Mak 127 or 102?

[Louis D]

14 hours ago, John said:

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.

If you're just popping out for 10 or 15 minutes to grab a quick peek at a planet, the 127 Mak is a terrible choice.  It shows all sorts of chromatic aberrations at high power on bright objects while trying to cool down.  By comparison, I see no such issues with a similarly sized Newtonian.  My 90mm triplet shows spikes around bright objects while trying to cool down, so also not a good quick peek choice.  My 72ED doublet is pretty much ready to go immediately, though.

It really depends on your intended use case which telescope will provide the best images.

[John]

3 minutes ago, Louis D said:

If you're just popping out for 10 or 15 minutes to grab a quick peek at a planet, the 127 Mak is a terrible choice.  It shows all sorts of chromatic aberrations at high power on bright objects while trying to cool down.  By comparison, I see no such issues with a similarly sized Newtonian.  My 90mm triplet shows spikes around bright objects while trying to cool down, so also not a good quick peek choice.  My 72ED doublet is pretty much ready to go immediately, though.

It really depends on your intended use case which telescope will provide the best images.

That is why I no longer own SCT's, MCT's or Mak-Newtonians.

To do my comparison I would need to borrow one 🙂

[Louis D]

2 hours ago, John said:

That is why I no longer own SCT's, MCT's or Mak-Newtonians.

To do my comparison I would need to borrow one 🙂

If you were nearby here in Texas, I'd definitely let you borrow my 127 Mak for as long as you wanted.  I can't remember exactly when the last time was that I used it.  It was probably when I took some recent SAEP/CAEP images through some new to me eyepieces.  Its slow f-ratio really brings out the worst in eyepieces relative to SAEP/CAEP.

[Adam J]

8 hours ago, bosun21 said:

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.

That's not totally correct, my 102 can be collimated. There are two versions of the scope, one that can't be collimated and is packaged with mounts and one that is sold as OTA only and has a full set of collimation screws.  Both versions are sold by FLO. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Adam J

[Adam J]

3 hours ago, Louis D said:

If you're just popping out for 10 or 15 minutes to grab a quick peek at a planet, the 127 Mak is a terrible choice.  It shows all sorts of chromatic aberrations at high power on bright objects while trying to cool down.  By comparison, I see no such issues with a similarly sized Newtonian.  My 90mm triplet shows spikes around bright objects while trying to cool down, so also not a good quick peek choice.  My 72ED doublet is pretty much ready to go immediately, though.

It really depends on your intended use case which telescope will provide the best images.

exactly I wanted a quick grab and go option for use with a 5yesr old that has no patience for cooling. The 102 is ready to go by the time I have aligned it for the most part. Cooling on a Mak scales poorly with size. 

[Jules Tohpipi]

I can't help but feel that the Maks are getting an overly harsh ride here.

They're excellent value for money, extremely compact, and don't suffer the distortions of cheaper refractors. They complement a fast, high quality, small-aperture, refractor as a second scope very well. Plus kids generally like to see things big not small. Hence why I've got all three: a frac, Mak and Dob.

Nothing is perfect and putting a bare Mak outside unmounted to cool is no big deal with 30 mins forethought. 100mm+  refractors with ED glass are lovely - but heck just look at the prices. 

I got the Mak 127 because of my back these days not managing the 10" Dob very well. Looking at Jupiter and Saturn I don't feel that short-changed looking through the Mak in comparison. Nor does it suffer from any visual nasties once cooled. 

There's a lot of positives to mention and at a very keen price - especially if bought used. I set both up together and we can switch between them when out observing together for some variety. 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Jules Tohpipi

[Gonariu]

I have a acromatic 80/400 and a Skywatcher Maksutov 90/1250, scopes I adore. If the weather is good I can use the 90/1250 because I can put it in terrace and wait for getting cold, but if it is raining, I prefer to use the 80/400 wich is ready for observing when for some moment the sky clears up.

