Skywatcher 200PDS & Skymax 127 advice

[scitmon]

Hello all,

Myself and a friend are wanting to get into astronomy (and astrophotography in the future) and we are thinking of joining together to buy a couple of telescopes, one for Deep Sky Objects and one for the planets/moon.  We are thinking of getting the Skywatcher 200PDS on the HEQ5 pro mount for deep sky objects, and a Skywatcher Skymax 127 MakCas on a EQ5 pro mount for planets/moon.  This obviously is gonna cost a lot of money and we want to get it right the first time so I was hoping someone more knowledgeable could answer these questions:

1.  Are we going to see significantly better images of the planets and moon with the 127 compared to the 200?  We are wondering if the extra for the 127 is worth it?
2.  Will both telescopes fit both mounts? 
3.  Can both telescopes share eyepieces? Which ones would you recommend for both/each?
4.  What other accessories do you recommend?

Thanks! 

[Putaendo Patrick]

Don't rush this!

Maks are great telescopes, but I doubt that a 127mm aperture Mak will significantly outperform a 200mm reflector. The sharpness and contrast of the Mak needs to be offset against the better resolution of larger aperture.

Remember, too, that a 200mm reflector is a large telescope and, even with the HEQ mount, these can vibrate in a relatively slight breeze. Astrophotography doesn't always benefit from large aperture.

I also wonder if you really need two goto mounts as telescopes are generally interchangeable, providing both have the same dovetail format. A good manual Alt-az mount as a grab-and-go would be easy to set up and transport for visual while the HEQ5 would be great for AP.

For visual use, in terms of aperture and value for money, Dobsonian reflectors are also hard to beat. The savings you would get could go to towards a apochromatic (or semi apo) refractor - for example: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-pro-heq5-pro.html

Eyepieces are interchangeable between telescopes, although there are two sizes 1.25" and 2". The Mak 127, for example, will only accept 1.25" EPs. Remember though, magnification for a specific EP depends on the focal length of the telescope.

For more advanced astrophotography, you will probably want a guide scope which provides more accurate tracking.

If you go with a reflector telescope, you will need a Cheshire eyepiece for collimation (fine tuning the alignment of the primary and secondary mirrors). This can also be done with a good laser collimator - but cheaper lasers can be problematic!

A very good book on astrophotography is Steve Richards' Making Every Photon Count - essential reading! https://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html

[Peter Drew]

I have used both, the SW200 is a very capable all round telescope and I think any performance differences between them would not justify having both. The Mak would be much more compact but would take a lot longer to reach thermal equilibrium.

Both telescopes should fit both mounts and share the same eyepieces. You will probably need a higher power eyepiece for the 200 and a lower power one for the 127.

You will need a dewcap for the 127 and collimation tools for the 200.

 

[brantuk]

I have both as well and can only echo what the chaps above have said. Additionally I would want a beefier mount for the 200PDS if you intend to do dso AP with it. Something like an NEQ6 or AZEQ6 would be much more suitable to avoid excessive vibration and cope with the extra weight of guide scope, two cameras, dew heaters/shield, and dew controller. Hth

[ronin]

Personally I cannot see the additional that the 127 will give. Part of this is that my views through a Mak and or SCT has never been that great. I know people report and talk of pin sharp views but they all seem to avoid me. And I own a Mak.

Planetwise we have 3. Jupiter and Saturn should be fine in the 200PDS it will deliver 80x, 120x and 150x easily. For Mars you will need closer to 250x when it is well positioned. That sort of magnification is more suited to the 200PDS I would say. I suspect the 127 will begin to top out at 180x. One other aspect of Mars is that it will be well placed in 2020, although I get the idea that it is a case of better in 2020 then in 2018. It is about a 2 year cycle for Mars to come around.

Both scopes will fit on the same mount, preferably the HEQ5, and both take the same eyepieces - 1.25" ones. The 200PDS should also handle 2" eyepieces, I don't think the 127 will in standard form but may be wrong. So one mount and a box of eyepieces will cover both.

As the 200PDS is set up for imaging you will likely need a short extension tube to see anything with an eyepiece, you need to move an eyepiece back. So get one at the same time.

For imaging the 200PDS is a physically big scope, likely to get more lost exposures owing to any breeze, the focal length and the simple weight. The weight just makes it more effort for the mount to drive.

[scitmon]

Thanks for all the input so far.  Here is what I'm thinking now based off your feeback so far:

• We will not be buying the 127 now, is there a telescope that can significantly outperform the 200PDS for viewing The Moon and Planets?  A refractor such as the Evostar 120mm or 150mm?
• HEQ5 pro for Astrophotography with the 200PDS will still have problems? would the NEQ6 improve this enough or should we scrap the idea of Astrophotograhy on such a large scope?
• Will save money by not having a GOTO on our second mount. 

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, scitmon said:

is there a telescope that can significantly outperform the 200PDS for viewing The Moon and Planets?

A 12" dob with an extremely well figured mirror like the ones from Zambuto.  I was able to clearly see festoons and barges on Jupiter with a Zambuto equipped 12.5" Portaball on an Osypowski equatorial platform at a star party several summers back.  The clarity was mesmerizing thanks to the phenomenal seeing that night along with the telescope.