Skymax 127 review

[Spier24]

1 hour ago, davyludo said:

I've got a 30mm RACI on mine, which suits me perfectly...I do wonder how much better a 50mm would be though.

The only issue I have found with a RACI over the red dot finder, is that it's quite difficult to get your first star lined up. I've actually just fitted a Rigel Quickfind as well as the RACI. I use the Rigel to get my first star, then move to the RACI to do any hoping I need. The combination works really well. 

From what I've read the 25mm that comes with skywatcher scopes is ok, but the 10 isn't great. Might be worth getting something in the 7.5-10mm range (which would sit in the 150-200x magnification range).

I have both a 25mm and 9mm x-cel that work well in the mak. Also have a 15mm vixen SLV whish I really like - quite often Barlow that and use it instead of 9mm x-cel or if I'm looking for a bit more magnification.

Santa brought me a zoom eyepiece for Christmas. I'm a massive fan as it's both fun an convenient for my style of "grab a quick view while I can" observing.

I've not really used the other eyepieces much since I got the zoom. I've also found from using it, that a 12mm would be nice. The zoom is good to be able to quickly try different focal lengths on the same target.

 

4 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I have no idea why you'd want to double the focal length from 1500mm to 3000mm and halve the speed from f/12 to f/24.  The 127 Mak tops out with an 8mm or so eyepiece with a 8mm/12=0.67mm exit pupil anyway.

Zooms perform very well at f/12, as do the BST Starguider line.  I'd probably suggest either an 8-24mm zoom plus a 25mm BST Starguider or 8mm, 12mm, and 25mm BST Starguiders.

The US version of the Skymax comes with a 2" 28mm LET which isn't too bad from what I've read.  I don't know what type of 1.25" 10mm and 25mm eyepieces the UK version comes with, so I have no idea of their quality.

Are you looking to buy the US or UK version?

Would you both recommend something like this then?  

http://www.opticalvision.co.uk/astronomical_accessories-eyepieces/sky-watcher_7-21mm_zoom_eyepiece__125-317mm_format.html

 

Just a standard skywatcher 7-21mm zoom eyepiece. Zoom eyepieces aren't something I've previously looked into although after a bit of reading online and from your replies they seem like a nice piece of kit to have. Good for trying out different magnifications. No need for a Barlow then either.

 

[John]

8 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

 

Would you both recommend something like this then?  

http://www.opticalvision.co.uk/astronomical_accessories-eyepieces/sky-watcher_7-21mm_zoom_eyepiece__125-317mm_format.html

 

Just a standard skywatcher 7-21mm zoom eyepiece. Zoom eyepieces aren't something I've previously looked into although after a bit of reading online and from your replies they seem like a nice piece of kit to have. Good for trying out different magnifications. No need for a Barlow then either.

 

Those are not that good to be honest with you.

This is somewhat better:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/hyperflex-72mm-215mm-eyepiece.html

 

 

[Louis D]

11 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

 

Would you both recommend something like this then?  

http://www.opticalvision.co.uk/astronomical_accessories-eyepieces/sky-watcher_7-21mm_zoom_eyepiece__125-317mm_format.html

 

Just a standard skywatcher 7-21mm zoom eyepiece. Zoom eyepieces aren't something I've previously looked into although after a bit of reading online and from your replies they seem like a nice piece of kit to have. Good for trying out different magnifications. No need for a Barlow then either.

 

Generally, the 7.2-21.5mm zooms and the 8-24mm zooms generate the most favorable reviews.  Svbony has a new line of eyepieces direct from China generating favorable reviews on CN.  I'm not sure if the 7-21mm is the same as the SW version.  The 8-24mm is definitely different from the Celestron/Meade/SW/Agena version.  You'll have to hunt around to find who has any zooms in stock.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Louis D

[davyludo]

It's the Baader Hyperion zoom I went for - purely because it has a larger FOV compared to the cheaper ones.

If I was looking for someone cheaper, then I'd probably look at the SVBONY 8-24mm one.

I have a BST 2x Barlow, and it does still get used in the mak - can push mag up past 200 if splitting tight doubles (focus gets a bit difficult though) and exit pupil is small. But fine for a quick view.

Edited January 14, 2021 by davyludo

[Dixie]

For the record 30 mm plossl eyepiece will give you the widest field of view with the 127 Mak. I use an Ultima 30 mm which is very nice. Orthos also work well, albeit with a smaller field of view.

