90 v 102 mak

[TSRobot]

Hi. I have a wide field scope, the ST120 f5 and would like a few higher mags for the solar system. At £43 difference is the SW mak 102 really going to make much improvement over the SW mak 90. The focal lengths are very close too so maximum magnifications are quite close too. Both are very portable for holidays and nature spotting and can mount on one side of my Giro 3 or a photo ball head. The price seems quite good though i have a wanted ad to find one 2nd hand in any case. I've seen the bresser versions with flip mirrors, but would prefer to use my own diagonals. Any thoughts?

Thanks.

[NGC 1502]

If it were me, I’d go for the 102. I don’t know about makes other than my own 90mm Mak, it’s the optical tube from an ETX 90 removed from its go to mount, I use it on an alt-az. It makes a very portable planetary / lunar / double star scope, but a bit more aperture would be welcome.........a 102 wouldn’t be a big leap in what a 90 will do, but a bit extra all helps.

HTH, Ed.

[25585]

11 minutes ago, NGC 1502 said:

If it were me, I’d go for the 102. I don’t know about makes other than my own 90mm Mak, it’s the optical tube from an ETX 90 removed from its go to mount, I use it on an alt-az. It makes a very portable planetary / lunar / double star scope, but a bit more aperture would be welcome.........a 102 wouldn’t be a big leap in what a 90 will do, but a bit extra all helps.

HTH, Ed.

SW 150 Mak seems a decent scope. Probably be next step up from a 102.

[John]

2 minutes ago, 25585 said:

SW 150 Mak seems a decent scope. Probably be next step up from a 102.

Rather than the 127 ?

[25585]

Just now, John said:

Rather than the 127 ?

127 next step from a 90 maybe. Owning 100 and 120 fracs, the difference is there, but not as signifigant as an extra 20% of diameter might suggest. Likewise I found for Newtonians, there is big improvement between 8 and 12 inch, but less between 8 and 10, the latter size being a half-step.

If I upsize though it will be my SCT to a C11 OTA, depending on whether a Skytee 2 is likely to manage its weight!

[vlaiv]

I don't have any hands on experience with either (or any mak for that matter), but I can relay my impressions that I've got while researching such scopes for myself.

If at all possible I would advise you to seriously consider Mak127. Price wise it is still close to two mentioned scopes. Size difference is really small, so is weight - but do consider it depending on your mounting options, so storage and transportation requirements are pretty much the same. Aperture is always a plus.

Most important in my view was manufacturing quality. Somehow I've got the feel that both 90 and 102 maks, while being good scopes are of somewhat "basic" construction and optical quality. Mak127 seems to be in a bit higher class, alongside Mak150 and Mak180. And probably the most important factor, while researching and reviewing optical tests online, I've got the impression that Mak127s are of the most consistent optical quality - that being good. I've not seen one optical test of Mak127 that indicates that scope is a lemon, but I've seen dozen of them with really decent optics. This is like proper interferometric tests on optical benches.

Again I have to emphasize that I can't really back any of this from a personal experience, but if at all a possibility, do take it into consideration in your further research on which scope, and hopefully other members can also contribute by giving their hands on experience with this scope.

[johnfosteruk]

They're not that different in focal length (1250 and 1300) and ratio (F12.7 and F13.8), so I'd go with the additional aperture. I have the 102 and it's extremely portable. I believe the 127 is as well so I'm with Vlaiv, get the 127 if you can afford it.

 

[Alien 13]

I dont think you can go wrong with any of the small Maks, I have the Celestron version of the 90 mm which is actually more expensive than the SW 102 but would I swap...not in a million years 

Alan

[TSRobot]

Thanks all. I used to have the 127 Mak and did a swap for a widefield 80mm f6 and fell in love with wide field views after having it along side a C8 (now sold). Now I've been through a number of scopes I miss the chance of a higher mag view, but as I will never have another light bucket in my urban backyard I just make the best of the sky I have so a small Mak seems like a good idea again. I'll keep looking for a used 90/102 Mak then, but the new price isn't beyond me. The best thing I like about buying used is that you can tinker and modify without having to worry about affecting the warranty.

[RT65CB-SWL]

As a comparison, the Meade ETX Mak's. The ETX105 was the most popular here in GB/UK. They have not reintroduced it... only the ETX90 & ETX125.

If I was in the market for buying a 90mm Mak... it would have to be the Questar 3.5

[Macavity]

I once had a MAK 90... It was perhaps the "sharpest" scope I ever owned? 
You could use ludicrous magnifications... until, eventually, it "ran out of light".

