Getting new scope. Here are my 3 choices

[Terminator1981]

I've been researching my choices for my new first time telescope. Here are my 3 choices ...

the focal length of this refractor caught my eye

https://explorescientificusa.com/collections/firstlight/products/fl-ar1021000eq3

Or one of these maks

The mounts are different in each one  

https://explorescientificusa.com/collections/firstlight/products/fl-mc1271900eq3

https://explorescientificusa.com/collections/firstlight/products/fl-mc1271900tn

dont sell me on the dobs. I don't have room and live in a 3 floor apartment with no elevator. 

Intertesred in planet viewing and some DSO for now. Any suggestions on EPs will be helpful

[Ricochet]

The mak on the alt/az mount is going to be the easiest to carry up and down all those stairs. However, I've not seen that mount before so I have no idea how stable it will be. 

[Ben the Ignorant]

1 hour ago, Terminator1981 said:

the focal length of this refractor caught my eye

https://explorescientificusa.com/collections/firstlight/products/fl-ar1021000eq3

Hi, Terminator.

Can you explain what you mean by that? The mak has almost twice the refractor's focal length, making its viewing field twice as narrow. So why do you hesitate between them?

[jambouk]

Are you planning to use it from the apartment (if so how much light pollution), or carry it up and down and take it to a dark site?

You pick the two extremes of astronomy to combine in one scope

- planets; want long focal length

- DSOs; want greatest aperture, not so long focal length

I think I'd be drawn towards a refractor, the biggest you can afford.

I'm unsure of your skill level and other factors, but I'd favour a mount which tracks targets electrically, most of these today also have GOTO functionality - it might be an extra $200 now, but personally I think that would be a worthwhile investment.

James

 

[Terminator1981]

My skill level is never owned a really good telescope. I've used a beat up tasco department store one. Really cheap.  I will be walking the equipment down the stairs for viewing all I can afford is 102mm refractor or the 127mak $350 is my limit. No fancy apo or ed. Or go to. Light pollution is light to medium. But a dark site is nearby. Using my wife's Nikon b500 I managed to get a blurry but " I know what planet that is " of Jupiter at its max superzoom.  That when the astronomy bug bit me. 

[jambouk]

I would discount doing any astrophotography unless you have a motorised mount; if you get any images at all it will be a bonus, but I wouldn't count on it. The Mak is more accepting of a DSLR being stuffed on the end as there is more focus travel, you may need extension tubes to get the camera to focus on the refractor, but then the field of view for the Mak is so narrow and the focal length so long that you'll struggle to keep track of anything but the brightest targets (Sun (with appropriate filters), Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn).

Given you are using this for observing at the eye piece, I think I would still suggest the refractor.

I suspect if you were willing to get something second hand, you could either get more aperture or a motorised mount for your $350-400.

James

 

[Terminator1981]

No astrophotgraphy will be done. Just getting the best view of planets. What's the max useful magnification one can get on a 102/1000 refractor? Can a Barlow be used ?  I know maks and barlows don't mix. 

[Cosmic Geoff]

I would suggest getting one of the Maksutov outfits.  A decent aperture in a small package. But why the Explore Scientific? Other brands have Maksutovs in the same aperture and a different focal length, 1500mm.  If you don't want GoTo (and I would urge you to consider GoTo), then get the alt-azimuth mount as in your third example.  The equatorial mounts are okay, but a lot of beginners find them unhelpful, over-complicated and generally a pain.  When I came home late this evening, the combination I chose to take out to look at Jupiter was ... the 127mm Mak on an alt-azimuth mount.

You mention planet viewing - the 1900mm Fl Mak would be a fine scope for this.  But for DSO's, using a scope of this size and focal length you need a dark sky site to see galaxies, and preferably GoTo so you can find faint elusive objects.  Some of the bright and well-known star clusters will be too big to fit in the field of view of a long focal length scope. In town, the number of galaxies you will see with a 127mm scope is rather small.

