My starter set

[Thingo]

After a lot of research and a lot of help from people on this forum, I have put together a list of stuff that I think will be ideal for me as my first telescope. I intend to use this initially for observing of solar system and some DSOs, and later on potentially for astrophotography. Hearing your view of this list would be very helpful  

WO Zenithstar 126

WO 50mm Right Angle Correct Image Finder

Skywatcher EQ5 Equatorial Mount and additional counter weight

TS-Optics Stainless Steel Travel Tripod

TeleVue Everbrite 2" 90° mirror star diagonal (haven't quite decided on this one yet)

Tele Vue Powermates 2x

ES 5.5 mm 100°

ES 9 mm 100°

ES 25 mm 100°

ES Sun Catcher Sun Filter

 

Thank you,

CF

[Space Bat]

You have a powermate so you need to look at better spacing of eye pieces so can combine it...without overlapping and being close to the others like the 9 & 5.5 and the 25 and 9.  Unless using the powermate for imaging. 

[John]

Not sure that the EQ5 is good enough to image with that scope on it. It will do fine for visual observing though.

Instead of ES 100 degree eyepieces I would go for the APM / Lunt ones. There is not much in the performance but I think the APM / Lunt 100's are slightly better performers and may well be less expensive.

 

 

[philhilo]

Concur with John, go EQ6 for the mount, its not a huge amount more but will be suitable for imaging (which is a black hole you are likely to be sucked into).

[johninderby]

Agree with the above recomendations. The EQ5 would be limited to visual only. The EQ6 is much better suited and with the Rowan belt mod will work very well.

Would go with the William Optics diagonal. You won’t be able to detect any performance difference between the WO and the Televue.

For a tripod go with the Berlebach wooden tripod. .

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p1210_Berlebach-tripod-UNI-28---100-163-cm--up-to-50-kg--optional-spread-stopper.html

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by johninderby

[Thingo]

 

4 hours ago, johninderby said:

Agree with the above recomendations. The EQ5 would be limited to visual only. The EQ6 is much better suited and with the Rowan belt mod will work very well.

Would go with the William Optics diagonal. You won’t be able to detect any performance difference between the WO and the Televue.

For a tripod go with the Berlebach wooden tripod. .

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p1210_Berlebach-tripod-UNI-28---100-163-cm--up-to-50-kg--optional-spread-stopper.html

 

I'll have a look at the WO diagonal again. 

Why wooden tripod? I like the lower weight of the one I have in my list..

About the tripod, see below. 

 

10 hours ago, Space Bat said:

You have a powermate so you need to look at better spacing of eye pieces so can combine it...without overlapping and being close to the others like the 9 & 5.5 and the 25 and 9.  Unless using the powermate for imaging. 

According to my calculations this would give me: 

39x, 78x, 108x, 176x, 215x, 352x. 

Isn't that sufficiently well distributed? 

 

9 hours ago, philhilo said:

Concur with John, go EQ6 for the mount, its not a huge amount more but will be suitable for imaging (which is a black hole you are likely to be sucked into).

9 hours ago, John said:

Not sure that the EQ5 is good enough to image with that scope on it. It will do fine for visual observing though.

Instead of ES 100 degree eyepieces I would go for the APM / Lunt ones. There is not much in the performance but I think the APM / Lunt 100's are slightly better performers and may well be less expensive.

 

 

With regards to the EQ5 mount, I should have mentioned something about this I realise. I don't expect to do imaging with this mount. I saw a review from the astrobackyard guy and I got the impression that even the EQ6 will not be sufficient for imaging (that was with the FLT-132 which weighs less). So I thought I'll go with a lighter version for observing and then upgrade to something really sturdy when I need it. This EQ5 would be easier to move around. 

I'll have a look at the APM - Lunt. They indeed seem cheaper and reviews look good. 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Thingo

[johninderby]

The Berlebach tripod is more stable and handles vibration better than a steel tripod. Once you’ve used a good wooden tripod you won’t settle for steel. Wood is simply better for telescope tripods.

Notice how many owners of higher end scopes use a wooden tripod.

Edited March 25, 2020 by johninderby

[Louis D]

7 hours ago, johninderby said:

The Berlebach tripod is more stable and handles vibration better than a steel tripod. Once you’ve used a good wooden tripod you won’t settle for steel. Wood is simply better for telescope tripods.

Notice how many owners of higher end scopes use a wooden tripod.

I've had good luck putting Sorbothane pads under each foot of my aluminum tripods to dampen settling time from 3 to 5 seconds to 1/2 second.  Perhaps wood might improve on that, but it's good enough for me.  I find non-adjustable tripods really annoying for astro observing.  You can't vary the leg spread, you can't increase or decrease the mount height, etc.  That's why I went with heavy duty photo tripods with high load capacities.