[Spier24]

On 14/01/2021 at 18:22, Dixie said:

For the record 30 mm plossl eyepiece will give you the widest field of view with the 127 Mak. I use an Ultima 30 mm which is very nice. Orthos also work well, albeit with a smaller field of view.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-eyepieces/skywatcher-sp-plossl-eyepieces.html

 

So you'd recommend one of these? Should I go for the 10mm or 7mm for planetary observation. Will probably get one of these to replace the 10mm included with the scope as I've read it's not very good.

 

[Dixie]

I'd take the 10, 17 and 32mm of that selection. Cover all the magnification will you need.  You will be surprised how often you reach for the 17mm - it's a real sweet spot for DSO's like the Dumbbellbell. At F12 these eyepieces should work fine. 

[Louis D]

On 14/01/2021 at 12:22, Dixie said:

For the record 30 mm plossl eyepiece will give you the widest field of view with the 127 Mak. I use an Ultima 30 mm which is very nice. Orthos also work well, albeit with a smaller field of view.

Unless you've got the 2" visual back and diagonal of the US version.  In that case, you can use widest field 2" eyepieces to good effect.  There is some vignetting, but it isn't very noticeable to the human eye.  Below is a comparison image I took through my 127 Mak to show the difference and resulting vignetting.  The APM UFF 24m would be equivalent in TFOV to the 30mm/32mm Plossl.

[Spier24]

19 minutes ago, Dixie said:

I'd take the 10, 17 and 32mm of that selection. Cover all the magnification will you need.  You will be surprised how often you reach for the 17mm - it's a real sweet spot for DSO's like the Dumbbellbell. At F12 these eyepieces should work fine. 

I'll probably go for the 10 and 17mm. Then use the standard 25mm that comes with the scope. It's really the standard 10mm that I want to replace with a 10mm plossl as the standard one is apparently not very good.

[sputniksteve]

On 13/01/2021 at 21:18, Spier24 said:

I do come from the UK. I also read in a review somewhere that the new Skymax scoped are of slightly better build quality than the older ones.

 

One thing I don't like is that the Skymax models come with a red dot finder instead of the finder scope that came on the older ones. I'd just buy a skywatcher finder scope to replace the red dot finder.

I'm confused by this. Hasn't the 127 Mak always been called Skymax?

[John]

On 14/01/2021 at 18:22, Dixie said:

For the record 30 mm plossl eyepiece will give you the widest field of view with the 127 Mak. I use an Ultima 30 mm which is very nice. Orthos also work well, albeit with a smaller field of view.

Nearly. A 35mm Ultima will give a slightly larger true field.

 

[John]

27 minutes ago, sputniksteve said:

I'm confused by this. Hasn't the 127 Mak always been called Skymax?

I think it has. I have a 2004 Skywatcher brochure and the mak-cassegrains were known as the Skymax range back then. Blue tubes with black trim for the 127 back then and an optical 6x30 finder fitted as standard.

[Spier24]

38 minutes ago, John said:

I think it has. I have a 2004 Skywatcher brochure and the mak-cassegrains were known as the Skymax range back then. Blue tubes with black trim for the 127 back then and an optical 6x30 finder fitted as standard.

 

1 hour ago, sputniksteve said:

I'm confused by this. Hasn't the 127 Mak always been called Skymax?

 

I could be wrong but when the original skywatcher GoTo range came out I can't remember it being called the Skymax. The only difference I can think of is that the original had a 30mm finder scope where as the new Az Gti model has a red dot finder.

[sputniksteve]

2 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

 

 

I could be wrong but when the original skywatcher GoTo range came out I can't remember it being called the Skymax. The only difference I can think of is that the original had a 30mm finder scope where as the new Az Gti model has a red dot finder.

I don't know when it was originally released. All I know is that the maks have been called Skymax for many years. I picked up a used one last year, on a AZ Goto. Black tube with white ends, with a proper finder (albeit not very good) mounted via a white finder holder. The tube bears the legend "Schott glass", which always makes it sound broken to me!

 

[Spier24]

4 minutes ago, sputniksteve said:

I don't know when it was originally released. All I know is that the maks have been called Skymax for many years. I picked up a used one last year, on a AZ Goto. Black tube with white ends, with a proper finder (albeit not very good) mounted via a white finder holder. The tube bears the legend "Schott glass", which always makes it sound broken to me!

