Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_terminator_challenge_winners.thumb.jpg.6becf44442bc7105be59da91b2bee295.jpg

Sign in to follow this  
rml63

Today is the Day SW 150 or SW 200

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

Today I am going to the shop to buy either the 150p or 200p.   I am interested in visual only and I am going to start with lunar observing .

I want something I won't be bored with in three months and something that I can manage weight wise so that I will be able to take it outside with not alot of effort.  I am sure you guys have either been in this dilema or know someone who has, I was leaning towards a 130p for a light G&G but I want as much aperture as I can manage.  I have read in other posts ,as far as newts go ,that the 200p is the sweet spot in the lineup is this true?

Thanks in advance for any help you could offer.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both nice scopes, the 200 is manageable in one go and easy if you take the base and ota separately, the 150 is obviously more manageable ... biu smaller !

I started with a 150, really liked it but soon wanted more ... 1 year down the line got a 250.

Good luck choosing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the 200P dobsonian can be regarded as a sweet spot. It's a very good starter scope and is probably the largest size of the small scopes and the smallest of the larger scopes. With 8" of aperture you can see all the popular brighter objects - but it also allows you to peer a fair bit deeper into space too. So from a dark site on a clear transparent night you can eek out a heck of a lot of fainter objects.

I started with a 150P which is also good - but 18mths later I wanted more aperture. Also - mine was on an EQ mount/tripod and was a bit shaky - took a while for vibrations to calm down. A dobsonian (rocker box/turntable) mount is much more stable. But of course a dob mount is alt/az so doesn't lend itself easily to photography - something to consider maybe.

That said - either is a good starter scope - and both will sell fairly easily when you want to upgrade. For a home based instrument I would go with the larger aperture and easiest to set up. For me that would be the 8". Hth :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If using it from your home go for the 200p, they are very good scopes

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mike and welcome to SGL. Firstly you have done the right thing of asking us chaps on here for opinions and advice, before you spend your money, good move.  

For me on a like for like basis aperture rules. The general rule why this is as the more aperture the more light that enters the scope means that you can get higher magnification on those fainter objects . I think the 200p allows 77% more light gathering in than the 150 if I remember correctly  

If it was me I would go for the 200p , size wise it will be a bit larger to move , but not that much, if you can manage the 150 then the 200 will be fine. But the big difference will be that the 200p should take you into the more intermediate /advance stage of the hobby before you may think about upgrading. You do not want to buy a scope and then think about upgrading a few months down the line.

If your choice is the 150p or the 200p then IMO go for the 200p as will give better views of faint fuzzys and you will not have the " what if factor" that you probably will get if you go for the smaller aperture 150

I hope the above helps and enjoy your purchase , both nice scopes. 

I hope this helps☺

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off thanks to everyone for their very helpful comments.   After moving a Celestron 150xlt on a cg4 mount I knew that was not the goto for me.  Just looking at the 200p I knew it would not fit in it's assinged corner in the living room (close to the door to the front yard)  I then picked up  and played with a Meade Polaris 130 and that size really appealed to me.  I just wanted something a little higher end 

So I ordered a SW BKP 130 DS, on a vixen portaii mount.  With the money I saved on aperture I am trying to decide  between Hyperion zoom or single ep's with a barlow.  What ep's do you guys like the best for your reflectors.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had interesting observations with a 130mm telescope for 5 great months. If you like to spend time looking at the sky, your instrument will pay for itself in only a few trips outside. Mine paid for itself after 5 trips at most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also go for the 200p personally. You'll have a lot of fun with either of them, especially on the moon, but if you find yourself wanting to look at other things in the long-term then those extra two inches will give you the power to do it. It doesn't sound like much but it brings a considerable amount of additional light to the eyepiece, so you'll get a glimpse of details which just aren't there on the 150p, and galaxies, star clusters etc, will be that bit more rich and distinct. It's a scope that can keep you busy for years, in fact some people never see the need to upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/09/2016 at 11:05, Timebandit said:

If your choice is the 150p or the 200p then IMO go for the 200p as will give better views of faint fuzzys and you will not have the " what if factor" that you probably will get if you go for the smaller aperture 150

Have to agree with this- I have got the 150 and although it is a great scope and servers me week I do have the constant bag in my head about what i an missing it on by not going for the 200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I do have the constant bag in my head about what i an missing it on by not going for the 200"

Now that is called apperture feaver... :headbang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have ordered  a Baader zoom with 2.25 barlow, no thats going to be some serious, mags.