[johninderby]

25 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I've had good luck putting Sorbothane pads under each foot of my aluminum tripods to dampen settling time from 3 to 5 seconds to 1/2 second.  Perhaps wood might improve on that, but it's good enough for me.  I find non-adjustable tripods really annoying for astro observing.  You can't vary the leg spread, you can't increase or decrease the mount height, etc.  That's why I went with heavy duty photo tripods with high load capacities.

Do yourself a favour and try a Berlebach tripod and it will change your perception of what is a good tripod is. They really are that good. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[Louis D]

40 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Do yourself a favour and try a Berlebach tripod and it will change your perception of what is a good tripod is. They really are that good. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Are the spike tips retractable for use on concrete?  Is the leg angle variable or fixed based on chain length?  Is there a variable height center post available?  They don't seem all that different from a surveyor tripod.  I like to sit at a fixed height so my feet are on the ground and then adjust the telescope height to suit for wherever it's aimed at.  Typically, I start with the height comfortable for about 35 degrees altitude by adjusting the leg spread angle and then raise the center post to raise the eyepiece if the altitude of an object becomes too high that causes the eyepiece to become too low to look into comfortably.  Since the minimum height is only 39 inches on that Berlebach tripod, I have no idea how I'd get it down low enough to use sitting without new chains, assuming the leg pivot points would allow for that spread angle.

Here's the setup I use:

[joe aguiar]

as you can see theres lots different opinions even from experienced people in the hobby as there is no one way to do anything

I know thingo is gonna to carry the scope mount etc down the stairs I think to the park and that's why hes thinking the regular manual eq5 mount and not anything bigger

the wood tripod is a good option altho I don't like the kind that cant raise up or down or the other kind that has bolts where u unbolt each leg raise it and then reset each bolt on each leg.It just takes too long to do. The wooden tripod probally does dampen better then steel legs or the alum kind however I have found the steel legs to be fine over all. Years ago I built my own tripod legs from 2x2 for the main legs and then 1x2 for the outer legs thast raise or lower. Altho I made that one with the bolt method said above and it was soild, wasn't expensive but in the end and after awhile I didn't like the un-bolting and re-bolting.

Thingo what I fear tho with this set-up is its still pretty heavy and since you have to carry it outside then to the park, I fear u may do it for awhile, but it will start to wear you down after awhile. And for quick sessions it wont be worth it. I think u need something lighter. I think the  WO 126 is just too heavy a scope and then the extra 12 lbs counter weight along with the 1st weight and the tripod and mount that just too much.

I think you should consider a lighter scope.

I know my tak 102 tsa s with my large format focuser 2.5" ota with rings diagonal is about 17 lbs which is very heavy for a 4" scope. I use the cg4 mount as a light weight scope like you to carry downstairs to the park next door. Mind you this mount is smaller then the eq5, and I have 2 smaller weight 2x 8lbs not 2x 11 lbs. So this setup is lighter and carrying it all down the elevator out the doors etc is very heavy after 100ft

the apt I had before this one I was facing north so then I had (don't anymore) meade lx70 acro 4.7F/8 on the lx70. This mount is a eq5 but I only needed 1 weight I think I may have used the 8 lbs instead the larger 11lbs and the ota of the 120mmf/8 was lightish  maybe 9  lbs max. this was an ok setup to carry for this type of thing I also had a wagon that I bought to take everything down in (of course scope needs to  be in 2 or 3 parts)

thingo another thing u should look at is for imaging you don't need a large scope like trever has in the astroback yard channel (BTW I haven't meet him but he only lives 1 hour from me ) maybe one day we both do a video together.The camera does 90% of the work so a lot people use a 80mm ed apo on a heq5 which will work fine. For visual tho u may need something largish but portable and light weight

Joejaguar

[joe aguiar]

this was my 2nd part but I lost internet connection

TV diagonal is expensive I just use an Antares 99% die-electric and works well for me but if u want better name that ok too

the best finders are rigel or telrad some people use those along with the regular one u mention for the dimmer dso, what I do is use alower power ep like the meade 4000 SWA 68 degree fov 32mm ep that's like a wide power view in the ep and with your scope it should be ok simce its not a narrow field of view

I probally woundt buy the es 100 fov ep maybe buy 60 to 68 fov ep and save some money BUT if you like those ep that's ok too depends what u want. In a way your scope is not narrow its a medium focal ratio at f/7.7? so its already semi wide then to me adding a again wide fov ep its not for me but u decide.

