Skymax 102 vs 127 (probably again)

[davyludo]

Would just like to hear peoples opinions of the skymax 102 and 127 maks - particularly how they compare against each other.

I'm looking at getting a mak soon, specifically for visually observing lunar and planets. Originally looked at the 102, but wasn't sure if I'd end up wanting the 127 instead. Not looking at using it for DSO so does the additional 25mm aperture make much difference in detail seen on moon/planets.

Sorry if you're all sick of discussing the small maks!

FYI - A couple of us got side tracked on another thread (sorry Jules):

 

[Alien 13]

There can never be enough threads on Maks in my view, I like small so of the two I would have the 102 mm but even then I would probably still use my 90 mm the most. 

I have even promised myself a 90 mm Questar over any other scope if I won the lottery (and you would need too) 

Alan

[davyludo]

Personally I find the 102 really attractive - seems like a good price, size, weight and it sounds like you can get some awesome views from such a small bit of kit.

I'm certainly not knocking the 127 - it also sounds like an amazing bit of kit and lots of people love it. But I just wonder if there is a noticeable difference between the views provided by both. 

If you couldn't see the scope, say it was inside a box, and all that was poking out was the eyepiece for you to look through. Would most people be able to say "yeah, that one definitely has a clearer image with more detail".

I understand there may be a few people with experience and knowledge that would be able to pick put small differences that I may not notice. But...would an untrained newbie eye be able to pick out differences?

[ronin]

For planets and moon the 102 should be sufficent, until Mars makes an appearance when the 127 may produce sufficent magnification to get to 200x and so means you may squeeze some detail out of the view.

Sort of depends then on Mars. Do you care about Mars? Only ask as myself I couldn't really care less about it. No idea why but if Mars appears it really is a case of "That red thing is Mars" and off I go to something else.

Decide on Mars and if relevant then the 127, otherwise the 102 will do the rest.

[Cosmic Geoff]

The 127mm Mak is excellent. As for which one to go for, it depends on whether you intend it to be your sole scope, and to some degree how you intend to mount it.

The 127mm Mak is the heaviest you'd want to have on the lightweight aluminum tripod that is part of the GoTo outfit. The smaller 102mm would be less of a load on the mount, and easier to handle if you want a portable/grab'n go/travel instrument.  But you would be more tempted to upgrade to a larger aperture, one suspects, which would be fine if you are happy having a big and a small instrument.

There will be some difference in the performance on the moon and planets.

[davyludo]

4 minutes ago, ronin said:

For planets and moon the 102 should be sufficent, until Mars makes an appearance when the 127 may produce sufficent magnification to get to 200x and so means you may squeeze some detail out of the view.

Sort of depends then on Mars. Do you care about Mars? Only ask as myself I couldn't really care less about it. No idea why but if Mars appears it really is a case of "That red thing is Mars" and off I go to something else.

Decide on Mars and if relevant then the 127, otherwise the 102 will do the rest.

I hope no one shouts at me.... but so far I've not really been interested in Mars. I've looked and like you gone "cool, that's mars" and then gone off to find Saturn or Jupiter. I find them fascinating and would love to see a bit more detail.

Will a 102 show me the Cassini division and the great red spot for example? Will I be able to get a zoom eyepiece for a 102 and pretend I'm on an Apollo mission about to land (like a massive child)!

I've heard about people pushing the 102 past 200x - does this just mean that the image gets a bit dimmer and the exit pupil a bit more difficult to work with? Personally I'm happy if 200x is my limit - I've tried it with my ST102 and was able to manually track at this. Feel if I was to go much higher I'd need something less manual.

8 minutes ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

The 127mm Mak is excellent. As for which one to go for, it depends on whether you intend it to be your sole scope, and to some degree how you intend to mount it.

The 127mm Mak is the heaviest you'd want to have on the lightweight aluminum tripod that is part of the GoTo outfit. The smaller 102mm would be less of a load on the mount, and easier to handle if you want a portable/grab'n go/travel instrument.  But you would be more tempted to upgrade to a larger aperture, one suspects, which would be fine if you are happy having a big and a small instrument.

