Skywatcher 180 Mak or Celestron C8 SCT

[valleyman]

Been thinking about getting one of these two. Visually the FOV is very similar, using http://www.12dstring.me.uk/index.htm.

Is the visual back the same size on both OTA's or is the 180 smaller. I have a  10:1 Crayford that I used on a C 9.25.

Is mirror flop a problem with these scopes.

Price wise there is not much in it so does anybody have a preference for either of these Tobes?

Thanks

Pat

[dave armeson]

The phrase “Planet Killer” is often mentioned in “telescope circles” when people are discussing the merits or advantages or disadvantages of certain types of telescope.

I have been a fan of high quality refractors for nearly 30 years, having owned both a 90mm and 102mm High Quality VIXEN Achromat then having an absolutely superb 102mm VIXEN ED Fluorite refractor for about 10 years and had a tremendous amount of pleasure from it – my motto was always “Quality over Quantity”. 

However, back in 2012 I finally gave into “Aperture Fever” (I don't normally suffer from this :-)

Large aperture Maksutov Cassegrains are renowned for their high contrast optics and ability to resolve fine planetary detail as well as split double stars right down to theoretical limit of the aperture. My Sky Watcher 180mm PRO Series Maksutov is no exception and boasts features you would usually see on exotic hand-made instruments costing several times more than the £749 I paid for this OTA. The optics are all fully multi-coated and the glass for the thick meniscus corrector plate is sourced from the world leader in precision optical glass – Schott. The scope is perfectly APOCHROMATIC ( No False Colour) – it is like using a large APO-Refractor…!

It will EASILY OUTPERFORM something like an 8-inch Schmitt-Cassegrain like a C-8 or Meade LX90/LX200 8-inch on contrast and also handles magnification better.

My MAK has completely outperformed a £3,000 William Optics 127mm APO on Jupiter and the Moon.

Apprehension:

The Moon is my favourite object and so I did a lot of review reading/research and settled on what I thought was a reasonable aperture (180mm – 7.1 inches) with an enormous 2700mm (9-feet …!!) focal length scope, which gave large images with long focal length eyepieces – however this was at the expense of a slightly restricted field of view.

I was a bit apprehensive when I purchased the Mak, as I wasn't sure how restricted the “narrow” field of view people talked about actually was.

However, when you use this scope, “restriction” of a smaller field of view is MORE APPARENT than REAL.

You can fit in all of the Messier Open Star Clusters (Except M45, The Pleiades), Planetary Nebulae, Galaxies (except M31 Andromeda) comfortably in a 26mm 70-deg eyepiece with room to spare. How often do you actually need a really wide field of view anyway?

Globular Clusters in this scope are fabulous – Objects like M13, M92, M5, M15 etc are resolved right across with hundreds of pinpoint stars – because the scope has such a long focal length it produces a lovely dark sky background and objects have tremendous contrast.

The Moon & Jupiter with this scope are RIDICULOUS. 

Minute lunar detail...AND I DO MEAN MINUTE ! detail is visible, detail I had never managed to see before even with my brilliant ED Vixen which gave great views of the Moon. You can look at the moon for ages and not take in all the fine detail the Mak provides. Jovian Moon Shadow Transits stick out like black "ink dots" and are so easy to see. 

Close Double stars are a doddle for this scope. Because of the Mak's huge focal length you can easily split a lot of them with a 25mm eyepiece...!

COOL DOWN TIMES:

On a few forums like Stargazers Lounge, Cloudy Nights etc some people comment on a Maksutov having a long cool-down time (2 hours plus in the case of some posts), this is because the front Meniscus Lens is about an inch thick and is a big hunk of glass to cool down. In practice this in my experience is grossly overstated. Taken from a Car to a cool outside air temp the needs some cool down time, but starts to really settle down about 30-40 minutes and is quite useable providing you don't ramp the magnification too much. After a good hour, hour & 20 mins you are cooking with gas - Razor sharp images, with little or no shimmer.

This tube - for me anyway - provides the OPTIMUM package - powerful resolution of fine detail when needed, good light grasp, high contrast in a compact package. 

Of course for any telescope owner it is horses for courses, no telescope can do it all.

But I have reached my "Telescope Nirvana" 30 years after coming into the hobby.

