More detailed requirements and first scope options

[Mike_S]

Sorry another “first Telescope” post by me. 
I would like a versatile grab n go scope. I am not expecting to see DSO. I want something quick to set up and easy to store. 
£300 budget. After researching and speaking to you guys I seem to have narrowed it down to either a:

Celestron Astromaster 90mm F11
 Like: It should minimal CA (meets sidgick standard of focul ratio of 3x aperture).
Greater magnification with supplied eyepieces but same potential as all 90mm aperture. 
Concerns: not great aperture and not compatible with 2 inch eyepieces for wider field of view. Can use a 32mm though. 

SkyWatcher Evostar 90mm F10 
Likes and concerns as above really. Prefer the sound of the F11 but could be convinced otherwisez 

Both are Achromatic refractors. The Celestron has a red dot Finder and the SkyWatcher a 6x30 fonder scope. Both with options of AZ or EQ mounts but I’m leaning towards the AZ. For visual not astrophotography. 

I originally was considering an 8 inch Dob but wife said it was too big so that was the end of that really (for now). Wasn’t keen on the particle board bases anyway so may pay more for a metal one in the future. 

Other ideas I have been playing with in my head are:

 SkyWatcher Explorer 130p. 
Likes: larger aperture 
Concerns: Perhaps not as good for planetary contrast as a refrac. 

The SkyWatcher 102 maksutov AZ pronto
Likes: great magnification with supplied eyepieces. Almost best of both worlds out of refector and reflector.
Concerns: narrow field of view so difficult for beginner star hopping and finding. Maybe not as good contrast as refractor and not as good aperture as reflector.

SkyWatcher StarTravel 120 F5.
Likes: 1.25/2” dual focuser. Good all round capabilities. 
Concerns: CA.

Hope that helps ?

[happy-kat]

I can see DSO with my binoculars 8*42.

How dark or light polluted is your main observing location?

[Mike_S]

It is pretty light polluted. In an orange area on the light pollution maps. I have ordered some 10x50 binoculars whilst I research this. 

[Ben the Ignorant]

130 with no chromatism beats the others. Only apos and semi-apos have great contrast, super-short achros lose some clarity because not all colors are focused at the same spot. Say green is sharp, red and/or blue are blurry and superimposed to the green image, reducing contrast.

[Mike_S]

CA wouldn’t be much of an issue on a 90mm F11 though surely? Not saying it would beat it. Do you think the view of bright planets and moons would be better with the 130 reflector than the 90 refractors? 

[happy-kat]

It will be interesting to see how much you see in your skies when your binoculars arrive.

The mak is by far the most portable of your selection I think.

[Mike_S]

I’ve heard somebody regret a mak for a first scope because the focul width was so narrow they couldn’t find anything?

[happy-kat]

With my mini mak 70mm it has been exit pupil (1mm) I've found more difficult when using it.

[Ben the Ignorant]

3 hours ago, MSammon said:

CA wouldn’t be much of an issue on a 90mm F11 though surely? Not saying it would beat it. Do you think the view of bright planets and moons would be better with the 130 reflector than the 90 refractors? 

No, chromatism in a 90 f/11 is not an issue, but diameter is. I just recently compared the resolution in my 80mm apo and semi-apo versus my 127mm Schmidt-Cass because the latter has new collimation screws. While checking alignment (which proved ideal with the new screws) I aimed at distant rows of led lights.

In the 80's the rows looked like somewhat patchy lines but the 127 resolved all the indivudual leds, cleanly separated as a series of dots with black space between them. A 90mm achro resolves about as well as an 80mm apo, and the 130mm newtonian resolves likes a 127mm Schmid-Cass does, so viewing planets is definitely a 130's job. 

[Ben the Ignorant]

2 hours ago, MSammon said:

I’ve heard somebody regret a mak for a first scope because the focul width was so narrow they couldn’t find anything?

Not finding anything seems exaggerated but the 102 f/13 mak (1300mm focal) has a field twice as narrow as the 130 f/5 (650mm focal). That limits its viewing area to one quarter that of the newtonian.

[Mike_S]

The cheapest Explorer 130 is on an EQ mount. Something to consider though. There is also a 130M, a 130P and a 130PS. What’s the difference?

[Mike_S]

It’s okay I’ve read about them here. The 130 does sound good even though it’s on an EQ mount, it’s only £147.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/blog/skywatcher-explorer-130-vs-130p.html

[Ben the Ignorant]

The "p" stands for parabolic. A non-parabolic (simply spherical) newtonian mirror is only an approximation of the ideal shape, it has spherical aberration, a defect whose first victims are precisely the fine detail and contrast you need for planets.

Besides, the eyepiece in an equatorial newtonian takes weird positions and orientations when you swing the scope at targets spread over the sky. The 130 dob has a parabolic mirror, and the focuser stays on the same side of the scope all the time.

[Mike_S]

Oh you meant this one?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

[Ben the Ignorant]

Yes.

[happy-kat]

130m m is for motor

P is parabolic

P-ds is for a 130p geared up for imaging

Ps I can't recall at this moment but it's a p basically.

Heritage 130p is the best value.

[John]

5 hours ago, MSammon said:

.... Do you think the view of bright planets and moons would be better with the 130 reflector than the 90 refractors? 

If the 130 reflector is in good collimation, then it should provide better views of the moon and planets than a 90mm F/10-11 achromat refractor. It will definitely provide better views of deep sky objects.

[Mike_S]

Ah just realised it needs a table though. Hmm

[Mike_S]

Just shown wife video of the Skyliner 150 dob actually and she was okay with it. The general consensus seems to be that achros aren’t very good and that I should get a dob. 

[John]

2 minutes ago, MSammon said:

Just shown wife video of the Skyliner 150 dob actually and she was okay with it. The general consensus seems to be that achros aren’t very good and that I should get a dob. 

Nothing wrong with the achros but 150mm of aperture provides a lot more light gathering and quite a bit more potential resolving capability

F/8 is pretty tolerant when it comes to collimation as well.

 

[happy-kat]

Two of your started threads on choosing your first telescope say 'I would like a versatile grab n go scope'.

The 150p is not that (to me, some may  differ opinion), I would revisit what you want from your first telescope. A grab and go telescope may always find a home with you as it always is a grab and go.

[Mike_S]

I know I keep changing my mind but I wil order something soon and I have learned a lot

[John]

The 150P dob is versatile. Whether it's grab and go will depend on the individual definition of that. It can be lifted in one piece and stuck outside then used after 10 mins cool down time perhaps giving 10-15 mins longer for best high power performance. No alignment with Polaris so you stick an eyepiece in, line the scope up on your target and observe.

It's not hiking in a back pack or airline carry on grab and go though.

 

[Louis D]

When someone says grab and go, they need to define what that means to them.  Some big guys consider a collapsible 10" Dob grab and go while others consider a 70mm refractor on a tripod grab and go.  Others consider a suitcase Dob as grab and go since it fits as a carry-on.

[SIDO]

6 hours ago, MSammon said:

I know I keep changing my mind but I wil order something soon and I have learned a lot

I think we all have been where you are now and some of us are on the verge of yet another telescope, but what you learn along the way will make you proficient with almost any telescope. The 6" dob is a good scope, I have an 8" and use it often ?