Scope Recomemdation for clusters

[Louis D]

Okay, I'll be a contrarian here and recommend a 127mm Mak.  It is basically apochromatic, flat field, and pin sharp across the field.  It can get down to 50x with ease, so most Messier clusters will fit in its FOV.  I use mine on an undriven alt-az mount like a dob.  I picked mine up used for $200 shipped off CN classifieds.  Several more have come up for a similar price in the last few weeks as well.  I'm sure there are plenty of them available on your side of the pond used for reasonable prices as well.

For compact travelling, it's hard to beat a 127mm Mak.  Geoff Lister's recent posting shows it can be fit in a backpack (minus the tripod):

[Olli]

14 hours ago, Paul67 said:

The  CA with the 102 shows like a thin felt tip blue/purple line drawn around the circumference of the moon,  I found it didn't effect the disk view in any way.

That’s what I imagined it would look like, still haven’t settled on a scope yet have about 3 different ones I’m looking at

[Olli]

12 hours ago, Louis D said:

Okay, I'll be a contrarian here and recommend a 127mm Mak.  It is basically apochromatic, flat field, and pin sharp across the field.  It can get down to 50x with ease, so most Messier clusters will fit in its FOV.  I use mine on an undriven alt-az mount like a dob.  I picked mine up used for $200 shipped off CN classifieds.  Several more have come up for a similar price in the last few weeks as well.  I'm sure there are plenty of them available on your side of the pond used for reasonable prices as well.

For compact travelling, it's hard to beat a 127mm Mak.  Geoff Lister's recent posting shows it can be fit in a backpack (minus the tripod):

Knew it wasn’t long before a mak showed up  I have been looking at them but Narrow FOV put me off but not having looked through a scope not sure if I would notice but people say it’s not the best for dso.

[Stu]

13 minutes ago, Dinoco said:

Knew it wasn’t long before a mak showed up  I have been looking at them but Narrow FOV put me off but not having looked through a scope not sure if I would notice but people say it’s not the best for dso.

It is worth being clearer about what sort of clusters you are interested in. Maks are very capable on anything other than the larger open clusters out there such as M45, M44 etc.

Apologies for so many images, but here are a number of different clusters shown in the field of view with a 24mm 68 degree afov eyepiece in the 127 Skymax

[Red Dwarfer]

8 minutes ago, Stu said:

Maks are very capable on anything other than the larger open clusters

Good to know , Stu ... I`m looking out for a SW 127mm Mak for Lunar , Planets and double stars .

[SilverAstro]

47 minutes ago, Dinoco said:

but people say it’s not the best for dso.

Taking a lead from @Stu  it is also worth being clear about dso.

There are tiny Planetary nebulae to huge great Galaxies such as M31 (which is several times the size of the moon), tiny Globular clusters to huge great Open clusters ( like the Hyades). All very differing requirements for scopes, which is why we end up owning so many !

 dso is not a unitary group

 

[Olli]

36 minutes ago, Stu said:

It is worth being clearer about what sort of clusters you are interested in. Maks are very capable on anything other than the larger open clusters out there such as M45, M44 etc.

Apologies for so many images, but here are a number of different clusters shown in the field of view with a 24mm 68 degree afov eyepiece in the 127 Skymax 

Maybe globular as i can’t really see them with my binos. don’t mind really if it doesn’t fit the whole FOV as long it’s clear. Also double stars and I’ve heard Maks are good for these? Those images helped a lot. Is there a big difference between  102 version? As the 127 is abit out of budget unless I get the ota first.

[Olli]

8 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

Taking a lead from @Stu  it is also worth being clear about dso.

There are tiny Planetary nebulae to huge great Galaxies such as M31 (which is several times the size of the moon), tiny Globular clusters to huge great Open clusters ( like the Hyades). All very differing requirements for scopes, which is why we end up owning so many !

 dso is not a unitary group

 

That’s true it’s quite hard to decide  would probably like to nebulae as never seen them before ( have seen Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxy  in my binos so I can use them) and said to Stu probably globular.

[SilverAstro]

7 minutes ago, Dinoco said:

quite hard to decide

( have seen Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxy  in my binos so I can use them)

Yup !

if you have the sky and eyes to see Triangulum you are doing well and thus you should add "big binos" to your growing list of scopes    hehee, get thee behind me, someone is supposed to have said to temptation

 

[Louis D]

34 minutes ago, Dinoco said:

don’t mind really if it doesn’t fit the whole FOV as long it’s clear.

