8” LX200 or 10” LX90?

[Bill Grimes]

I have the opportunity to get a brand new 8” lx200 or a brand new 10” lx90 with some extras for the same price and don’t know which to get. The weight is similar I believe and I will be using for visual observation or who knows maybe some short exposure pics in the future but definitely mainly visual. I just want a quality set up that will last a lifetime. This is my long term one and done telescope. Which one do you recommend?

[Shimrod]

5 hours ago, Bill Grimes said:

I have the opportunity to get a brand new 8” lx200 or a brand new 10” lx90 with some extras for the same price and don’t know which to get. The weight is similar I believe and I will be using for visual observation or who knows maybe some short exposure pics in the future but definitely mainly visual. I just want a quality set up that will last a lifetime. This is my long term one and done telescope. Which one do you recommend?

Both scopes are quite heavy (I have an 8" LX90) and as the OTA and mount are a single unit can be quite awkward to get the mount onto the tripod. While you say this will be your one and done telescope, I would suggest going for a separate OTA and mount as it would give both easier set up (less weight to move in one go) and flexibility in purchasing a new scope at some point in the future without also having to buy a new mount.

You may already have done your research, but if you indicate what you are interested in viewing then there are plenty of people on this forum who can advise on suitability and possibly suggest better alternatives for your preferred targets.

[NGC 1502]

I think you’ll find that the weight difference between the 8” & 10” is very noticeable in practice. Depends how fit you are, but far better to have a scope with less hassle because it will be used more. Unless of course it’s set up permanently in an observatory.

[Bill Grimes]

Thank you both for your input. I do like the fork mount for the ease of use and quick set up. Do any of them easily separate from the mount? I want to observe and see everything I possibly can and that’s why I am leaning toward the 10” but I have not handled one so I don’t know how awkward they are to handle. I have read that the LX 90 mount is substantially lighter than the LX 200 mount which puts them around the same weight but my concern was the quality of the lighter mount. Are these both prohibitively heavy when separated from the tripod?

 

[NGC 1502]

Always a tough call giving advice, what is “prohibitively heavy” for one person another may not have a problem.

If I wanted an SCT for visual I’d go for a Celestron SE.  The tube assembly separates from the single fork arm in a jiffy via the dovetail on the tube. With a separate tube assembly not attached to the mount it makes the individual parts much lighter.

And Celestrons are sold by our sponsor FLO, you get first class reliable service. However stock levels are often a problem outside of their control.

[michael8554]

If you eventually want to do long exposure guided imaging, the LX200GPS with a wedge is the better choice, the LX90 is more suited to Visual use.

Michael

[Cosmic Geoff]

22 hours ago, Bill Grimes said:

I have the opportunity to get a brand new 8” lx200 or a brand new 10” lx90 with some extras for the same price and don’t know which to get. The weight is similar I believe and I will be using for visual observation or who knows maybe some short exposure pics in the future but definitely mainly visual. I just want a quality set up that will last a lifetime. This is my long term one and done telescope. Which one do you recommend?

Neither of these options is lightweight. If you want a SCT on a heavy duty twin fork mount you should also look at Celestron's CPC range.  The CPC800 OTA/mount assembly is heavy at around 20Kg and personally I would not want to handle anything heavier.  But it is an excellent setup for planetary imaging etc and very stable, with minimal wobble.

The Meades seem to have a good reputation for optics but a poor reputation for the reliability of the mounts.  And there was something recently about the company going into receivership. Isn't the LX200 an old design?

If you want it for visual, consider also the Celestron SCTs on the SE and Evolution mounts (or an AVX, to mention another option).  The SE is decidedly the cheap option, but adequate for visual use. You can do planetary imaging with it, as I have found, but the backlash and wobble can get a bit annoying in this role.

And there are now "Classical Cassegrains" available which you should check out to see if this design appeals to you.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Cosmic Geoff
CCs