[sojourneyer]

I certainly am not bagging maks. I have owned more maks than fingers on my hand.  Buy, sell, buy back... repeat.

I have limited ability raising my arm.(torn rotator cuff) so anything light and thin is my soup (scope) of the day.

That is why I purchased a 90 Skymax and sold my 127 SLT.   The purchaser loves it. 

Such a great scope in an utterly small package.

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by sojourneyer

[The60mmKid]

20 hours ago, John said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not so sure. I owned a fine 5" Intes-Micro mak-cass at the same time as a Tak FC-100DC. I wanted the mak to match and outperform the Tak. It just didn't. The Tak bested the Intes-Micro in almost every way, and the deep space performance was a draw because, while the mak gathered a little more light, the superb contrast of the Tak evened things out.

This isn't a criticism of the mak. I like them very much and would gladly own another if the right one showed up. They're small, perform well with the right preparation, and offer a bit of an x-factor... some cool, indefinable quality that makes me like them. In fact, I do own a rather special mak: the Ceravolo HD-145 mak-newt. But that's a topic for another thread.

[Gonariu]

8 hours ago, sojourneyer said:

That is why I purchased a 90 Skymax and sold my 127 SLT.   The purchaser loves it. 

Such a great scope in an utterly small package.

 

I agree, it's a compact scope wich is very beatiful for terrestrial use with high magnifications (X156 and X208) too and for Moon and planets (for Moon I used X250 with a Unitron 5 mm ortoscopic).

[bosun21]

16 hours ago, Adam J said:

That's not totally correct, my 102 can be collimated. There are two versions of the scope, one that can't be collimated and is packaged with mounts and one that is sold as OTA only and has a full set of collimation screws.  Both versions are sold by FLO. 

Thanks for clearing up the collimation question regarding the Skymax 102. I had no idea of this difference in the 102 models. I will now seriously consider buying one for myself as a quick G&G with a lightweight Alt/Az mount. I wonder why they decided this change between them. More than likely a cost saving when bundled with a mount.

[Zermelo]

2 hours ago, bosun21 said:

Thanks for clearing up the collimation question regarding the Skymax 102. I had no idea of this difference in the 102 models. I will now seriously consider buying one for myself as a quick G&G with a lightweight Alt/Az mount. I wonder why they decided this change between them. More than likely a cost saving when bundled with a mount.

It's the same with the 127 - two versions.

Yes, it reduces the cost of the bundle, but also reduces the weight, which will help with stability on a less robust mount and tripod.

[bosun21]

19 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

It's the same with the 127 - two versions.

Yes, it reduces the cost of the bundle, but also reduces the weight, which will help with stability on a less robust mount and tripod.

Both the mount bundled 127 I owned (all black) had collimation screws as did a previous black and white model (pro). I have never come across any SW 127 that couldn’t be collimated. I’m not entirely sure about the old blue models although the ones I have seen could be collimated as well.

[John]

The Celestron-branded 90mm mak-cass that I had a couple of years back had push-pull collimation screws at the primary end.

 

[sojourneyer]

also one thing I have noticed with the Skymak maks is that some have a proper dovetail while others have this inverted type dovetail only good for block mounting

 

[Zermelo]

1 hour ago, bosun21 said:

Both the mount bundled 127 I owned (all black) had collimation screws as did a previous black and white model (pro). I have never come across any SW 127 that couldn’t be collimated. I’m not entirely sure about the old blue models although the ones I have seen could be collimated as well.

No, I'd not seen a non-collimatable version either, and I said so in a thread that I can't find now.
Someone posted a picture of one, I have a feeling it was @vlaiv.

[vlaiv]

3 hours ago, Zermelo said:

No, I'd not seen a non-collimatable version either, and I said so in a thread that I can't find now.
Someone posted a picture of one, I have a feeling it was @vlaiv.

I did not read the whole thread, but I suspect you are debating 102 vs 127 and collimatable vs non-collimatable (if those two are even proper words ).

I don't remember seeing 127 that can't be collimated, but I do know for a fact that there are two types of 102 - one with and one without collimation screws.

