New to the hobby - Skywatcher Heritage 130P or Meade LightBridge Mini 130

[AbeSapien]

Hello there,

It's been a while since I'm reflecting on entering the hobby or not and after an awesome and breathtaking weekend in "local" observatory, I'm pretty determined now!

I spend a lot of time surfing the internet over the past few month (more or less intensive) and almost made a choice to suit my needs. To start with, I absolutely want a Dobson! I'm impressed by the design and the view quality you get with an entry-level Dobson.

 

Now though, I hit a bump and I really cannot decide between two models because they seem (to me) almost identical...

I'm talking about the Skywatcher Heritage 130P and the Meade LightBridge Mini 130...

First off, I need the portability since it will be my go to scope and travel scope. We are planning on overlanding Scandinavia with the Jeep on a 15.000km journey and space is a pretty big issue. Both scopes will fit although the Skywatcher has a small advantage here.

 

Nonetheless... What exactly are the differences and the pro and cons I have to consider before deciding on one of them? How good are the mirrors and which scope will last longer?

Also, you need to know that I'm willing to send in the mirrors and re-coat them over time to get even better results (if that makes any sense!). And if I get some help I'll absolutely buy optics too since I've read that the stock ones aren't that good.

 

Enough rambling ^^

Thank you for any advice!

Abe

 

[Timebandit]

Hi and welcome to SGL

The Skywatcher 130p is a nice scope and a great way to get into the hobby.

But reading into your wants list more. Then I an not entirely sure this scope may be the best way to go ,so to meet your needs. You put a lot of enthusiast on the optics and about getting the mirror recoated to get them better. I think what you mean is to get the mirrors re figured,

Therefore if you are thinking about customising the optics to get better results. You may be better off going for a different scope to be begin with and save all the extra cost and trouble. What about an Orion Optics VX 6. This will have a slightly larger diameter mirror of 150 mm, but not that much difference in size of scope, but more light gathering ability . But more importantly,and to meet your criteria,  you can already get with top quality optics, . There is the 1/10 pv ,95 strehl model which already has the upgraded mirror you wish to have. And if I remember correctly I think the VX6 also had the ultra 1/12 pv optics available. Obviously a bit more than a Skywatcher 130. But second hand ones come up and at very affordable prices of between about £200/£300.  Obviously you do need great seeing/atmosphere condition for these top quality mirrors to really come into there own. But In my opinion this may be a more sensible option considering your criteria.

I hope you like the above suggestion and it helps☺

 

[JOC]

If you are considering a 130P then I've just checked and they do a truss tube version https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html if you are looking for portability this may have advantages for you in terms of size.  I use a truss tube 8" version and mine has three trusses - I haven't had it long and am no expert, but the mechanism appears quite solid, its easy to use and if the two truss version is as good you shouldn't have any problems - it vastly condenses the size of the tube for transport and storage.  I've also not read anything against my version online.

[AbeSapien]

19 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

Hi and welcome to SGL

The Skywatcher 130p is a nice scope and a great way to get into the hobby.

But reading into your wants list more. Then I an not entirely sure this scope may be the best way to go ,so to meet your needs. You put a lot of enthusiast on the optics and about getting the mirror recoated to get them better. I think what you mean is to get the mirrors re figured,

Therefore if you are thinking about customising the optics to get better results. You may be better off going for a different scope to be begin with and save all the extra cost and trouble. What about an Orion Optics VX 6. This will have a slightly larger diameter mirror of 150 mm, but not that much difference in size of scope, but more light gathering ability . But more importantly,and to meet your criteria,  you can already get with top quality optics, . There is the 1/10 pv ,95 strehl model which already has the upgraded mirror you wish to have. And if I remember correctly I think the VX6 also had the ultra 1/12 pv optics available. Obviously a bit more than a Skywatcher 130. But second hand ones come up and at very affordable prices of between about £200/£300.  Obviously you do need great seeing/atmosphere condition for these top quality mirrors to really come into there own. But In my opinion this may be a more sensible option considering your criteria.

I hope you like the above suggestion and it helps☺

 

H Timebandit and thank you very much for the warm welcome

 

I'll have to check if I can fit the scope in the car but I think it's to big... I'll report on that back later! Where would I find a used one?

