First scope advice – Evostar 102 v 120?

[Basementboy]

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster. 👋

Having spent a lot of time researching my first telescope for a budget of up to £500, I settled on a few key criteria: A) portability is really important, as my backyard (in Camberwell, south London) has a lot of the sky blocked off by surrounding buildings, so I need to go to the park. And good balance between planets and deep sky. C) I was also willing to learn how to use an EQ mount.

So, after a lot of research, I'd finally narrowed it down to the Evostar 120 on an EQ-5 mount. I was just about the click "purchase" at FLO when the price jumped £140! (No fault of FLO, I gather.) 

It has me rethinking things a bit. FLO have been a great help but I wanted to ask this forum for advice. I could JUST about stretch to the new price (£679, erk, before eyepieces or books or anything else.) But is the 120+EQ5 going to be a bit heavy to lug to the park and back regularly? Will it be trickier to use? I gather there is more chromatic aberration than the 102, but I'm red-green colourblind so I figured I could sacrifice a bit of colour perfection in the interests of getting the larger aperture. But I do also want the telescope that I'll actually use most. I'm also concerned that the EQ3 is a little wobbly (even on the 102?) ... 

So my question is – Which scope do you think I'll end up using and enjoying more, as a beginner? 

Very grateful for any help!

Thanks

Chris 

 

[rl]

Aperture is king...except when you have to carry it around!

I think you need to be very realistic here. Exactly how far are you going to be carrying the kit? Are you taking it to the park in a car and just lifting it out of the boot, or is it a bus job followed by a 200 yard hike? The bigger scope costs more, is more clumsy to handle in the dark, and will depreciate more after you've put a few dents in it at 2am.  Got the T-shirt..I had (actually still have) a 5" f/10 refractor I took everywhere for years when I was in my 30s but it certainly gained a few battle scars on the road. A decent quality carrying bag or case is a good investment. 

I have the 102mm Evostar bought secondhand for peanuts because old-fashioned achros aren't cool any more.  It's a good scope and the residual CA is not at all prominent. It's there if you get picky, but not to the gross detriment of planetary detail. And it's light. It's not a bad route to go down if you've ruled out a 6" Newt. 

 

[Tiny Clanger]

Hello and welcome,

I can't be any help on the specifics of your question, not having had first hand knowledge of using those bits of kit, but I do think that in your circumstances you will get far more use from a setup as light and simple as possible whilst keeping the 'scope steady. A heavy , slow to set up, awkward to carry 'scope is going to get used less often once the initial rush has worn off.

A previous thread on here asking about the EQ5 setup weight may be helpful:

I don't think being red/green colour blind has any influence on visibility of chromatic aberration : CA is to do with the lenses in the 'scope not bringing different wavelengths of light to focus at the same point : you will still see a fuzzy annoying fringe, you just may not see it in colour !

Heather

[Tiny Clanger]

If I was in your position, I'd be scrambling to buy this bargain mak, a very portable little set up with many included bells & whistles

I'd snap it up myself if I didn't already have a 127 mak !

Then I'd be looking around for a suitable mount and tripod, something like the az pronto or az4, which cost around £200 new.

Heather

[mikeDnight]

Hi Chris,

I talked a friend into buying one of these chinese 4" achromats back in 1999, so I could check it out.  It was so good that the following day I ordered a 120mm F8.3.  The 120mm came on an EQ3 which was adequate for carrying the tube assembly. It came with three very nice silver-top plossl eyepieces and a good diagonal and 2X barlow. The first view through it was of a crescent Moon, and I was very pleased at the colour correction. In fact my first thoughts were "where is the false colour?" The view was sharp and pleasing, and the 120mm aperture made the scope good for observing brighter deep sky objects.  If all I had today was that 120mm scope, I would still be having a great time observing. 

[Earl]

I think a Evostar 120 might be far heavier than you are anticipating. not particularly portable imo

[Basementboy]

Thanks all!

Rl – Yep I've ruled out the Dobsonians (assume that's what you mean by a 6" Newt) until I inherit my country estate. In the meantime I (er) don't have a car – nearest parks are 5min and 10min walk. I'd obviously prefer not to also have to buy cases (£679 for the 120 EQ5 without any additional eyepieces is already pricey for me).

