AZ5 Bundles (Explorer 130ps vs Skymax 127)

[davyludo]

OK....thinking out loud but really looking for thoughts/advice from others.

Last year I was looking at getting an Explorer 150p(ds) or a 127mak for my AZ4, but changed my mind at the last minute. Circumstances have now changed and I'm back looking at new toys for later this year! 

I would really like to get an AZ5 so was looking at the available bundles on FLO - already have an ST102, so that leaves the following options:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az5-deluxe.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az5-deluxe.html

Looking for something that will complement my ST102 and allow me to do some higher mag observing. Looking for something to give me better views of planets, moon and clusters (really like open clusters - but would like to try some globulars). I'm not a real DSO hunter (yet) so not looking for a big light bucket and I've not really got into doubles (again...yet) - but it would be good to be able to dip my toe in and see if I like it.

Not looking at astrophotgraphy - just visual observing. And I don't want a dob just yet (please don't throw things at me) 

 

So....thoughts and questions on Explorer 130ps bundle:

1. From looking at AZ5, I think a 150p may be too big for it (I thought I'm going to ask FLO for their opinion). 
2. The price of the AZ5 and 130ps is...pretty good in my opinion, only £60 more to get scope with mount! Does this mean the 130ps is a rubbish scope, or is it just a good deal?
3. For visual only - will I notice a massive difference between the 130p and the 150p? I know 150 will collect more light, but I'm not looking for really faint things anyway...so might not miss that extra inch (no laughing now!)
4. Would I be better with the dual speed focus version or is that really only for astrophotography?
5. Sometimes find hitting the focus sweet spot at higher mags quite difficult (with current ST102 and 76mm newt). Would the 130p have a "bigger" sweet spot (if that is such a thing)? Not sure if amount of focus "play" is down to FL of scope or eyepiece.
6. Currently selection of eyepieces would work fine and I already have a cheshire so wouldn't need any additional bits.

Thoughts and questions on the Skymax 127 bundle:

1. I know maks are meant to be "the dogs" for planet viewing. But would I notice a big difference between that and the 130ps? 
2. Is the mak worth almost £200 more than newt? Plus the fact that I'll need to get dew shield/heater...so additional money.
3. My current selection of eye pieces are probably not the best for a 127mak, so I would need to spend more money on that as well. 
4. I don't always get a lot of notice that I'm going to be able to do some observing, so like to get setup in a few minutes and just start. Longer cool down time of mak might not be great for me - as some times I'm only out for 45 minutes so mak might get limited use as I'd have to wait until I know I'm going to be out for a session and can prepare. Can't keep it outside either, it'll have to live indoors.

 

I know the 127mak is a well respected scope on here - but there is something in the back of my mind that's just telling me it might not the one for me. I just can't explain it....sorry.

One of the main points I suppose is: with them being a similar aperture, will I get similar views? The mak might have slightly better contrast and sharper views.....but is it enough to justify the extra £200+ for scope, eyepieces and dew stuff? To be honest - I'm not looking for the best of the best....I'm looking for something that will give me better than I have at the moment and something that I will use (rather than sitting in the corner).

Thanks for reading. Interested to hear your thoughts!

Cheers, 

Davy

 

[happy-kat]

The mak will be less fussy on eyepieces than your ST102 (just twigged the ST in two inch). You could make your own dew shield and for your length of observing session is a dew heater even needed (I don't personally have a mak that big and all my things stay dew free with my home made shield) can't comment on how fast slow cool down is on a 127mm that might be your deal breaker..

[davyludo]

9 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

The mak will be less fussy on eyepieces than your ST102 (just twigged the ST in two inch). You could make your own dew shield and for your length of observing session is a dew heater even needed (I don't personally have a mak that big and all my things stay dew free with my home made shield) can't comment on how fast slow cool down is on a 127mm that might be your deal breaker..

Hi happy-kat, 

Thanks for your comments. I have x-cel LX and BST eyepieces and at the moment I'm only using 1.25". It was more the focal lengths that I was thinking about that would be suitable for both ST102 and 130ps - current ones give me a good selection of mags in both.

Even with making my own dew shield, it's still nearly £200 more for the Mak (before additional eyepieces) and I'm just wondering if it's really worth it? As for dew heaters...I have no idea, never owned a Mak so it's totally unknown territory for me 

It's always been the cool down time that has concerned me - I've read about an hour for decent views with a 127. Sometimes I just don't have that much prep time - I think that is the only think that I keep coming back to and is stopping me from REALLY REALLY wanting a mak. 