Thank you for the advice!

 

7 minutes ago, JOC said:

If you are considering a 130P then I've just checked and they do a truss tube version https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html if you are looking for portability this may have advantages for you in terms of size.  I use a truss tube 8" version and mine has three trusses - I haven't had it long and am no expert, but the mechanism appears quite solid, its easy to use and if the two truss version is as good you shouldn't have any problems - it vastly condenses the size of the tube for transport and storage.  I've also not read anything against my version online.

Hi JOC

Yes, that's the small advantage I'm talking about in my first post! The price is also very interesting... I saw it for 220€, same as the Mini Lightbridge! That's why I was searching for help on both of them since I can't decide...

[billyharris72]

Hi Abe:

I had the Heritage 130P for a while and it's a great scope (it was the one I started out with). For that price you would struggle to do any better. The Meade is probably just as good (optically it is likely to be identical), but it more expensive from what I remember.

Don't worry about sending mirrors off for refiguring or recoating - the stock optics are very good. Refiguring would make little difference, and no difference at all for anyone other than a very experienced observer. And even then only on planets (and maybe very tight double stars). On DSOs and other faint objects it makes no difference at all - the human eye with a dilated pupil does does not have the capacity to form a truly sharp image anyway (as anyone who has ever been given pupil dilating eye eyedrops will know only too well). A 1/4 wavefront mirror is so far beyond what your eyes are capable of doing under those conditions that there would be no benefit at all in upgrading. (Probably a different matter for photography though).

For the record though, the Heritage 130P performs pretty well on planets. Jupiter's Great Red Spot, the Cassini Division in Saturn's rings and detail on the Martian surface are all well within its grasp. Given that space is also a consideration I'd recommend it unconditionally. If you really want to spend some more money on it, maybe get a couple of better eyepieces than the ones that it comes with (which are not terrible, but not exactly great either). Celestron Ex-Cel LXs or the BST Starguiders are good for the price.

Billy.

[AbeSapien]

6 minutes ago, billyharris72 said:

Hi Abe:

I had the Heritage 130P for a while and it's a great scope (it was the one I started out with). For that price you would struggle to do any better. The Meade is probably just as good (optically it is likely to be identical), but it more expensive from what I remember.

Don't worry about sending mirrors off for refiguring or recoating - the stock optics are very good. Refiguring would make little difference, and no difference at all for anyone other than a very experienced observer. And even then only on planets (and maybe very tight double stars). On DSOs and other faint objects it makes no difference at all - the human eye with a dilated pupil does does not have the capacity to form a truly sharp image anyway (as anyone who has ever been given pupil dilating eye eyedrops will know only too well). A 1/4 wavefront mirror is so far beyond what your eyes are capable of doing under those conditions that there would be no benefit at all in upgrading. (Probably a different matter for photography though).

For the record though, the Heritage 130P performs pretty well on planets. Jupiter's Great Red Spot, the Cassini Division in Saturn's rings and detail on the Martian surface are all well within its grasp. Given that space is also a consideration I'd recommend it unconditionally. If you really want to spend some more money on it, maybe get a couple of better eyepieces than the ones that it comes with (which are not terrible, but not exactly great either). Celestron Ex-Cel LXs or the BST Starguiders are good for the price.

Billy.

Hi Billy and thank you for the advice!

Okay, I see! That does make sense to me. I'll look at other eypieces then. I'll check the Celestron models right away. What about Baader?

Do they all fit every scope or is it like with cameras, that every brand has its own mount? That way I know I can spend a little more and re-use them on a bigger scope in the far distant future

 

[billyharris72]

5 minutes ago, AbeSapien said:

Okay, I see! That does make sense to me. I'll look at other eypieces then. I'll check the Celestron models right away. What about Baader?

Baader are also very well regarded. Your main choices there would be between the Classic Ortho (50 degree field, by all accounts very clean image wit good control of stray light etc) and the Hyperion (68 degree field, better eye relief, posisbly not quite such a clean view, but still very nice). I think the Hyperions are regarded by most as a step up from the Ex-Cels based on the wider field, but when I compared them I though the Celestrons offered the crisper view. You won't go wrong with any of these though.