Protostar – yes that's what I'm starting to wonder. Thanks for the weight link! It seems like the whole setup would be about 16-17kg. Which doesn't seem TOO heavy but then again might be a pain, and I take the point about it being clumsy at night. Plus I need to be able to outrun the local gangs

Red Dwarf – great to know about the colour. Did you find the 120 a lot better than the 102? I am very interested in deep sky but then again I am still just beginning

Court Jester – good to know. The kind of scope that you take into the garden but not much further, then?

 

[Basementboy]

Oops I've got all your names wrong haven't I

[Commanderfish]

Hi there,

My first scope was an Evostar 120mm on an EQ3 mount.  The scope is a really good starter, plenty of aperture, good optics and the chromatic aberration is low and I doubt very much it would bother you regardless of colourblindness (by the way CA usually shows up as blue-purple).  The aperture is enough to pick out quite a lot of deep space objects like open clusters and bright nebulae.

The EQ3 was not really upto the job of handling the 120; the scope is too long and heavy.  The EQ5 would likely be fine BUT if you are taking the kit apart and carrying it to the park, you can save a huge amount of weight and hassle by using an Alt-Az mount instead of the EQ5.  The EQ mounts require counterweights the same weight as the scope, the Alt Az do not, so that's a big consideration.  Also, Alt Az don't require any kind of polar alignment, whilst EQ do, so the set up time is much quicker.  I'd be looking at something like an AZ4 or AZ5.  I personally use Teleoptics Giro mounts which carry two scopes at a time, but that's a little beyond what you are trying to do at the moment.  Nonetheless, they are Alt Az mounts.

 

 

[Commanderfish]

47 minutes ago, Earl said:

I think a Evostar 120 might be far heavier than you are anticipating. not particularly portable imo

I think it's the 120mm achromat which is only about 5kg.  Not an ED scope.

[Basementboy]

Thanks @Commanderfish! I guess I'd settled on an EQ mount because I gather it's easier to track objects as they move through the sky ... and while I'm still learning I reckon I want it to be easy to stick with an object once I've found it.

Do you think the 102 is a lot less good for deep space objects than the 120 (though maybe you haven't owned both)?

[Tiny Clanger]

Yep, actual poster's names are in the bar above the rank by post numbers  🙂

According to what I can find, the 120 weighs 5.5kg, the EQ5 something like 12.5 kg , the 'scope tube must be around 120mm long , the tripod height (whatever it is) you can roughly halve the standing height (I'm assuming it has two section legs ?) to find about how long it will be closed up without the EQ head on.

I suspect you'd need to disassemble head from tripod to pack them safely, and take the counterweight bar and weights off too , so setting up in the park will mean opening up the tripod, securing the head on it, adding the bar and counterweight(s) , putting the 'scope on, balancing it, putting in the diagonal ... all in the dark. Sounds daunting . Then reverse the prucedure to pack away ...

I'll echo what Commanderfish said, a suitably weight rated alt az is going to be easier to use and probably cheaper too, the 120 is outside the carrying ability of the neat little pronto which is the one I'd go for ideally if portability was important, it has a limit of 3kg .

You are going to need an az4 or az5 for the 'scope you want. The az4 is cheaper and well thought of, and it comes with integral steel tripod (which, if I recall correctly, it cannot be removed from ? Not sure where I read that though, so don't take it as gospel !) The az5 is limited to a lower weight capacity by the rubbish tripod it is bundled with, it can carry 9kg on a good tripod (eg the skywatcher steel one) and has slow motion controls, which the az4 lacks. Which is why I bought the az5, and I am extremely happy with it ! It weighs about 3kg , no counterweights to deal with, just a couple of  slo mo control 'cables' (long handles) to screw on if you need them for ease of use.

Good news is, any local yobs can be fended off with your tripod (I've used a closed up photo tripod in a sort of vaguely "I'm willing to hit you with this if you try anything, sonny" kind of way as a solo female out taking urban pics with an expensive camera, it worked perfectly 🙂  ) and if a scooter gang tries to nick the kit, they will probably fall over sideways or be unable to nip up a narrow alley ...

