suggestions for a lunar/planetary scope.

[johnnyp]

Hi all.

My girlfriend and I are looking for a new scope which will be mainly used for planetary /lunar observations.

It should have tracking ideally, goto not essential.

I have my eye on the heritage virtuoso 90 mak at the moment which seems ideal, but just wanted to get some input before I take the plunge.

All suggestions and ideas welcome

Cheers

John

[johnnyp]

Posted new thread multiple times in error. Can a mod please delete?

[John]

Done

[johnnyp]

That was quick!

[Peter Drew]

For lunar and planetary performance you need wide aperture and long focal length for good results. I think you would find that a 90mm Mak, good as they are, would not be enough of an improvement over a 130mm aperture telescope. A 150mm Mak or SCT, if possible, would be a better choice. 

[johnnyp]

Hi peter. Thanks for the feedback. I must point out that I no longer own the 130mm heritage. I'm now using a heritage 100p . the 150mm mak is out of my budget unfortunately. Although I would love one!

Unless you have one I can borrow? we met a couple of months ago and I'm very jealous of your collection !

[Moonshane]

Goto is not necessary for solar system objects although tracking is a boon albeit again not really necessary. If you observe at 150x with a poodle eyepiece then an object takes about 90 seconds to travel across the field. Using a dob that is well made and balanced is easy to use and the proverbial 8" f6 dob is very good as a general scope too.

You can if lucky pick up tracking versions of them used. Maybe a wanted as would reap rewards.

[johnnyp]

Thanks moonshane. Although the girlfriend and I are really lazy so tracking is on the top of our list. Then we can go in inside for abit and have a brew and a warm up. Then when we come back out, Saturn/Jupiter etc is still in the field of view. Plus we wouldn't get a dob in the backseat of our upcoming two seater

[Moonshane]

No worries. Totally understand in that case :0)

Maybe a 127 mak on a tracking mount would be good then.

[johnnyp]

Cheers moonshane. That's a good shout. Will check them out

[Peter Drew]

Johnny. Seems as though, for now, you have the right order of priorities, girlfriend-car-telescope. 

[Moonshane]

True Peter but I note any mention of eyepieces is conspicuous by it's absence :0)

[nightfisher]

looking at this thread i would also suggest the 127 mak, they are strong performers on luna and planet

[hobsey]

127mak is a good shout.

If goto isn't important but tracking is, have a look at this.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-supatrak.html

[johnnyp]

Johnny. Seems as though, for now, you have the right order of priorities, girlfriend-car-telescope.

Make that ...telescope/girlfriend/ car

[johnnyp]

Good suggestions on the 127 mak. Will add that to the list.

What's the thoughts on the virtuoso 90?....its on for £149 on wex photographic at the moment....seems like a steal at that price.

[Twiggles]

Try this site to get an idea of views through different scopes: http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm

Make sure you choose to go for visual and select an eyepiece. Might not list every telescope choice but gives enough to get a rough idea of the differances.

[rowan46]

maybe you can find a second hand one of these http://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-127-supatrak.html

[RodexMtl]

Arent refractors better for solar system objects?

[Peter Drew]

They can be if you can afford one large enough. 

[mikeDnight]

Definition is what you need and a good 4" to 5" refractor will more than hold its own against any other off the shelf design of scope. I've seen a humble 4" Vixen fluorite whop scopes of well over 12" with regard to planetary definition and contrast. Mak's are excellent scopes but aperture for aperture they will not match a refractor. Neither are they as versatile as a refractor. They are limited to a relatively narrow field of view whereas the refractor will give you wide, star rich field that will allow many gorgeous dso's to glide effortlessly into the field of view. Think about it! Many advertisers make statements like " this scope gives refractor like images". No it doesn't! Only a refractor is capable of delivering a refractor image, other scopes aspire to the refractor standard but never quite get there.

Reflectors are great scopes when it comes to light gathering, but most modern, off the shelf reflectors have short focal ratios to make them easier to handle. This however has its draw backsbacks. Coma being the biggest destructive aberration coupled with spider diffraction and a relatively large secondary obstruction. All these amount to reduced contrast. The views of the moon and planets will look great through an 8" reflector and many people will be very happy with the views, but alongside a modern ED refractor of 100 or 120mm, it will die a death.

The maksutov and Schmidt cassegrains have large secondary obstructions that damage contrast and have narrow fields of view. Their biggest drawback however is that an 8" for example can take up to 3hours to become thermally stable.

You can probably tell at this point that I like refractors. Well, so do countless others and they'll spend thousands on them. That alone must tell you something. Today however you don't have to spend thousands. There are many superb doublet and triplet ED apochromats at reasonable, down to earth prices available. Longer focal length achromatic refractors are also becoming more widely available that don't cost the earth.

If youd prefers a reflector, then get a long one. At F10 they become near perfect performers, but you may need a step ladder to reach the eyepiece.

Mike

[John]

I like refractors too Mike and I've owned more of them, up to 6" in aperture, than other scope designs but I've owned mak-cassegrains and mak-newtonians as well and they do deliver very refractor-like images, at least to my eyes. Neil English, the great proponant of the long achromat has recently discovered that an 180mm mak-cassegrain can out perform his beloved 5" F/12 Istar  Anastigmatic on both planetary detail and binary star splitting.

I had my best ever views of Saturn in 30+ years in the hobby through a 1990's Celestron C8+ scope and it never took more than 45-60 minutes to cool despite being kept in a dining room.

My 12" F/5.3 dobsonian produces stunning views of the Moon and planets beating my ED120 refractor when the seeing is anything better than mediocre.

The original poster is talking about a 90mm mak-cassegrain though and I don't feel the design is efficient at that small an aperture.

[Holliday]

Sorry not to derail the thread, but would the suggested 127 Mak be a decent performer for white light solar viewing as well as lunar/planetary?

[johnnyp]

Some great replies gents thank you. I also like refractors and I would love an 100mm apo one day. Unfortunately out of my price range right now

I have a small dob and have no wish to purchase another . I'm not a fan of collimating no matter how easy it may be.

So do you think I would be disappointed with the 90 make for casual lunar and planetary? Or should I go higher ? 102 / 127?

Thanks for all the replies so far

[RodexMtl]

What about this. Scope guys?

http://www.canadiantelescopes.com/Shop-By-Brand/Refractors_4/Celestron-Omni-XLT-102-Refractor.html#.VOtmV8v0Cv0