[jambouk]

Maximum useful magnification depends on a myriad of variables, but I'd think 20-30x per inch... 102mm = 4 inches, so 80-120x magnification. It comes with a 25mm EP so that will give you... focal length scope / focal length of EP = magnification... 1000 / 25 = 40x magnification. Most also come with a 10mm EP which would give you... 1000 / 10 = 100x magnification. The fact they are not giving you a 10mm EP may suggest the view at 100x magnification isn't good.

As suggested in the last post, other manufacturers are available.

A Mak would be better for the solar system targets, but I think a small[er] Mak is not a good scope for faint fuzzies even in very dark locations.

You can use a Barlow with a Mak, and you'd probably want to when looking at the Moon and planets, but it will just make life even more complicated for the DSOs.

It's like vehicles; if you want to do 0-100 in under 5 seconds AND need to be able to plough a wet clay field you ideally need two vehicles, something fast and streamlined, and something with enormous tyres and lots of gears... If you can only afford one vehicle then something has to give at one end of the spectrum or the other, or both.

James

 

[Terminator1981]

12 hours ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

Hi, Terminator.

Can you explain what you mean by that? The mak has almost twice the refractor's focal length, making its viewing field twice as narrow. So why do you hesitate between them?

I read somewhere that a longer focal length in a refractor reduces CA. There's a 650mm focal length version of the refractor I posted. 

[Ben the Ignorant]

Yes, but it also reduces the field, sadly. I observed quite a few times through a friend's Celestron version of the four-inch 650mm refractor, the chromatic fringing is barely visible at high power, and the scope is very good on planets. Several clones of the 120mm/1,000mm achromat are on sale now at very reduced prices in Europe, maybe it's also the case in the US? These are as long as the scope you consider but seriously more powerful on the deep sky.

Their chromatic fringing is more apparent but if you can live with this imperfection, might as well take the largest scope that has it.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/clearance/skywatcher-evostar-120-with-eq3-2-eq3-pro-eq5-eq5-pro-heq5-mounts.html

[kilix]

If you buy a Mak, maybe in the future you will consider wider fields and a bit more pleasant view of objects in context to their surroundings. That's why lot of people who own a Mak, also have some fast refractor. Not for big magnifications, but exactly the opposite, as a Mak is not suited for smaller magnifications and wider FOV. With a fast refractor, it's a nice combo.

Mak is a specialist instrument for planets and lunar observing. Sure, it will show you the brightest nebulae and brighter clusters too. Or some faint fuzzies like M66, M82, those can be viewed too, but it's nothing spectacular in a long FL 5" instrument.

Manual tracking can be a pain in the beginnings, I also vote for GoTo on a mak, if at least a bit possible

[billyharris72]

Something to bear in mind might also be the cooldown time. It depends how long you envisage setting up, but if you're dragging it down stairs and want to get started right away the frac may be the better option.

As another possibilty, have you considered an f5 130mm Newt?

* Less expensive.

* Lightest of the three.

* More compact than the refractor; no chromatic aberration; more aperture.

* Better field of view than the Mak; as sharp or possibly sharper (central obstruction on an f5 Newt is smaller than the f15 Mak equivalent)

* Requires collimation, which with a mirror this size is trivial.

Sorry to make things more complicated, but best to consider all the options, even if only to reject them.

Billy.

[Terminator1981]

3 hours ago, billyharris72 said:

Something to bear in mind might also be the cooldown time. It depends how long you envisage setting up, but if you're dragging it down stairs and want to get started right away the frac may be the better option.

As another possibilty, have you considered an f5 130mm Newt?

* Less expensive.

* Lightest of the three.

* More compact than the refractor; no chromatic aberration; more aperture.

* Better field of view than the Mak; as sharp or possibly sharper (central obstruction on an f5 Newt is smaller than the f15 Mak equivalent)

* Requires collimation, which with a mirror this size is trivial.

Sorry to make things more complicated, but best to consider all the options, even if only to reject them.

Billy.

I might consider it. How good are the 130 newts? Any suggestions ?

