skywatch skyliner 200 dob or 250 dob

[Akkenny]

My heart i think is set on the dob but whether to pick the 200 or 250 as my first telescope? My main aim is pure observation. Iv read a lot that eye pieces are important also so i guess it comes down to which holds more value and how much better is the 250 to the 200. Given i have a budget to spend enough to get the 250, would i be better off getting the 200 with a few eyepieces. Appreciate all imput guys, thanks.

[Tiny Small]

The eyepieces that come with it are fine for getting started, and when you do want to upgrade, plossls are not expensive. I have the 250 and it is BIG. Having said that, it fits through doors fine an easily fits in a hatchback car. Have a look on gumtree and astrobuysell.com/uk... I got my 250 considerably cheaper than a new 200, hardly used. I can't comment on the 200 but the 250 is fantastic. I do not regret buying it over the 200. If you have the money, go for it. Eyepieces can come later as the standard ones are perfectly useable.

[AlexB67]

One thing to be aware of is that while you get that extra aperture the 250 has a shorter focal ratio. When it comes to eyepieces and future upgrades in mind, the 8 inch version will be more tolerant of the cheaper eyepieces. That said I'd still go for the 10 inch if you can get it personally if you can afford it. It is not as if a 40 - 60 pound eyepieces gives bad views or anything, and I would happily trade it in for that extra light gathering ability if deep sky objects are of particular interest to you. 

The 10mm and 25mm that come with the scope are perfectly useable to get you going.  If you are lucky as I was, it seems to vary a bit, some come with the super MAs and some with the super plossls  as was the case with my flextube, the latter are a bit better eyepieces.

Good luck

[eifionglyn]

I've had both, we'll ive had the 200 on an EQ5 and now I have the 250 Dob. I would say the 250 tube is no more awkward to carry around than the 200, and isn't noticeably heavier to me anyway. I would say if you have the budget and the space to go for the 250. In my experience the extra aperture does make a difference in what you can see.

[Paul73]

250 every time! But then I would say that.

An awful lot of those deep space objects are very very faint so logically, the more light that you can capture, the more you'll see.

Although, I have read that the smaller appature scope performs better in heavily light polluted areas. Has anyone else come across that sentiment?

Also, if space is an issue, the flex tube versions are considerably shorter.

Paul

[Avocette]

I've had both (at the same time) and you can see what's happened since then from my signature! The number (56% more light gathering) sounds impressive but there's not a lot in it in a side by side comparison when the limiting condition may be the turbulence in the sky and light pollution or that good old Moon. Neither will disappoint - after all there are lots of members doing lots of astronomy with 114, 130 or 150mm scopes. If your budget is not stretched then the 250px would be the one to go for - and it doesn't take up any more floor space than the 200p although both can seem shockingly big when you see them in the flesh!

[TractionMan]

Aperture is king as they say. However if it's too big and too awkward to set up, it won't get much use. By judging from various posts here on SGL, the 10" seems to be a bit of a goldilocks size. Apparently not that much bigger than the 8". If possible try to visit an astro shop or club to see them for real before you buy.

[CumbrianGadgey]

I've had both (at the same time) and you can see what's happened since then from my signature! The number (56% more light gathering) sounds impressive but there's not a lot in it in a side by side comparison when the limiting condition may be the turbulence in the sky and light pollution or that good old Moon. Neither will disappoint - after all there are lots of members doing lots of astronomy with 114, 130 or 150mm scopes. If your budget is not stretched then the 250px would be the one to go for - and it doesn't take up any more floor space than the 200p although both can seem shockingly big when you see them in the flesh!

I'm just really commenting on how big these things are. That comment is so true. I am considering getting a 200p on an EQ5 mount and it will have to sit in the living room with the 130...quite where I'll sit, i'm not sure.

As to the original post, I agree with the others. if you can get the 250, go for it. I would. At F5 (If I'm right), you'll still see some pretty good wide-field objects, so you won't lose out too much that way, either. You can always add EPs when you can afford them but the standard Skywatcher stuff isn't all that bad. On lower magnifications you'll be so awed you won't think about it...for a while.

[Tiny Small]

On lower magnifications you'll be so awed you won't think about it...for a while.

Very true. I didn't think about until I had a look through a decent quality 2" 32mm EP. As a result of that, I'm replacing all my EPs at the end of the month

[Solar_observer]

I'm thinking of getting a 250px dob. Just wondering if it can give you better planet and moon detail than say the 200,regardless of light pollution?

Clear skies to you all :-)

[andyman]

If its purely for visual then i would go for the 250px every time.more light gathering capabilities than the 200p making them faint fuzzies stand out more

if you can get to see one in the flesh even better..because they are a fair size scope but wil give you some superb views....good luck

[Solar_observer]

Yes it is purely visual :-) used too have a 200p so I can SORT of appreciate the size of the 250. Where I live the sky is a little better than average,so hoping to see a fair bit more detail in the objects I've already seen and hoping the bigger dob will allow me too see new objects too.

