Skywatcher EXPLORER-130 or Celestron AstroMaster 130 EQ

[arnookie]

Skywatcher EXPLORER-130 or Celestron AstroMaster 130 EQ?

What should I buy?

Spec of Skywatcher EXPLORER-130 :-

• [li]Magnifications (with optics supplied): x36, x72, x90, x180
  [/li][li]Highest Practical Power (Potential): x260
  [/li][li]Diameter of Primary Mirror: 130mm
  [/li][li]Telescope Focal Lengh: 900mm (f/6.92)
  [/li][li]Eyepieces Supplied (1.25"): 10mm & 25mm
  [/li][li]x2 Barlow Lens
  [/li][li]Red Dot Finder
  [/li][li]EQ2 Equatorial Mount
  [/li][li]Aluminium Tripod with Accessory Tray
  [/li]

Spec of Celestron AstroMaster 130 EQ :-

OPTICAL DESIGN Reflector

APERTURE 130 mm (5.12 in)

FOCAL LENGTH 650 mm (25.59 in)

FOCAL RATIO 5

EYEPIECE 1 20 mm (0.79 in)

MAGNIFICATION 1 32.5 x

EYEPIECE 2 10 mm (0.39 in)

MAGNIFICATION 2 65 x

MOUNT CG-3 Equatorial

OPTICAL COATINGS Aluminum

WEIGHT 24 lb (10.89 kg)

What should I buy? Is one better than the other?

Am I correct thinking that the EXPLORER-130 is better than Celestron AstroMaster 130 EQ?

Please help? God only knows I need it!

[mdstuart]

Well I have the skywatcher and it works really well and the optics seems great. I understand the parabolic version of the 130mm skywatcher is even better. You should be able to source the skywatcher for around £50 on ebay if you are patient...and check the scope before paying!!

[arnookie]

Thanks for your advice both the scopes are £130 British pounds.

I want one brand new and these are the cheapest I could find.

Thanks.

I would like to see what others have to say though!

[GazOC]

I've never owned either scope but (other things being equal) a f7 Newt like the Skywatcher will be an lot easier on budget/ starter eyepieces than a f5 Newt. Cheaper eyepieces will show a lot more coma (flaring of star images near the edge of the field of view) at f5 than at f7. I wouldn't base your decision on this fact alone but its something to take into consideration and will have have a noticeable effect on the views you get with a lot of budget eyepieces.

[storebror]

I've had the Skywatcher 130PM for two years now and can vouch for its quality - it's brilliant for the price. True the eyepieces could be better but I guess this may be true for lots of scopes at this price, but don't let that put you off. It's a great scope and always gets very good reviews in the Astronomy magazines.

[timetraveller]

hello arnookie

i own the skywatcher 200p the bigger brother of the 130 and i have to tell you that it is a superb scope and having looked at quite a few other makes i find skywatcher to make first class astronomical equipment at very reasonable prices . I must however declare in all fairness that I have no personal experience of celestron products other than their excellent eyepiece kits of which i am a proud owner regards Pete

[berrymoss]

Why not have a look at the Celestron Omni XLT 130.

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=ComniXLT150

[scotastro]

If you are limiting your choice to those two go for the Skywatcher.

It has a more solid build - there is a lot of plastic at the focuser on the Celestron.

I always prefer a 150mm as a starting scope as the views are brighter and it will take longer to out grow than a 130mm scope. But of course it might be beyond your budget.

Mike

[philsail1]

Hello "arnookie"

I had the Skywatcher 130P (with single axis electric motor drive) and it was an excellent scope for the money. Only sold it (wish I hadn't!) to upgrade to the bigger 200mm.

I think it's worth looking at trying to get a scope with at least a single axis motor drive, as this will allow your scope to "track" and keep whatever you are looking at, in the field of view.

I would take a look at the "Celestron" Omni - the mount is more strudy than the Skywatcher's mount.

Best wishes,

philsail1

[arnookie]

Thanks I went for the skywatcher will order a motor drive once I get the hang of basic use. Are the economy eq2 motor drives any good? They only cost £30 uk pounds.

You have all been a great help. This seems a very friendly forum.

Thanks again

[storebror]

Thanks I went for the skywatcher will order a motor drive once I get the hang of basic use.

Does your Skywatcher not come with a motor included in the price??

[arnookie]

No it dose not but it was only £125 with free binocs and patric moor book and a free lens

[Rogue Leader]

Thanks I went for the skywatcher will order a motor drive once I get the hang of basic use.

Does your Skywatcher not come with a motor included in the price??

I think the the OP is talking about a 130 ? not a 130 PM which does indeed come with a motor. ( I cannot remember the suffix for the other 130, is it just a P?)