So I upgraded to a MAK127 and (eventually) a MAK150... I like my MAKs! But
inevitable they became *heavier* and less portable! I did often wonder about
the MAK102. I might have been the "compromise" I (at that time) needed.  

As an interesting thought it is NOTED that the "back end" of the 102 MAK has
sufficient room for the fable Baader T2 Diagonal (I do use that!) which supports
many 2" eyepieces and accessories. A decent (Solid screw on T2!) diagonal can
make all the difference with these small(er) MAKs I have always found...      

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p605_Baader-T2-diagonal-prism-90----dual-T2-connection---short-back-f.html

[Stub Mandrel]

I have a Celestron C90 'Mini-Mak'.

I know a bigger scope would have much more light-grabbing capability, but at a dark site it was showing me loads of stuff and it its really nice and easy to use (sorry purists but the 45 degree correct image diagonal works great with my brain and eyes).

I'm sure a bigger one will show you more, but views through a Mak are really nice and whichever you get you will enjoy using it.

[happy-kat]

Surely my Celestron C70 is the 'mini-mak' and the C90 ate more porridge.

[TSRobot]

Maybe the 90mm will do the job then. Has anybody tried the 0.5x 1.25 focal reducer with a Mak? Or used it for solar with the baader film or similar? 

[Macavity]

Focal reducers work well for imaging... and to some extent visually...
Say with short focal length eyepieces. But, if you are looking e.g. to
increase the field of view of the MAK, using a FR plus say (already)
longer focal length e.p., sadly NOT too well. I.E. "No free lunches"!

Best to just see a Mak as a (relatively) long focal length scope and
limit yourself to maximum 30mm standard (or "wide angle"?) e.p's.
If you need wide fields, go back to short focal length refractor etc. 

[Alien 13]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I have a Celestron C90 'Mini-Mak'.

I know a bigger scope would have much more light-grabbing capability, but at a dark site it was showing me loads of stuff and it its really nice and easy to use (sorry purists but the 45 degree correct image diagonal works great with my brain and eyes).

I'm sure a bigger one will show you more, but views through a Mak are really nice and whichever you get you will enjoy using it.

I agree on the correct image diagonal and the addition of the nice 32mm that came with my Celestron Mak sold it to me over the SW, I agree too with Chris about it being pin sharp, might be the small lightweight mirror that is easier to shift when focusing or the almost zero cool down that is the reason for this.

Alan

[NGC 1502]

38 minutes ago, TSRobot said:

Maybe the 90mm will do the job then. Has anybody tried the 0.5x 1.25 focal reducer with a Mak? Or used it for solar with the baader film or similar? 

If a Mak won’t give you the low power you want, then your ST 120 will fill that role, or binoculars perhaps. For a long while my 90mm Mak had a Baader filter semi-permanently fitted, I used a 40mm Plossl that gave adequate field of view to see the whole solar disc, with plenty of room. Tack sharp views ?

Ed.

[TSRobot]

Ta once again for the opinions. Think I'll get a 90/102mm Mak from somewhere or other. Will shop around a bit as nothing seems to be turning up second hand as they're much too loved to part with and that's a good indication of how useful they are. Not like the top £££££ apos that keep coming up for sale all the time. Mind you ages ago when i got my (now gone) 127 Mak there were 3 for sale on Astrobuysell at the same time. Bit like buses i guess. Having bought quite a few used scopes happily i have no problem with buying them second hand.

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, happy-kat said:

Surely my Celestron C70 is the 'mini-mak' and the C90 ate more porridge.

You are right, and they go down to a C50 apparently!

Mine must be a midi-mak.

[nightfisher]

I have owned just about all the Maks from a 90 up to a 180, the 102 does hit a sweet spot, had 2 of them and they have been top scopes, now using a 127 as its about right for Luna imaging with my 1000D

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I am sometimes thinking about getting an all-round travel scope with a bit more aperture than my 80mm triplet, and am considering various Mak-Cass types, but then I stumbled upon the Vixen VMC110L. It is very light (2.1 kg), faster than most Mak-Cass scopes (F/9.4), so can show a bit more of the sky for DSO work, with e.g. a 24mm 68 deg EP. Its open-tube means much faster cool down, and the curved vanes mean no noticeable diffraction spikes. There is a review here:

 

[cloudsweeper]

I would go with the votes for a 127 Mak - decent aperture, mag up to about x250, and for widefield, just use a fast 'scope.

A big advantage is that it is highly portable when fully assembled - so easy to move and use. 

I regret selling my Nexstar 127 Mak for these reasons!

Doug.