There will be some difference in the performance on the moon and planets.

I intend on keeping my ST102 for widefield, clusters, brighter galaxies. The desire for a mak is purely for the moon, Jupiter, Saturn and I'd like to try some doubles and globular clusters.

I'm planning on getting an AZ5 for my main mount - will swap between the AZ4 steel leg tripod at home, and the more lightweight one that comes with the AZ5 for a grab and go. I was considering the new AZ GTI GOTO at some point in the future - but I understand it may be suitable for both the 102 and 127. Not 100% on if I want it yet though, just a thought.

At the moment, space is a bit limited in the flat and I like to be able to take my scopes away camping. So light and easy to grab is what I'm leaning towards. I'm thinking about getting a mak and then using that and my ST102 for a good few years until I'm I  a house instead of a flat.....then....well then I'll probably end up with an 8"  or 10" dob 

[nightfisher]

As i own both 102 and 127 (BTW this is the second time i have owned this 127!) and i have owned larger Maks (OMC140, x2 skymax 150 pro`s and a 180 pro, oh and this 102 is my second oops) i think i might be nearly qualified to answer your questions

Remember these Maks are basically ED optics, they show no false colour and have next to zero distortion, cool down is the killer, they just dont perform when taken from house to eyepiece, half hour for a 102, 45 mins for a 127 90 mins for a 150 and a week for a 180, well not that long but you get my drift.

Not to fussy about what EP`s you feed them but you just dont waste money with exotic wide field million dollar EP`s....ortho`s plossl`s and BST type EP`s are just fine, but i would NOT use  zoom EP as the mak has a narrow field and so do zooms.

Down to observing with a 102 and a 127.....the 127 should show SLIGHTLY  more detail on Luna and planets like Saturn and Jupiter due to a larger aperture but i wonder if the shorter focal length in the 102 would assist by creating a slightly brighter image at the EP.

The 127 is a cracking good scope.....so is the 102 and the 102 is a fair bit lighter.

One other point with Maks on AZ mounts is the finder shoe may need to be moved to a better position, i usually add a second shoe to give me options. Good luck in choosing a Mak both the 102 and 127 are very good

[davyludo]

9 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

As i own both 102 and 127 (BTW this is the second time i have owned this 127!) and i have owned larger Maks (OMC140, x2 skymax 150 pro`s and a 180 pro, oh and this 102 is my second oops) i think i might be nearly qualified to answer your questions

Remember these Maks are basically ED optics, they show no false colour and have next to zero distortion, cool down is the killer, they just dont perform when taken from house to eyepiece, half hour for a 102, 45 mins for a 127 90 mins for a 150 and a week for a 180, well not that long but you get my drift.

Not to fussy about what EP`s you feed them but you just dont waste money with exotic wide field million dollar EP`s....ortho`s plossl`s and BST type EP`s are just fine, but i would NOT use  zoom EP as the mak has a narrow field and so do zooms.

Down to observing with a 102 and a 127.....the 127 should show SLIGHTLY  more detail on Luna and planets like Saturn and Jupiter due to a larger aperture but i wonder if the shorter focal length in the 102 would assist by creating a slightly brighter image at the EP.

The 127 is a cracking good scope.....so is the 102 and the 102 is a fair bit lighter.

One other point with Maks on AZ mounts is the finder shoe may need to be moved to a better position, i usually add a second shoe to give me options. Good luck in choosing a Mak both the 102 and 127 are very good

Thanks Jules - that's really useful to see a comparison of cool downs between models. Especially from someone who has hands on experience of them all! Yeah I'd read the 180 takes a lifetime, suppose it's probably best stored in a garage/shed all the time.

Sometimes I can only spend about an hour out playing, so a 102 would be perfect here: take it out first, the setup the ST102, do half an hour low power stuff. Put the mak on and do half an hour high power. Back inside, cuppa, bed. Sorted! 

As for eye pieces - I don't think I'm going to have a scope any time soon that would merit really expensive eye pieces. I'll stick to X-cel LXs and BSTs for now  maybe  wee Vixen SLV if the price is right! 