[billyharris72]

Well, I like mine! My compliment of scopes comprises:

* An 8 inch Dob

* 150mm Mak Cas

* 130mm Newt

* ST80 refractor

The 130 gets a lot of use, though mostly for AP in my case. Side by side with the 150mm Mak it does okay (the bigger aperture means the Mak does outperform it, but it's hardly a huge gulf).

A Heritage 130p tube on an AZ4 makes a fantastic grab and go setup.

Billy.

[Terminator1981]

6 hours ago, billyharris72 said:

Well, I like mine! My compliment of scopes comprises:

* An 8 inch Dob

* 150mm Mak Cas

* 130mm Newt

* ST80 refractor

The 130 gets a lot of use, though mostly for AP in my case. Side by side with the 150mm Mak it does okay (the bigger aperture means the Mak does outperform it, but it's hardly a huge gulf).

A Heritage 130p tube on an AZ4 makes a fantastic grab and go setup.

Billy.

Found these. Any opinions ?

http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/telescopes/nexstar-slt/nexstar-130slt-computerized-telescope

http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/telescopes/nexstar-slt/nexstar-102slt-computerized-telescope

http://www.meade.com/telescopes/newtonian-reflector/lightbridge-mini-130.html#product_tabs_additional

http://www.meade.com/telescopes/refractor/infinity-102mm-altazimuth-refractor.html?___SID=U

 

[cletrac1922]

Have a Skywatcher ED80, and easy to store and transport

Has goto functionality with EQ5 mount

[jambouk]

1 hour ago, cletrac1922 said:

Have a Skywatcher ED80, and easy to store and transport

Has goto functionality with EQ5 mount

The budget here is $350 so this isn't an option unfortunately.

[jambouk]

There are pros and cons for them all. I can't get the meade links to work but I an in a very poor wifi area. I am drawn towards this:

http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/telescopes/nexstar-slt/nexstar-102slt-computerized-telescope

as you won't need to collimate it, and it is relatively compact.

the tripod looks like it may be prone to vibration, but you'll get used to that. You need to work out how you would power the set up. Are you any good at DIY / basic soldering and the like? If so you could build your own small battery supply, if not you'll need to explore ready made versions; you won't need much power to run this for 2-3 hours. with a tracking mount you'll also be able to  do some basic astrophotography. Would be worth exploring which of these set ups allow you to easiily achieve focus with the Nikon and if you need any extension tubes and the like.

i'm pleased you've started looking at GOTO, it is the riggt decision in my opinion.

james

 

[newbie alert]

On 2017-5-10 at 20:48, jambouk said:

Are you planning to use it from the apartment (if so how much light pollution), or carry it up and down and take it to a dark site?

You pick the two extremes of astronomy to combine in one scope

- planets; want long focal length

- DSOs; want greatest aperture, not so long focal length

I think I'd be drawn towards a refractor, the biggest you can afford.

I'm unsure of your skill level and other factors, but I'd favour a mount which tracks targets electrically, most of these today also have GOTO functionality - it might be an extra $200 now, but personally I think that would be a worthwhile investment.

James

 

He says"Intertesred in planet viewing and some DSO"

 

[BGazing]

127/1500 Mak is a very competent telescope, compact and portable. My first choice when I got back to the hobby, precisely for the reasons OP stated (flat, limited space). It is pretty fine on Moon and planets and a number of easier DSOs. Its limits are aperture (but portability means that it can see a LOT more under the dark skies) and narrow field of view. Still, there are only a handful of objects bigger than one degree, but your exit pupil will be limited and filter use also probably limited to UHC.

1500mm means that you can easily achieve big magnifications, you go down to 10mm EP and you are already at 150x, nice for Jupiter and OK for Saturn. However, unless you get yourself a tracking mount, you should forego 'Mak can handle cheap EPs well' and get a good widefield so that you can track manually on Altaz. At 150x , if your FOV is 60 degrees the planet will cross it in a bit more than one minute.