 

I know someone who bought a new one back in 2013 I think? His is also in the black and white colour like yours. Can't remember if it has the schott glass logo on it but it does have the 30mm finder. It wasn't called skymax at that point I think.

[johninderby]

The old blue tube version. The 127 hasn’t changed but the 150 and 180 were altered to correct the less than truthful actual aperture of the older versions.

[GazOC]

13 minutes ago, johninderby said:

The old blue tube version. The 127 hasn’t changed but the 150 and 180 were altered to correct the less than truthful actual aperture of the older versions.

 I have a gold 180mm Mak and the primary is 200mm, if Skywatcher wanted to push it they could have sold it a 8 inch Mak! I've seen people saying the mirror is 180mm and that gives a reduced effective aperture but that's not the case.  

**If** the scope for resigned at some point to add effective aperture  (and Skywatcher kept it secret!) then it wasn't because the primary is undersized as seems to be the reason that is most often quoted. 

[John]

54 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

 

 

I could be wrong but when the original skywatcher GoTo range came out I can't remember it being called the Skymax. The only difference I can think of is that the original had a 30mm finder scope where as the new Az Gti model has a red dot finder.

No GOTO from Skywatcher in 2004.

 

 

[johninderby]

On the subject of the 180 usable aperture.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/737321-sky-watcher-skymax-180-pro-mct-gold-tube-vs-black-tube-optical-performance/

Edited January 28, 2021 by johninderby

[GazOC]

12 minutes ago, johninderby said:

On the subject of the 180 actual,aperture.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/737321-sky-watcher-skymax-180-pro-mct-gold-tube-vs-black-tube-optical-performance/

There's not much there TBH, just a bloke saying it's 170mm ish.😀

 

I measured the primary, it's definitely 200mm. I did I bit of Googling afterwards and there is a difference of opinion on whether the testing methodology used to arrive at the effective aperture figure is valid, I can't really comment on the ins and outs of that as most of it went over my head but what I can definitely say is that the people who claim the effective aperture is 170mm because the primary is 180mm are wrong.

Edited January 28, 2021 by GazOC

[AstroNebulee]

I have the Skymax 127 I bought last year back in July 2020 and my only scope now I've sold my explorer 150p eq3-2. I use it in my new az gti mount and find it brilliant, I use the rdf but I have a 9x50 raci finder from my old scope and wondering whether my mount could take the extra weight compared to the rdf. I have recently boutbthe hyperflex 7.2-21.5mm zoom lens but yet to try it due to mizzle, fog and rain but last week using my zwo asi120mc-s combibed with x2 Barlow surpassed the practical magnification listed for the scope whilst imaging Luna and Uranus as the seeing was very very good. My is the black diamond livery. I love my set up now as it's so portable and gives cracking views. I did use my 32mm astro essentials super plossl from flo to slew to my target and gives good wide field views, now my zoom will help get my target centralised much easier. I'd thoroughly recommend this scope to anyone and Graham on Jenams astro on YouTube provides so great reviews and tests on this scope. https://youtube.com/c/JenhamsUk

[Spier24]

It would be good if skywatcher brought out a 150 Mak on a GoTo mount. I know that Orion sell that setup but the mount and tripod really aren't good enough to carry the weight of the scope.

[AstroNebulee]

6 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

It would be good if skywatcher brought out a 150 Mak on a GoTo mount. I know that Orion sell that setup but the mount and tripod really aren't good enough to carry the weight of the scope.

Would maybe upgrading the tripod to a https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-star-adventurer/sky-watcher-38-stainless-steel-tripod.html

And adding a counterweight bar and weights would it manage it perhaps. 

[Spier24]

51 minutes ago, LeeHore7 said:

Would maybe upgrading the tripod to a https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-star-adventurer/sky-watcher-38-stainless-steel-tripod.html

And adding a counterweight bar and weights would it manage it perhaps. 

That could work, although it would be nice to have it all together in one package on a GoTo mount for people who'd want that.

[AstroNebulee]

18 minutes ago, Spier24 said:

That could work, although it would be nice to have it all together in one package on a GoTo mount for people who'd want that.

Yes I agree, it would be a good goto package, maybe I could work for skywatcher marketing team 😉, there may not be a lot of difference in price if it was a whole set up or modeled together