Skywatcher 180 Mak or Celestron C8 SCT

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

20140514_202919.jpg

Aha!! Duel time!! Not pistols at dawn, but

Cats at midnight!!

[Luke]

I think the SCT can still probably take that Mak down, even if the collimation is out :grin:

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I think the SCT can still probably take that Mak down, even if the collimation is out :grin:

On planets they will be close. The Mak will probably show a bit more contrast, but in theory at least the SCT can show a touch higher resolution

[Mark at Beaufort]

I bought my 180mm Mak/Cass about 12 months ago and always use binoviewers without the need for a barlow. I bought the Mak solely for Lunar, Planetary and Double stars. The views I have had of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are the best I have ever seen. Just after the purchase my astronomy society was given a Celestron C8 and I tested both scopes side by side on Saturn. The 180mm Mak was much sharper and contrast much better than the C8. I never tested the pair on DSOs.

I have viewed DSOs with the 180mm Mak using a 38mm Panaview and 21mm Ethos and although ok I prefer to use my 150PDS for quick grab and go on clusters and the brighter DSOs. I have a larger Dob for detailed study of DSOs.

[ollypenrice]

20140514_202919.jpg

Blimey, Helen, I don't remember your eyes being that far apart!

lly

[chiltonstar]

I am awaiting the announcement of the winner of this duel with interest, as I am also trying to decide between these two at the moment.....

Chris

[knobby]

What a fantastic pair of binoculars ... Collimation would be a nightmare ;-)

[Helen]

Well..... initial tests suggest that..........its really hard to split them!  But a low Saturn close to a full moon is probably not the best test!

Helen

[recceranger]

Helen,

Do you have any further updates on the CATS? I'm traveling done to the IAS and trying to grab a deal. 180, 150, C8 and C6 are all on the hit list. But which one!!!!!!

[Helen]

Helen,

Do you have any further updates on the CATS? I'm traveling done to the IAS and trying to grab a deal. 180, 150, C8 and C6 are all on the hit list. But which one!!!!!!

Sorry, no further updates as I lost my targets behind trees and then the seeing got very bad....  On saturn it was very hard to tell them apart the C8 with a 13mm eyepiece and the Mak with a 16mm, but neither really revealed any detail on the planetary surface just nice rings  Saturn is really low for me though and so not the best test.  Mars was lost in trees, as was the Moon so no chance there.  I did try for the Ring Nebula later but the high cloud scuppered that.

Weather permitting I may be able to have another play over the next week when the Moon is out of the way

Helen

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Mars might be a better target for comparison. Higher up so less dependent on conditions.

[Helen]

Yes, I agree Michael.  Last night I made the mistake of setting up in the light and so was in the wrong position to get Mars - and I couldn't face dismantling 2 scopes, moving the mount etc once I realised!

Helen

[Luke]

Thanks for the CATS shootout, Helen!

[jgroub]

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?

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...:-)

Dave - thanks for an excellent review.  I just got the Celestron NexStar 127SLT Mak two weeks ago, and I've been astounded by what this little Mak can do.  It's like a secret in our hobby.  I agree - people stay away from these for some unknown reason - or the false reason about the long cooldown time.  It just ain't so, I tell ya!  

I was wondering something, though.  You mention that you're using a 26mm 70 degree EP in the scope.  Looking at the Skywatcher 180 at this site:  

http://www.binostore.com/en/telescopes/marksutov-cassegrain/maksutov-1802700-optical-tube/?reffr=FRGL&utm_source=Froogle&utm_medium=catalog&ifrom=US&utm_campaign=Froogle-US&gclid=Cj0KEQiA1qajBRC_6MO49cqDxbYBEiQAiCl5_ONAqmDrtTfoVXPt4-Z2NZynnVwoRMhmvT929IOYj9kaAnam8P8HAQ

in the "Further details" section at the bottom, it says that the "focuser diameter is 50.4mm".  Forgive me if I'm slow on the uptake, but that's what we would otherwise call a 2-inch focuser, right?  And if that is right, then can't you use some nice, widefield 2-inch eyepieces in this scope and get up to just over a degree of TFOV?  You know, maybe one of those enormous 56mm Plossls, or something similar?  Or is there something else about the scope that keeps the TFOV low?  What am I missing here?  

Thanks.  

[Mark at Beaufort]

Hello jgroub welcome to SGL - I use a 21mm Ethos, which is a 2" EP, on my 180mm Mak/Cass. It gives me a mag of 129x and 46 arc minutes FOV. I previously had a 38mm 70 degree Panaview which again gave a nice view.

I had to buy a special adapter  to allow a 2" SCT diagonal to be fitted (I understand that Skywatcher have now resolved this situation on new scopes) and I don't get any focusing movement. I also use binoviewers and the views of the Moon and the Planets is 3D and very sharp with good contrast.