the TS tripod y are u buying this? the eq5 comes with a 1.75" steel tripod or is that mount tripod smaller? like the older models? I probally would pass on it if its 1.75" BUT if its the 1.5" or smaller I would buy a 2" steel tripod.

joe

[Thingo]

10 hours ago, joe aguiar said:

this was my 2nd part but I lost internet connection

TV diagonal is expensive I just use an Antares 99% die-electric and works well for me but if u want better name that ok too

the best finders are rigel or telrad some people use those along with the regular one u mention for the dimmer dso, what I do is use alower power ep like the meade 4000 SWA 68 degree fov 32mm ep that's like a wide power view in the ep and with your scope it should be ok simce its not a narrow field of view

I probally woundt buy the es 100 fov ep maybe buy 60 to 68 fov ep and save some money BUT if you like those ep that's ok too depends what u want. In a way your scope is not narrow its a medium focal ratio at f/7.7? so its already semi wide then to me adding a again wide fov ep its not for me but u decide.

the TS tripod y are u buying this? the eq5 comes with a 1.75" steel tripod or is that mount tripod smaller? like the older models? I probally would pass on it if its 1.75" BUT if its the 1.5" or smaller I would buy a 2" steel tripod.

joe

Thank you very much Joe for giving your input on this once again, much appreciated! I definitely hear what you're saying about the weight and it does scare me, but I feel like after having spent years doing astronomy with regular binoculars, I want to have as big of an effect as possible - and to get an 8" dob is also not really an option. I understand that I won't need a huge scope for imaging... it's more the observing part that is driving me here. I need to be able to put it all into two bags, so looking into suitable bags at the moment.

Since I made this post I have decided to make some changes to the list. So based on your comment I'll not get a finder scope at all initially. The field of view of the widest ocular gives the same field of view anyway. This will reduce some weight. If I get a finder scope I'll get a rigel at a later stage. 

The tripod I had in mind is indeed 1.75". Why would you pass on this one? Not sure I understand your reasoning. Is that not sturdy enough? https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p8038_TS-Optics-Edelstahl-Reisestativ-fuer-Montierungen-mit-EQ5---GP-Anschluss.html

I'll go with the WO diagonal instead. 

Rest is the same. 

 

The cg4 mount would maybe be a better option here. I see it's indeed lighter and it could probably take this weight. What do you think? 

Why aren't the wide eyepieces something you would choose? firstlightoptics will have a sale on Baader Morpheus eyepieces from tomorrow on. Maybe this could be an alternative, but that's still pretty wide at 76 degrees. 

 

CF

[joe aguiar]

OK so I would say get to the rigel finder right away because not having zero finders and just a low power a piece is still going to be hard to find stuff

so with the rigel you don’t not have to buy a straight through or right angle finder but you need something.

The tripod I thought that was coming with the sky watcher should be a ready 1.75 inch thick so I’m just not sure why you need to order a second one. Unless you were just talking about getting the half pier to raise it but of course that will add more weight

A cg4 mount is supposed to handle about 15 pounds so your William optics 126 I think it’s already about 20 pounds and that’s without the finderscope and diagonal and Eps. so I think that’s gonna be a little too heavy for the CG4 my set up is about 16 to 17pounds and it’s a pretty much the limit so I think if you get that scope with the accessories it will be a little bit too much.

you probably could do it but it’s probably not gonna be so stable so with that scope I think you would need the EQ5 if you got a lighter telescope then you probably could do the CG4 

As per the eyepieces it’s just you know 100° field of view becomes fairly expensive yes ES is a cheaper brand but also your telescope is not a narrow field of view and it’s I would say medium field of view.

I don’t think you’re also need a wide field of view Ep with a medium format scope. Maybe some thing like a 60° to 68° will be wide fov 

ok u decide

Some of those lower end Ep that are ultra wide or ultra super wide yes you get the wide fields but might not be as sharp as something a little less

so you’re paying for basically the widest true fov that you can get but doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be the sharpest though
 

Again that’s just me you might feel different

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by joe aguiar

[Louis D]

Avoid the 1.25" WO diagonal.  It vignettes widest field eyepieces because of thick ring in the eyepiece receiver.  I've got one and can confirm this.  I wouldn't have bought it if I had known about this issue ahead of time.

As far as 2" diagonals go, I like the GSO dielectric so much that I have 3 versions of it.  One is GSO, one is TPO, and one is ScopeStuff branded.  One is quartz, the rest are regular glass.  I can't say the quartz is any better, but it was the same price as the others used (about $70 each).  They're branded Revelation in the UK.  I have never been disappointed by any GSO gear.  Their 2" ED 2x barlow is excellent, their 32mm Plossl is excellent, and their coma corrector is excellent.