Well, then you'd better steer clear of achromatic refractors unless they're at least an f/15 or slower design.  I have an ST-80 (f/5) that I rarely use because there is so much color fringing around everything.  Nothing comes to a sharp focus.  I then bought a 72ED refractor and love it.  At powers of 100x and below, there is simply no discernible color fringing that I can detect.  The Mak design has no false color that I've ever seen.

40 minutes ago, Dinoco said:

Is there a big difference between  102 version?

Go read that thread I referenced.  That's what it was originally about.

[Olli]

19 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

Yup !

if you have the sky and eyes to see Triangulum you are doing well and thus you should add "big binos" to your growing list of scopes    hehee, get thee behind me, someone is supposed to have said to temptation

 

I might have decided on getting a Skymax as it’s good for planets too.  Which I said on other posts that I’m not interested in them that much but would like to get a view of them some time. I’ve seen a Skymax 102 with az pronto for about £285 would this be good? Would like to get the 127 but a bit out of my budget.

 

[Olli]

Just now, Louis D said:

Well, then you'd better steer clear of achromatic refractors unless they're at least an f/15 or slower design.  I have an ST-80 (f/5) that I rarely use because there is so much color fringing around everything.  Nothing comes to a sharp focus.  I then bought a 72ED refractor and love it.  At powers of 100x and below, there is simply no discernible color fringing that I can detect.  The Mak design has no false color that I've ever seen.

Go read that thread I referenced.  That's what it was originally about.

Oops! Sorry forgot to read that

[SilverAstro]

On 2/16/2018 at 20:56, Dinoco said:

 developed an obsession with Star clusters....  ( would’ve like to see some Nebulae

So, I have gone back to your op! and again we have the eternal dilemma, two opposing requirements !

>"I want something that’s easy to lug around as I will be having short walks"

Something I have done in the past for you to think about, you need the biggest aperture you can carry for nebula and faint fuzzies, you dont need a mount to carry as well ! Yes, no, really !!

You need a seat to sit upon, and if you are on grass or soft land a small tea-try, no! dont laugh !!

You sit on the seat (obviously!?) and lay the Newtonian* scope across your knees with its tail end resting on the tea-tray.

Low power eyepiece for starters and freedom to scan, ( you may even discover your first comet ) Look Mum, no mount.

Just a thort. 

* edit, cos they tend to be longer with the eyepiece at the correct end

[Louis D]

3 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

you need the biggest aperture you can carry for nebula and faint fuzzies

Just remember, telescopes don't make faint fuzzies any brighter than the naked eye, they just present them at the same brightness but at a larger magnification.  If you want to make them brighter, you'll need to get into night vision astronomy which actually amplifies faint nebula.  With proper nebula filtering, the Lagoon nebula was plainly obvious from within a city using an amplification tube at a star party I attended.  Without the tube, only the associated star cluster could be seen even with a nebula filter.

[SilverAstro]

7 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Just remember, telescopes don't make faint fuzzies any brighter than the naked eye,

Errr, where did I say anything about brightness ! and night vision stuff is, I think, a little above pay-grade for this topic ?

That would be why professional astronomers never look through their big beasts ?

I will amend my previous :

you need the biggest aperture you can carry for nebula and faint fuzzies  and everything,    howzat ? 

[Stu]

Dinoco, remind me what your sky conditions are like? Globs and Planetary Nebula are great targets for not so good skies and Maks, as they are small, have relativelybhigh surface brightness and will cut through LP more easily. The smaller open clusters will be good too.

More aperture is (generally) always good, but is comes down to budget and useability too. I think the 102 skymax on an AZ5 mount would be very good, light and portable and the mount is very quick to setup and use with the slo mo controls. Being manual there is no need for powerpacks or setup either. If you can stretch to a 127 by buying used, on the AZ5 then even better, so long as it is still portable enough for you.

[Olli]

16 minutes ago, Stu said:

Dinoco, remind me what your sky conditions are like? Globs and Planetary Nebula are great targets for not so good skies and Maks, as they are small, have relativelybhigh surface brightness and will cut through LP more easily. The smaller open clusters will be good too.

More aperture is (generally) always good, but is comes down to budget and useability too. I think the 102 skymax on an AZ5 mount would be very good, light and portable and the mount is very quick to setup and use with the slo mo controls. Being manual there is no need for powerpacks or setup either. If you can stretch to a 127 by buying used, on the AZ5 then even better, so long as it is still portable enough for you.

