90 or 114

[Boomerrat]

Hi, I am looking to get my first telescope but unsure whether to go for the 90 or 114, I take it I will get to look a bit further and clearer with the 114?

skywatcher heritage-90 virtuoso auto tracking telescope

skywatcher heritage114 virtuoso auto tracking telescope

[banjaxed]

Yes the more aperture the more you will see. After you get hooked on this brilliant hobby, aperture fever usually kicks in making you want the biggest scope you can get 😀

[Geoff Lister]

I have both. I bought the 90, a few years ago, to have a small setup with tracking, and the 114, more recently, to use at my holiday home. I have not had much chance to use the 114 under decent viewing conditions, but, so far, it seems to be OK.

The 90 is a Mak., and has a long focal length, so it gives a higher magnification for a given eyepiece, but at the expense of a narrower field-of-view. The 114 is a "fast" Newtonian, so will give a wider FOV, but is probably going to need better-quality eyepieces to get a pinpoint image across the full field. The 90 is probably best for planets and the 114 for the larger star clusters.

Geoff

[Boomerrat]

Thank you for the replys, it is a mine field when starting isnt it! It is for my 11yr old daughter so want her to use it without too much fading around. I think she will be more interested In planets really so the 90 is better suited i think?

How far out can you see with the 90 and is it easy enough to set up?

[vlaiv]

14 minutes ago, Boomerrat said:

Thank you for the replys, it is a mine field when starting isnt it! It is for my 11yr old daughter so want her to use it without too much fading around. I think she will be more interested In planets really so the 90 is better suited i think?

How far out can you see with the 90 and is it easy enough to set up?

Any telescope is capable of showing things that are as far as edge of universe - provided that those things are large enough and bright enough, so you don't have to worry about that aspect.

If you think that your daughter is more interested in planets, then yes, 90mm mak is going to be better option. Mind you that there is only 4-5 planets worth observing - Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (Mercury, Neptune and Uranus are usually "spotted" rather than observed as they don't show any features, well Mercury can show phases, but it is really hard target for beginners due to proximity of the Sun) and the Moon of course.

Couple that with the fact that planets are not on display all year round (there are periods when you can't observe planets at all), and you can start to see why primarily planetary observing might not be something that will occupy child completely. My view is that you should not choose scope solely based on the fact that she is interested in planets more.

However 90mm Mak will show you other things as well - almost as good as 114 Newtonian (very small difference in light gathering capacity) and just half a century ago 90mm Mak would be considered pinnacle of starter scopes (most had 3" achromats and were happy with those).

There are better scopes out there for that sort of money - ones that are great starter scopes but also scopes for life, but they are manual scopes and heavy/bulky (not all of them are heavy/bulky but best ones are), but I believe you are right to choose scope that is small and has motor tracking and goto for a child.

Out of two scopes, 90mm Mak would be my choice, and in fact I just recently got myself just a tad larger version of such scope - Mak102mm for casual observing (and other astronomical purposes).

[Alan64]

The 90mm is a Maksutov-Cassegrain; the 114mm, a Newtonian.  The Maksutov should arrive with its collimation spot-on.  

Views of Luna, with a 32mm Plossl, and at the lowest power for each...

90mm Maksutov(39x)...

114mm Newtonian(16x)...

The Maksutov would get you closer, further, and more easily.  Between the two, the Maksutov would be the better choice, albeit arguably.

If you're game, a 127mm Maksutov is the sweet-spot among the varying apertures of the design.

[Boomerrat]

Thank you for all your help, I was thinking that I'd have quite a detailed view of the moons surface? How big do I need to go to get that type of detail? Only ask as I might get one for myself... hooked already!!

[Mick H]

I have owned Nexstar 90 slt Mak, and have observed M31 the Andromeda Galaxy, its a faint fuzz but still wow. also Double Cluster, and The Albireo system double star Beta Cygni. plus Saturn, Jupiter, and Moon.

The 90mak will be fine.

Have a play with this:

http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/

Edited December 22, 2019 by Mick H

[vlaiv]

17 minutes ago, Boomerrat said:

Thank you for all your help, I was thinking that I'd have quite a detailed view of the moons surface? How big do I need to go to get that type of detail? Only ask as I might get one for myself... hooked already!!

You should be able to see quite a bit of details on the Moon. Atmosphere will start to be limiting factor for even such a small scope. To get the idea of what you might expect, take a look at these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbbeU6JJE5A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z74yn4JdSGQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTwM1UGkEfA

There are also few others on youtube - just search for Mak 90 or the scope you are interested in. This will give you rough idea what can be seen, but are not 100% correct representations because of different methods used to record and process those videos.