For what it's worth, my first eyepiece upgrade was a bunch of Skywatcher Plossls - with decent quality and a bit over 20 quid a pop I still think they are fantastic value for money.

[AbeSapien]

10 minutes ago, billyharris72 said:

Baader are also very well regarded. Your main choices there would be between the Classic Ortho (50 degree field, by all accounts very clean image wit good control of stray light etc) and the Hyperion (68 degree field, better eye relief, posisbly not quite such a clean view, but still very nice). I think the Hyperions are regarded by most as a step up from the Ex-Cels based on the wider field, but when I compared them I though the Celestrons offered the crisper view. You won't go wrong with any of these though.

For what it's worth, my first eyepiece upgrade was a bunch of Skywatcher Plossls - with decent quality and a bit over 20 quid a pop I still think they are fantastic value for money.

Okay, I think I do prefer a crisper image over a bigger FOV...

What about the mount?

[happy-kat]

The mount works very well. The heritage 130p telescope can also be mounted on a normal decent photo tripod with the addition of a ball joint and eq clamp so you don't have to stay with the dobsonian mount it comes on.

[JOC]

happy-kat - could the 130P be mounted on a tripod if the OP purchased the truss tube version?

[happy-kat]

It has a standard skywatcher attachment, it's like a long dovetail bar.

[BeerMe]

Another vote for the Heritage 130p.  It is a brilliant piece of kit for the price,  and is extremely portable.  You would have a ton of fun with it under those dark Scandinavian skies.  It's also great for holding collimation after long, bumpy rides ;-)

Here's a pic of mine with the tube closed and the box it comes with..

 

[laudropb]

Just a quick thought. When are you planning to tour Scandinavia. In the summer the skies will not be dark enough for you to observe.

[happy-kat]

showing 130p heritage telescope on a decent camera tripod

[AbeSapien]

12 hours ago, happy-kat said:

showing 130p heritage telescope on a decent camera tripod

Hi happy-cat,

Thank you very much for the input, much appreaciated! This helps a lot.

 

13 hours ago, laudropb said:

Just a quick thought. When are you planning to tour Scandinavia. In the summer the skies will not be dark enough for you to observe.

Hi laudropb,

Well here's something I really haven't considered... We will be traveling this summer from late June to late August...

The case given its to dark to observe I'll have to reconsider buying a 130 and immediately jump to let's say a Skywatcher Skyliner 150p or 200p.

[JOC]

13 hours ago, laudropb said:

Just a quick thought. When are you planning to tour Scandinavia. In the summer the skies will not be dark enough for you to observe.

 

5 minutes ago, AbeSapien said:

The case given its to dark to observe I'll have to reconsider buying a 130 and immediately jump to let's say a Skywatcher Skyliner 150p or 200p.

Given that your comment is a typo and you did understand laudropb, I am puzzled by your conclusion that you jump to the larger telescope I'm only a newbie myself, but surely if there will be too much light to observe that will be the case whether you have a large aperture or a smaller one?

[AbeSapien]

10 minutes ago, JOC said:

 

Given that your comment is a typo and you did understand laudropb, I am puzzled by your conclusion that you jump to the larger telescope I'm only a newbie myself, but surely if there will be too much light to observe that will be the case whether you have a large aperture or a smaller one?

Definitely a typo on my part ^^ sorry!

 

I jumped some thoughts here that I didn't communicate.

If it is not dark enough to observe I won't pack a scope to travel with, which saves me the "trouble" to get a small scope.

In that case I would buy a larger one to start with and start observing locally. Given that the Heritage 130 or the LightBridge Mini 130 sets me back by 230€, I'm definitely willing to pay 30-40€ more for the Skywatcher Skyliner 150 for example. But that's just a quick reflection on my part

[Alan64]

Hello Abe, and welcome.

I just wanted to let you know of another option, if I may...

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p3834_Celestron-OMNI-150-750mm-Newtonian---Optical-Tube-with-Rings.html

A 150mm f/5 is shorter than the 150mm f/8 of the Skyliner Dobsonian, and more portable for travelling and camping.