Ok, so maybe I don't get to play Apollo mission commander with a zoom eyepiece then.... I'm sure I can live with that 

I think there's part of me that's thinking the 127 might get less use because I go "ach, I don't have the time to wait, I'll just do low power tonight". I actually want to enjoy the kit I buy! 

Yeah that's a good point about finder positioning. That's why I'd like to buy one on that comes as part of an AZ kit, so the dovetail is on the "side" rather than the "bottom". From my mental picture I believe the focus knob may end up behind the eyepiece as well, rather than to the side.

[Alfian]

I don't know what kind of camping you are into (glamping?!) but if its of the more lightweight kind then the 102Mak is the one, not that the 127Mak is enormous but its half again as heavy with a corresponding need to be well mounted. As said before, the 102Mak is less demanding and imagine it would go well on the new AZ5 with the lighter weight tripod.

[johninderby]

Although it doesn't seem like much of difference in aperature in fact there is a considerable difference. The 127 aperture has an area 55% bigger so it gathers a lot more light.

       John

[Alfian]

12 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Although it doesn't seem like much of difference in aperature in fact there is a considerable difference. The 127 aperture has an area 55% bigger so it gathers a lot more light.

       John

Indeed it does and aperture does make  a significant difference but as ever increased aperture has knock on implications in terms of mount, portability etc and I think this is the crux of this particular issue.

[Peter Drew]

An inch extra at the small end of the aperture range always seems to provide more benefit than one at the upper end.  

[Macavity]

I always had a slight feeling that (MAK 90 versus MAK127) the
smaller aperture was "a bit sharper". For convenience, I once
did think about buying a MAK102! The last can accommodate
e.g. the mid-sized Maxbright 2" diagonal. You are NOT going
to get refractor-like fields, but *wide* angle 2" eyepieces are 
still well worth a try - especially for any portable set up...

[davyludo]

28 minutes ago, Alfian said:

I don't know what kind of camping you are into (glamping?!) but if its of the more lightweight kind then the 102Mak is the one, not that the 127Mak is enormous but its half again as heavy with a corresponding need to be well mounted. As said before, the 102Mak is less demanding and imagine it would go well on the new AZ5 with the lighter weight tripod.

My camping tends to be wild camping around Scotland on the occasion that I get away to climb a munro. Telescope and mount would have to get carried along with tent, sleeping bag, food, clothes and most important of all....whisky 

To be honest I do more observing in and around Edinburgh just now - taking a scope camping would be a nice to have.... But not necessary. Just thought it would be good to take advantage of darker skies. But that's partly why I bought the ST102. I suppose thinking about it, the mak would probably be more of a city telescope for looking at brighter objects.

[johninderby]

While I found the smaller mak gave sharp views of brighter objects the 127 was able to pick out fainter objects. So purely used for the planets the smaller masks would do well.

I'd describe the 127 as a better all rounder (given the limitations of a narrow FOV) although indeed heavier and more expensive.

           John

[davyludo]

21 hours ago, johninderby said:

Although it doesn't seem like much of difference in aperature in fact there is a considerable difference. The 127 aperture has an area 55% bigger so it gathers a lot more light.

       John

I can totally appreciate that, that's a lot more light (didn't realise that was the figure though) - but if I'm only really going to be using it on bright objects (moon and planets). Will I really need the extra light gathering? Is that what helps bring out extra detail? Maybe the extra inch is more useful for doubles and globular clusters.

[davyludo]

10 minutes ago, Macavity said:

I always had a slight feeling that (MAK 90 versus MAK127) the
smaller aperture was "a bit sharper". For convenieNce, I once
did think about buying a MAK102! The last can accommodate
e.g. the mid-sized Maxbright 2" diagonal. You are NOT going
to get refractor-like fields, but *wide* angle 2" eyepieces are 
still well worth a try - especially for any portable set up...

Actually just purchased a 2" diagonal for my ST102. Hadn't even thought about it being useful on 127 mak. Thanks for pointing that out. 