MIke

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Pogo007
      Hope someone with more experience than I, which basically means anyone that has successfully collimated a Newtonian, can answer a couple of compound questions I have based on my first and only attempt at secondary collimation of my SkyWatcher Flextube 250.
      1) All three of my secondary collimation screws were extremely snug before I did anything and I was only able to comfortably turn them counter-clockwise.  Is this normal?  Do I need to loosen all three screws first before I can properly start collimation?  Should I be turning any screw beyond "snug"?
      2) Before collimating, I placed a yellow sheet inside my OTA opposite my focuser tube and I placed a red sheet between my secondary and primary.  The view this gave through my focuser tube was of a red circle surrounded by a partial yellow ring (the secondary mirror stalk blocking a portion of this yellow annulus). While independently turning each of the secondary collimation screws counter-clockwise I looked down the focuser tube (both with and without a sight tube installed) expecting to see some change in the shape of the red area (more or less circular) and/or the yellow area (less or more even thickness).  I turned the screws no more that 2 complete revolutions.  I did not perceive any appreciable difference in what I saw and I turned each screw back (clockwise) to their original tightness before working with another of the screws.   Does it make sense that I didn't perceive any change?   Should I have turned the screws more revolutions?   Should I have loosened more than one at a time?
      Very confused and looking for your help.  Thanks
    • By anachristina
      Hi! I am very new to SGL (just signed up a couple of mins earlier) and to astronomy as well, though I have been facinated with celestial bodies since I can remember.  I recently purchased a Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ but now I’m having troubles using it and I can’t seem to see anything through it. I also have a Celestron collimating eyepiece but I still can’t seem to make it work. Anyone here who has experience with the same scope? Would appreciate if we could chat a bit as I would be really interested in your experience and how you ultimately made it work!
    • By beka
      I recently had to move from my residence and amongst the items in my store was the first telescope I had ever used. It as a Celestron FirstScope 114 that is no longer in production, a 4.5 inch f8 classic newtonian. Unlike the current model PowerSeeker 114, it has a EQ2 mount rather than an EQ1, and a red dot finder instead of the unusable 6X30 plastic unit on the PowerSeeker. So after probably a dozen years since last using it I decided it might be interesting to put it through its paces. I fondly recall seeing things like the polar ice cap on Mars at opposition, the GRS spot on Jupiter, the Cassini Division on Saturn and some deep sky objects like M7, the Double Cluster, the M81 M82 pair and a lot of more with this scope. After using a CPC 1100 almost exclusively since, I wanted to confirm to myself that I had really seen those object through the scope.
      The carton it was packed in was not completely sealed so it was covered with a great deal of dust. Looking down at the primary I could see some dark smudges - I didn't know if it was dirt or deterioration of the aluminum coating but luckily very little dust. I decided I would try the scope out before attempting to dismantle and do anything with the mirror.
      I cleaned it up the best I could and assembled it with more difficulty than I recalled having in the past. I used to keep it fully assembled with the latitude set at 9 degrees, the counterweight midway between two of the tripod legs and set it down with the polar axis roughly pointing North. I found that this way a could track an object with the RA slow motion control with only occasionally having to adjust the Declination. I tried to do the same this time but was constrained by having to set up on a narrow balcony rather than on the open ground.
      After having to wait a few day for the unseasonal clouds to clear (It looks like the bad weather issue also applies when you resurrect an old scope?) first target (Drum roll!!!) Albireo which was high up in the eavening sky. I had difficulty finding the target - I guess it was too much to hope that the battery in the red dot finder would still be alive after a dozen years. Using a 20mm eyepiece that came with a  Celestron 102SLT I anxiously searched around and after a few minutes located the unmistakable colorful pair. Encouraged I switched to a 9mm eyepiece from the Celestron Eyepiece and Filter kit - and I must say I was pleased. At 100X the image was sharp and somewhat surprisingly, the collimation seemed very decent.
