Maksutov v Schmidt

[Quacker64]

Well having attended my first star party, or starbecue as it was called, and seen through a lot of scopes, I am still I,pressed by the compact scopes with easy setup and a relatively small footprint. I mean in terms of portability, physical size, weight and setup.

I looked at several from Celstron Nexstar, Meade ETX 90 and there was a Celestron equivalent the model no. I can't recall. My initial thought was for Skywatcher's MAK 127 Synscan GOTO. Having seen the others, but sadly not the one I'm interested I was originally interested in.

The subtle difference between the Schmidt and Maksutov as far as I can tell us the Schmidt performs (slightly) better with DSO's. Is this broadly speaking correct?

Im now looking closer at offerings from both Meade and Celestron as opposed to Skywatcher alone. Feel free to point me elsewhere any SCT or MAK users. In my own head (and heart) I'm sure this is the route I will start off with and see where it leads. - possibly looking 6-8in by the way.

Many thanks

Stwve

[John]

A schmidt-cassegrain (SCT) is generally around F/10 so will show a slightly wider field than a maksutov-cassegrain which tend to be F/12 or F/15. Neither are really wide field scopes though. You could argue that the SCT has a slightly more versatile focal ratio but both will show around 1 degree of sky at max which most deep sky objects will fit into. In terms of the actual views of DSO's there should not be any real difference between scopes of the same aperture.

The Celestron 127 maksutov-cassegrain is the same scope as the Skywatcher 127mm mak-cass but on a slightly different mount.

An 8" Celestron SCT would be a pretty good all round scope. Lots of folks have one as their only scope.

[ronin]

The catch is that any scope has good and not so good points.

I like and have mainly refractors, they are good for the general middle stuff, reasonable size, reasonable magnifications, generally good images but they sort of exceed at no one aspect. Their drawback is the cost.

A newtonian tends to have the bigger objective, so more light, but an 8" scope is not as simple as pick up and run outside with it.

A Mak/SCT has the compact size, and a long focal length and so getting magnification is easy, not getting it can be hard, and it means a narrow field. I bought a Mak tried it once then went and bought a 40mm plossl for the field. Couldn't find a thing without it.

Without a significant budget there is no one scope, and even with a significant budget there is likely still several choices.

Will say at a public event I helped at 3 years back I turned up to find about 10 scopes there.

An 80mm refractor on a Vixen porta mount,

A 6" newtonian on and EQ5,

Everything else was a 5" or 6" SCT/Mak.

So the 5" and 6" ones seem to fit the all purpose middle ground fairly well.

Just equally there are areas they do not do great at, like most things in the real world.

An SCT/Mak really has to be goto. So are you happy with the data and setting up, you will need power also.

One bit odd aspect is they are "bigger" then you think, reason is they basically stay in one bit of OTA attached to the mount permanently, and underneath is a set of motors. I do not know of people taking the scope off the tripod, or the OTA off the mount. Meades are forks so they cannot seperate OTA from the mount bit.

If it is what you want then get one, you will at least be happy and it is your scope.

Just buy a 40mm plossl and learn to make a dew shield from a foam exercise mat.

[Stu]

An SCT/Mak really has to be goto. So are you happy with the data and setting up, you will need power also.

One bit odd aspect is they are "bigger" then you think, reason is they basically stay in one bit of OTA attached to the mount permanently, and underneath is a set of motors. I do not know of people taking the scope off the tripod, or the OTA off the mount. Meades are forks so they cannot seperate OTA from the mount bit.

If it is what you want then get one, you will at least be happy and it is your scope.

Just buy a 40mm plossl and learn to make a dew shield from a foam exercise mat.

I disagree with these points.

An SCT does not have to be GOTO. I use one (an 8" EdgeHD) on a Giro-WR mount, totally manual and it works very well indeed. You just need a decent finder and/or RDF but that's no different to any scope. I found over 60 DSO's in one session recently, so there really is no issue.

SCT's come in different configurations, some fork mounted, but you can get them just with a vixen dovetail attached so you can mount them on a variety of different mounts. I use mine on the Giro-WR for grab and go, or AZEQ6 if at home.