I had thought about a 102mak in the past as it would still allow me to get around 200x mag (which is really what I'm looking for) and would cool down quicker (would need to look at how long it takes for people to be able to use it). However I read a review that someone had done with the 130p and a 102mak and said that the 130p blew the smaller mak away....which made me kind of lean towards the 130ps more.

Unfortunately the AZ5 bundles don't come with the 102mak as an option - and I don't want an AZ pronto.

[happy-kat]

Why not knock a quick spread sheet up for your existing telescope and eyepieces what that means in magnification and exit pupil then add columns for the two telescopes considering. Isn't the 130p offered a normal 130p rather than the pds or other flavour? Not sure why the s.

[davyludo]

1 minute ago, happy-kat said:

Why not knock a quick spread sheet up for your existing telescope and eyepieces what that means in magnification and exit pupil then add columns for the two telescopes considering. Isn't the 130p offered a normal 130p rather than the pds or other flavour? Not sure why the s.

Yup - spreadsheet has been done already (saw one of your comments on another post and knocked one together). That's how I realised that my current eye pieces would work better with the 130p.

I did wonder that.....not sure what the 's' is for. Just that the FLO page says 'ps' so I just went with it...

[Alfian]

Hi Dave, I think the Mak 127 would a better "compliment" to go with the ST102, you will have wide field and a more dedicated planetary/luna type scope, though the Mak will be OK for some DSOs. I've had both 130 and 150  F5 scopes though not the PDS flavour. The 150p is a nice scope and the aperture certainly helps but you will still have an F5 scope, as opposed to the F12 of the Mak. If its aperture that you desire then the choice is clear. I found the 150p worked well on the AZ4 though some folks differ, and the 130p will certainly be fine.  The Mak 127 though on the Az4 makes for a really nice compact setup, it also goes very nicely on the EQ3! Eyepiece wise you are not so far out. A 32mm plossl will give about the maximum fov for the scope (though a 24mm/68 will do too). Your 9mm will give 166x which is pretty good and is nudging towards a useful maximum on a fair to decent night. On a good night you can push it, which is where something like a 7mm would be good or something like a 15mm with a 2x barlow. Thats all an extra  investment but the Maks longer focal length makes it much less fussy about EPs and plossls work well so you are not spending big on EPs to get the best out of it. Choices choices!

[happy-kat]

It has originally said pds as a typo so the s might still be a typo, could drop them a q on the item.

[davyludo]

5 minutes ago, Alfian said:

Hi Dave, I think the Mak 127 would a better "compliment" to go with the ST102, you will have wide field and a more dedicated planetary/luna type scope, though the Mak will be OK for some DSOs. I've had both 130 and 150  F5 scopes though not the PDS flavour. The 150p is a nice scope and the aperture certainly helps but you will still have an F5 scope, as opposed to the F12 of the Mak. If its aperture that you desire then the choice is clear. I found the 150p worked well on the AZ4 though some folks differ, and the 130p will certainly be fine.  The Mak 127 though on the Az4 makes for a really nice compact setup, it also goes very nicely on the EQ3! Eyepiece wise you are not so far out. A 32mm plossl will give about the maximum fov for the scope (though a 24mm/68 will do too). Your 9mm will give 166x which is pretty good and is nudging towards a useful maximum on a fair to decent night. On a good night you can push it, which is where something like a 7mm would be good or something like a 15mm with a 2x barlow. Thats all an extra  investment but the Maks longer focal length makes it much less fussy about EPs and plossls work well so you are not spending big on EPs to get the best out of it. Choices choices!

Hi Ian, thanks for your thoughts 

Is a slower scope better for planets and lunar in general and are there reasons other than that it's easier to get higher magnifications? I guess I'm a bit naive and simply use the focal length to calculate what mag I'm using.....don't really understand the pros and cons of fast and slow. I try to imagine it like a cone....a short FL has to make the light diverge more (over less length) in order to get it to focus at the eye. I don't understand how this affects what you're trying to look at. Going to do some reading and try to understand it a bit better.

I suppose the 130p might not be "different" enough from the ST102 in order to compliment it like you say. The ST102 would be wide field, low mag and the Mak would give me narrow field, high mag. I understand why you're saying it would be a better "compliment".

I was actually thinking about getting a 15mm anyway and I've just bought a BST Starguider 2x barlow....so that would give me a 7.5.

Hmmmmmmm, decisions!!! 

In your opinion....is the 127 mak worth the extra money over the 130p? Are the views noticeably better?