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p3551_Skywatcher-AZ4---Alt-AZ-mount-with-aluminium-tripod.html

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5542_Skywatcher-AZ4---Alt-AZ-mount-with-stainless-steel-tripod.html

The Sky-Watcher AZ4 is the most economical alt-azimuth that will support a 150mm f/5 Newtonian.  Here's an image of the AZ4 with a 150mm f/5...

https://stargazerslounge.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://thumbs4.picclick.com/d/l400/pict/162150351639_/Bresser-Messier-NT150S-Newtonian-reflector-and-Skywatcher-AZ4.jpg&key=4b9f82b63ca0446fdbd6f926e5310a829d873bed725e4d4168a84ee4abc2987c

I realise it's more costly, but it's also more versatile, and for home or travel.

The kit containing both is sold in the UK...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-az4-mount.html

Both the Celestron and Sky-Watcher Newtonians are the same, and manufactured by Synta Optical of China.

There's also the 130mm f/5 kit...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-130p-ds-az4-alt-az-mount.html

[JOC]

AbeSapien - Ah, with explanation comes understanding.  :-D I reckon a bigger telescope for home use sounds a better idea.  As you travel why not just pack a DSLR and a decent zoom lens, a firm camera tripod and maybe some binoculars (which if they will fit onto the same tripod so much the better.), NB.  This also sounds like it would take up less room to me?  If you were to get some darker skies during those later summer evenings you could look at a portion of the sky with both of those - You might even get some interesting photos of the moon out in the summer sun, and you will also be quite set up for viewing and recording nature on your travels.

[AbeSapien]

6 minutes ago, JOC said:

AbeSapien - Ah, with explanation comes understanding.  :-D I reckon a bigger telescope for home use sounds a better idea.  As you travel why not just pack a DSLR and a decent zoom lens, a firm camera tripod and maybe some binoculars (which if they will fit onto the same tripod so much the better.), NB.  This also sounds like it would take up less room to me?  If you were to get some darker skies during those later summer evenings you could look at a portion of the sky with both of those - You might even get some interesting photos of the moon out in the summer sun, and you will also be quite set up for viewing and recording nature on your travels.

I'm really sorry for jumping my thoughts here ^^'

The DSLR and binoculars are already on the list of "I'll hate myself for the rest of my life if I forget this stuff"

 

And yes, a bigger scope for home use absolutely makes sense. But now all my research is messed up and I really have to reconsider everything ^^ Where to start again...

 

13 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

Hello Abe, and welcome.

I just wanted to let you know of another option, if I may...

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p3834_Celestron-OMNI-150-750mm-Newtonian---Optical-Tube-with-Rings.html

A 150mm f/5 is shorter than the 150mm f/8 of the Skyliner Dobsonian, and more portable for travelling and camping.

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p3551_Skywatcher-AZ4---Alt-AZ-mount-with-aluminium-tripod.html

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5542_Skywatcher-AZ4---Alt-AZ-mount-with-stainless-steel-tripod.html

The Sky-Watcher AZ4 is the most economical alt-azimuth that will support a 150mm f/5 Newtonian.  Here's an image of the AZ4 with a 150mm f/5...

https://stargazerslounge.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://thumbs4.picclick.com/d/l400/pict/162150351639_/Bresser-Messier-NT150S-Newtonian-reflector-and-Skywatcher-AZ4.jpg&key=4b9f82b63ca0446fdbd6f926e5310a829d873bed725e4d4168a84ee4abc2987c

I realise it's more costly, but it's also more versatile, and for home or travel.

This looks seriously interesting!

What are the main differences over a dobson here? What exactly does the "f" value stand for and how does it influence the scope?

 

[Alan64]

All telescopes are advertised according to their aperture and focal-ratio.  You simply divide the telescope's focal-length by its aperture.  A 150mm f/5 has a focal-length of 750mm...

750mm ÷ 150mm = 5(f/5)

Take a 20mm eyepiece, for example.  With a 150mm f/5, you divide its focal-length by the eyepiece's focal-length to find the power...

750mm ÷ 20mm = 38x

A longer 150mm f/8 has a focal-length of 1200mm... 