At the observatory, as most of you know I am very enthusiastic for people to have a look at what I am looking at, this is because for me it is like starting out all over again, and discovering all the objects I have seen for years in a new and exciting light - and I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

I think that Mak's are rather overlooked by people wanting to choose a telescope, they tend to go either refractor or reflector without considering a Maksutov. I think this is a shame as I feel a Mak has a lot to offer.

Hope you've found the above interesting.

Maksutov 180 PRO. The most AMAZING lunar and planetary scope.

An absolute "powerhouse" of a telescope. 

MY ONLY QUESTION IS - Are Sky Watcher GOING TO MAKE A BIGGER ONE...:-)

[JG777]

A very dangerous review Dave, it makes me want to get the credit card out......

I do have the 127 Mak and it is a great planetary and Moon scope plus extremely portable, imagine the 180 must be pretty impressive.

[DaveS]

The latest 180 Maks have a standard SCT back so your Crayford should fit. Otherwise there is some mirror flop. Not *too* bad for visual, but a bit of a problem if you want to do planetary imaging, especially with, say, a QHY5.

[IanWatkins]

Dave,

Couldn't have put it better myself. The 180Mak is the last scope i would ever sell and it would have to be removed from my cold, dead hands even if that was the case. Would also mention portability as well, easy to dump in the car with say a SkyTee2/legs, travel to a dark site etc. Fits in my hatchback even in it's box. Can't say that for even most dobs.

Cheers

Ian

[valleyman]

Thanks for such a comprehensive reply Dave. \Can see where your loyalty lies.

Pat

[nightfisher]

Ok, i had the 180 pro and still cant fault it, but i ended up selling it for a 150 pro, still a VERY good scope, i agree with all the above comments re the 180, APO views, also i found mirror shift near non existent, in truth i only sold mine so i could use a 150 on the AZ4 mount, this has proved a worthwhile move for myself 

[Helen]

The 180 is noticeably heavier than a C8, Pat....

Helen

[valleyman]

Next question on that then is will the 180 go on a EQ5 Pro

[nightfisher]

Next question on that then is will the 180 go on a EQ5 Pro

i used my 180 on an eq5 for a while, then upgraded to an heq5 that now lies unloved in the cellar!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

OK, I'll take up the gauntlet for the C8. I have had this scope on a Vixen Great Polaris mount (EQ5 is a clone) for over 18 years, so it is doing something right. Correction, it is doing most things right. It is a great planetary scope both visual and in imaging. The 180mm Mak has the smaller central obstruction, so it should have a bit more contrast, but not resolving power. I have never done a side-by-side comparison, so cannot make any definite comparison here. Where the C8 wins by a fair margin is on DSOs. It has both a touch more aperture (20-25% more light, or about 0.25 magnitudes) and a clearly wider field of view due its much shorter focal length.

Where the C8 wins hands down is in weight: 4.7 kg vs 7.5 kg. The compact build and light weight make the C8 quite comfortable on fairly light mounts, and very quick to set up. The cool-down time is also a bit shorter than for the Mak. The Mak is a bit less sensitive to dew, due to its thicker meniscus lens.

[Guest]

I have a Celestron C8 and find that the field of view for general star gazing is satisfying for me.I can easily transport it to a dark sky site along with an AZ4 mount or CG5-GT goto mount.To me I find that there is a great deal of objects that it will show. (It does work really well on the AZ4 mount with steel legs).

I shall keep this telescope for a good while.You can get larger telescope apatures but then it's the handling involved.The 8 inch SCT hits the sweet spot in convenience.

Martin.

[ollypenrice]

I've never looked through the Mak 180 but the Maks I have tried have been right up my street in terms of the kind of stellar view they give. I wouldn't like the long focal length because I'm a widefeild junkie both visually and in imaging, but that's just me.

I do hope someone will appear with one of these, some day.

Is the menicus really almost an inch think?? Yikes.

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I've never looked through the Mak 180 but the Maks I have tried have been right up my street in terms of the kind of stellar view they give. I wouldn't like the long focal length because I'm a widefeild junkie both visually and in imaging, but that's just me.

I do hope someone will appear with one of these, some day.