[Dave In Vermont]

I agree regards SCT's. The computer on my LX200 GPS died. So I loaned it out as/is to a friend who has a fighting chance to get it fixed. In the meanwhile, he's putting it to good use as an alt/az. beastie.  He's quite pleased with this as his only other scope is a 110mm Newtonian F8. He was blown away on his first go at M42 with 300mm aperture. So was I.

The price of SCT's, as just OTA's, is getting down to more affordable levels. Blame it on an economy scared of itself. But it's to our benefit if you look at it right. Maks remain at a high cost though. And they excel at detailed planetary views and, with a good mount, astrophotography of such. As ronin so astutely points out, and I paraphrase, each type of optical-system has it's strong points and weak points. This explains why some of us have several telescopes. Being able to afford such is a major catch though.

As for the LX200 GPS: My friend doesn't know it yet, but if he gets the computer up & running, I'll give him the scope! And send his wife a brochure for the TWA chapter nearest her - The Telescope-Widows Anonymous group. She may never see him again!

Mean ol' me,

Dave

[jambouk]

Remember the FoV is a consequence of the focal length of the scope. The speed of the optics (focal length divided by aperture) is another matter and does not determine the FoV, though slower optics are often found in very long focal length scopes like SCTs and Maks which consequently have a narror FoV.

Most, if not all of the Celestron SCTs have a focal ratio of f/10, whereas the bigger Skywatcher Maks get slower as the aperture increased (f/12 for the mak 127, f/15 for the mak 180). The celestron C11 is f/10 but has a longer focal length than the Skymax 180 which is f/15, and the Celestron has a narrower FoV.

-----

As to what to buy, i've no idea. As said above, no one scope does everything.... If you want a car which does 0-100 As fast as possible, you buy a ferrari; if you want to druve up the side of Snowdon, you buy a landrover; if you want to do both you have to compromise and go for something which won't be as fast as the ferrari, or as robust at steep muddy slopes as the landy. The SCT is between the two extremes, more at the landy end.

James

[Stu]

Well having attended my first star party, or starbecue as it was called, and seen through a lot of scopes, I am still I,pressed by the compact scopes with easy setup and a relatively small footprint. I mean in terms of portability, physical size, weight and setup.

I looked at several from Celstron Nexstar, Meade ETX 90 and there was a Celestron equivalent the model no. I can't recall. My initial thought was for Skywatcher's MAK 127 Synscan GOTO. Having seen the others, but sadly not the one I'm interested I was originally interested in.

The subtle difference between the Schmidt and Maksutov as far as I can tell us the Schmidt performs (slightly) better with DSO's. Is this broadly speaking correct?

Im now looking closer at offerings from both Meade and Celestron as opposed to Skywatcher alone. Feel free to point me elsewhere any SCT or MAK users. In my own head (and heart) I'm sure this is the route I will start off with and see where it leads. - possibly looking 6-8in by the way.

Many thanks

Stwve

To more directly answer this question, as mentioned before the SCTs tend to be around f10, whereas Maks tend to vary between f12 to f20 say.

This means generally that Maks are a little bit more specialised towards higher power applications such as lunar, planetary or doubles. They have a smaller secondary obstruction so have excellent contrast. They are also very good on small DSOs such as globular clusters and planetary nebulae. It is a moot point whether it is worth using 2" eyepieces on these scopes due to the narrow baffle. I admit I did use them on my f20, 4000mm focal length mak and they did ease to fov out a little without too much vignetting.

SCTs have a larger secondary obstruction, so tend to have lower contrast than Maks. The faster f ratio, although still slow makes them a little more flexible on field of view so probably slightly more suitable for general use. As rightly said, fov is determined by focal length not ratio, but the ratio, combined with knowing the aperture, certainly gives a good indication of whether the scope will be wide or narrow field.

Maks have a thicker corrector plate at the front, which makes them heavier than the equivalent SCT and they also tend to take longer to cool. They are generally limited to 8" aperture, I think mainly due to the weight, complexity and cost of the front corrector, whereas SCT's are made in larger sizes, up to 16".