1200mm ÷ 20mm = 60x

The one 20mm eyepiece results in two different powers, and with two different focal-lengths.  With the 150mm f/8(right), the image will be larger and somewhat dimmer.  Also, a smaller area of the sky is seen as a result.  With the 150mm f/5(left), the image is a bit smaller, brighter, and a larger area of the sky is seen...

Faster telescopes, like the 130mm f/5 and 150mm f/5, are able to "see" larger areas of the sky.  Slower telescopes, like the 150mm f/8 Dobsonian, are for moderate-to-high powered observations of the planets, and many deep-sky objects in addition.  

Eyepieces range from about 4mm to 40mm, with a 40mm giving the lowest power, the brightest image, and the largest area of the sky to be seen...

1200mm ÷ 40mm = 30x; not bad.

750mm ÷ 40mm = 19x, and binocular-like.

A 150mm aperture is capable of 200x to 250x, depending on the atmosphere; the "seeing".  At the other extreme, take a 4mm eyepiece...

1200mm ÷ 4mm = 300x

750mm ÷ 4mm = 188x

300x is a bit much for a 150mm to show anything sharply, among the consumer-grade.  Instead, to get a power of 188x with a 150mm f/8...

1200mm ÷ 188x = a 6.3mm eyepiece

Not to lose sight in my having suggested an f/5 Newtonian over an f/8 Dobsonian, again, it's simply that the 150mm f/5 would be more compact and travel-friendly.  Here's my 150mm f/5 compared to a standard shaker of salt...

I had purchased a 150mm f/5 tabletop a few years ago...

I didn't care for the base much.  I then relocated the telescope to a mount similar to the AZ4...

I then observed with it for about a year, and much more comfortably and effectively.  With the telescope on the tripod-type mount, I found it much easier to take a few snapshots through the eyepiece...

...and with a simple point-and-shoot camera, with a steady hand, and on the fly.

Now, there are 150mm telescopes that are even shorter, but they have the longest focal-lengths in relation to their compactness, when compared to refractors and Newtonians.

A 150mm f/10 Schmidt-Cassegrain, and with a 1500mm focal-length...

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p998_Celestron-C6-SC-XLT---150-1500mm-Schmidt-Cassegrain-Tubus.html

A 150mm f/12 Maksutov-Cassegrain, and with an 1800mm focal-length...

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p4071_Skywatcher-Skymax-150-Pro---150-1800-Maksutov---optical-tube.html

Those focal-lengths are even longer, than that of the 150mm f/8 Dobsonian with its much longer optical-tube.  If a 150mm f/10 Schmidt was suddenly transformed into a Newtonian, it would appear as the mock-up shown here on the right, and with the actual f/5 on the left...

...which is partly why the modified-Cassegrains are so popular, for their large apertures within an even more compact tube.  Now, those telescopes are definitely for moderate-to-high powers; no low-power wide-field views with those I'm afraid.  If you decided upon one of those, I'd recommend the Maksutov for its smaller secondary obstruction and consequent image quality.  The Schmidt would be lighter, and would acclimate to the outdoors more quickly; to begin observing more quickly, but its image quality is not quite at that of a Maksutov.

Refractors?  That's a whole other kettle of fish, one that Newton felt that he had to deal with in his time, and understandably so.

Incidentally, a Dobsonian is a Newtonian mounted on a Dobson-style alt-azimuth.

[Nathan UK]

22 hours ago, AbeSapien said:

Hello there,

It's been a while since I'm reflecting on entering the hobby or not and after an awesome and breathtaking weekend in "local" observatory, I'm pretty determined now!

I spend a lot of time surfing the internet over the past few month (more or less intensive) and almost made a choice to suit my needs. To start with, I absolutely want a Dobson! I'm impressed by the design and the view quality you get with an entry-level Dobson.

 

Now though, I hit a bump and I really cannot decide between two models because they seem (to me) almost identical...

I'm talking about the Skywatcher Heritage 130P and the Meade LightBridge Mini 130...

First off, I need the portability since it will be my go to scope and travel scope. We are planning on overlanding Scandinavia with the Jeep on a 15.000km journey and space is a pretty big issue. Both scopes will fit although the Skywatcher has a small advantage here.

 

Nonetheless... What exactly are the differences and the pro and cons I have to consider before deciding on one of them? How good are the mirrors and which scope will last longer?