[NGC 1502]

19 minutes ago, Boomerrat said:

Thank you for all your help, I was thinking that I'd have quite a detailed view of the moons surface? How big do I need to go to get that type of detail? Only ask as I might get one for myself... hooked already!!

 

Please note, the moon images shown above are at low magnification.  Both telescopes will show significant lunar features at higher powers - so much that it can keep a dedicated observer many years to exhaust the possibilities 👍

Ed.

19 minutes ago, Boomerrat said:

 

[Boomerrat]

Right I think I got it now, the 90 will give a clear view however the amount of space I would be able to see at the same time would be less that that of the 114 bigger field of vision.

Messing with the tool is great, I put a 5x Barlow lens on the 90 it really shrunk the view.

[JBracegirdle]

About a year ago I bought a 90mm Mak on a table-top wooden mount (like the Heritage-90 Virtuoso) although mine doesn't track.

I really enjoy looking at the moon with it, the red dot finder is really easy to use for the moon and bright targets. I've never used my telescope on a table-top though I put it on a heavy duty photographic tripod and that works well. I have seen some interesting videos about people making their own table for astronomy.

I bought a barlow lens with my telescope and it really make viewing easier for me. I tend to use use the 25mm with the barlow for detail rather than the 10mm that came with the scope. I think that's partly because I use glasses. The detail is similar to the videos Vlaiv posted, it's really amazing, and with the moon light pollution isn't a problem as it's really bright.

The 90mm Mak telescope has inspired me to buy more kit, especially when I realised a lot of the delights of the night sky are really hard or impossible for the eye to see and are easier to detect with a camera, but for simplicity and relaxation it's hard to beat looking at the moon with my 90mm Mak. I hope you and your daughter have many enjoyable hours with the telescope.

[Boomerrat]

Thank you all for your help, I am buying the 90 today with a view for the AZ controller at a later date

[Geoff Lister]

49 minutes ago, Boomerrat said:

I am buying the 90 today with a view for the AZ controller at a later date

An excellent choice. The 90 places the eyepiece in a more natural position for viewing. I hope that you both get as much enjoyment with yours, as I have had with mine.

Geoff

[Alfian]

I've got both the 114 reflector and a 90 mak as grab n' go scopes. The 114 at a fast f4.3 is a better scope than I expected it to be and compared to  the 90 Mak gives a lower power wide field of view. The focuser is not brilliant but its what you get at this price point. The 90 mak however is a cracking little scope with a real solid feel to it. Optics are pin sharp and the focuser not bad at all. Yes it has a narrow field of view but that fov is very good and on a tracking mount objects should remain in view  if all is set up ok. Luna views are brilliant for such a small scope and I doubt if you will be disappointed. Good choice. 

[happy-kat]

The skywatcher WiFi dongle which gives three virtuoso mount full goto comes up from time to time second hand and would be a good addition or equally the synscan handset works great and I have a v3 handset I use with mine.

Don't chase magnification as it is not limitless and has resolving limitations be it atmosphere or aperture. Generally twice aperture is a bench mark for maximum magnification, so whilst you may use a 5x barlow the view is likely to be larger but soft and blurry. A smaller sharper image is more pleasing.

The Lunar 100 is an observing challenge you and your daughter may enjoy.

Stellarium is a great planetarium software.

[Girders]

Most of what I'd say has already been covered. I went for the Heritage 114 as I got a good offer on it, but my preference now would have been the Heritage 90 as my main interest is planets.  I have a 6 year old daughter and the tracking the Virtuoso offers is essential for observing with small kids and even at 11 it will have huge benefits.  As happy-kat has said, the Skywatcher wi-fi adapter is a nice addition but not really required for starting out or planetary observing.  Jupiter, Saturn, Mars & Venus are all visible to the naked eye when in the sky so easy to locate with the scope.  And the moon of course.

PS  - best addition to a new telescope you can give her is a warm fleecy jumper!

[Geoff Lister]

The Virtuoso mount is best used on a small diameter table, so that you can reach the eyepiece from all directions, without having to lean over too far, and, if the table is not too tall, it is much more comfortable if you can sit on a chair or stool to observe.

11 hours ago, happy-kat said:

The skywatcher WiFi dongle which gives three virtuoso mount full goto comes up from time to time second hand and would be a good addition or equally the synscan handset works great and I have a v3 handset I use with mine.

I, too, sometimes use my V3 Synscan handset, borrowed from my Skymax or Skyliner mounts, and, if used carefully, the mount will take the larger optical tube assemblies from my 127mm (Mak.) Skymax and 130mm Heritage 130P.

Geoff

 

[joe aguiar]

I think the 114 is a better first  scope , not only cause its bigger you will see more.  But with the mak being slow telescope long FL high power narrow fov, it will be harder for new people to find items in it.

