Mak 127 or 102?

[Olli]

Hi everyone ,

I am considering saving for a second scope to go with my refractor and have wanted a Mak for such a long time due to it being known as a planet killer which will be its primary use. How much of a difference is the Mak127 compared to the 102 and also the physical size? As I’m trying to keep it small and lightweight as possible.  The 127 is  unfortunately a bit more than I’d like to spend though if it is a noticeable difference then I will consider.  Is the 200mm difference in focal length also noticeable? 
 

any advice would be appreciated!

[bosun21]

I would definitely go for the 127 for the extra aperture and the fact that the mirror is able to be collimated whereas the 102 can’t. Maks hold their collimation great, but you never know if you would give it a serious bang in the future requiring collimation.

[Dixie]

127 Maks regularly come up for sale second hand for under £200, even down to £150. Bit of a no brainer for me.   A steal at those prices for the optical quality you are getting.  Been super impressed with mine and looked through a couple more that were of a similar standard.  

[Louis D]

Agreed.  I bought used Synta 127 Maks for myself and my grown daughter for $200 each pre-pandemic.  Even now, they still trade well below their new prices due to how many of them compete for the same secondary buyers.  Both still have perfect collimation.  Remember, the 127 is really about 118mm of clear aperture because Synta used 127mm primary mirrors, when in fact they need to be slightly larger to capture the meniscus's slightly diverging rays.  The JOC (ES/Bresser) version doesn't have this issue, but has a longer focal length.

[Zermelo]

The 127mm, as the others have said.

And it is very compact, and easily carried with one hand.

[Vulisha]

As an owner of 127, 127 definitely! brilliant little scope! 

 

And i think in newer they fixed primary mirror size, but I might be wrong. Just read that online somewhere. 

[lawsio]

I've recently picked up a SkyMax 127,  based on recommendations from this forum, and have been very pleased so far!

Definitely one to have alongside others I'd say as it does some things a lot better than others, I'm still trying to decide what I want to conpliment it with on trips away and the like.

[Louis D]

6 hours ago, Vulisha said:

As an owner of 127, 127 definitely! brilliant little scope! 

And i think in newer they fixed primary mirror size, but I might be wrong. Just read that online somewhere. 

I've heard that about its 150 big brother, but not about the 127.

[sojourneyer]

My gosh, in the past 18 months I have had over 8 maks ranging from 90 to 127mm ( Celestron/Orion/ Bushnell/Skywatcher)

I agree with Dixie, the prices of used maks have dropped precipitously.  One fellow has been trying to sell his 127SLT for the past 40 days at $250 without luck. A year ago people would have scooped it  up at $350.   Nine months ago I sold my Celestron 127 with a Farpoint dew shield for $325, and now I would be hard pressed to sell it for $250-275.

As to the scopes you certainly get so much more detail with a 127 but also the it magnifies air issues and often I can reach higher magnification with my Skywatcher 90 than with the 127.

I now have only one Mak, the Skywatcher 90, which has given me the best mak views I have ever had. The fellow I sold my 127 SLT just purchased a 12 inch Dob and I could get it from him for $250 but I am going to stick with the 90

I like its compactness and light weight for quick grab and go. I use it on a Nexstar GT mount and a Celestron Starsense DX mount.  The latter with the scope weighs under 10 lbs all up.  Now that is a nice GNG.

 

 

 

[bosun21]

On 04/09/2023 at 15:15, Vulisha said:

As an owner of 127, 127 definitely! brilliant little scope! 

 

And i think in newer they fixed primary mirror size, but I might be wrong. Just read that online somewhere. 

Not on the 127 model. The smaller models can’t be collimated.

[Olli]

Thanks all for the responses. It seems like a overwhelming praise for the 127!

[doublevodka]

I do like my skymax 127 paired with an az-gti, it's not without its quirks as a setup, but a one handed carry from the shed to the garden means I use it more.

If you are just buying a mak though, I'd go for the bresser https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-maksutov-cassegrain-ota.html it's full aperture and well liked, also seems to have a slightly better build quality from what I've read.

Either is a useful addition for those times when you want the extra magnification.

2 essential additions needed though, dew shield, because they are dew magnets, and a clothes peg for fine focus (honestly, not joking)

 

[Olli]

4 minutes ago, doublevodka said:

I do like my skymax 127 paired with an az-gti, it's not without its quirks as a setup, but a one handed carry from the shed to the garden means I use it more.

If you are just buying a mak though, I'd go for the bresser https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-mc-127-1900-maksutov-cassegrain-ota.html it's full aperture and well liked, also seems to have a slightly better build quality from what I've read.

Either is a useful addition for those times when you want the extra magnification.

2 essential additions needed though, dew shield, because they are dew magnets, and a clothes peg for fine focus (honestly, not joking)

 

Thanks for the link and advice. The cool-down time was my only concern as I usually tend to observe for short sessions. I saw a post on here in a thread ( can’t remember who it was) but they had a clothes peg in a hard case with the mak and it made me chuckle.