[John]

I understand that the Skywatcher mak-cassegrains operate at a bit under the stated aperture so I think the 102 is actually around 97mm effective aperture ?

Same goes for the 127 which I think has a "true" aperture of 121mm.

They are very nice scopes to view through despite this - very sharp and contrasty.

I'd always tend to go for more apeture in smaller scopes for the reason that Peter gives. If I was hiking around with it in my back pack I might change my mind of course !

Resolution increases with aperture as well of course. Not as fast as light gathering does though !

More light = more information in the final image ?

 

 

[Macavity]

6 minutes ago, davyludo said:

Actually just purchased a 2" diagonal for my ST102. Hadn't even thought about it being useful on 127 mak. The is for pointing that out. 

Well, with the caveat that you have to be able to attach it! Not quite sure
what "back end" the modern MAKs have... If both scope and the diagonal
have a T2 thread fitting possibilities, you are in with a sporting chance.

[davyludo]

7 minutes ago, John said:

I understand that the Skywatcher mak-cassegrains operate at a bit under the stated aperture so I think the 102 is actually around 97mm effective aperture ?

Same goes for the 127 which I think has a "true" aperture of 121mm.

They are very nice scopes to view through despite this - very sharp and contrasty.

I'd always tend to go for more apeture in smaller scopes for the reason that Peter gives. If I was hiking around with it in my back pack I might change my mind of course !

Resolution increases with aperture as well of course. Not as fast as light gathering does though !

More light = more information in the final image ?

Ahhh, didn't realise effective aperture was lower. Interesting.

I suppose in my case, it would spend most of its life getting used under the light polluted skies of Edinburgh. That extra inch of aperture might really help coax out some more detail. 

[johninderby]

Just use one of these adaptors then attach a 2" visual back or an SCT diagonal. Fits the 127, not sure about the 102.

http://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-mak-sct-thread-adaptor.html

          John

[davyludo]

First of all - thank you all for your comments and advice. Once again the people of SGL have provided kind, patient and helpful advice to those of us just starting out. 

I have made my decision and I'm going to go for the 127. I feel it will be a better long term investment for me and hopefully that extra inch will allow me to use it for other things as well as the moon and planets - hopefully this will also help as it'll spend most of it's life being used in and around light polluted skies. I also know that if I got the 102 and liked it....I'd wish I'd bought the 127. Whereas I don't feel that I'll get the 127 and wish I'd bought the 102 (or the 150). The cool down time doesn't seem to be that much more than the 102 (step up to 150 seems to be a lot worse) and I've worked out how I can easily fit this into my observation style. Also...being lazy, the 127mak comes in a bundle with AZ5 so the dovetail/finder/focuser will all be in the right orientation for me wanting to use it on AltAz mounts. 

I decided that it still small enough and light enough to chuck in the car and take away with me....I just won't be carrying it to the top of mountains! I figured that if I want something to stick in my backpack and walk for miles....then something like a 90mak or ST80 (with a lightweight tripod) would be better for that sort of thing.

FYI - with my current eyepieces the max FOV I will get with the mak is 1deg. So at the weekend I used the ST102 with an eyepiece that gave me ~1deg and tried to observe only with this. I found that I used the RACI finder a lot more for star hopping and finding my way around. I was able to locate things without many issues - so I feel confident that the narrow FOV probably won't be an issue for me. This was a useful experiment for me.

Thank you once again - your help is very much appreciated. 

Clear skies!! 

Davy

[johninderby]

Good news. 

Think you'll be glad you didn't settle for the 102. Not that the 102 isn't a nice little scope but the 127 is just more capable. 

         John

[davyludo]

16 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Good news. 

Think you'll be glad you didn't settle for the 102. Not that the 102 isn't a nice little scope but the 127 is just more capable. 

         John

Thanks John.

I think you're comments on the amount of additional light and that the 127 was a better all rounder were partly what swung it for me as well 

[johninderby]

Makes a nice white light solar scope as well. Easy to make you own solar filter using Baader solar film if you don't want to pay for a ready made filter.

    John