My skies are quite good and even better when the odd street light goes out even though there aren’t that many anyway. Can see a fair bit when my eyes get adjusted. I think I’m going with the mak as they’re really small compared to most. I’ll see about budget if I can get the 127 and I’m sure I can get EPS that will help the FOV.As Always the best scope is the one you use the most which I think  I will with either of these two.

thanks for al the previous help from you and other members  

 

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, SilverAstro said:

Errr, where did I say anything about brightness ! and night vision stuff is, I think, a little above pay-grade for this topic ?

That would be why professional astronomers never look through their big beasts ?

I will amend my previous :

you need the biggest aperture you can carry for nebula and faint fuzzies  and everything,    howzat ? 

Now I will say that more aperture, under steady skies, produces dramatic improvement in planetary viewing.  Jupiter through a giant dob under west Texas skies is simply amazing.  All sorts of color, festoons, barges, etc.

[SilverAstro]

3 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Now I will say that more aperture, under steady skies, produces dramatic improvement in planetary viewing.  Jupiter through a giant dob under west Texas skies is simply amazing.  All sorts of color, festoons, barges, etc.

good point,

I dont know where Dinoco is, but if in the UK (s)he will only get fleeting moments like that, even in a medium dob, anyhows - academic - is after clusters and DSOs in this topic

[Olli]

12 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

good point,

I dont know where Dinoco is, but if in the UK (s)he will only get fleeting moments like that, even in a medium dob, anyhows - academic - is after clusters and DSOs in this topic

South east of England in the countryside . Was thinking of a dob would love one but a bit impractical for me 

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, Dinoco said:

South east of England in the countryside . Was thinking of a dob would love one but a bit impractical for me 

The important thing is to get a telescope you'll actually use.  If you like the hobby, you'll naturally expand into getting other telescopes down the road as funds and interest allow.

[Knighty2112]

11 minutes ago, Louis D said:

The important thing is to get a telescope you'll actually use.  If you like the hobby, you'll naturally expand into getting other telescopes down the road as funds and interest allow.

Exactly! When I first got back into astronomy a few years back after a break of around a decade between having any scopes, I started off againwith just Celestron 70mm travelscope, which was woefully inadequate for dso’s, but OK’ish for the moon, Jupiter Saturn etc. I used this for approx a year before expanding out to what you see in my signature. The point is no matter what scope you start off with will be a stepping stone to others, after finding out any scopes strengths and weakness. But the main things is to use the scope and enjoy using it, regardless of any weakness.

[Olli]

Sorry for bringing this topic up again, but have had a bit of a budget restraint unfortunately.. I’ll hppefully be getting my scope within the next week or so my budget has been pushed to £200 and I was looking st the az3 102 refractor ( think I’ve mentioned this before can’t remember) as ive said what I mainly want to look at would this be a good choice I was looking at the dob but can’t really take it with me if I want to get a better view. And also the wide field views seem tempting.  I know I’m restricted in what I can see with 4”.

[Cosmic Geoff]

13 minutes ago, Dinoco said:

my budget has been pushed to £200 and I was looking st the az3 102 refractor

If you mean the Startravel 102mm + AZ3 bundle from FLO, this is indeed within your budget. The scope is okay for a portable wide-field scope, but I have not read good things about the mount, and suggest that the newer lightweight mounts would be better. (if you can find a package, or buy separately.) Or accept the AZ3 as a cheap deal (the package costs only £30 more than the OTA which shows how much FLO value this mount) and start saving for a better mount.

 Be aware that you may have to buy a 90deg. star diagonal as the Startravel usually comes with a 45 deg terrestrial prism diagonal. 

[Olli]

8 minutes ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

If you mean the Startravel 102mm + AZ3 bundle from FLO, this is indeed within your budget. The scope is okay for a portable wide-field scope, but I have not read good things about the mount, and suggest that the newer lightweight mounts would be better. (if you can find a package, or buy separately.) Or accept the AZ3 as a cheap deal (the package costs only £30 more than the OTA which shows how much FLO value this mount) and start saving for a better mount.

 Be aware that you may have to buy a 90deg. star diagonal as the Startravel usually comes with a 45 deg terrestrial prism diagonal. 

Hi yes this one https://www.firstlightoptics.com/startravel/skywatcher-startravel-102-az3.html I know the az3 is bad but might do for a while unless I just bite the bullet and get the 150 dob