      The big difficulty was the stability of the mount. A touch of the slow motion controls would start it shaking, taking maybe 5 to 7 seconds to settle. Focusing was the real challenge. I would make a tiny adjustment to the focus wait for it to settle then try again till I felt I had achieved the best possible.
      That was all I had time for the first evening and packed up not too disappointed.
      A couple of days later I had the scope out again. I first tried Jupiter low down in the SW. The seeing was bad but I could clearly see the two equatorial bands and three moons. In the past I had used the 4mm eyepiece from the above mentioned kit for a magnification of 225X. There is a 2X barlow in the kit but I had wanted to use the minimum amount of glass possible. This time I used the barlow with the 9mm eyepiece from the same kit for a magnification of 200X but with a more comfortable eyepoint. When the seeing was more steady for brief moments I though I could see some structure in the belts. My next target was Epsilon Lyrae - the double double. After some difficulty finding the pair and battling with the focuser, I had a rewarding view with both pairs clearly separated at 200X - nice airy discs (almost points) with some hints of diffraction rings.
      And finally for the pièce de résistance, I turned my scope to Saturn about 50 degrees above the horizon. With the 32mm eyepiece the rings were obvious. I carefully changed to the 9mm barlow assembly and frankly was amazed! The Cassini Division was in your face visible - no challenge at all. I felt the coloring of the bands on the planet was move vivid that through the CPC 1100. I could clearly see the shadow of the planet on the rings. Titan was visible with direct vision. The view was crisp to the extent that I thought it could take more magnification. With the CPC 1100 I once had the magnification up to 400X and though I could see the Enke gap as a darkening in the outer ring - but the FirstScope does not break your budget or your back!
      In conclusion I remember reading a review of a 4.5 inch newtonian (I think in was the Orion XT4.5 Dobsonian) and the reviewer mentioning the apo like views given by the diffraction limited spherical f8 primary. Having never had the chance to look through an apo refractor I can't confirm either way but clearly these cheap reflectors are nothing to sneeze at. Were it not for the unsteady mount I would have loved to continue using this scope. I imagine this scope but on a good quality altazimuth mount would make a very good beginner instrument. Hopefully I can pass it on to a youth who is passionate enough about astronomy to tolerate its quirks as I did and put it to good use.
       
      Thanks for reading!
       

    • By astrosathya
      Hi All,
      I purchased a GSO 6" f/4 Newtonian "Astrograph" late last year and eventually found that stars on one corner were egg shaped while taking images. I narrowed it down to improper centering of secondary mirror from the factory and resulting tilt. 
      Long story short, after numerous iterations, I used the Advanced Newtonian collimation technique by Astro Shed guy and ended up with the below pic of the optics. Does it look ok or do I need to do more? I will be checking with a Howie this weekend too.

    • By Ardoamros
      Greetings stargazers,
       I'm considering buying a new telescope (my first telescope) for astrophotography, and some visual astronomy. 
       But I can't decide which type should I get. I mainly want to photograph deep sky objects. After testing some variations in Stellarium I am worried that some deep sky objects won't fit into the aperture of an 8" reflector.
      I'm wondering which type should I get. And also I'm worried that I won't be able to photograph anything with a small refractor because I live near a city. 
      I am also open to any suggestions for a beginner astrophotography telescope. (around 800$ would be perfect)
      Thank you:)
      I apologise if I made any writing mistakes.
      Edit: I'm considering buying a Bresser Messier 203/800 or a William Optics Zenithstar 61 but I'm still open to any suggestions.
       
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.