Top-end v budget-end reflectors, is the difference noticeable?

[osbourne one-nil]

I love my 8" Portaball with its Zambutto mirror and refractor-like images (once it's cooled down) but a combination of awful weather and limited time means it's a very expensive luxury.

I'm looking to get something which is cheap enough that I don't have to fret too much at leaving in the shed to be at ambient temperature, ready to be used at a moment's notice, mounted to my AZ EQ5GT. If I went for something like a Skywatcher 200pds, what would the actual difference be at the eyepiece? I know it's an f5 rather than the f6 my Portaball is, so there'd be some evidence of coma, but coma doesn't bother me and I've got Televue eyepieces which help reduce that anyway. I also like the idea of something like the Vixen R200SS for it's ultra-wide field (albeit with lashings of coma probably) or a Skywatcher Quattro. 

I'm thinking (and hoping) that unless I go looking for problems, quick sessions with it should still be very enjoyable and my Portaball can be saved for those nights that are nailed-on to be clear. 

[triton1]

Out of curiosity why pick those three scopes as they are geared for astrophotography or is this the route your going down.

[osbourne one-nil]

Not immediately; it's more the wide-field of views I love, although I realise both the Vixen and Quattro might be pushing that too far visually. 

[Moonshane]

I think that other than high power planetary you'd see hardly any difference at all.

[triton1]

You could probably pick up a 200p secondhand for £100 ota only and at least wouldn't have any focusing issues if using eps.Also when reselling probably wouldn't lose any money.The views wouldn't be stunningly different maybe you might eek out a tiny bit more detail on galaxies and nebs from a dark sight.

[triton1]

Oh and your televues will be fine at f5 I don,t have any yet the ones I have cope with f5.

[scarp15]

Perhaps for something a bit different, keep a look out for a used OOUK VX8 or VX6 - F4.5 for a wider field, perhaps compatible with your mount, useful maybe for some intent later photography purpose, still OK and acceptable regarding coma considering the purpose.

[osbourne one-nil]

Thanks all - I think an f5 or f6 makes more sense and will certainly be less hassle when it comes to collimating. I've had OO stuff before and have always found it fairly....utilitarian.....but the optics have always been good so I'll keep my eyes open. 

Whatever I got would be sharing the mount with a Tak fc-100d so the contrast should be good. 

[swamp thing]

I'm afraid no televue eyepieces correct coma. For that you need a coma corrector.

What TV mean by corrected is they don't show other aberrations like astigmatism when used in a fast scope.  

 

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, swamp thing said:

I'm afraid no televue eyepieces correct coma. For that you need a coma corrector.

What TV mean by corrected is they don't show other aberrations like astigmatism when used in a fast scope.  

 

I'm sure that's true. However, the off-axis view in our F4.1 is much, much better in the TVs than in respectable but ordinary EPs like the Series 4000 Plossls etc.

Olly