Meade Polaris 90 EQ vs Celestron AstroMaster 90 EQ

[xvariablestarx]

Both similar scopes, the Meade is a 900mm focal length and the Celestron is 1000mm. The Meade is slightly cheaper. Both have motor drives available for the mounts.

 

How do both compare in planetary and lunar views? I would assume the Celestron would be better at higher magnifications, but is a slightly longer and more awkward tube.

How do their mounts handle the weight and length of each scope? Does either of the mounts seem over burdened?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

In principle the Celestron should have the edge optically, given it's slightly slower speed. The mount seems to be a slightly sturdier version of the EQ2, whereas the Meade has a more-or-less bog standard EQ2 mount. Of the two, I would say the Celestron will have a slight edge. EQ2 mounts should be able to handle these scopes reasonably well for visual observing, although an EQ3-2 would be a lot better (and more expensive). I would think your XT8 would hit both scopes for six on planetary and lunar views, however.

[xvariablestarx]

12 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

In principle the Celestron should have the edge optically, given it's slightly slower speed. The mount seems to be a slightly sturdier version of the EQ2, whereas the Meade has a more-or-less bog standard EQ2 mount. Of the two, I would say the Celestron will have a slight edge. EQ2 mounts should be able to handle these scopes reasonably well for visual observing, although an EQ3-2 would be a lot better (and more expensive). I would think your XT8 would hit both scopes for six on planetary and lunar views, however.

Maybe I would be still better off with a ETX 80 then, because these 90mm refractors won't do what I want with planets, so I may as well get a scope that can find DSOs.

[xvariablestarx]

If a motor can be put on the GEM mount, then I would be better off with this: http://a.co/enEjkn8