[Basementboy]

Thanks @Tiny Clanger! Would I have to do all that assembly/disassembly with the Eq3 as well?!?!? Might be a dealbreaker.

And would I need an AZ4/5 for the 102 (not the 120)? Or could I use the "neat little pronto" you mentioned?

Definitely keen on slow-motion controls ...

I was planning to bring my baseball bat with me for Vague Threatening but it never occurred to me that the mount itself could do the trick. This is exactly the kind of deep knowledge for which I joined this forum. 

 

[Tiny Clanger]

2 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

Thanks @Commanderfish! I guess I'd settled on an EQ mount because I gather it's easier to track objects as they move through the sky ... and while I'm still learning I reckon I want it to be easy to stick with an object once I've found it.

Do you think the 102 is a lot less good for deep space objects than the 120 (though maybe you haven't owned both)?

My experience is the exact opposite : I inherited a 114 scope on an EQ mount, and found it incredibly annoying to use . In the summer )lockdown #1) I bought a little tabletop heritage 150dob, which is lovely , and obviously comes with a tabletop dob mount.  Since then I've bought a 127 mak , and had no hesitation whatsoever in choosing an alt az mount to go between it and the sturdy (yob repelling) manfrotto photo tripod I already owned.

Tracking objects as they move through the sky is no problem at all with the az5 or indeed the heritage dob mount , the only one which gave me a challenge was Mars which zipped through the view in a few seconds when it was at it's closest to us and I was pushing the magnification as much as I could, therefore my field of view was tiny.

I've had no trouble whatsoever keeping DSOs in view with dob or alt az , and friends with zero experience of using the mount (or any proper 'scope mount ) were confidently tracking the conjunction on Dec 20th to keep Jupiter & Saturn in view with the slo mo controls .

Heather

[Stu1smartcookie]

2 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

I've had no trouble whatsoever keeping DSOs in view with dob or alt az , and friends with zero experience of using the mount (or any proper 'scope mount ) were confidently tracking the conjunction on Dec 20th to keep Jupiter & Saturn in view with the slo mo controls .

I get jealous when i read about " the conjunction" as i'm still suffering cloud fatigue from those fateful few days zzzz

[Tiny Clanger]

5 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

Thanks @Tiny Clanger! Would I have to do all that assembly/disassembly with the Eq3 as well?!?!? Might be a dealbreaker.

And would I need an AZ4/5 for the 102 (not the 120)? Or could I use the "neat little pronto" you mentioned?

Definitely keen on slow-motion controls ...

I was planning to bring my baseball bat with me for Vague Threatening but it never occurred to me that the mount itself could do the trick. This is exactly the kind of deep knowledge for which I joined this forum. 

 

Check the weight of the 102 , if it is under 3kg you would be fine in theory. I've a suspicion that some members have a similar combo ( Wibblefish maybe ?) and have found the pronto slipping a bit though , worth doing a search on here to read up on it .

It's the inevitable problems of 'scope buying :

Big aperture = big glass = big weight = big cost.

Long focal length = long tube (or cleverly folded light path requiring more components = more cost ) = more weight , more cumbersome

Big weight and/or long tube requires strong well made mount = big cost

And that explains the popularity and relative cheapness of the dobsonian mounted newtonian 'scope !

Heather

[Tiny Clanger]

8 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

I get jealous when i read about " the conjunction" as i'm still suffering cloud fatigue from those fateful few days zzzz

Sorry , it is the only time I've been able to share my 'scope with my 'bubble' before reg.s prohibited them leaving their part of the city, I didn't mean to rub it in !

Heather

[Basementboy]

It was actually the conjunction that made me decide to finally get the damn telescope I've always been dreaming of. Bad luck Stu, sorry to hear

@Tiny Clanger How do find the 127 Maks would compare to a 4/5" refractor like the Evostars? FLO suggested that the Evostar 102 would actually be clearer than the Skywatcher 127 I was looking at (here: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-gti.html)

And  I've heard they need at least an hour to cool down?