One thing to be aware of with both types is mirror flop. These scopes focus by moving the primary mirror, and often the image shifts in the field of view are you change direction of focus travel. This can be annoying, the solution is to fit a focused onto the visual back and use this instead. My Orion Optics OMC200 had a very well engineered focus mechanism with zero flop eve at high powers but most Celestrons and Meades do suffer from this. It's not a fault, just a design 'feature'!

I think, as a first and more general scope out of the two I would opt for an SCT. I have recently acquired a Celestron 8" EdgeHD and am very happy with it.

[ollypenrice]

I don't think there's much in it. As others have said, you'll get a wider field from the shorter FL of the SCT but both are a bit long for my taste. In a compact scope I like the possibility of a very wide field of view. My compact/portable scope would always be a refractor for this reason.

Most optical engineers will tell you that, all things being equal, the Mak will give slightly sharper and more contrasty images. You'd trade this small advantage for the disadvantage of the restricted field of view.

One small fly in the portability ointment of any Cassegrain is the dew problem. In many environments no passive system is enough to beat the dewing up of the corrector. The only solution is a heated dew tape and that means having power to hand. (I used SCTs in Derbyshire for several years and even a very long camping mat dewsheild wasn't enough.)

Olly

[Owmuchonomy]

Some good advice above. I have owned both types a 6" Mak and a 9.25" SCT (still got that). It's not strictly fair to compare them with such differences in aperture but as a general observation either type is a planet and small bright object killer. For DSOs which was your original point the Mak was not really capable under my sky and whilst the SCT is, it needs dark skies, long cooling times and a dew band! Fully cooled the SCT with a wide EP 24mm and 82' comes closer to my 12" Dob but not quite a cigar.

[Macavity]

Randomly... 

If I was paying £1000+ for a telescope, I might want some sort of "certificate" re. optical

performance? In my earlier days on CN, I used to chuckle as posters claimed to have

exchanged several SCTs to get "good one"! I mean... Who got the rejects? [teasing]

Moreover, Maksutovs were "planetary only"... An accusation SCTs seemed to escape.

What is the performance of an average SCT? Someone once suggested "1/4 wave" only.

But is that peak-to-peak, RMS, or what? "Russkie" MAKs seem to *specify* performance,

and scale the price accordingly. (I have been *sorely* tempted!) But then I had to think...

How good an optical quality did I need personally? Do I need a..  "scientific grade"? 

But then, I am just about to stick my Skywatcher "gold" MAK150 onto an Sky-Tee mount.

To re-kindle a much-lapsed interest in visual observation. Despite (acknowledged) limits,

and general fun, (remote) Video Astronomy can seem a tad *too* easy sometimes...

[Quacker64]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies and opinion. As a complete beginner, some of the terminology used is above my head at this stage. Im beginning to understand focal lengths and magnification but not sure of focal ratio and its significance.

At this point, the mount and any imaging thoughts are not part of the equation. I'd looked and queried mounts on a different thread recently. What I'm looking for is a first scope/setup which needs to be portable and reasonably lightweight and small. Something easily taken into the garden for casual aboserving, or packed into the car when travelling.

I thought I had narrowed my choice, but if anything it seems to widen.

I do know one thing however and that is the scope will have to be one of the Mak/Schmidt types. Guidance is essential, be it GOTO or one of the others. I'm no longer in any great hurry to buy. Originally I thought small and keep increasing. Was a Mak 102, then 127. Later 150 and 180. Maybe I'm getting too much or information overload?

What I will do is continue to ask more questions from club members and see more scopes and get into specifics. I've googled until blue in the face(then googled some more).

There is so much choice and so much more opinion. Does anyone know of a resource, a comparison site to assist in such decisions?

Steve

[Stu]

I don't know of any specific comparison sites, although plenty of searches will turn up information on the different scopes designs and their strengths and weaknesses.