In fact SkyWatcher released whole line of scopes without collimation screws - newtonians and that mak, all of which sit on their light weight mounts - like AZ Pronto and Starquest.

That is star quest (image is from you tube video, it is hard to find back side of this model in regular image).

While AZ Pronto line is clearly labeled - having S at the end of the model names. FLO website clearly states that these don't have collimation ability:

Interestingly - Mak page does not say this, but it is also labeled with S:

Another sign for 102 that I managed to track down - is the shape of front of the scope:

vs

regular mak 102 seems to have smooth edge at front of the scope.

In any case, I ended up purchasing regular OTA version although bundled one was more affordable and with more accessories (that I wanted) - just to have ability to collimate the scope if needed. I haven't seen any pictures or otherwise found evidence of 127 without collimation ability.

[John]

I've just had a look through some pics on the UK importer OVL's website and they seem to show that there are now no collimation screws on the back of 90mm and 102mm mak-cassegrains.

This seems to be a recent development. Up until not so long ago these smaller MCT's certainly had them.

 

[bosun21]

43 minutes ago, John said:

I've just had a look through some pics on the UK importer OVL's website and they seem to show that there are now no collimation screws on the back of 90mm and 102mm mak-cassegrains.

This seems to be a recent development. Up until not so long ago these smaller MCT's certainly had them.

 

I messaged FLO today asking this question about the 102. I was told that the 102 purchased as an OTA can be collimated whereas the ones supplied with a mount have a fixed primary mirror.

[Roy Challen]

11 hours ago, bosun21 said:

Both the mount bundled 127 I owned (all black) had collimation screws as did a previous black and white model (pro). I have never come across any SW 127 that couldn’t be collimated. I’m not entirely sure about the old blue models although the ones I have seen could be collimated as well.

Here's the back of my blue-tube Skymax 90, I'm guessing these are collimation screws?

[bosun21]

4 hours ago, Roy Challen said:

Here's the back of my blue-tube Skymax 90, I'm guessing these are collimation screws?

Yes, and all the blue tube models I’ve seen are the same as yours.

[Zermelo]

10 hours ago, vlaiv said:

I did not read the whole thread, but I suspect you are debating 102 vs 127 and collimatable vs non-collimatable (if those two are even proper words ).

I don't remember seeing 127 that can't be collimated, but I do know for a fact that there are two types of 102 - one with and one without collimation screws.

In fact SkyWatcher released whole line of scopes without collimation screws - newtonians and that mak, all of which sit on their light weight mounts - like AZ Pronto and Starquest.

That is star quest (image is from you tube video, it is hard to find back side of this model in regular image).

While AZ Pronto line is clearly labeled - having S at the end of the model names. FLO website clearly states that these don't have collimation ability:

Interestingly - Mak page does not say this, but it is also labeled with S:

Another sign for 102 that I managed to track down - is the shape of front of the scope:

vs

regular mak 102 seems to have smooth edge at front of the scope.

In any case, I ended up purchasing regular OTA version although bundled one was more affordable and with more accessories (that I wanted) - just to have ability to collimate the scope if needed. I haven't seen any pictures or otherwise found evidence of 127 without collimation ability.

Ah, then I mis-remembered. Thanks.

[LondonNeil]

Interesting read,  and it seems to me that yes the 127 (118) will resolve a little more and have slightly brighter views but with the larger obstruction the difference is less than 118/102 (and less then 118²/102² for brightness) so less then 15% and 33%.  If you were cost limited and weight limited due to the mount, the 102 paired with a couple of slightly better EPs would,  I guess (?) Perform very similar to the 127 with cheaper/ lighter eyepieces?

[Beardy30]

On 03/09/2023 at 22:07, bosun21 said:

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.

I agree as a Mak owner but go for the Bresser it’s a full 127 and good quality build 

[Mr Spock]

I like the fact the Bresser is a 'proper' f15 Mak as opposed to the Skymax f12.