pieces etc.

[glen whitehead]

Cheers NIghtfisher your post came up as i was typing mine.

[nightfisher]

The 127 is a much more capable scope than a 102

[glen whitehead]

Right then i think i've decided

A 127 mak on EQ2 mount

Then add a motor for tracking and a 32mm eye piece

I already have stellarium and goskywatch for the iphone

Anything else i should consider?

[JamesF]

I use a 127 Mak on an alt-az mount as a travel scope because it's so compact. It can be a real problem star-hopping to find DSOs though. It has recently been suggested to me that it helps to have a decent size wide field optical finder (50mm+ perhaps). It's a great telescope to own.

James

[JamesF]

Anything else i should consider?

Dew shield, definitely. But you can make one yourself if necessary.

I'd add a 50mm RACI finder I think. Bigger, if you can find one. If I can sort out a suitable finder then I'm seriously thinking about trying to put both a red dot and optical finder on mine.

I'd not recommend the EQ2 mount for this scope though. If you really want a GEM then I'd suggest the EQ3-2 is a minimum. I think the EQ2 will be too unstable.

James

[nightfisher]

I use a 127 Mak on an alt-az mount as a travel scope because it's so compact. It can be a real problem star-hopping to find DSOs though. It has recently been suggested to me that it helps to have a decent size wide field optical finder (50mm+ perhaps). It's a great telescope to own.

James

James, i have the 9x50 r/a finder on my 180, it works really well on it

[John]

......Anything else i should consider?

A dew shield. They should be considered mandatory equipment with mak and schmidt cassegrains I reckon. Of course refractors have them built in

I tend to agree with James re: the mount but the EQ3-2 is moving up in size / bulk too.

[VigdisVZ]

Yep +1 for dew shield. Just gaffers tape and a camping mat if you want the cheap and dirty solution

[glen whitehead]

Just had a look and the 127 on a supatrak mount is a fair bit cheaper than one on an eq3-2 and i wouldn't need to add a motor so are these any good?

[JamesF]

Just had a look and the 127 on a supatrak mount is a fair bit cheaper than one on an eq3-2 and i wouldn't need to add a motor so are these any good?

I've not had a Supatrak mount so I can't speak from experience, but I think I'd expect it to be better than the EQ2. I know there are plenty of 127 Mak/Supatrak owners on SGL so hopefully they'll offer their opinions.

James

[BinocularSky]

A dew shield. They should be considered mandatory equipment with mak and schmidt cassegrains I reckon. Of course refractors have them built in

... but always too short to be effective. Here is my 90mm Mak wiht its dew shield (2mm foam mat -- wife's old yoga mat -- and sticky-back velcro):

Never had a dew problem since I made it. No need for heaters, just a proper length dew shield.

Just had a look and the 127 on a supatrak mount is a fair bit cheaper than one on an eq3-2 and i wouldn't need to add a motor so are these any good?

I've not had a Supatrak mount so I can't speak from experience, but I think I'd expect it to be better than the EQ2.

I think you misread the question, JamesF.

The Supatrak mount is marginally better than the EQ2, but not, in my opinion, better than the EQ3-2. This is also the opinion of someone in our club who owns a Supatrak but has also used -- and consequently covets -- the EQ3-2 that another member has.

[John]

I knew someone would pick me up on that . Quite right about the dewshield length Steve - Meade refractors are particularly bad on this. But at least something is fitted.

I had a Supertrak mount for a short while. The mount head "did what it says on the tin" but the tripod legs were really thin and spindly - thinner even than the ones supplied with the AZ-3 and EQ2 mounts. The mount as a whole was not really capable of holding a 127mm mak-cassegrain steady at higher magnifications I felt.

[ollypenrice]

Given that you've gone for a long FL scope (and I wouldn't consider 1.1 degrees wide) I think it would be an awful shame to lose that high resolution to the jitters, which is what under specified mounts provide.

Olly

[breezy]

As a mak owner and relevant newcomer I'll chop in my thoughts .

Mines on goto alt az , not the sturdiest of tripods in fairness , but if you don't extend it to full amount and bung a sandbag on the gadget tray it does reduce the wobbles . I have a 9x50 raci and a Rigel on it and can find what I want fairly easily ,

Light pollution is a problem but after midnight eases cos the lamps go off round my way .

As mentioned before its a planet killer and combined with the bst ep's gives me cracking views , I just use a 32mm skywatcher super plossl for a nice clear general view .

My biggest gripe is personally I find focussing a fiddle , some have suggested a peanut butterlid on the knob ( ooh err) but I have found a clothes peg helps .

I short I'm happy with mine and it breaks apart easy to chuck in the car .

I was caught looking at a 300mm dob the other day by SWMBO and have been threatened with loosing bits of my anatomy , but I feel some aperture fever building so may risk it

[ether823]

Ive got a Skymax 127 mak and the tripod is rubbish. The synscan mount is good but the tripod lets it down.