Also, you need to know that I'm willing to send in the mirrors and re-coat them over time to get even better results (if that makes any sense!). And if I get some help I'll absolutely buy optics too since I've read that the stock ones aren't that good.

 

Enough rambling ^^

Thank you for any advice!

Abe

 

I use the SkywatCher explorer 130p and I really rate it mate.

But for portibility the heritage is more pick up and go although I guess if you try and use it in light polluted areas you will have to make or buy a light shroud. Here is a image I took last night through the SWE130p

[AbeSapien]

3 hours ago, Alan64 said:

All telescopes are advertised according to their aperture and focal-ratio.  You simply divide the telescope's focal-length by its aperture.  A 150mm f/5 has a focal-length of 750mm...

[...]

Incidentally, A Dobsonian is a Newtonian mounted on a Dobson-style alt-azimuth.

Hello Alan64,

Wow, thank you for those great explanations! Now this all makes more sense... It's just the point to decide which one is more suited for my use as a good all-round starting scope with some moderate deep-sky ability

 

3 hours ago, Nathan UK said:

I use the SkywatCher explorer 130p and I really rate it mate.

But for portibility the heritage is more pick up and go although I guess if you try and use it in light polluted areas you will have to make or buy a light shroud. Here is a image I took last night through the SWE130p

Hey Nathan UK,

Thank you for your impression! So much input on here!

Really like the outcome of that picture!

[Alan64]

1 hour ago, AbeSapien said:

Wow, thank you for those great explanations! Now this all makes more sense... It's just the point to decide which one is more suited for my use as a good all-round starting scope with some moderate deep-sky ability

A 150mm f/5 Newtonian is actually the closest you can get to an all-around telescope; a 130mm f/6 refractor is the other.  

The range of focal-lengths of eyepieces does not change, and generally ranges from 4mm to 40mm.  But telescopes vary widely, in aperture, and focal-length.

A 100mm f/4 telescope has a focal-length of 400mm.  But a 250mm f/4 telescope has a focal-length of 1000mm.  That static, unchanging range of eyepieces will give different powers with either one of said telescopes, yet they are both at f/4.  What makes a 150mm f/5 or 130mm f/6 telescope the ideal all-around instrument is that both can exhibit the sky at a very low power of 19x, but then up to 250x and beyond at the other extreme is also possible.

A power of 19x allows for using the telescope as its own finderscope, or at least to assist the finderscope, and in finding objects to observe; to scan around and about and in getting one's bearings there in the night sky.  

19x is also useful for observing the galaxy in Andromeda(M31) and the Pleiades(M45) in fall and winter; in scanning the congested star-fields of the Milky Way in summer.

If the lowest power of a telescope is not really all that low, then the telescope must definitely rely on a large finderscope to help it and the observer find anything in the sky.

Take this 280mm f/10 for example... http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p1006_Celestron-C11-SC-XLT---280-2800mm-Schmidt-Cassegrain-OTA.html

It has a focal-length of a whopping 2800mm, and with a 40mm eyepiece offering one its lowest powers of 70x, which isn't low at all.  The view of the sky through the 40mm would be quite magnified and narrow.  As a result, it's not a very good hunter, to scan and spot objects there in the sky.  Such a telescope also requires at least a motorised mount, if not go-to in addition, and to make full use of it.

A note, a caveat, about Schmidt-Cassegrains: they have the largest secondary obstructions of any other telescopic design...

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com/RDM2010/RainyDayScience/Hyperstar/Scopes/CelestronC6/CorrectorPlateBig.jpg

...which results in a loss of contrast and a loss in sharpness.  Consequently, Schmidts have no advantage whatsoever optically over all other designs, and are chosen solely for their light weight and compact tubes; ergonomics over optical quality, in other words.  

All mirrored telescopes have a secondary obstruction, generally with the Maksutov having the smallest and a Schmidt the largest.  Newtonians fall in the middle, depending.  A secondary obstruction in general is in effect a "cataract" in the centre of the telescope's "eye".

[rockystar]

A link to help you check sky darkness at the time of your travel: https://clearoutside.com/annual_darkness/59.33/18.07