[Adam J]

On 03/09/2023 at 21:06, Olli said:

Hi everyone ,

I am considering saving for a second scope to go with my refractor and have wanted a Mak for such a long time due to it being known as a planet killer which will be its primary use. How much of a difference is the Mak127 compared to the 102 and also the physical size? As I’m trying to keep it small and lightweight as possible.  The 127 is  unfortunately a bit more than I’d like to spend though if it is a noticeable difference then I will consider.  Is the 200mm difference in focal length also noticeable? 
 

any advice would be appreciated!

There is not as much difference as you might think as the 127mm does not have a 127mm clear aperture only 118mm. No idea how SW get away with that. Honestly the 102 cools faster and is more portable as it will go in hold luggage easier. The 118mm will outperform it just don't expect the margin you would get if it was a true 5 inch scope. 

[GTom]

The FL difference is marginal, APERTURE gives you resolution and light gathering. Indeed, that 5" Mak will be brilliant on planets, even Uranus is possible.

[GTom]

17 hours ago, Adam J said:

There is not as much difference as you might think as the 127mm does not have a 127mm clear aperture only 118mm. No idea how SW get away with that. Honestly the 102 cools faster and is more portable as it will go in hold luggage easier. The 118mm will outperform it just don't expect the margin you would get if it was a true 5 inch scope. 

If the 127mm "is only 118mm" then the 102 isn't "102" either. Even 40% (will be more in reality)  more light will give a visible difference.

[bosun21]

18 hours ago, Adam J said:

There is not as much difference as you might think as the 127mm does not have a 127mm clear aperture only 118mm. No idea how SW get away with that. Honestly the 102 cools faster and is more portable as it will go in hold luggage easier. The 118mm will outperform it just don't expect the margin you would get if it was a true 5 inch scope. 

Do you think the 102 is operating at its full aperture? I highly doubt it. I know that the 150mm is operating around 142mm. I also heard that it’s the 180 being the only model operating at full aperture.

Edited September 6, 2023 by bosun21

[Zermelo]

The need for an oversized mirror to convey all the incident light into the image (and its absence in the Skymax 127) has been discussed before in several threads.

Clearly, the loss of some light will result in a slightly dimmer image, and I believe that is the justification for the alternative 118mm, or whatever, that is quoted. But I'm interested to know (and someone will know) whether this shortfall has a corresponding diminution in resolving power. i.e. is the effect on this catadioptric system the same as stopping down a simple refractor to the same aperture?

I'm interested because my Skymax has split half a dozen doubles at 0.9", and a couple at 0.8" that I'm 95% sure of. And I suspect it needs a slight re-collimation, too.

The Dawes limit for 127mm is 0.91" and 118mm is 0.98". I believe a scope with a central obstruction would perform slightly worse than a frac. I know that the Dawes value derivation is empirical, and any individual assessment is a subjective judgement, but even so, the Skymax seems to be doing well.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Zermelo
Predictive typo

[Adam J]

9 hours ago, bosun21 said:

Do you think the 102 is operating at its full aperture? I highly doubt it. I know that the 150mm is operating around 142mm. I also heard that it’s the 180 being the only model operating at full aperture.

a tally the 102 is very close the F-ratio is the giveaway. The design needs about a F13 ratio to work at full aperture that's 100mm for the 102mm so hardly any difference. The 127 is the worst it's not even F12.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Adam J

[GTom]

33 minutes ago, Adam J said:

a tally the 102 is very close the F-ratio is the giveaway. The design needs about a F13 ratio to work at full aperture that's 100mm for the 102mm so hardly any difference. The 127 is the worst it's not even F12.

Deal, 118 vs 100 then. 18% more resolution and 40% more light grasp.

[John]

I'd love to put a Skywatcher mak 127mm alongside my ED120 refractor and (carefully) compare the views.

I think the result would be very close on deep sky objects. On double stars, the moon and planets, I suspect things might swing in favour of the refractor but only very slightly.

If I did the same comparison using my ED102 refractor I think the mak 127 would show a clearer advantage on DSO's and would possibly beat the 102 refractor on the higher resolution targets as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[sojourneyer]

I would have a 102ED over a 127 Mak. Short cool down, dual focuser, rotating focuser,built in dew shield. Wider FOV as well.  No collimation .Often with a 127 Mak,given the atmospheric conditions, I found my 90 Mak gave Crisper views

Have you checked out the Svbony MK 105? Initial production was bad, but apparently they’re now really excellent. Mine was a dog mainly because they somehow sent me one that was being tested.

[Adam J]

7 hours ago, GTom said:

Deal, 118 vs 100 then. 18% more resolution and 40% more light grasp.

62% more expensive for 18% more resolution. But probably not even that, because of the primary shading the central obstruction is larger in comparison to the mirror. It's also bigger, heavier and takes longer to cool down. Neither are for DSO. It's all good, but the 102 is a valid option over the 127 dependent on budget and other requirements. 

[GTom]

Regarding price one should definitely look at the 2nd hand market. Weight and size indeed a question if backpacking is the goal. Cooldown: wait until you get your c14😅

[bosun21]

If you want the full 127 aperture then go for the Bresser 127 Maksutov. It’s F15 and has a slightly oversized mirror to allow the full 127mm to be used. The 102 is another viable option but don’t complain if you give it a heavy bump knocking the collimation as there’s no way to rectify it. Just something else to bear in mind.