Sky Watcher Mercury 705 refractor

[devdusty]

I am interested in buying the above, which seems to be in  my price range.Has anyone any comments or advice. I was thinking about a small reflector but there appears to be several posts on the forum about problems with collimation.

Chris P

[happy-kat]

Hi

Here is a nice write up

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/223257-new-scope-for-young-eyes/?tab=comments#comment-2401761

I have owned this telescope and have now a Star Travel 80 (ST80). I am unsure on the budget though member Mark81 is going great with his ST80.

Both scopes are best suited to wide field views rather than high magnification. High magnification tends to show the chromatic aberration on bright objects which bothers some people more that others.

Edit

I did use the mercury 705 telescope a bit and I like the crisp stars, there was the most CA seen on Jupiter but that is a super bright planet.

Edited February 13, 2020 by happy-kat

[joe aguiar]

Yes the short tube models are good for what they r made for, wide field lower powers views.  I have had a few different ones in my lifetime. Right now I have the skywatcher 102f5 but I dont use it for the planets.

That doesnt mean they cant see the planets at highter power but the image quality will be soft not so clear.

So if u want to look more on the moon planets double stars etc the longer version is better and no collamation.

If you can get into the 80mm I think u will be much better off

They sell the 80mm f 10 on the az3 and eq2 model. Sometimes the eq version is only few bucks more. It needs more getting used to for new people but it follows the skys movement better. u can later add a motor drive so it stays on the item or planets without u needing to move it at all almost.

The f 10 model is probably only 16 inch longer but you get 75% better colour correction and better views.

For lower powers use a 32mm 1.25 plossl or something like that

Joejaguar 

[John]

10 minutes ago, joe aguiar said:

Yes the short tube models are good for what they r made for, wide field lower powers views.  I have had a few different ones in my lifetime. Right now I have the skywatcher 102f5 but I dont use it for the planets....

 

The original poster is asking about a 70mm F/7.1 refractor rather than the F/5 variety.

 

[joe aguiar]

Ok f7 is better than the f5 models but going to the 80mm is still better if budget allows. I kinda see the 70mm as almost there size

joejaguar 

[joe aguiar]

What's different in the UK compared to north American is the models have different names like pds etc etc I normally can still tell what it is but once awhile I have to Google just to make sure

So excuse me for that part not always being 100% 

Joejaguar 

Edited February 13, 2020 by joe aguiar

[happy-kat]

Sorry I added the f ratio mix up as I've owned the mercury 705 and then got the ST80 later.

[grjsk]

I purchased the 705 as my first scope back in august for next to nothing. It was an excellent first scope. Super light, can be used on pretty much any mount, simple to use, ready to go in seconds, no need to think about collimation or cooldown. 

I just sold it a few weeks ago, simply because I upgraded to a 102mm ED refractor. The biggest difference between the two scopes where actually the focuser. The smooth and solid dual speed focuser on the 102 is just so much better than on the 705. But than again, you can probably find a used 705 for almost nothing, so you can't really complain. Here in Norway the 705 seems to be a popular first scope, because I found a ton of them on the used market. I paid about £40-45 for mine, including a az-3 mount. Dirt cheap. 

Hope that helps!