Compliment to 80ED refractor

[Analysis Paralysis]

Would people agree that a 127 mm f11.8 Mak would compliment a 80ED f7.5 refractor? I am interested in planets, double stars, bright messier's and also want to do some simple DSO astrophotography using the latest skywatcher az GTi mount (sold with 127 mak). I have seen some good DSO photos using a 80ED and also a standalone DSLR on alt az, using multiple 15 second exposures and stacking software, so I am resisting the more expensive and more painful equatorial mount route. My main concern is resolution limitation with the 127. But I am aware that the skywatcher 150 p f/5 (the only other option that the az GTi would handle) is very unlikely to match the 127 mm mak planetary capabilities. Any thoughts or experiences that could help?

[Louis D]

I have a dual scope setup on a DSV-2B mount, an AT72ED on one side, and a 127 Mak on the other.  I think they complement each other well (wide, low power views for one and narrow, high power views for the other).  I purposely chose lighter scopes so the whole rig remains grab-and-go.  I have an 8" Dob as well and like it for faint fuzzies.  The Mak is very color free, flat field, and sharp to the edge like a well corrected Newt, minus the diffraction spikes.  I haven't tried it a whole lot on planets or doubles so far (only had it a for a year), but it is very nice on the moon.  I don't know about trying photography with the Mak.  The long focal length would demand tracking or very short exposures.  If you can pick up a used 127mm Mak for about $250 or less, it's no worse money wise than picking up a used Delos or XW eyepiece.

[Pete Presland]

I have never used either of the scopes you are considering. The 150p though with a X2 Barlow (F10, 1500mm FL) I would expect to give similar performance as the Mak (F11.8, 1500mm FL). The 150p will also be less prone to dew as well, so no need for a dew shield. 

[iPeace]

Makes sense. I liked my Mak 102, but it didn't give me enough "more" on Moon and planets than my (premium) 85mm ED. A 127mm Mak is a popular choice for performance in a package that is sturdy, easily mounted and doesn't take long to cool.

I do believe @nightfisher  has extensive experience with Maks and currently uses a 127mm, also for astrophotography.

[nightfisher]

39 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Makes sense. I liked my Mak 102, but it didn't give me enough "more" on Moon and planets than my (premium) 85mm ED. A 127mm Mak is a popular choice for performance in a package that is sturdy, easily mounted and doesn't take long to cool.

I do believe @nightfisher  has extensive experience with Maks and currently uses a 127mm, also for astrophotography.

I do indeed, here is my latest offering

[Peter Drew]

"You're a very nice 80ED refractor".   

[Analysis Paralysis]

Thank you all for your comments. Love the photo nightfisher!

What will probably happen is that I will end up buying the mount/mak combo, as the mak part would only then cost £200 brand new, compared to nearer £300 for OTA. Then, if I feel deprived of resolution, get a 150 mm f5. I have to watch my storage space and I learnt a lesson a long time ago, that goto and tracking are a must for me, hence limiting my choices to one mount. I had a 8.75 inch f6 dobsonian 30 years ago. No goto or tracking. I never got used to it and eventually stopped using it. I had a ST80 on manual equatorial mount. Never liked it. Ok at low power. But at x50 i spent more time tracking manually than observing! Lessons I learnt.