It may be worth listing what your requirements are in terms of budget, portability, observing location(s), the types of objects you think you will be most interested in, plus whether you think AP is a future aspiration. The more specific you are, the better. It's quite hard to answer 'I'd like to view the moon, planets plus DSOs, as an observer but also want to do AstroPhotography' because that basically covers everything!!

[jambouk]

Steve,

Here is a link to an article I wrote for my astronomy society on focal length, focal ratio etc, which may or may not help:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/js94ilxxhzkor11/Helpdesk%3B%20focal%20length.pdf?dl=0

The 180 mak is a lovely scope, but you will need a reasonably robust mount like an HEQ5 to mount it on. That is still very portable, as proven by lots of people on here, but it is getting towards having a car full, and depending how far you set up from your car, there are considerations anout carrying it all from the car to where you observe from.

It's hard on here to give "concrete" advice as there will always be people who will disagree and say the exact opposite, so you just have to build up a picture of what all the advice is telling you, even though there will be some outliers.

My concrete advice is... If the Moon and planets interest you more than DSOs, go for the Mak; you have to also factor in, and i'm not sure where you live, the planets are not going to be brilliantly placed for the next few years so you won't be spending hours and hours observing them unless you are on or near the equator... if you are more intersted in DSOs, and depending which ones, go for a much shorter focal length refractor.

You say imaging is not on the cards ar present but i suspect as soon as you start looking at the moon and some of the DSOs you'll want to get some images to prove to others what a wonderful hobby it is. As such, just bite the bullet and get a reasonable mount from the start which is sturdy, yet still portable, and has goto and reliable tracking - i think the HEQ5 is a pretty brilliant mount for its money.

And don't forget to factor in the other costs:

- battery to power the mount

- dew bands

- dew controller

- dew / light shield (can make one of these)

- eye pieces (stock ones are usually very basic)

Again i don't know where you are but if you are near nottingham you are more than welcome and come and look at my mount, and telescopes and have a chat.

James

[John]

This forum is the best comparison site to be honest with you

If you use the search facility you will find loads of reports on these scopes and all posted by folks who actually use them and are not trying to sell them !

[Peter Drew]

As you are at the beginning of the learning curve, my advice would be, whatever you buy get it secondhand. This will give you chance to see what suits you best and then you can move on by reselling at minimum or no further financial loss.  

[cjdawson]

Time for me to throw in my 2p worth.  

My first telescope was a 114mm Tasco from argos - that went back after a week (yay for the money back guarentee) as it was rubbish.   After that I hit the books and groups for a telescope that I would grow into.  With the thing being that I wanted astrophotography eventually, but not right away - just like you I wanted a scope that I could move easily, put into the car etc.

I chose the Meade LX-90 as an LX-200 was out of my price range at the time.  Both are 8" SCT's.  The LX-200 has better gearing and mechanics for photography, but the LX-90 was £600 cheaper at the time and the difference in gear quality wasn't really £600's worth.

At the time I was considering the ETX-125, but decided to go bigger as the LX-90 was the biggest scope that I could buy at the time.   This turned out to be an excellent decision as over 10 years later, my LX-90 is still going strong and the optics are still superb.

Putting aside all the f-ration talk, the main difference between an SCT and a mak, is that you can collimate an SCT with my LX-90, there are bolts on the front of the scope for the secondary that can be used to collimate the scope.  I'm also lucky as my scope retains it's collimation extremely well - I last collimated the scope about 5 years ago. I'm going to check it when I'm out next, but I'm not expecting to have to adjust anything.  Yes, it's that good.

As for the f-ratio stuff.  I've got a focal reducer for my scope that changes it from f10 to f6.3.  The advantage of this is that the exposure time on the camera can be shorter for the same result, or I could just capture more detail in the same time.  There is a caveat that using the reducer does change the magnification, so that means that objects will be a bit smaller on the frame when I use the reducer - which is a good thing on some of the larger DSO's.

[Quacker64]

I don't know of any specific comparison sites, although plenty of searches will turn up information on the different scopes designs and their strengths and weaknesses.