There will be lot items since it's high power small fov it wont be able to see.

So the reflector having a focal ratio that's smaller will be easier to find things in and the larger objects can be seen in it.like m45 and many other things.

Joejaguar 

[vlaiv]

20 minutes ago, joe aguiar said:

But with the mak being slow telescope long FL high power narrow fov, it will be harder for new people to find items in it.

Interesting thing is that for 8" F/6 scope or 6" F/8 scope no one is saying it is high power narrow FOV scope - and most will qualify those scopes as ideal scopes for serious beginner - ones that can turn into life long instrument, but telescope with same focal length (ok, not the same but 50mm longer 1200mm vs 1250mm) is suddenly long focal length / high power / narrow FOV scope?

[joe aguiar]

11 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Interesting thing is that for 8" F/6 scope or 6" F/8 scope no one is saying it is high power narrow FOV scope - and most will qualify those scopes as ideal scopes for serious beginner - ones that can turn into life long instrument, but telescope with same focal length (ok, not the same but 50mm longer 1200mm vs 1250mm) is suddenly long focal length / high power / narrow FOV scope?

yes cause the maks 1250mm fl ON a 90mm is long on a 10" scopes its short

1250/90 =13.8 focal ratio equals slow and narrow fov

on a 10"scope that's 1250/250=f5 which is fast and wide field views

[joe aguiar]

we are talking about this in the other thread focal length HAS nothing to do with focal ratio

u cant just use a focal length if lets say 1200 and call it short or long byself as it has no meaning by itself. BUt once you divide by the aperture of a scope it then tells if its short med or long compared to the aperture.

(Interesting thing is that for 8" F/6 scope)  this scope per your IE is fast. This mirror in diameter x by 6 times gives you how long it is being IE it being f6

(6" F/8 scope) and this one is medium even tho both have same focal length. this one is 6" dia so its focal length is 8x the mirror giving u a f/8

in the mak its different again its f/13.88 making it long compared to the aperture and yes narrow fov

joejaguar

 

[vlaiv]

1 hour ago, joe aguiar said:

yes cause the maks 1250mm fl ON a 90mm is long on a 10" scopes its short

1250/90 =13.8 focal ratio equals slow and narrow fov

on a 10"scope that's 1250/250=f5 which is fast and wide field views

Here is comparison of field of view between 8" F/6 with 32mm Plossl and 90mm heritage virtuoso with 32mm Plossl - virtually same field of view.

So how can one be wide field and other narrow field when both give same field of view?

Field of view depends on apparent field of view of eyepiece and magnification used. Magnification depends on focal length of scope and eyepiece. There is no scope aperture in that equation and indeed both scopes of same focal length give same field of view with same EP regardless of their speed and aperture.

[joe aguiar]

yes if u have the same focal length then mag is gonna be the same since power is made from the focal length of the scope by the ep focal length of the ep

but that mak is a long tube since its f13.8 and that reflector is short compared to the diameter.

just in case someone says no the mak is pretty short length overall and that's cause its folded 2x, if unfolded it would be 3x as long, same size as a 90mm f14 refractor would be.

joejaguar

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by joe aguiar

[Alan64]

9 hours ago, joe aguiar said:

yes if u have the same focal length then mag is gonna be the same since power is made from the focal length of the scope by the ep focal length of the ep

but that mak is a long tube since its f13.8 and that reflector is short compared to the diameter.

just in case someone says no the mak is pretty short length overall and that's cause its folded 2x, if unfolded it would be 3x as long, same size as a 90mm f14 refractor would be.

joejaguar

Actually. given the secondary-obstruction of the Maksutov, it would simulate, rather, an 80mm f/16 achromatic-refractor.  There's a Celestron C90 in the household, not my own, but I'm the only one who has used it at night, and once only...

The Moon was gorgeous.  Maksutovs are the only reflectors that have been described as being refractor-like in performance.  The telescope was designed and developed by Dmitry Maksutov, and for schools, for durability.

The 114mm Newtonian of the other kit, at f/4.4, would be difficult to collimate, if required.  At f/4.4, it is best suited as an astrograph, with a camera, rather than a visual instrument.  However, for visual use, for low to low-medium powers, it would perform well, but only because a telescope doesn't have to work hard at the lower powers to produce a satisfactory image.  

When someone acquires a telescope, it is already in their mind that a telescope is for seeing faraway objects up close, what a telescope is for in the first place, and that will be far easier to accomplish with a Maksutov.

Then, the OP does have the option of swapping the Maksutov out with this, when desired...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-100p-tabletop-dobsonian.html

...and for the low-power, wide-field views on occasion; which can also be had with one's eyes, or a pair of binoculars.