Clear skies to you all :-)

[Tiny Small]

It will undoubtedly be better, but by how much, I'm not sure. People normally recommend adding 4 inches for a truly noticeable difference so the addition of 2 inches? Probably slightly better? But better is still better.

[Solar_observer]

It will be able to resolve objects better though? Detail in planets......moon.....and glob clusters.....etc?

Clear skies to you all :-)

[Tiny Small]

It will be able to resolve objects better though? Detail in planets......moon.....and glob clusters.....etc?

Clear skies to you all :-)

It will gather more light, so dependent on eyepiece, it will resolve more detail in nebula and clusters (using the same ep on both scopes). For the moon and planets there wouldn't be a significant difference other than the maximum comfortable magnification. On the 250p it's around 500x mag, on the 200p it's about 400x mag. That is only useable in good conditions though.

[void]

As a past owner of a 200p dobsonian I will tell you now, you will not be disappointed.

Just some points to make though. If the 250 dob is taking you to them as of your budget then you will not have the extra EP's which you want sooner rather than later.

Also, have you been to see a 200 and 250 dob? They are big scopes 250 especially, so don't think you will be moving it around with ease.

If you do need to transport it the 200 would be easier.

[Solar_observer]

I already have 6 bst eyepieces and ordering the 24mm maxvision next week Matt, so that's not a problem. As for transporting it.....I won't be,I have my heritage for that. I don't have a problem lifting a scope this size in two pieces into my garden. I believe the footprint of the 200p and the 250px, are the same? It's just the weight and the tube, which are bigger?

Clear skies to you all :-)

[philipw]

Hi - I'm very new to the hobby and the forum.

I found a 200p dob on Gumtree, a bit of a trek to get it, but it was very cheap and I was surprised to find it almost new condition with a barlow x2 and the bog standard lenses.

I got it home, set it up very easily. Yes it's not exactly small, but not cumbersome either. I can move it around easily and it first across the backseat of my car easily. I can't compare it to the 250p as I've never looked through one, but I have been very impressed with what I can see through it. Using the 10mm lens I can see crisps beautiful views of Jupiter, I can see the bands around the planet and all 4 moons. Looking at the moon, I felt like I could touch it.  Very happy with my 200p and will be buying some new lenses to improve observing.

For a beginner, I think a 200p is a very capable telescope and you won't be disappointed with what you can see.

[eifionglyn]

Just to add you will definitely not be disappointed with either. They're both very capable and will show you lots for years to come. On the moon and planets from the UK most of the time seeing conditions are going to be the limiting factor anyway. I just know from my back garden I spent a long time looking at M31 on the 200 and never noticed its companion M110, while it was clearly visible in the 250, I also spotted M33 in the 250 whereas I could never find it in the 200. Some of this might be me gaining experience of where to find things and what to look for, but bear in mind the 200 was on a driven EQ mount, and it's reckoned that a tracking mount adds the equivalent of an inch or two of aperture in terms of what you can see as you get to view the object constantly and capture fleeting moments of good seeing. In that case the fact that I've seen more with the 250, despite it being on an undriven mount its clear to me that the extra aperture is worth it.

Both are great and you will enjoy them, it depends what your considerations are. I'd say the 200 is probably the sweet spot in terms of price vs performance, and the 250 is the sweet spot in terms of performance vs practicality. Start going into the 300 plus and they're getting seriously big and serious money!

[ollypenrice]

I don't think you need a lot of eyepieces. Quite honestly our big Dob spends 80% of its time with the 26 Nagler, 15% with a 16mm UWA and the rest with a 10mm Radian. In a Dob, though, the exotic wide field EPs mean less nudging and more relaxing and enjoying. They are far better to the edge than Plossls, too, which can be quite mushy when you back to back them with something better.

I don't think the planetary resolution will be much different. The smaller one is slower so will be more tolerant of collimation.

The key thing is, if you go for the big one, will you use it?

Olly

[cantab]

If I knew I was happy with the increased bulk and price of the 250, I'd get it. Otherwise I would spend the rest of my observing time wondering what if?

[Akkenny]

Cheers for all the input guys, iv decided the 250 dob it is, with not knowing much about astronomy other than that it fascinates me like to thank you for your help and Martin on first optics and can't wait now to go explorering the nights sky that a lot of people take for granted. Very excited now and and thanks again.

[Solar_observer]

I've decided that for the price of a 250px I can get....a 200p, r.a.c.i, telrad and a 24mm maxvision ep. I think that's a fair trade. Also tweeted Mark Thompson (the astronomer) over his opinion over the two scopes and he got back to me and said there really isn't much in it. So that's my decision,thanks for all your input guys :-)

Clear skies to you all :-)

[Solar_observer]

Hmmmm I've been reading further posts on a 250px first light and now I'm back on getting this one again. Just one question,will the range of bst eyepieces and a 24mm maxvision ep work well with this scope? It's the extra resolve of this scope,which is pulling me towards it. If it gives me even the slightest extra detail in dso`s than the 200,then I'm going for it. Thanks

Clear skies to you all :-)

[AndyWB]

I'm happy enough with the BSTs in mine. Maybe some folks would notice some kind of optical aberration, but I don't see any.