It may be worth listing what your requirements are in terms of budget, portability, observing location(s), the types of objects you think you will be most interested in, plus whether you think AP is a future aspiration. The more specific you are, the better. It's quite hard to answer 'I'd like to view the moon, planets plus DSOs, as an observer but also want to do AstroPhotography' because that basically covers everything!!

I'm possibly after something that's not attainable, the proverbial quart in a pint pot. I have not set a budget as such but the main criteria is the whole setup must be small and portable. Whether it's an hour or two in my LP garden, a remote site in my travels or a club-use dark site.

I have no interest in AP although everyone I speak to suggests I will have! Similarly, please bear in mind this is a hobby I may not pursue, and to that end I'm ruling out an EQ mount at this time. So planetary with the odd DSO's thrown in. Basically I'm well aware if I need to later I can and will upgrade. Certainly sub£1000

Steve,

Here is a link to an article I wrote for my astronomy society on focal length, focal ratio etc, which may or may not help:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/js94ilxxhzkor11/Helpdesk%3B%20focal%20length.pdf?dl=0

The 180 mak is a lovely scope, but you will need a reasonably robust mount like an HEQ5 to mount it on. That is still very portable, as proven by lots of people on here, but it is getting towards having a car full, and depending how far you set up from your car, there are considerations anout carrying it all from the car to where you observe from.

It's hard on here to give "concrete" advice as there will always be people who will disagree and say the exact opposite, so you just have to build up a picture of what all the advice is telling you, even though there will be some outliers.

My concrete advice is... If the Moon and planets interest you more than DSOs, go for the Mak; you have to also factor in, and i'm not sure where you live, the planets are not going to be brilliantly placed for the next few years so you won't be spending hours and hours observing them unless you are on or near the equator... if you are more intersted in DSOs, and depending which ones, go for a much shorter focal length refractor.

You say imaging is not on the cards ar present but i suspect as soon as you start looking at the moon and some of the DSOs you'll want to get some images to prove to others what a wonderful hobby it is. As such, just bite the bullet and get a reasonable mount from the start which is sturdy, yet still portable, and has goto and reliable tracking - i think the HEQ5 is a pretty brilliant mount for its money.

And don't forget to factor in the other costs:

- battery to power the mount

- dew bands

- dew controller

- dew / light shield (can make one of these)

- eye pieces (stock ones are usually very basic)

Again i don't know where you are but if you are near nottingham you are more than welcome and come and look at my mount, and telescopes and have a chat.

James

As per my profile I'm in Gateshead approx 150 mile north of Nottingham. A kind offer, but a little far. Accessories/necessities are not of concern initially. AP can also wait and as above the EQ5 or HEQ5 mount. I've decided on a Mak, just deciding which one really.

As you are at the beginning of the learning curve, my advice would be, whatever you buy get it secondhand. This will give you chance to see what suits you best and then you can move on by reselling at minimum or no further financial loss.

Hi Peter as the initial outlay will be an amount I'm more than comfortable with, I'm not comfortable with buying second hand unless it's a trusted source etc. once I've decided what to go with I may check what's available of course.

Time for me to throw in my 2p worth.

My first telescope was a 114mm Tasco from argos - that went back after a week (yay for the money back guarentee) as it was rubbish. After that I hit the books and groups for a telescope that I would grow into. With the thing being that I wanted astrophotography eventually, but not right away - just like you I wanted a scope that I could move easily, put into the car etc.

I chose the Meade LX-90 as an LX-200 was out of my price range at the time. Both are 8" SCT's. The LX-200 has better gearing and mechanics for photography, but the LX-90 was £600 cheaper at the time and the difference in gear quality wasn't really £600's worth.

At the time I was considering the ETX-125, but decided to go bigger as the LX-90 was the biggest scope that I could buy at the time. This turned out to be an excellent decision as over 10 years later, my LX-90 is still going strong and the optics are still superb.

Putting aside all the f-ration talk, the main difference between an SCT and a mak, is that you can collimate an SCT with my LX-90, there are bolts on the front of the scope for the secondary that can be used to collimate the scope. I'm also lucky as my scope retains it's collimation extremely well - I last collimated the scope about 5 years ago. I'm going to check it when I'm out next, but I'm not expecting to have to adjust anything. Yes, it's that good.