Is the menicus really almost an inch think?? Yikes.

Olly

Not sure about the inch, but a Maksutov meniscus is very thick indeed, much thicker than the corrector plate of an SCT.  This is one reason for modified maks like the Vixen VMCs and Klevtzov designs, which replace the front-mounted meniscus by an internal, smaller corrector (a bit ODK-like, really).

[Luke]

Would you consider the Edge version, or would that be out of budget? I haven't used a Mak, so can't directly compare. I would pick my Edge 8 SCT again over the Mak (foolish me!), my thinking being it doesn't feel too heavy, cool down time is okay (the Edge has micro vents), it can do reasonably wide views, there is the 0.7x reducer (which I have used for lower power lunar imaging) and aperture is okay for me. Ideally I'd like a touch more aperture than the 8, but the 9.25 is that bit heavier/chunkier/far more expensive in the Edge flavour. The thought of slightly less aperture put me off the 180, though I have not worked out how the central obstruction differences play out.

Is the Mak good for use with a binoviewer? I have no idea. The SCT has a ton of focuser travel and I can use a binoviewer without a Barlow/glass path corrector if I want. I love looking at the Moon through the Edge 8 with a binoviewer, it is glorious and I overall prefer lunar gazing with that over my ED120. Low power views with the Edge are wonderfully sharp and crammed with detail.

Damien Peach review of the Edge 8 here:

http://www.f1telescopes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/doc20140319160059.pdf

[Helen]

Yes, you can use binoviewers with the Mak, and the result is rather good

Helen

[Helen]

I've just looked at the weather forecast and it looks good for tonight here  I might just get my C8 and Mak side by side on the Alt Az mount and compare, although I may need to add something to the C8 side to keep them in balance!!.  I must admit I bought the Mak due to it not needing collimating as my C8 is a faster version and I've had problems with a loose secondary causing collimation challenges.  So maybe a collimated Mak v a non-collimated C8 may be an unfair fight!  but could be fun

Helen

[Luke]

That would be fab, Helen, I'd be very interested in a direct comparison. Sarah and I have thought about a Mak a few times and it's never quite happened. Though I am hoping the C8 puts up a good enough account for me not to wonder what the 180 Mak would be like when I am using my Edge! And probably best nobody mentions the Mak Newt

[Helen]

I might try collimating the C8 with an artificial star this afternoon.....

But first the solar scope and the camera are coming out - first time for ages and ages

Helen

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Curious to hear about the collimation issues with the C8. Most are rock solid (mine certainly is)

[Helen]

The problem is due to the removable Fastar secondary. The secondary holder is two pieces screwed together, one on the inside and one outside of the corrector.  This can work loose when the secondary/Fastar lens is inserted/removed and the gasket just doesn't hold it in position.  There's some play then and the secondary can move/rotate quite easily.  So its difficult to ensure the secondary is aligned optimally with the primary (I think Celestron do this initially), and handling the collimation screws can cause circular movement too which makes collimation challenging!  I'm hoping to get mine serviced and include in that process fixing the secondary housing back firmly (I've been tempted to try sticking it, but...)  

Helen

[Stu]

I've never looked through the Mak 180 but the Maks I have tried have been right up my street in terms of the kind of stellar view they give. I wouldn't like the long focal length because I'm a widefeild junkie both visually and in imaging, but that's just me.

I do hope someone will appear with one of these, some day.

Is the menicus really almost an inch think?? Yikes.

Olly

I'm sure the one on my OMC200 was only 10mm at the max, perhaps not even that..

Stu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[recceranger]

I've just looked at the weather forecast and it looks good for tonight here  I might just get my C8 and Mak side by side on the Alt Az mount and compare, although I may need to add something to the C8 side to keep them in balance!!.  I must admit I bought the Mak due to it not needing collimating as my C8 is a faster version and I've had problems with a loose secondary causing collimation challenges.  So maybe a collimated Mak v a non-collimated C8 may be an unfair fight!  but could be fun

Helen

Helen,

If you do that comparison I'm on board to read your review. Best of luck

Rick

[Helen]

Ok better get them set up now then, ready to cool down.  Not going to be in depth or scientific though, just my impressions and the full moon may the targets a bit limited! 

Helen

[Helen]