[John]

I've not looked though a 127mm mak-cassegrain for a long time but I had a peek though one the other night and the views were really nice. Very much like a quality refractor I thought. Thats going to have more influence on planetary, lunar and double star viewing rather than deep sky.

If I was looking for a planetary, lunar and double star scope with deep sky being less of a priority (but still possible) I'd go for the 127mm mak-cassegrain over a 130m newtonian I think.

 

 

[Alfian]

I'm no expert and it's good to have someone withJohns experience lending his comments. Your thoughts on the light cone are fine. The narrower light cone of the long focal length of the Mak  is easier on eps and optics in terms of the need to correct aberrations . It's also useful to be able to use longer focal length EPs, with better eye relief, to obtain higher magnifications. Whether it's worth the extra money is an interesting point. I'm guessing that Mak is more expensive to produce than a "simple" reflector but in terms of cost/performance people will no doubt have differing opinion. I like the Mak and what it does in such a compact manageable package so in that sense it's worth it - though I bought mine 2nd hand. 

Views wise the Mak is definitely better than my old Celestron 130 but that's no great surprise. I have yet to do a side by side comparison between the 127Mak and the ED100, chance would be nice, but I think the Mak would give the ED100 a good run, although that 'frac view is nice!

[davyludo]

Looks like the mak is the favourite so far  not really surprised...sounds like a great scope. Just a fair bit more expensive than the 130p bundle.... and I just didn't know if it was worth it.

I guess a 127mak would probably be a "life scope"....where as I'd probably want to upgrade the 130p at some point.

I do love the pin sharp stars on my short refractor... always wondered what the view was like through a higher quality one. Would a man be better a resolving globulars? So far I've struggled to really see much detail in them.

 

[Alfian]

The  Mak 127s do come up for sale 2nd hand fairly regularly so it might be worth waiting and watching for a while, or put a wanted and up and see what happens. That is if you so decide.

[John]

The "is it worth it" question is almost impossible to answer other than from ones own perspective in my opinion

For globular clusters, aperture is the key I've found. While I've had some "nice" views of them through smaller aperture scopes (of all types), with some resolution of the stars in the brightest examples, these objects really come to life when 8" or more aperture is applied to them. On a budget this tends to mean newtonians, or with a little more to spend, 8" or larger SCT's.

 

 

[davyludo]

Thanks all, appreciate your comments and advice 

I think it sounds more like the mak is visually what I'm looking for and would be the best for planets and lunar. I'm just trying to talk myself out of it because of the price difference  but ultimately it sounds like it's probably worth it in terms of enjoyment that I will get from views. And if it's not for me....then I can always sell it on. 

Might keep an eye out for 2nd hand ones while I'm waiting for Johns AZ5 review. 

Is it not really worth thinking about the 102mak? Again.... Would I just end up buying a 127 anyway?!

That's fine, I'll just ignore globular clusters just now. Plenty of other things to look at 

[John]

6 minutes ago, davyludo said:

Thanks all, appreciate your comments and advice 

I think it sounds more like the mak is visually what I'm looking for and would be the best for planets and lunar. I'm just trying to talk myself out of it because of the price difference  but ultimately it sounds like it's probably worth it in terms of enjoyment that I will get from views. And if it's not for me....then I can always sell it on. 

Might keep an eye out for 2nd hand ones while I'm waiting for Johns AZ5 review. 

Is it not really worth thinking about the 102mak? Again.... Would I just end up buying a 127 anyway?!

That's fine, I'll just ignore globular clusters just now. Plenty of other things to look at 

Globulars will look as nice as a 5" class scope can show them through the mak-cass I reckon, as long as it's cooled.

I'm afraid that I won't be the reviewing the AZ5 though. Not the right timing for me currently. MikeDnight has put up some excellent feed back on the mount though

 

[davyludo]

8 minutes ago, John said:

Globulars will look as nice as a 5" class scope can show them through the mak-cass I reckon, as long as it's cooled.

I'm afraid that I won't be the reviewing the AZ5 though. Not the right timing for me currently. MikeDnight has put up some excellent feed back on the mount though

That's good to know - I'll give them a bash and see how it goes. I think cooling is still the only thing that bothers me. I guess I can take the mak outside, then setup my ST102 and do bit of viewing....mak should be cooled a bit by then.

Ahhh ok, sorry John I thought I'd seen that FLO had given you one to try out. That's fine I've been keeping track of Mike's thread. I'm thinking about taking the AZ5 head and putting it on my 1.75" steel legs.... not sold on the AZ5 tripod.

Thanks again