As for the f-ratio stuff. I've got a focal reducer for my scope that changes it from f10 to f6.3. The advantage of this is that the exposure time on the camera can be shorter for the same result, or I could just capture more detail in the same time. There is a caveat that using the reducer does change the magnification, so that means that objects will be a bit smaller on the frame when I use the reducer - which is a good thing on some of the larger DSO's.

That could almost be me except my initial purchase would be a lot more modest, or I should say initial outlay. I have looked at those larger scopes but not comfortable as a first scope. Even looked through a few. A lot of this will be trial and error, and while I appreciate a lot of good advice, there will come a time when I will learn from my own mistakes and change things.

Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer, but at this point - there's no hurry as the funds are waiting - I'm leaning toward either 5in or 6in. I've observe both Meade and Celestron 8in - both nice and clear, but above budget. I'm currently looking or at least thinking of the original Mak 127 GOTO or possibly the larger 150 (Skywatcher I believe they both are). Against these in the same 5 or 6in are the Celestron Nexstar 5SE and 6SE. Unless someone could suggest a similar 5 or 6 in I'm not aware of:-)

These all have GOTO or similar and tick my criterior boxes (I think). Sub £1k, portable, small, easy to take in and outdoor, especially pack into the car and so forth. As to the future, AP, that can wait, at worst I will still have a portable getup. I will discuss this further with club members and Mak users.

Sorry if a little long-winded again, but just trying to keep things simple.

Of course I could have asked if you had £1k and had to but a Mak with GOTO and Alt Az had no interest at present in AP and wanted to see as much as possible, including some DSO's what would you choose. But that's not half the fun really, and I'm learning a lot of other stuff I wasn't even aware of.

Steve

[L8-Nite]

.................... Accessories/necessities are not of concern initially. AP can also wait and as above the EQ5 or HEQ5 mount. I've decided on a Mak, just deciding which one really.

................................... just trying to keep things simple.

Steve

Have a look at the " Intes-Micro " line of quality optics. 

[jambouk]

What goto mount would you put the 150 Mak on?

I'd make sure you soend at least one evening looking through a Mak, and compare it with looking through the much wider field of view of a Newtonian.

I "fear" (not the right word but I can't think of the right word) that being confined to visual astronomt with say a 150 Mak limits what you can look at and may hasten your boredom with astronomy. Again others will disagree.

Good luck.

James

[Stu]

What goto mount would you put the 150 Mak on?

I'd make sure you soend at least one evening looking through a Mak, and compare it with looking through the much wider field of view of a Newtonian.

I "fear" (not the right word but I can't think of the right word) that being confined to visual astronomt with say a 150 Mak limits what you can look at and may hasten your boredom with astronomy. Again others will disagree.

Good luck.

James

I suspect the bigger issue is finding things rather than the actual observing. Most DSOs fit ok into a 1 degree field but getting them there is harder than a wider field scope.

A decent, well aligned finder really helps.

[jambouk]

Good GOTO helps me

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

One key difference between SCTs and Maks is the thickness of the corrector plate. This means on the one hand that SCT corrector plates may fog up slightly quicker than a Mak (due to lower thermal capacity of the thin plate), but that SCTs for a given aperture tend to be lighter in weight. My 8" SCT (black, 20 y.o. C8) OTA weighs in at under 5 kgs, and is lighter than all 6" Maks I am aware of. That makes the C8 a breeze to set up. My C8 was my only scope for many years until I got a wide-field refractor to complement it. I might well get a big Dob for deeper DSO work, but the C8 isn't going to be for sale, it is such a great travel instrument (at least by car). My scope has no go-to, just a massive finder. This has allowed me to pick up over 900 DSOs so far.

[Macavity]

What goto mount would you put the 150 Mak on?

The MAK150 is a great scope which shares many of the characteristics of the popular MAK127.

It is still [iMO] below being the region of dedicated "planetary scope", like the MAK180. With 2"

diagonal, lower powers (an open mind - teasing!) it can still be a good "general purpose" scope.