[arnookie]

Skywatcher EXPLORER-130

spec :-

Magnifications (with optics supplied): x36, x72, x90, x180

Highest Practical Power (Potential): x260

Diameter of Primary Mirror: 130mm

Telescope Focal Lengh: 900mm (f/6.92)

Eyepieces Supplied (1.25"): 10mm & 25mm

x2 Barlow Lens

Skywatcher EXPLORER-130PM spec

Magnifications (with optics supplied): x26, x52, x65, x130

Highest Practical Power (Potential): x260

Diameter of Primary Mirror: 130mm

Telescope Focal Length: 650mm (f/5)

Eyepieces Supplied (1.25"): 10mm & 25mm

x2 Barlow Lens

R.A. Motor Drive with Hand Controller (D.C.)

Parabolic Primary Mirror

0.5mm Ultra-Thin Secondary Mirror Supports

If you look it appears that the 130 has better optics than the 130pm

Maybe I am wrong but the 130 says it has a 900mm focal length and the 130pm says Focal Length: 650mm. Hope I chose correctly because I went by the f/6.92 of the 130 rather than the f5 on the 130pm.

Tell me I made the correct choice!

Thanks.

[Foo Fita]

I believe the 130 has a spherical mirror, and the 130pm I know has a parabolic mirror which gives superior images. How much better though I'm not sure. I don't think focal length has anything to do with image quality, although if I'm wrong I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be able to advise better.

FF

[arnookie]

Hope I did not mess up getting the none parabolic one then.

They both say 30% more Light Gathering than 114mm so would not have expected much difference. Well I really don`t know what to expect but I do hope I can get some close up views of the moon and its craters. Although I would love to be able to see Mars Jupiter and some of the deep space stuff.

Thanks all for you on-going help.

[arnookie]

Looks like I might have made a mistake.

Hope the lack of parabolic mirror dose not make this a bad choice.

[Astro_Baby]

The longer focal length makes the scope a slower f ratio. Slow f ratio scopes are fine with a spherical mirror whereas in a 'fast' scope a parabolic mirror is a neccesity, Back when I was a slim young thing there were no fast scopes except at scary prices as parabolic mirrors were so difficult to make and long focal lengths on even modest apertures were the norm.

A long focal length / slow f ratio scope is more forgiving of collimation errors and eyepieces. Fast scope are more fussy in both respects requiring tighter collimation and better quality EPs as a general rule.

Thats what I was told anyway - What the difference in image quality would be like between the 130 and the 130PM I dont know.

[arnookie]

Great reply. Can someone say if the image will be much different?

[Celestron_130EQ]

Ive got the Celestron Astromaster 130EQ and its brilliant. I got mine on Amazon.co.uk for 107.99

[pauly888]

After reading nemerous posts and other independant reviews, I have decided to buy the Skywatcher EXPLORER-130 PM as my first telescope.

Being an absolute beginer I just have a couple of questions

Is the full magnification of the scope available out of the box, or will I have to buy aditional lenses?

Will I be able to view galaxies and nebulae with the standard scope?

Two questions about the same thing really.

Thanks in advance.

[Doc]

Congratz on your scope.

Your 25mm eyepiece will give you x36 mag and the 10mm will give you x90 mag. Double these if you have a x2 barlow.

IMO the highest power eyepiece I would use is a 4mm this will give you x225. The x260 it lists on the box IMO is unachievable.

As for DSO's there will definetly be a few that are observable off the top of my head....

M42, 31, 36, 37, 38, 27 and quite a few NGC clusters.

[MikeP]

Magnifications (with optics supplied): x36, x72, x90, x180

From your original post, these are the magnifications the supplied eyepieces will provide. The quoted maximum magnification is x250.

You only need magnification for the moon and planets and one or two other bright things. Galaxies and nebulae are best viewed with low magnification.

Mike

[John]

Is the full magnification of the scope available out of the box, or will I have to buy aditional lenses?

Will I be able to view galaxies and nebulae with the standard scope?

pauly888

A quick response to avoid hijacking arnokies thread,

You get 2 eyepieces as standard - don't be in a rush to get to high magnification - most viewing is done at low to medium magnification - a scope is primarily about light gathering rather than magnificiation.

You will be able to view galaxies a nebulae with the standard scope - use a star chart for find out where they are and look on SGL for a recent thread where we list good objects for newbies.

John

[John]

Looks like I might have made a mistake.

Hope the lack of parabolic mirror dose not make this a bad choice.

I'll be totally honest with you - if you can change the order to the parabolic scope - do. The other won't be awful but will be more limited as others suggest. I realise that this might not be what you want to hear but I'm just being straight with you.

John