5 inch SCT or Maksutov?

[Guest]

I once had a Celestron C5. I used it as a travel scope and mounted it on a strong photographic tripod. It gave very good views of both the day and night time sky. Sorry that I sold it. I am thinking of getting another. But, would the  same apature Maksutov still be as versatile/ transportable but give better views of night sky objects? Double star splitting etc. Which should I go for?

 

[DRT]

I posted a similar question a few weeks ago:

I ended up buying a C5 and what swung it for me was that a 127 Mak is about 2kg heavier and would require significantly longer cool-down time, which partly defeats the purpose of grab-n-go.

 

[Peter Drew]

I would expect the Maksutov to have the edge on star images and planetary crispness all other things being equal. On the debit side, it will have a longer focal length that will mean a smaller field of view with a given eyepiece, it will be heavier and cool down will take longer. Might be worth a punt just for the different experience. Either is worth having.  

[ecuador]

7 minutes ago, DRT said:

I ended up buying a C5 and what swung it for me was that a 127 Mak is about 2kg heavier and would require significantly longer cool-down time, which partly defeats the purpose of grab-n-go.

 

Eehh, the 127 Mak is 3.5kg. It is less than 1 kg difference compared to the C5, while the cooldown difference can't be too bad either, the Mak didn't give me that much trouble. And there's no collimation. 

From those two, I'd go with the Mak, otherwise I'd prefer a C6

[mikeDnight]

The Mak is sharper than the Schmidt and cool down differences will be negligible at such small apertures. Personally, for visual, I'd choose the 127 Maksutov over the C5 every time.

Mike

[Ben the Ignorant]

I own a C5, and have read all the reviews and lab tests I could find, quality varies. I also expect a Maksutov to be a little sharper, but the tolerances in manufacturing prevent generalization. Luck could land you a sharper than usual C5, or a softer than normal Maksutov. Given that the f/10 Schmidt-Cassegrain's have a wider field than the f/12 or f/15 Maksutov's, I'd go for a Schmidt-Cass for general use, but if you insist on sharpness and high mags, go for a Mak.

Maybe you already know, but the standard prism in Schmidt-Cassegrain packages reduces sharpness compared to dielectric mirrors, especially if the prism is chinese, less so if it's a japanese Vixen-made prism. I made the change, and understood the Vixen prism was a little softer and dimmer. (I have a GSO dielectric now).

[John]

I've owned a few C5's and a couple of 127mm mak-cassegrains (which are around 120mm in useable aperture). I liked both designs but the SCT is more versatile. On a photo tripod I'd go for the C5. I'd not try and seriously view the planets, moon or double stars using a photo tripod though !

 

 

[laudropb]

I opted for the 127 Mak. It gives nice crisp views of the Moon and planets and is very good on splitting doubles.

[Mark at Beaufort]

I had a Nexstar 5 a few years ago and always regretted selling it. I have looked at this scope - https://www.firstlightoptics.com/optical-tube-assemblies/celestron-c5-spotter-spotting-scope.html.  Is this the one you are thinking about? Looking at the Skywatcher 127mm Mak it is £140 cheaper which may come into the equation. Or this is another option although I know nothing about the Bresser range of Mak Cass scopes. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-maksutov-cassegrain-ota.html

 

 

[Ben the Ignorant]

This reviewer finds the Bresser 127/1900 very good:

http://www.astrotest.it/test-reports/compound-systems/maksutov-gregory-bresser-127-1900/

It has an effective aperture of 125mm to begin with, not 118mm or 120mm like the Sky-Watcher competitors, thus it's not a simple clone.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The weight difference is about 25% in favour of the C5, which is certainly not to be sneezed at in a travel scope. Maks may well be a touch sharper, but you would need a sturdier tripod than your average photo tripod to notice. The the F/12 Maks are not too bad in terms of FOV compared to the F/10 SCT, but the F/15 Bresser has less than half the area of sky visible at maximum FOV of 1.25" EPs. There is a 5" F/10 Maksutov by Intes, but that is rather expensive 9superb, no doubt). If a weight of about 3.5 kg is no objection, I would prefer a C6, but that is aperture fever talking

 

[Ben the Ignorant]

2 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I would prefer a C6, but that is aperture fever talking

Nope. I had decided on a six-inch aperture but no one made a tabletop six-incher, so I settled for the C5+ and its motorized tabletop mount. Very convenient, but a tad underpowered; six inches is the point where a reflector really punches, in my view. I bought a 6-inch newtonian tube that I dobsonized for my brother, so I had plenty of time to compare.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

5 minutes ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

Nope. I had decided on a six-inch aperture but no one made a tabletop six-incher, so I settled for the C5+ and its motorized tabletop mount. Very convenient, but a tad underpowered; six inches is the point where a reflector really punches, in my view. I bought a 6-inch newtonian tube that I dobsonized for my brother, so I had plenty of time to compare.

Aperture fever doesn't always talk nonsense