[F15Rules]

Just came across this thread, and am fascinated as an "interested observer" (pun intended ) whose first love is refractors. I've owned 3 Maks, all Russian made by Lomo (150mm) and one SCT (an 8" Celestron, white tube, probably about 15 years old when I had it). 

My experience of SCT's is thus limited to one scope, which I only kept for a month. I hated it. It just didn't have the "snap" focus and contrast that I expect, being a refractor man. On the other hand, each of the Lomo Maks almost had me thinking they were refractors: very sharp focus, (almost, but not quite, refractor sharp), amazing contrast and just very enjoyable to use. Both SCT and Maks were easier to handle, for their aperture, than an F10-F15 frac with it's long tube. For that reason alone I can understand why people choose Maks or SCT's.

Clearly the SCT I had wasn't the best, and there are fans here who love them, I'm sure with just cause. Just looking at Helen's pictures above, I prefer the look of the Mak, but that's of course not really a reason to buy one. The SCT though, if you have a good one, could probably be your "all in one" scope, something I doubt the Mak could be, it's very much a Lunar/Planetary/Double star specialist scope, rather like my beloved long focus refractors..

If the OP reads this, it would be interesting to know which scope he went for, and how he is finding it?

Dave

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Visually the Mak should do quite well on DSOs as well, provided they are not too wide. There is of course a difficulty in getting the exit pupil big enough for certain fainter objects, but with a 55mm Plossl you get a respectable 3.67mm, which should even do for the tricky Horse-head, and the 31mm Nagler gets you a useful 2.05mm at 87x and an FOV just shy of 1 deg. That is big enough for the vast majority of DSOs.

[Luke]

I've had my Edge 8 for a little while, it's a keeper as far as I am concerned. I like using my 120mm frac on the Moon sometimes but when conditions are better, I love getting the Edge 8 out on it and it's a real treat to pull out the binoviewer too. My fracs are that little bit sharper/punchier, but the Edge 8's aperture resolves far finer detail when conditions are reasonable. I haven't ever had an issue with snap to focus with the SCT, or with my C6 or C11. Less sharpness than a frac, yes.

For me I doubt I am going to get a bigger frac than the 120, so the Edge 8 makes that nice leap up feeling a bit like a big frac. I am sure I would rather have a Tec 140 or similar, but my wallet just can't take it   And I imagine a big frac like that might be struggling on my HEQ5?

Would love to hear about any direct shootouts between the two, I would think I'd be delighted to own either going by what folks say about the 180. Have not compared these two but my general experience of scopes so far is that aperture tells unless there is a big difference in central obstruction, so my bet is that the SCT will edge it on detail in good conditions, but that's only my guess!

[Baffa]

I only have the little 127 Mak but everytime I use that little scope I have forgotten how good things look in it, super optics no wierd curvature, false colors, astigmatism or coma. The only drawback, well can be a big one, is the narrow fov... Anyway, it's still great for lunar observations, M57 looks awesome in this scope and it's a perfect scope for day time bird/animal watching.

[Darkmatter]

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.

Silly question alert!! but what is the thread size on the gold tube model?

Thanks

Simon

[tony210]

Hi - secondary obstruction ruins detail - I have a Mewlon 210 and contrast is great even on DSOs but focal length is long so astroimaging is a difficult plus no flat field - on a small target like a planet a Mak will win hands down but for imaging of an extended object go for the Celestron - best wishes Tony

[recceranger]

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/242986-mak-150-pro-part-3/

Dave,

I done a review on my MAK 150 that may help;

Ri

[Astro_Baby]

Not owned an SCT but I do like the Mak 180 for its razor sharp view on planets.  I agree with Nebula that the cool down time is vastly overstated - I reckon from a warm flat to crystal cold air it takes it about 40 minutes at most and once its settled down its awesome on planets.  They are a bit of a dew magnet though thanks to the that hunk of glass on the front and I have found from bitter experience that a heated dewshield is pretty much a must have unless you are viewing from the Atacama desert

I did a review on the Mak when I was still observing some time ago may be of interest because I found the Mak, at least in the initial stages of ownership, to be a massive pain but given some time and patience (and of course more money) I got to a point where I wouldnt ever sell it.

The review is here with pics and stuff http://www.astro-baby.com/reviews/Skymax%20180/Skymax%20180%20Review.htm

[John]

I had a 180 Mak-Cassegrain for just a short time. The views were excellent but I did find the cool down time lengthy compared to my other scopes. My 12" dob cools quite a lot quicker. Pity Synta didn't make the primary mirrors a little larger to make the full 180mm of aperture available.

Interesting point that tony210 makes about secondary obstruction reducing detail, contrast etc. I've read so many conflicting views from knowlegable people on this over the years it's difficult to know what really goes on

My instinct is to try and minimise the secondary obstruction for planetary / lunar / double star viewing but I might be barking up the wrong tree ?

[Nomentero]

Regarding the use of 2" eyepieces on the Mak 180  Skywatcher, the problem is that the telescopes fieldstop is about 30 mm, so you will get some vigneting.