And does anyone have thoughts on this combo – Explorer 150 with AZ4 mount? Seems like a reasonable price:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-az4-mount.html

[Tiny Clanger]

1 hour ago, Basementboy said:

Rl – Yep I've ruled out the Dobsonians (assume that's what you mean by a 6" Newt) until I inherit my country estate. In the meantime I (er) don't have a car – nearest parks are 5min and 10min walk.

Dobsonians are Newtonian telescopes on Dobsonian mounts, but not all newts are dobs 🙂  My heritage dob can be taken off its base and put on the az5 , no problems .

You could investigate something like this  .... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/all-telescopes/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az5-deluxe.html

Heather

[Basementboy]

7 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Dobsonians are Newtonian telescopes on Dobsonian mounts, but not all newts are dobs 🙂  My heritage dob can be taken off its base and put on the az5 , no problems .

You could investigate something like this  .... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/all-telescopes/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az5-deluxe.html

Heather

Nice – or this? Is it basically the same thing but a step up? https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-az4-mount.html

 

[mikeDnight]

The 120mm Evostar (Helios as it was called back in 1999), was not a particularly heavy telescope. And the EQ 3 that came with it was certainly adequat enough to carry the scope to allow for serious prolonged observing. If you intend to carry this set-up any distance, then unless the tripod or engineering has changed since then, it should work well. Heavier mounts and heavier counterweights may mean the scope gets used less.

[Tiny Clanger]

26 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

It was actually the conjunction that made me decide to finally get the damn telescope I've always been dreaming of. Bad luck Stu, sorry to hear

@Tiny Clanger How do find the 127 Maks would compare to a 4/5" refractor like the Evostars? FLO suggested that the Evostar 102 would actually be clearer than the Skywatcher 127 I was looking at (here: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-gti.html)

And  I've heard they need at least an hour to cool down?

And does anyone have thoughts on this combo – Explorer 150 with AZ4 mount? Seems like a reasonable price:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-az4-mount.html

I'll not pronounce on the 127 mak vs frac conundrum, as I've never owned a frac . ,so not even slightly qualified !

The 127 mak takes around half an hour to cool , I've only had mine since November so there's been a fair difference between indoor (cool room) and outdoor temp.s , it may be less in the summer when temp.s are more equal . I've read folk say making the tube a cosy of reflectix (other insulating aluminium foil products are available 🙂  ) cuts the internal air currents, but I've not tried it myself .

A smaller mak cools faster, and would be less of a lump to move around ( and need a less sturdy mount, yada yada ...) which is whu I drew your attention to that second hand one .

9 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

Nice – or this? Is it basically the same thing but a step up? https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-150p-az4-mount.html

 

Yes, but whilst you are increasing aperture, you are losing a degree of portability, it is physically bigger and heavier , also remember az4 no slo mo ...

[Basementboy]

Oh, 30 minutes isn't so bad. (90 would make it unusable.)

I've messaged the guy about the secondhand one – already on hold but we'll see. Maybe I'll spend some time in the secondhand section.

Really appreciate your help, Heather. And I love the Pullman quote.

[Basementboy]

And hey – you just helped me graduate to Nebula 🤩

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

If ruling out a dobsonian and considering the latest price increases, with £500 to spend on a new starter scope and mount there's one package I'd really consider:

Sky-Watcher Star Discovery 150i WiFi

Sky at Night Magazine review

Astronomy & Nature TV Youtube review.

Transportable, with GoTo and tracking. 

 

If you are really set on a refractor and able to stretch to £700, then an Altair Astro Starwave Ascent 102 and Sky-Watcher AZ4 with steel tripod .

You will still need to fork out on a finder, star diagonal and eyepieces unfortunately, but for the initial outlay, it's likely you will keep that set up for a very long time.

If ultra portability is required, with a £500 spend, then a Skymax 102 & AZGTI will almost fit in your pocket and leave you spare change.

If you're super convinced you need an EQ mount, and want plenty of extra money saved for eyepieces and a book, then a Starquest 102 Mak and EQ mount will leave you enough change for eyepieces and a book. A RA motor drive is available.