The nearest I'll get to ~5-6"(?) APO refractor performance at that sort of price! [semi-serious]

But, they are quite heavy little beasts. With 9x50 finder, tube rings, added Monorail focusser, 

2" diagonal, wide angle eyepieces, mine tips the scales at 16lb! The same as my 8" f/4 Newt.

No problem, if you are willing to use an *equatorial* GoTo for visual. My HEQ5 seems fine!

If you want to use an Alt-Azimuth mount, the possibilities are not quite so obvious...

For what it's worth, I was never very keen on the commonly used MAK127 Alt-Az

Skywatcher combo. (Or my ill-fated Mk.I Ioptron). The motors are typically v.small

and of variable quality? But thing may have improved now! For my MAK150, I've

just bought myself an (emminently solid! lol) Sky-Tee. I intend to use my small ED

refractor as a "finder" - -To re-bite the bullet of "star hopping". Never too late... 

The C8, at least on paper, is a surprisingly light weight 8" scope -- Just sayin'!  

[cjdawson]

Here's another way of thinking about things.

Meade - 

LX-90 8" goto £1749

The LX90 is an 8" scope, fork mounted goto scope.  The tripod is sturdy.  At the outset the scope will come in Alt-Az configuration, but can be changed to EQ with the addition of a wedge.

This scope is over your buget, but I'm certain will tick every single box that you could want for a number of years to come.  It's price, but I don't think you'll be left wanting with it.

ETX-125 £649

This is the little brother of the LX-90.  It's f/15 instead of f/10.  It's also a Mak instead of an SCT.

Again comes with Goto, and tripod.  This can be configured for both Alt-Az or Eq right out of the box.

the 125 is the side of the optics, 125mm or 4.9 inch.

The ETX range uses the same hand crontroller as the LX-90 - known as the #497 Autostar controller.

Skywatcher

Skywatcher Skymax 127 SynScan AZ GOTO Telescope £359

Single arm mount - will get wobbly when there's alot of weight on the scope (camera, or large eyepiece)

Mount: Alt-Az, looks like it cannot be easily converted to EQ

Optics 5" mak.

Tripod looks sturdy.

Has goto functions.

Overall for the price I'd say this is a superb looking visual scope.  I think you'll hit a wall the moment that you start wanting to add a camera to the equation.

Skywatcher Startravel 80 EQ1 Telescope £130

This one is a real curveball that I think you might appreciate looking at.

It's a manual scope.

80mm refractor at f/5

The tripod is a bit flimsy. The mount is an EQ mount.

It's an EQ-1, which is the cheapest of the EQ- series.

However, it's an 80mm refractor.   As a first telescope I'd highly recommend this.  I have one that I bought as a second scope not as my first.

Here's the killer, it's dead easy to use.  It's cheap enough that it'll not blow your budget.  As it's a manual scope, it will force you to learn the night sky - something that people that buy a goto scope first don't tend to do (I regret that I've still not learned my way arount the night sky)

So, why is this such a killer?  Firstly, it's cheap.  You can use this to give you time to save up for a that bigger scope that I'm sure you are secretly drooling over.   Then, when you get your bigger all singing and dancing goto scope. you can take this ST-80 and mount it on top of your new bigger scope, so that it will become a guidescope.   That way, you can build up to a big scope, and already you'll have a fantastic piece of kit for if/when you get bitten by the DSO AP bug.  (my profile picture is an ST-80 mounted on my LX-90)

Just a few ideas.

(I was going to add more - celestron and a couple of others, but I kinds need to get on with stuff)

[Quacker64]

What goto mount would you put the 150 Mak on?

I'd make sure you soend at least one evening looking through a Mak, and compare it with looking through the much wider field of view of a Newtonian.

I "fear" (not the right word but I can't think of the right word) that being confined to visual astronomt with say a 150 Mak limits what you can look at and may hasten your boredom with astronomy. Again others will disagree.

Good luck.

James

yes - the mount. I think that's the stumbling block - good job budget isn't really a budget, just a notional figure. ;-)